The Collecting, Dealing and Patronage Practices of Gaspare Roomer

Home , Abraham Brueghel, Aniello Falcone, Arcangelo Guglielmelli, Ascanio Filomarino, Bacchanalia (painting), Battistello Caracciolo

ART AND BUSINESS IN SEVENTEENTH-CENTURY NAPLES: THE COLLECTING, DEALING AND PATRONAGE PRACTICES OF GASPARE ROOMER

Chantelle Lepine-Cercone

A thesis submitted to the Department of Art History

In conformity with the requirements for

the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Queen’s University

Kingston, Ontario, Canada

(November, 2014)

This thesis examines the cultural influence of the seventeenth-century Flemish merchant Gaspare

Roomer, who lived in Naples from 1616 until 1674. Specifically, it explores his art dealing, collecting and patronage activities, which exerted a notable influence on Neapolitan society. Using bank documents, letters, artist biographies and guidebooks, Roomer’s practices as an art dealer are studied and his importance as a major figure in the artistic exchange between Northern and Sourthern Europe is elucidated. His collection is primarily reconstructed using inventories, wills and artist biographies.

Through this examination, Roomer emerges as one of Naples’ most prominent collectors of landscapes, still lifes and battle scenes, in addition to being a sophisticated collector of history paintings. The merchant’s relationship to the Spanish viceregal government of Naples is also discussed, as are his contributions to charity. Giving paintings to notable individuals and large donations to religious institutions were another way in which Roomer exacted influence. This study of Roomer’s cultural importance is comprehensive, exploring both Northern and Southern European sources. Through extensive use of primary source material, the full extent of Roomer’s art dealing, collecting and patronage practices are thoroughly examined.

Acknowledgements

I am deeply thankful to my thesis supervisor, Dr. Sebastian Schütze. After arriving at Queen’s for my

PhD thinking I would study patronage in Rome, he encouraged me to take on a Neapolitan topic. This opened a fascinating and exciting world for me. Focusing my dissertation on Naples – an area of study that is fairly uncommon among North American scholars – allowed me to explore new and unchartered territory. Throughout our many discussions about Gaspare Roomer, I always felt fortunate to have such an insightful, patient and encouraging adviser. His commitment to his students is admirable; I am grateful that he continued to advise my dissertation even after he left Queen’s for Vienna. The successful completion of my dissertation is due to his commendable abilities as a scholar, supervisor and mentor.

My secondary supervisor, Dr. Stephanie Dickey, has also been absolutely integral in the success of this project. As my art historical background centred mainly on Early Modern Italy, I was immensely grateful for her expertise in Northern European art. Because of her guidance and assistance, I was able to construct a more complete picture of Gaspare Roomer’s cultural activities and truly understand the depth of his influence in Early Modern Europe. I highly value her role as an academic, a mentor and an adviser.

Without her constant encouragement and advice, this thesis would not have been possible.

I would also like to thank Dr. David McTavish, whose kindness and support I so greatly appreciated during my time at Queen’s. He truly helped foster in me a love for drawings. Additionally, I am appreciative of the guidance I received from Dr. Una D’Elia, whose advice served me well during my first attempt at teaching a university course. I am also grateful to Dr. Allison Sherman, who has given me numerous pieces of helpful advice throughout the years I have known her. Her assistance in facilitating my defense and thesis submittal in these last few months has been invaluable. I must also give a special thanks to Alfred and Isabel Bader, whose generosity to the Art Department at Queen’s made my research overseas financially possible.

There are many other individuals at a variety of institutions who have been generous to me with their time and expertise. I am especially indebted to Professor Renato Ruotolo, without whose help in iii

Naples I would have been completely lost. Our numerous conversations about my research introduced me to new ideas, research methods and sources. Studying in Naples is not always easy and I was thankful to have Professor Ruotolo often point me in the right direction.

I would also like to thank Edoardo Nappi and the other staff at the Archivio Storico di Banco di

Napoli for assisting me in my research; Father Hugo Vanerman from San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi who helped me navigate the archive of that church; Leticia de Frutos Pons for her expertise on the Marchese del Carpio; Allison Stoesser for answering my numerous questions about Roomer’s relationship to

Cornelis de Wael; and Rosanne Baars who was responsible for transcribing and translating for me a number of seventeenth-century Dutch documents. I am thankful to Mirjam Neumeister from the Alte

Pinakothek in Munich, Aiden Weston-Lewis from the National Gallery in Edinburgh, and Thomas Döring from the Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, who all took the time to answer my inquiries about artworks in their respective collections. In addition, I am grateful to all those at the Archivio di Stato di Napoli, the

Archivio di Stato di Firenze, the Archivio di Stato di Genova, Archivio Capitolino, the Stadtsarchief

Antwerpen and the Rijksarchief Antwerpen who taught me how to use the archives and search for documents effectively and efficiently. Also, I am thankful to the staffs at the Biblioteca Nazionale di

Napoli, the Biblioteca di Storia Patria, the Kunsthistorisches Institut, the Biblioteca Nazionale di Roma, the Biblioteca Nazionale di Firenze, the art library at the University of Amsterdam and the library at the

National Gallery of Canada, who all assisted me with my research.

I am also grateful to Brenda Rix and Katharine Lochnan from the Art Gallery of Ontario and

Hilliard Goldfarb from the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Montreal, who gave me the opportunity to utilize and expand my knowledge in a museum setting. I have learned a great deal from them and have the utmost respect for their abilities as curators and scholars.

I would like to especially thank three individuals whose friendship, insight and support were invaluable to me throughout my PhD: Devin Therien, David Mitchell and Marije Osnabrugge. Being a year ahead of me in the PhD programme and already acquainted with Naples, Devin took me under his

iv wing in the foreign city, introducing me to the most important libraries, archives and museums (and restaurants!). His friendship during our research trips to Italy helped me keep my sanity while away from home. I appreciated (and still appreciate!) being able to discuss my research with him and value his insights and work as a scholar. The support and encouragement of David Mitchell has been crucial to my thesis progress the last few years. After moving to Montreal, I very much appreciated having a study partner and friend to frequent almost every library the city has to offer. Knowing I had made a commitment to meet him at a library was often the motivating factor for me to leave the house (which would significantly increase my productivity!). He tolerated me talking to him ad nauseum about

Gaspare Roomer and always offered valuable suggestions and insights. I also cannot thank Marije

Osnabrugge enough for her friendship and expertise throughout the years. She assisted my research in so many ways – from finding someone to translate and transcribe my Dutch documents to recommending new publications that I had yet to consult. Studying with her on my second extended trip to Naples made the experience all the more enjoyable and I have appreciated her continuous encouragement.

The completion of this thesis would not have been possible without the support of my family. In particular, my parents, Marlene Lepine-Cercone and Enrico Cercone, have stood by me throughout this entire experience. They have celebrated my successes and have helped me cope with my struggles. Their unwavering faith in my abilities and their unconditional love propelled me to keep moving forward when

I encountered difficulties. It has been through their example that I have learned to persevere and remain positive. I owe much of my success to their support and encouragement.

Lastly, it is difficult to express the depth of my gratitude toward my husband, Daniel Gosselin.

He never left my side throughout this long journey. His understanding, patience, love and support have been unrelenting. Without him, this project would never have reached a successful conclusion. It is to him that I dedicate this thesis.

Statement of Originality

I hereby certify that all of the work described within this thesis is the original work of the author. Any published (or unpublished) ideas and/or techniques from the work of others are fully acknowledged in accordance with the standard referencing practices.

Chantelle Lepine-Cercone

(October, 2014)

Table of Contents

Abstract ...... ii Acknowledgements ...... iii Statement of Originality ...... vi List of Figures ...... viii List of Abbreviations ...... xii Chapter 1 Introduction ...... 1 Chapter 2 Making Money in Early Modern Europe: The Sources of Gaspare Roomer’s Wealth ...... 17 Chapter 3 Gaspare Roomer and the Art Market...... 39 Chapter 4 Collecting in Naples and the Collection of Gaspare Roomer ...... 118 Chapter 5 The Collection of Gaspare Roomer: Collecting Landscapes, Still Lifes, Genre Paintings, Battle Scenes and Single-Figure Works ...... 147 Chapter 6 The Collection of Gaspare Roomer: History Paintings, Prints and Drawings ...... 227 Chapter 7 Gaspare Roomer and the Spanish Viceroys of Naples ...... 313 Chapter 8 Gaspare Roomer’s Religious Patronage and Contributions to Charity ...... 346 Chapter 9 Conclusion ...... 378 Bibliography ...... 384 Appendix A Giulio Cesare Capaccio’s Il Forastiero ...... 416 Appendix B Inventory of Gaspare Roomer, 1674 ...... 417 Appendix C Last Will and Testament of Gaspare Roomer, 1673 ...... 445 Appendix D Codicile of Gaspare Roomer, 1674 ...... 454 Appendix E Letters to Margareta de Groote in Antwerp from Sebastian van Dale and Cornelis Weckwoort in Naples ...... 457

vii

List of Figures

Fig. 1. Portrait of Gaspare Roomer from Andrea Mastelloni’s La prima chiesa dedicata a Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, Naples, 1675...... 16 Fig. 2. Pompeo Schiantarelli, Palazzo della Stella, Naples, 1787 ...... 38 Fig. 3. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Still Life with Fruit, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan, c. 1597 ...... 112 Fig. 4. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Fortune Teller, Musei Capitolini, Rome, c. 1594 ...... 112 Fig. 5. Annibale Carracci, Butcher’s Shop, Christ Church Picture Gallery, Oxford, ...... 113 Fig. 6. Annibale Carracci, River Landscape, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C., ...... 113 Fig. 7. Peter Paul Rubens, Feast of Herod, National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh, c. 1639 ...... 114 Fig. 8. Anthony van Dyck, Susanna and the Elders, Alte Pinakothek, Munich, c. 1622-3 ...... 114 Fig. 9. Anthony van Dyck, Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, Alte Pinakothek, Munich, c. 1620 ...... 115 Fig. 10. Aniello Falcone, Battle between Christians and Turks, Musée du Louvre, Paris, c. 1631 ...... 115 Fig. 11. Pieter Snayers, Calvary Skirmish, Dulwich Picture Gallery, before 1641 ...... 116 Fig. 12 Giovan Battista Ruoppolo, Still Life with Fruit and Vase of Flowers, Private Collection, 1653 . 116 Fig. 13. Bartolomeo Passante, Adoration of the Shepherds, São Paulo Museum of Art, Brazil, c. 1630-5 ...... 117 Fig. 14. Mattia Preti, Wedding at Cana, National Gallery, London, c. 1655-60 ...... 117 Fig. 15. Michele Regolia, Antechamber of a Nobleman’s Palace, Archivio dell’Arte/Luciano Pedicini, Naples, 17th century ...... 209 Fig. 16. Paul Bril, Landscape with the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Lucca, c. 1600 ...... 209 Fig. 17. Paul Bril, Landscape with the Good Samaritan, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Lucca, c. 1600...... 210 Fig. 18. Cornelis Poelenburgh, Figures Dancing Near Ruins, Institute of the Arts, Detroit, c. 1624 ..... 210 Fig. 19. Leonaert Bramer, The Fall of Simon Magus, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon, 1623 ...... 211 Fig. 20. Agostino Tassi, Landscape with Scene of Witchcraft, The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, after 1620 ...... 211 Fig. 21. Agostino Tassi, The Coral Fishers, Private Collection, c. 1622 ...... 212 Fig. 22. Godfried Wals, Pastoral Landscape, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, c. 1616 ...... 212 Fig. 23. Claude Lorrain, Landscape with Dancing Figures, National Gallery, London, 1648 ...... 213 Fig. 24. Viviano Codazzi and Micco Spadaro, Capriccio with an Obelisk, Private Collection, Milan, mid- 1640s ...... 213

viii

Fig. 25. Anonymous Italian, after Viviano Codazzi and Micco Spadaro?, Pool of Bethesda, Sale, Christie’s London, 17th Century ...... 214 Fig. 26. Anonymous Italian, after Viviano Codazzi and Micco Spadaro?, Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultry, Sale, Christies London, 17th Century ...... 214 Fig. 27. Vivanio Codazzi and Michelangelo Cerquozzi, Ruined Palace with Simple Portico and Temple Front, Whereabouts Unknown, mid-1650s ...... 215 Fig. 28. Vivano Codazzi and Adriaen van der Cabel, Capriccio with a Triumphal Arch and Soldiers, Private Collection, c. 1660-8 ...... 215 Fig. 29. Viviano Codazzi and Micco Spadaro, Composite Triumphal Arch with Landscape, Visconteum Antichità, Milan, mid-1640s ...... 216 Fig. 30. Jacopo Bassano, Two Hounds, Musée du Louvre, c. 1548-9 ...... 216 Fig. 31. Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick de Clerk, The Four Elements, Museo del Prado, c. 1615 217 Fig. 32. Luca Forte, Still Life with a Tuberose and Crystal Vase, Galleria nazionale d’arte antica di Palazzo Corsini, Rome, Second quarter of the 17th century ...... 217 Fig. 33. Giacomo Recco, Still Life with Flowers, Private Collection, 17th Century ...... 218 Fig. 34. Jan Brueghel the Elder, Bouquet in a Clay Vase, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, c. 1599- 1607 ...... 218 Fig. 35. Giovanni Battista Recco, Kitchen Interior, Private Collection, Cremona, 1660s ...... 219 Fig. 36. Frans Snyders, Hunting Still Life, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, c. 1640/1650 ...... 219 Fig. 37. Giuseppe Recco, Kitchen Interior with Copper Ware, Octopus, and Onions on a Stone Ledge, Galerie Caness, Paris, 1660s ...... 220 Fig. 38. Ignacio Arias, Bodegón with Cookware and Asparagus, Museo del Prado, after 1650 ...... 220 Fig. 39. Giovan Battista Ruoppolo, Still Life with Fruit and Vase of Flowers, Private Collection, 1653 221 Fig. 40. Pieter van Laer, The Herdsmen, Musée du Louvre, 1639-42 ...... 221 Fig. 41. Villa Bisignano, formerly the Villa Roomer, Barra ...... 222 Fig. 42. Aniello Falcone, Finding of Moses, Villa Bisignano, Barra, c. 1647 ...... 222 Fig. 43. Aniello Falcone, Moses Striking the Rock, Villa Bisignano, Barra, c. 1647 ...... 223 Fig. 44. Aniello Falcone, Crossing of the Red Sea, Villa Bisignano, Barra, c. 1647 ...... 223 Fig. 45. Aniello Falcone, Battle of the Israelites and the Amalekites, Villa Bisignano, Barra, c. 1647 .. 224 Fig. 46. Aniello Falcone, Brazen Serpent, Villa Bisignano, Barra, c. 1647 ...... 224 Fig. 47. Aniello Falcone, Portrait of Masaniello, c. 1647 ...... 225 Fig. 48. Rembrandt van Rijn, Bust of an Old Man in a Fur Cap, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck, 1630...... 225 Fig. 49. Valentin de Boulogne, The Lute Player, Metropolitan Museum of Art, c. 1626 ...... 226 ix

Fig. 50. Jusepe de Ribera, Archimedes, Museo del Prado, Madrid, 1630 ...... 226 Fig. 51. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Seven Acts of Mercy, PioMonte della Misercordia, Naples, c. 1607 ...... 294 Fig. 52. Battistello Caracciolo, Christ and the Samarian Woman at the Well, Pinacoteca di Brera, Milano, c. 1622-3 ...... 294 Fig. 53. Copy (or variant) after Carlo Saraceni, Martha Converting the Magdalen, Musée des Beaux- Arts, Nantes, 17th Century ...... 295 Fig. 54. Carlo Saraceni, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, San Romualdo in Eremo dei Camaldolsi, Frascati, c. 1606 ...... 295 Fig. 55. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Galleria Doria Pamphili, Rome, 1596-7 ...... 296 Fig. 56. Adam Elsheimer, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Staaliche Museen, Berline, c. 1599 ...... 296 Fig. 57. Carlo Saraceni, Finding of Moses, Fondazione Longhi, Florence, before 1608...... 297 Fig. 58. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Incredulity of St. Thomas, Sanssouci, Potsdam, 1601-2.. 297 Fig. 59. Simon Vouet, Crucifixion, Gesù, Genoa, 1622 ...... 298 Fig. 60. Aniello Falcone, Martyrdom of San Gennaro, Museo di San Martino, c. 1630 ...... 298 Fig. 61. Aniello Falcone, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Museo del Duomo, Naples, 1641 ...... 299 Fig. 62. Nicolas Poussin, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, c. 1627 ...... 299 Fig. 63. Jusepe de Ribera, Martyrdom of St. Lawrence, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, 1620-4 ...... 300 Fig. 64. Jusepe de Ribera, St. Jerome and the Angel, Museo di Capodimonte, Naples, 1626 ...... 300 Fig. 65. Jusepe de Ribera, Apollo and Marsyas, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels, 1637 ...... 301 Fig. 66. Jusepe de Ribera, Apollo and Marsyas, Museo di Capodimonte, Naples, 1637 ...... 301 Fig. 67. Luca Giordano, Cato Tearing out his Entrails, Art Gallery of Hamilton, c. 1660s ...... 302 Fig. 68. Jusepe de Ribera, Drunken Silenus, Museo di Capodimonte, 1626 ...... 302 Fig. 69. Massimo Stanzione, Sacrifice of Moses, Museo di Capodimonte, Naples, c. 1628-30 ...... 303 Fig. 70. Andrea Vaccaro, Beheading of St. John the Baptist, Collection Corigliano Saluzzo, 1650s? ... 303 Fig. 71. Andrea Vaccaro, Holy Family with St. John the Baptist, Collezione Cappelli, Aquila, undated 304 Fig. 72. Bernardo Cavallino, Finding of Moses, Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig, c. 1650-6 ...... 304 Fig. 73. Bernardo Cavallino, Abigail and David, Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig, late 1640s .... 305 Fig. 74. Luca Giordano, Samson and Delilah, Private Collection, 1650s? ...... 305 Fig. 75. Luca Giordano, Christ Before Pilate, Museo del Prado, 1650s ...... 306 Fig. 76. Luca Giordano, Christ Before Pilate, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1650-55 ...... 306 x

Fig. 77. Luca Giordano, Christ Before Pilate, Private Collection, Rome, c. 1660 ...... 307 Fig. 78. Jan Baptist de Wael, Title page, Figures with Animals, plate 1, 1660s ...... 307 Fig. 79. Jan Baptist de Wael, A Fisherman, a Woman and a Herd of Animals from Figures with Animals, plate 2, 1660s ...... 308 Fig. 80. Jan Baptist de Wael, Landscape with Loaded Cart, from Figures with Animals, plate 4, 1660s ...... 308 Fig. 81. Jan Baptist de Wael, Falcon Hunters from Figures with Animals, plate 4, 1660s ...... 309 Fig. 82. Jan Baptist de Wael, Peasants in a Tavern from Figures with Animals, plate 7, 1660s ...... 309 Fig. 83. Jan Baptist de Wael, Fight in a Tavern from Figures with Animals, plate 10, 1660s ...... 310 Fig. 84. Jan Baptist de Wael, Woman Grooming her Child from Figures with Animals, plate 12, 1660s ...... 310 Fig. 85. Jan Baptist de Wael, Surgeon Performing an Operation from Figures with Animals, plate 14, 1660s ...... 311 Fig. 86. Sebastian Marcotti, after Jusepe de Ribera, San Gennaro Emerging Unharmed from the Furnace, 1665 ...... 311 Fig. 87. Lucas Vosterman I, after Orazio Gentileschi, Lot and His Daughters, c. 1628 ...... 312 Fig. 88. Cosimo Fanzago, Palazzo Donn’Anna, Posilipo, Naples ...... 344 Fig. 89. Santa Maria del Piano, Naples, 17th Century ...... 344 Fig. 90. Ospizio di San Gennaro dei Poveri, Naples, 17th Century ...... 345 Fig. 91. Peter Paul Rubens, Venus and Adonis, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, mid-late 1630s ...... 345 Fig. 92. Engraving of the interior of the St. Joseph’s Chapel, title page, Magno Patri Iosepho ...... 374 Fig. 93. Gerard Seghers, Adoration of the Shepherds, Church of St. Vincent, Soignies, c. 1636 ...... 374 Fig. 94. Gerard Seghers, Dream of Joseph, Church of St. Vincent, Soignies, c. 1636 ...... 375 Fig. 95. Rosario al Largo delle Pigne, Naples...... 375 Fig. 96. Rosario al Largo delle Pigne, detail, Naples ...... 376 Fig. 97. Santa Maria della Stella, Naples ...... 376 Fig. 98. Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, Naples ...... 377

List of Abbreviations

Archivio di Stato di Firenze – A.S.F.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli – A.S.N.

Archivio Storico di Banco di Napoli – A.S.B.N.

Rijksarchief Antwerpen – R.A.A.

Stadsarchief Antwerpen – S.A.A.

xii

Chapter 1

Introduction

Seventeenth-century Naples has been described as “una società in continua esibizione,”1 where opportunities for ostentation were seized in order to conspicuously display wealth, erudition and prestige. Along the crowded and dirty streets were often elaborate processions showcasing the city’s wealthiest individuals; among the impoverished masses stood the grandiose palazzi of

Neapolitan aristocrats and the nouveaux riches, housing impressive collections of paintings and furnishings. To escape the oppressive heat and filth of the city, the elite constructed villas in the countryside; to demonstrate their devotion to God, they patronized chapels. In short, engaging in artistic, architectural and ceremonial endeavours was the primary vehicle through which wealth could be demonstrated, power could be asserted, and influence and importance could be measured.

This dissertation is essentially an exploration of how one foreigner successfully climbed the social hierarchy and asserted his position at the top of Naples’ privileged elite through cultural means and in doing so, profoundly affected the course of Neapolitan art throughout the Seicento.

It aims to examine the patronage, collecting and art dealing activities of the Flemish merchant

Gaspare Roomer (Fig. 1), resident in Naples for the majority of the seventeenth century. The example of Gaspare Roomer sheds light on a multitude of issues surrounding the complex nature and interconnectedness of seventeenth-century collecting in Naples, the art market, societal status, political diplomacy and civic responsibility. As not only a foreigner, but the wealthiest man in the Kingdom of Naples, Roomer was the recipient of admiration, but also the target of animosity, envy, and judgement. He was able to curry political favour, but risked upsetting an

1 Renato Ruotolo, “Aspetti del collezionismo napoletano del Seicento,” in Civiltà del Seicento a Napoli, (Naples: Electa Napoli, 1984), 42. 1

increasingly desperate and impoverished populace. To navigate through the Neapolitan labyrinth of the social classes, Spanish rule, commercial enterprise, public unrest and government instability, Gaspare Roomer utilized cultural capital to define his role within these realities.

In 1630, the antiquarian Giulio Cesare Capaccio visited Roomer’s palace at

Monteoliveto, lauding his exemplary collection of paintings (Appendix A). Among those mentioned by Capaccio were works by Naples’ most respected artists – Jusepe de Ribera,

Massimo Stanzione and Battistello Caracciolo. Paintings by prominent foreign artists, such as

Simon Vouet, Anthony van Dyck and Valentin de Boulogne were also cited, as were pictures by

Jacopo Bassano, Giorgione and Annibale Carracci.2 This account marked the first reference to

Roomer’s distinguished collection.

Capaccio’s description of the collection was only the tip of the iceberg in terms of

Roomer’s cultural influence in Naples. In the years after Capaccio’s visit, Roomer’s collection would grow to total almost 1,200 paintings. No other collection in Naples at this time boasted such a variety of artists, styles and genres. His gallery – full of a diverse range of works by

Dutch, Flemish, German, French and Italian artists – was essentially a study centre for Neapolitan painters. Indeed, more than simply a collector, Roomer sought to foster the artistic talent in

Naples, serving as a patron to many of the city’s artists and encouraging them to view his vast array of artworks.

Roomer’s involvement in the art market as an art dealer facilitated the expanse and international character of his collection. Connections in Flanders, Rome and beyond allowed him to import works by artists only previously known in Naples by their reputation. Certainly the most significant of Roomer’s acquisitions from outside Neapolitan borders was Peter Paul

Rubens’ monumental Feast of Herod, which arrived in the merchant’s collection in 1640. This work significantly affected the course of Neapolitan painting in the second half of the seventeenth

2 Giulio Cesare Capaccio, Il Forastiero, (Naples: Roncagliolo, 1634), 577-8. 2

century, attesting to the influence wielded by Roomer’s collecting and art dealing activities. At the same time, Roomer’s cultivation of the city’s artists was not limited to his ability to expose these painters to artworks outside the realm of the Kingdom of Naples; the merchant also promoted the careers of Neapolitan painters abroad. Exporting Neapolitan pictures to elsewhere in Italy and in Northern Europe, Roomer was integral in establishing international reputations for many of the city’s artists.

Roomer’s cultural activities expanded beyond the confines of his collection. His position as a foreigner, a merchant and a financier required that he delicately handle his relationship with the Spanish viceregal government of Naples, and actively engage in the betterment of the community. Political favours were won through acts of diplomatic gift-giving – often in the form of paintings. His reputation among the general population was enhanced through donations to various charitable institutions and his patronage of a variety of religious building projects.

This dissertation assembles the most important research on Roomer to date and introduces some additional unpublished documentation. Much of the research on Roomer’s collecting and art dealing activities has been geographically specific; that is, it has centred on either his family in Antwerp or his life in Naples. It is my intention to look at Roomer’s practices as a whole, taking into account sources in both Italy and Belgium. Collating both Italian and

Northern sources has allowed me to understand Roomer’s practices in all their complexity and to better situate the merchant within the contexts of Naples, Antwerp and even Spain.

By far, the most important secondary source I consulted was the 1982 publication on

Roomer by Renato Ruotolo, entitled Mercanti-collezionisti fiamminghi a Napoli: Gaspare

Roomer e i VandenEynden.3 Ruotolo built on the short article on Roomer published in 1920 by

Giuseppe Ceci,4 bringing to light invaluable documents on the merchant located in the Archivio

3 Renato Ruotolo, Mercanti-collezionisti fiamminghi a Napoli: Gaspare Roomer e i VandenEynden, (Meta di Sorrento, 1982). 4 Giuseppe Ceci, “Un mercante mecenate del Secolo XVII,” Napoli Nobilissma 16 (1920): 160-4. 3

di Stato di Napoli, the Archivio Storico del Banco di Napoli and the Archivio di Stato di Firenze.

Though Ceci had ignited scholarly interest in Roomer in 1920, it was not until Ruotolo’s 1982 essay that the merchant’s significance for the study of Neapolitan collecting was brought to the fore. The most important contribution following Ruotolo’s publication was an article from 2000 by Edoardo Nappi in which he published numerous documents relating to Roomer found in the

Archivio Storico di Banco di Napoli.5 These records helped to further elucidate the merchant’s collecting and dealing activities, as well as his position in Neapolitan society.

The study of Roomer’s cultural habits from a Northern perspective was initiated in 1925 by Maurice Vaes in an article on the Flemish artist and dealer Cornelis de Wael.6 Though an analysis of Roomer’s practices only constitutes a small portion of Vaes’ overall study of De

Wael, the author nonetheless drew attention to Roomer’s Flemish origins, relying on early twentieth century Belgian and Dutch sources not considered by Italian scholars. Primary among these sources was a publication by G.J. Hoogewerff, whose work on the Flemish presence in

Rome uncovered a few significant documents relating to Roomer’s art dealing activities in the archive of the church of San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi in Rome.7 More recently, the work of Bert

Timmermans has greatly contributed to research on the Roomer family in general, illuminating the family’s role in seventeenth-century Antwerp and the interactions between Roomer and his relatives in Northern Europe.8

5 Edoardo Nappi, “Le attività finanziarie e sociali di Gasparo de Rommer. Nuovi documenti inediti su Cosimo Fanzago,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2000): 61-92. 6 Maurice Vaes, “Corneille de Wael (1592-1667),” Bulletin de l'Institut belge de Rome 5 (1925): 136-223 7 G.J. Hoogewerff, Bescheiden in Italië omtrent Nederlandsche Kunstnaars en geleerden, ( ‘SGravenhage: Martinus Nijoff, 1913). 8 Bert Timmermans, “The elite as collectors and middlemen in the Antwerp art world of the seventeenth century,” in Munuscula amicorum: contributions on Rubens and his context in honour of Hans Vlieghe, ed. Katlijne van der Stighelen, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 343-62; Bert Timmermans, Patronen van Patronage in het zeventiende-eeuwse Antwerpen, (Amsterdam: Aksant, 2008); Bert Timmermans, “Family Agency and Networks of Patronage: Towards a Mapping of the Revival of the Family Chapel in Seventeenth-Century Antwerp,” in Family Ties: Art Production and Kinshop Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries, eds. Koenraad Brosens et al., (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 189-224. 4

Though there are relatively few publications that specifically address Roomer’s role as a collector and art dealer, there are numerous more general studies that have contributed to the fields of Early Modern art dealing and collecting. Of central importance are Richard

Goldthwaite’s 1993 book, Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy, 1400-1600, his later article

“Economic Parameters of the Italian Art Market (15th to 17th Centuries),” published in the proceedings of the 2004 conference The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII, and his relatively recent contribution to the 2010 publication

Painting for Profit, edited by Richard Spear and Philip Sohm.9 Combining the socioeconomic methodology that was formulated by economists and art historians beginning in the 1980s with the study of material culture, Goldthwaite’s publications examine the kinds of conditions that enabled Roomer to succeed as an art dealer and also those that shaped his desire to construct his identity and elevate his status through collecting paintings. His ideas on conspicuous consumption have been particularly relevant in comprehending Roomer’s relationship to art.

Understanding the Early Modern open art market has been integral to my understanding of Roomer’s role within that market. Beginning in the 1980s, John Michael Montias approached the history of art from the perspective of an economist. Montias attributed changing economic circumstances to the development of new artistic genres and stylistic practices, coining the term

“process and product innovation.”10 Though Montias applied his ideas to the Dutch art market,

9 Richard Goldthwaite, Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy, 1300-1600, (Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993); Richard Goldthwaite, “Economic Parameters of the Italian Art Market (15th to 17th Centuries),” in The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII, eds. Marcello Fantoni et al., (Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003), 423-44; Richard Goldthwaite,“The Painting Industry in Early Modern Italy,” in Painting for Profit, eds. Richard Spear and Philip Sohm, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 275-301. 10 John Michael Montias, “Socio-Economic Aspects of Netherlandish Art from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Century: A Survey,” Art Bulletin 72 (1987): 358-73; John Michael Montias, “Art Dealers in the Seventeenth Century Netherlands,” Simiolus 18 (1989): 244-66; John Michael Montias, “Cost and Value in Seventeenth Century Dutch Art,” Art History 10 (1990): 455-66; John Michael Montias, “The Sovereign Consumer: The Adaptation of Works of Art to Demand in the Netherlands in the Early Modern Period,” in Artists-Dealers-Consumers: On the Social World of Art, ed. by Tom Bevers, (Hilversum: Verloren, 1994), 5

scholars were quick to relate them to other contexts. Of particular importance for this dissertation was Filip Vermeylen’s Painting for the Market: Commercialization of Art in Antwerp’s Golden

Age from 2003.11 This study has been essential in understanding Roomer’s artistic preferences and methods of operating.

Equally important have been the studies of the Italian art market. The most recent publication, mentioned above, is Painting for Profit (2010). It provides a comprehensive analysis of the art market conditions in a variety of Italian cities. Christopher Marshall’s essay on the art market in Naples is of course particularly relevant. Building upon his other articles on this subject, Marshall examines the role of painters, dealers and patrons in the art market of seventeenth-century Naples. Specifically, some of his earlier work on Roomer’s relationship to other dealers and artists in the city has been significant in establishing Roomer as one of Naples’ foremost dealers of art.12

Complementing Marshall’s work on Naples are studies by Patrizia Cavazzini, Loredana

Lorizzo and Isabella Cecchini. Focusing on Rome (Cavazzini and Lorizzo) and Venice

(Cecchini), their works have provided insight into the market conditions of the cities with which

57-75; John Michael Montias, “Art Dealers in Holland,” in Economics of Art and Culture, ed. Victor Ginsburgh, (Amsterdam, etc.: Elsevier, 2004), 75-96. 11 Filip Vermeylen, Painting for the Market: Commercialization of Art in Antwerp’s Golden Age, (Turnhout, Brepols, 2003). Other important works by Vermeylen include: Filip Vermeylen, “The Art of the Dealer: Marketing Paintings in Early Modern Antwerp,” in Your Humble Servant: Agents in Early Modern Europe, eds. Hans Cools et al., (Hilversum: Verloren, 2006), 109-19; Katlijne van der Stichelen and Filip Vermeylen, “The Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke and the Marketing of Paintings, 1400-1700,” in Mapping Markets for Paintings, 1450-1750, eds. Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, (Turnhout : Brepols, 2006), 189-208. 12 Christopher Marshall, “Naples,” Painting for Profit: The Economic Lives of Seventeenth-Century Italian Painters, eds. Richard Spear and Philip Sohm, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 115- 44. Other important works by Marshall include: Christopher Marshall, “Dispelling Negative Perceptions: Dealers Promoting Artists in Seventeenth Century Naples,” in Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe, 1450-1750, eds. Neil De Marchi and Hans Van Miegroet, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 363-82; Christopher Marshall, “Markets, Money and Artistic Manoeuvres: Bernardo Cavallino and the Grand Manner,” Melbourne Art Journal 7, (2004), 41-8; Christopher Marshall, “ ‘Appagare il Pubblico’: the Marketing Strategies of Luca Giordano, 1678-1684,” in The Art Market in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries, eds. Marcello Fantoni, Louisa Matthew, Sara Matthews-Grieco, (Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003), 263-72; Christopher Marshall, “ ‘Senza il minimo scrupolo:’ Artists as Dealers in Seventeenth-Century Naples,” Journal of the History of Collections 12, no. 1, (2000), 15-33. 6

Roomer frequently traded.13 They have challenged past approaches that concluded Italy’s open art markets in the seventeenth century were of little importance to the country’s production and demand for art. Though conditions were perhaps not as “open” as some of the Netherlandish art markets, these scholars demonstrate that a significant shift in the production of art took place in

Seicento Italy as well. While it was much more difficult for artists to function on the open market in Italy than it was in the North, the research of Cavazzini, Lorizzo and Cecchini illustrates that nonetheless, alternative markets for art were developing in Southern Europe.

In addition to studies on the Early Modern open art market, research into the collecting of art in Italy has also expanded in past years. Beginning in 1963 with Francis Haskell’s Patrons and Painters: Art and Society in Baroque Italy, new emphasis has been given by scholars to the role of the patron in the production of a work of art.14 Focusing primarily on Rome,15 Haskell demonstrated that the wealth, power, erudition and taste of a prominent patron were integral in

13 Patrizia Cavazzini, Painting as Business in Early Seventeenth-Century Rome, (University Park: Pennsylvania University Press, 2008); Patrizia Cavazzini, “Claude’s Apprenticeship in Rome: the market for copies and the invention of the Liber veritatis,” Konsthitorisk tidskrift 73, (2004), 133-46; Patrizia Cavazzini, “La diffuzione della pittora nella Roma di primo Seicento: Collezionisti ordinari e mercanti, Quaderni storici 116 (February 2004), 353-74; Loredana Lorizzo, “People and Practices in the Paintings Trade of Seventeenth-Century Rome,” in Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe, 1450-1750, eds. Neil De Marchi and Hans Van Miegroet, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 343-62; Loredana Lorizzo, “Documenti inediti sul mercato dell’arte: i testament e l’inventario della bottega del Genovese Pellegrino Peri ‘rivenditore di quadri’ a Roma nella seconda metà del Seicento,” in Decorazione e collezionismo a Roma nel Seicento: vicende di artisti, committenti, mercanti, ed. Francesca Cappelletti, (Rome: Gangemi, 2003), 159-74; Loredana Lorizzo, “Il mercato dell’arte a Roma nel XVII secolo: ‘pittori bottegari’ e ‘rivenditori di quadri’ nei documenti dell Archivo Storico dell’Accademia di San Luca,” in The Art Market in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries, eds. Marcello Fantoni, Louisa Matthew, Sara Matthews-Grieco, (Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003), 325-36; Loredana Lorizzo, Il mercato dell’arte in Italia nel XVII secolo: Artisti, collezionisti, intermediari e mercanti, Tesi di Diploma dell Scuola di Spezialazione in Storia dell’Arte, Università degli Studi di Roma, “La Sapienza,” 1996-7. Isabella Cecchini, “Troublesome Business: Dealing in Venice 1600- 1750,” in Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe, 1450-1750, eds. Neil De Marchi and Hans Van Miegroet, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 125-34; Isabella Cecchini, “Le figure del commerce: cenni sul mercato pittorico veneziano nel XVII secolo,” in The Art Market in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries, eds. Marcello Fantoni, Louisa Matthew, Sara Matthews-Grieco, (Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003), 389- 400; Isabella Cecchini, Quadri e commercio a Venezia durante il Seicento: Uno studio sul mercato dell’arte Venezia, (Marsilio, 2000). 14 Francis Haskell, Patrons and Painters: Art and Society in Baroque Italy, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980). 15 Haskell did make some references to other Italian cities, including Naples, though these were minor in comparison to his observations on Rome. 7

developing subject matter, iconography, and even artistic styles. From these ideas of patronage arose the notion of the collector in general. Though collectors did not always directly commission a work of art, their accumulation of paintings spoke to a variety of cultural practices and expectations relating to artistic tastes, social status and recognition, the development of artistic styles and subjects, relationships between artists and collectors, and of course, the art market.

The most effective method for understanding the collecting habits of an individual is archival research. Inventories, wills, bank documents and letters found in the archives are sources that can truly give a sense of the collector’s intentions and preferences. In particular, studying the inventories of particular collectors has become commonplace in recent art historical literature. The most extensive attempt at accumulating and organizing European inventories from the sixteenth to twentieth centuries is The Getty Research Institute’s Provenance Index. These records are currently available online and a number of publications have been the result of this effort.16 One such publication is Gérard Labrot’s Italian Inventories 1: Collections of Paintings in Naples, 1600-1780, which contains 83 inventories.17 Gaspare Roomer is not included in this publication, nor is his inventory accessible online; this is undoubtedly due to the fact that his inventory lacks artist names. However, Labrot’s publication and the additional entries in the

Getty Provenance Index database provide thorough insight into collecting trends in Naples. In addition, Labrot’s introduction provides a useful framework for evaluating these inventories, including the collections of aristocratic families, the bourgeoisie, artists and even some Spanish viceroys. The size of his selection and the period of time covered by Labrot allowed him to

16 http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/provenance_index/. Accessed 07/18/09. 17 Gérard Labrot, Collections of Paintings in Naples: 1600-1780, (Los Angeles: Provenance Index of the Getty Institute, 1992). 8

demonstrate the complexity and diversity of taste in Naples and how collections related to social and intellectual pursuits.18

Another significant publication that stems from the Getty Provenance Index project is the double volume written by Marcus Burke and Peter Cherry, entitled Collections of Paintings in

Madrid, 1601-1755.19 This book includes the inventories and information on the collecting habits of the Spanish viceroys who served in Naples during this time period, making it relevant to the study of Neapolitan collections. Though not a publication associated with the Getty, Erik

Duverger’s twelve-volume Antwerpse Kunstinventarissen uit de Zeventiende eeuw also proved indispensible, especially when evaluating the impact of Roomer’s trading activities.20 Aside from inventories, Duverger included some wills in his publication, including that of Roomer’s sister,

Christina.

In addition to these publications of inventories, there have been numerous articles dedicated to general collecting trends and preferences. For example, seven related articles by

Gennaro Borrelli address how the Neapolitan bourgeoisie was the “avantguardia” of the city in the Seicento – he argues that they encouraged the production of new genres and influenced some of the artistic choices of the aristocracy.21 Borrelli’s characterization of the bourgeoisie’s

18 Ibid., 13. 19 Marcus Burke and Peter Cherry, Collections of Paintings in Madrid, 1601-1755, (Los Angeles: Provenance Index of the Getty Information Institute, 1997). 20 Erik Duverger, Antwerpse Kunstinventarissen uit de Zeventiende eeuw, vols. 1-12, (Brussels: Paleis de Academien, 1984-2002). 21 Gennaro Borrelli, “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 5 (1986): 77-101; Gennaro Borrelli, “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 6 (1987): 35-58; Gennaro Borrelli, “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 7 (1988): 7-49; Gennaro Borrelli, “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 8 (1989): 7-27; Gennaro Borrelli, “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 9 (1990): 43-59; Gennaro Borrelli, “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 10 (1991): 7-18; 9

collecting habits as forward-thinking versus the traditional preferences of the aristocracy is far too categorical and fails to explore other, perhaps more practical, reasons why the bourgeoisie adopted certain patterns of collecting. Nonetheless, Borrelli’s studies were groundbreaking in their methodology, as previous publications were normally devoted to the habits of one or two collectors; Borrelli was the first to attempt on this scale an overarching overview of Neapolitan collectors with the comparison and analysis of multiple collections.22

Based on the methodologies undertaken by many of the abovementioned scholars, archival sources provide the foundation of this dissertation. As mentioned, some primary documentation has been published by Ruotolo, Nappi and the Getty Provenance Index. However, most of the archival information used in this thesis was found in the archives themselves. The

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Archivio di Stato di Firenze and the Stadtsarchief Antwerpen

(FelixArchief) were especially useful resources. In addition to archival sources, guidebooks and artist biographies also proved helpful.

Gennaro Borrelli, “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 12 (1993): 7-19. 22 In line with Borrelli’s methodology are works by: Gérard Labrot, “Les collections de l’aristocratie napolitaine: le couple centre/périphérie et son evolution, XVIIe – XVIIIe siècle,” in Geographia del collezionismo: Italia e Francia tra il XVI e il XVIII secolo, ed. Olivier Bonfait et al, Rome: Ecole Francaise de Rome, 2001; Gérard Labrot, “Trend économique et mécénat dans le royaume de Naples (1530-1750),” in Gli aspetti economici del mecenatismo in Europa secc. XIV-XVIII, ed. Simonetta Cavaciocchi, Madrid: Prato, 1999; Gérard Labrot, Peinture et société à Naples: XVIe-XVIIIe siècle. Commandes, collections, marchés, (Seyssel: Champ Vallon, 2010); Ruotolo, op. cit. note 1, 41-8; Renato Ruotolo, “Collezioni e mecenati napoletani dell XVII secolo,” Napoli Nobilissima XII (July/Aug. 1973): 118-9; 145-53; Renato Ruotolo, “Aspetti del collezionismo napoletano: il Cardinale Filomarino,” Antologia di Belle Arti 1 (1977): 71-82; Renato Ruotolo, “Collezioni e collezionisti napoletani del Sei e Settecento: l’abitare nobile e Borghese: due modi di vivere e intendere l’arte,” Gazzetta antiquaria, 20/21 (1994): 30-7; Renato Ruotolo, “Brevi note sul collezionismo aristcratico napoletano tra Sei e Settecento,” Storia dell’Arte 35 (1979): 29-38. Renato Ruotolo, “La clientela napoletana de Ribera,” in Ribera 1591-1652, ed. Alfonso Perez Sanchez, Madrid: Prado, 1992:73-8; Angela Madruga Real, “Ribera, Monterrey e le Agostiniane di Salamanca,” in Jusepe Ribera, eds. Alfonso Pérez Sánchez and Nicola Spinosa, (Napoli: Napoli Electa, 1992): 277-89; Alfonso Pérez Sánchez, “Ribera in Spain: his Spanish Patrons in Italy and Spain; the influence of his work on Spanish artists,” in Jusepe de Ribera: 1591-1652, eds. Alfonso Pérez Sánchez and Nicoal Spinosa, (New York: Abrams in Komm, 1992): 35-49; and Diana Carrió-Invernizzi, El gobierno de las imágenes : ceremonial y mecenazgo en la Italia española de la segunda mitad del siglo XVII, (Madrid : Iberoamericana, 2008); Diana Carrió-Invernizzi, “Royal and Viceregal Art Patronage in Naples (1500- 1800),” in A Companion to Early Modern Naples, ed. Tommaso Astarita, (Leiden and Boston, Brill, 2013), 383-404. 10

Roomer’s inventory, his last will and testament and the codicil to his will were all found in the Archivio di Stato di Napoli.23 Unfortunately, the inventory, while recording the paintings in Roomer’s collection, does not include the names of any artists. Nonetheless, important information can be gleaned from the document regarding the kinds of paintings Roomer collected and their arrangement within his palace. The merchant’s will and codicil add another layer of understanding into Roomer’s collecting and dealing activities. While again, little is revealed in terms of specific artworks, the documents still provide insight into how Roomer’s collection was divided and also into his charitable activities. Furthermore, other documents in these archives – mainly references to payments and real estate –contribute to a better understanding of Roomer’s place within Neapolitan society.

The Archivio di Stato di Firenze is home to some letters regarding the sale of Roomer’s collection (excerpts of which were published by Ruotolo), as well as to numerous records of his general commercial practice. Specifically, the fondo of the Società Mercantile Olandese tracks numerous business deals between Roomer and a variety of merchants in Livorno, Amsterdam, and Venice.24 These documents were particularly important in establishing Roomer’s trade networks, which he used to deal in both artworks and regular goods. The volumes of the Carteggi d’artisti contain letters from the agent of Cardinal Leopoldo de’Medici, who was sent to Naples in

1675 to purchase paintings from Roomer’s estate.25 Giving the names of specific artists, as well as information on others interested in the merchant’s estate, these letters were significant sources when attempting to reconstruct Roomer’s collection.

23 For the inventory see: A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, ff. 1713-208r. For the last will and testament see: A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, ff. 406r – 417v; and also A.S.N. Montessori Soppressi, 4600, ff. 257r-272v. For the codicil see: A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/31, ff. 116r-129v, and also A.S.N. Montessori Soppressi, 4600, ff. 273r-277v. These are transcribed in Appendices B-D. 24 See A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese 12-23, 33-34. 25 See A.S.F., Carteggi d’Artisti 21. 11

Some of the most illuminating records regarding Roomer’s art dealing activities were found in the Stadtsarchief Antwerpen.26 While there are some references to Roomer’s family living in the city the most interesting documents were a series of letters written from two Flemish merchants in Naples to some merchants in Antwerp. These letters refer to Roomer numerous times, outlining his desire to pay off a debt with paintings. These records opened an entirely new perspective as to how Roomer’s regular business operations and art dealings were intertwined.

There were a few other archives that were of limited importance for my research. In

Rome, the archive in the church of San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi and the Archivio Capitolino hold some interesting letters (some of which were published by Hoogewerff) concerning

Roomer’s relationship with the community of Flemish artists in the city.27 The Archivio di Stato di Genova was, unfortunately, only useful in confirming that there are no documents relating to

Roomer in their holdings.28

Artist biographies and seventeenth and eighteenth-century guidebooks were also crucial to my understanding of Roomer’s collection, his dealing practices, his relationship with the

Spanish viceroys, and his charitable donations. One of the most important resources was the Vite dei pittori napoltani by Bernardo De Dominici, published in 1742-5.29 The artist biographer includes numerous anecdotes about Roomer in many of the biographies of Neapolitan artists.

While De Dominici’s stories are not always to be fully believed, he still provides critical insight into Roomer’s patronage and relationship with particular artists, as well as his place within

Naples’ cultural sphere. Joachim von Sandrart’s Teutsche Acadamie (published in 1674) also

26 See S.A.A, IB 24, 29, 33, 87, 128, 196; and S.A.A., PK 733. The Rijksarchief Antwerpen also held some useful information. See: R.A.A., Falcontinnen 81. 27 See. Archivio di San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi, Héritage de Johanne Mueseur, VI; Archivio Capitolino, Rome, Apoche, vol. 2 (1625-1627), no. 173. 28 At the Archivio di Stato di Genova, I consulted the pandette of Bartolomeo Borsotto and Gio. Batta Banchero. I chose these pandette on the recommendation of the archivist after having discussed my project with him. 29 Bernardo De Dominici, Vite de’pittori, scultori ed architteti napoletani, (Bologna: Forni Editore, 1971). 12

makes mention of some artworks in Roomer’s collection.30 Though one of Sandrart’s references to Roomer’s activities conflicts with another source, his account nonetheless helps to piece together Roomer’s collecting practices.31

The most useful guidebook is Giulio Cesare Capaccio’s Il Forastiero, published in

1634.32 As mentioned, Capaccio is the first reference to Roomer’s collection. His fairly detailed description of the merchant’s picture gallery is a fundamental source in attempting to reconstruct

Roomer’s collection. Carlo Celano’s 1692 Notizie del bello, dell'antico et del curiosa della città di Napoli also offers glimpses into the importance of Roomer’s collection, along with his numerous acts of charity.33 A slew of subsequent guidebooks and diaries – such as those by

Giuseppe Sigismondo, Domenico Parrino, Innocenzo Fuidoro and Antonio Bulifon – all contribute to a better appreciation of Roomer’s role in Neapolitan society.34

* * * * *

Following this introductory chapter, I have divided the dissertation into seven sections, each detailing a particular aspect of Roomer’s commercial, art dealing, collecting and patronage activities. Chapter Two establishes the sources of Roomer’s wealth, his mercantile upbringing in

30 Joachim von Sandrart, Academie de Bau-, Bild-und Mahlerey-Künste, ed. A. R. Peltzer, (Munich: G. Hirth’s Verlag, 1925). See also: Sandrart.net at www.sandrart.net. 31 Specifically, Sandrart mentions that he saw a painting in Roomer’s collection in the early 1630s, when bank documents indicate that particular painting did not come into the merchant’s possession until 1653. This is discussed in full detail in Chapter Six. 32 Capaccio, op cit. note 2. 33 Carlo Celano, Notizie del Bello dell’Antico e del Curioso della città di Napoli, ed. Giovanni Battista Chiarini, (Naples: Stamperia di Agostino de Pascale, 1856-60 [1692]). 34 Giuseppe Sigismondo, Descrizione della città di Napoli e suoi borghi, (Naples: Arnaldo forni Editore, 1989 [1788-9]); Domenico Antonio Parrino. Teatro eroico e politico dei governi de’viceré del Regno di Napoli dal tempo Ferdinando il Cattolico fino all’anno 1675, (Naples: Mariano Lombardi Editore, 1875 [1692]); Innocenzo Fuidoro, Giornali di Napoli, ed. Vittorio Omodeo, (Naples: R. Deputazione Napoletana di Storia Patria, 1943); Innocenzo Fuidoro, Successi historici raccolti dalla sollevatione di Napoli dell’anno 1647, ed. Anna Maria Giraldi and Marina Raffaeli, (Milano: F. Angeli, 1994 [1647-8]); Antonio Bulifon, Giornali di Napoli dal MDXLVII al MDCCVI, ed. Nino Cortese, (Naples: Società Napoletana di Storia Patria, 1932).

Antwerp and his subsequent move to Naples. It chronicles Roomer’s early occupation as a merchant of silk and his later activity as a financier to the Spanish Crown. Roomer’s success as an art dealer and renown as a collector and patron were predicated on his affluence and extensive network of connections. This chapter serves as a basis for understanding Roomer’s ability to achieve influence in Neapolitan society and engage in the kinds of dealing, collecting and patronage activities that he did.

Chapters Three through Six constitute the core of this dissertation. Chapter Three concerns Roomer’s activities and place within the Early Modern art market. It begins with an examination of the history and mechanisms of the art market in the Southern Netherlands and

Italy and of the particular phenomenon of merchants as traders of art. It then details Roomer’s specific practices within this context, examining the types of works he imported to and exported from Naples, and his connections in Antwerp, Rome and Venice. Chapter Four begins the examination of Roomer’s extensive collection, situating the merchant’s collecting habits within the general collecting and patronage activities of the Neapolitan elite. It explores the main themes of the collection and their arrangement within his palace. It also delves into potential motivations behind Roomer`s collecting practices and the connection between the act of art collecting and social recognition.

Chapters Five and Six examine in detail the various facets of Roomer’s collection.

Chapter Five details Roomer`s interest in landscapes, still lifes, genre paintings, battle scenes and single-figure works. Discussion centres around how Roomer`s collecting of these genres influenced Neapolitan artists and collectors. Chapter Six explores Roomer’s collection of history paintings, as well as his collection of prints and drawings. It is in this chapter that Roomer fully emerges as a sophisticated and cultured connoisseur. In both Chapters Five and Six I have attempted to identify specific paintings that were in Roomer’s collection. Where this has not been possible, I have included examples of the types of works he would have owned.

Chapters Seven and Eight delve into different areas of Roomer’s patronage. Chapter

Seven analyses Roomer’s relationship with the Spanish viceregal government of Naples. It examines how Roomer used his wealth and his collecting and dealing capabilities to obtain favour with several viceroys that consequently benefitted his commercial enterprises. Finally, Chapter

Eight illuminates Roomer’s charitable practices and their importance in shaping Roomer’s public persona both in life and after death. It explores his patronage of numerous churches and monasteries and how his donations contributed to the cultural makeup of Naples.

Through the examination of various cultural practices, historical and political circumstances, and the mechanisms of international exchange, this dissertation explores the particularities of Gaspare Roomer’s patronage, collecting habits and role in the art market. That

Roomer was simultaneously involved in a variety of facets of Neapolitan cultural life make his case study particularly relevant. While there were other merchants like Roomer – those who were also collectors, patron and art dealers – none owned a collection of similar magnitude, nor did any participate in the artistic exchange between Northern and Southern Europe to the same degree.

His case study therefore represents the epitome of how collecting, dealing and patronage intersected in seventeenth-century Naples. It addresses larger issues surrounding these themes, such as the social constructs of the collector-merchant and the art dealer/collector, international artistic exchange, relationships between artists and patrons, social positioning, political influence, religious devotion, diplomacy and the societal expectations for Naples’ wealthiest citizens.

Fig. 1. Portrait of Gaspare Roomer from Andrea Mastelloni’s La prima chiesa dedicata a Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, Naples, 1675.

Chapter 2

Making Money in Early Modern Europe: The Sources of Gaspare

Roomer’s Wealth

Born into a merchant family in Antwerp in 1595, Gaspare Roomer entered a tumultuous world that presented both difficulty and opportunity for the mercantile class. His parents, Lodewijk de

Roomer and Maria de Loway, had come from families that had prospered in Antwerp’s Golden

Age of commercial exchange. Since the end of the fourteenth century, Antwerp had served as a major centre of trade. Political and military conflict around Bruges – the former heart of

Netherlandish commerce – had compelled merchants from that city to move to Antwerp, where the Portuguese had established an important post to facilitate their trade with India.35 Because

Antwerp was now functioning as a gateway to the East, British merchants utilized its port on the river Scheldt to export cloth. Wealthy individuals – especially from Southern Germany – began to arrive, silver in hand, looking to purchase cloth and spices.36 In addition, the city was used as the main centre from which Netherlandish products could be acquired. To accommodate this increased commercial activity, the government of Antwerp developed various markets, called panden, that were open for six weeks during their annual fair.37

Though Antwerp’s economic boom of the early sixteenth century somewhat slowed in the 1520s and 1530s, the city experienced a financial resurgence by 1540. It was in this year that the Bourse opened its doors; a permanent all-year-round venue for commerce had been established. The city would in general maintain its prosperity over the next 25 years, after which time political and religious tensions threatened its stability. In 1566, a growing Protestant

35 Verymeylen, 2003, 15; Leon Voet, “History of Antwerp,” in Antwerp’s Golden Age, exh. cat., (City of Art, 1973-5), 11. 36 Vermeylen, 2003, 16. 37 Vermeylen, 2003, 19; Voet, 12. 17

movement led by Dutch rebels swept Antwerp, resulting in social unrest and iconoclastic destruction. In defense of Catholicism and hoping to maintain its Northern European territories,

Spain reacted; Flanders was at the centre of an intense religious and political struggle. The war’s impact on Antwerp’s economy was predictably negative. For the next twenty years, the city’s economy stagnated.38 In 1585, Spain regained the Southern Netherlands, but in retaliation the

Dutch rebels blocked access to the river Scheldt. Though Antwerp maintained its lively print industry and to some degree its mercantile activity (especially in luxury goods), the city could no longer function as a transit-centre between Europe and the East.39

It is uncertain how the Roomer family fared in these turbulent times. Given that they remained in Antwerp despite such disruptions, they presumably adapted to the circumstances.40

At the very least, their financial success in times of economic prosperity allowed them to sustain periods of hardship. Also, the development and establishment of extensive networks would have allowed the family to continue actively trading abroad when the situation at home prevented foreign investment. Networks were by far the most useful tool at a merchant’s disposal. They were, as Axel Marx aptly states, “crucial for learning, competitive advantage, reduction of

38 Vermeylen, 2003, 8; Voet, 13-4; Herman van der Wee and Jan Martené, “Antwerp as a World Market in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Antwerp: Story of a Metropolis, 16th-17th Century, ed. Jan van der Stock, (Antwerp: Martial and Snoeck, 1993), 25-7; Elizabeth Alice Honig, Painting and the Market in Early Modern Antwerp, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998), 104. 39 The trade of luxury items that were small enough to transport over land appears to have remained strong after 1585. Recent research in this area was presented at the Renaissance Society of America (RSA) and Historians of Netherlandish Art (HNA) conferences in 2014. Note: Christine Göttler, Vulcan’s Forge: The Sphere of Art in Early Modern Antwerp (RSA 2014); Marlise Rijks, Unusual Excesses of Nature: Coral on Display in Antwerp: Materiality and Petrification (RSA 2014); Nadia Sera Baadj, Object Networks: Luxury, Empire and Virtuosity in Early Modern Antwerp (RSA 2014); Nadia Sera Baadj, Enterprising Craftsmanship and Exotic Encounters in Seventeenth-Century Kunskasten (HNA 2014). See also: Alfons K.L. Thijs, “Antwerp’s Luxury Industries: the Pursuit of Profit and Artistic Sensitivity,” in Antwerp: Story of a Metropolis, 16th-17th Century, ed. Jan van der Stock, (Antwerp: Martial and Snoeck, 1993), 111. 40 That it was ultimately Catholic Spain that seized control of Antwerp in 1585 would have also provided an impetus for the Roomer family – being themselves Catholic – to remain in the city. 18

uncertainty, increased quality of decisions, etc.”41 It was through networking that many merchants in Antwerp were able to maintain their businesses during city’s times of instability.

The Roomer family was well-connected. The marriage of Gaspare Roomer’s father,

Lodewijk, to Maria de Loway may very well have been strategic. The Loways were a prominent mercantile family, who were related through marriage to the Della Faille clan, who had agents throughout the Netherlands and Italy. Maria de Loway’s brother, Melchior, was a key player in the family business. In fact, he was responsible for establishing the Roomer family in Southern

Italy; he moved to Naples from 1600 to 1603 to establish commercial connections in the South that would prove beneficial to the family’s mercantile activity. While the role of Roomer’s father in the family operations is unclear, he remained in Antwerp, focused on the domestic side of the business.

When Roomer came of age, it was inevitable that he would play a significant role in these commercial pursuits and work toward further increasing the family’s wealth and elevating the De

Roomer name. He was the second eldest of six children. His older brother, Lodewijk (named after his father), would eventually take over the family’s commercial operations in Antwerp. He married Catharina Haecx, whose family was also heavily involved in trade, thereby further expanding the Roomers’ network of connections.42 For the most part, Roomer’s sisters were uninvolved in the commercial operations. Three of them – Jacoba, Maria and Anna – became nuns at the convent of the Falcontinnen, while his youngest sister, Christina, was a gheestelycke dochter, who led a spiritual life and maintained her celibacy without entering a convent.43

41 Axel Marx, “Why Social Network Analysis Might be Relevant for Art Historians: A Sociological Perspective,” in Family Ties: Art Production and Kinship Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries, eds. Koenraad Brosens, Leen Kelchtermans and Katlijne Van der Stighelen, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 25. 42 Catherina Haecx was a distant cousin of the Roomer family. She was the daughter of David Haecx and Elisabeth de Schot. See: Roland Baetens, De Nazomer van Antwerpens Welcaart: De diaspora en het handelhuis De Groote tijdens de eerste helft der 17de eeuw, vol. 1, (Gemeentekrediet van Belgie, Historische Uitgaven Pro Civitate, 1976), 200. 43 Bert Timmermans, 2012, 195. The piety of the Roomer family is discussed in more detail in Chapter Eight. 19

Alternatively, Roomer went to work for his uncle Melchior.44 He did marry at some point, though it is uncertain whether or not he married before his arrival in Naples. Unfortunately, not even the name of his wife is known, though the marriage did produce one child – a daughter. She entered the convent of Santa Teresa del SS. Sacramento in Naples in 1646.45

The Move to Naples and Roomer’s Partnership with Jacomo VanRay

The Roomers and the Loways had been actively trading with Italy since the end of the sixteenth century. As mentioned, in 1600, Maria de Loway’s brother, Melchior, moved to Naples for three years. He lived with his brothers-in-law, Jan and Joris della Faille, who were already established in the south.46 The Della Faille family was well-integrated into the Italian trade network and would have assisted Melchior in establishing connections in Southern Italy.

At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Naples would have presented itself as a viable prospect for expanding the Roomer/Loway business. First, as it too was also under

Spanish dominion, the religious and political context of the city was akin to that of Antwerp. The risk of venturing into a relatively unknown market was therefore somewhat diminished. Second,

Naples was home to a burgeoning and successful market for silk – and silk was the main focus of the Roomer/Loway commercial activity.47 Its port was a gateway to various destinations throughout Italy, Iberia, Eastern Europe and the Middle and Far East. Furthermore, because of

Spain’s exploration and colonial activities, Naples was also an advantageous location for mercantile exchange with the New World.48 In addition to silk, the city was active in importing

44 Baetens, 199. 45 Ceci, 1920, 162. 46 Baetens, 199. 47 The silk market in Naples was so becoming so lucrative that already by 1582 there were more silk merchants residing in Naples than actual workers making Neapolitan silk. See: Luigi De Rosa, “The De- Industrialization of the Kingdom of Naples in the 16th and 17th Centuries,” in The Rise and Decline of Urban Industries in Italy and the Low Countries, ed. Herman van der Wee, (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1988), 128. 48 De Rosa, 130. 20

and exporting grain, oil and wool. The opportunity for lucrative enterprise in Naples was so great that the city rapidly expanded, its population at the beginning of the seventeenth century being second only to Paris.49

After Melchior’s return from Naples, Gaspare Roomer began to work for his uncle.50

While Roomer’s older brother Lodewijk eventually took over the family’s operations in Antwerp, expanding business opportunities in Italy precipitated Roomer’s move to Naples around 1616.

Sending a family member abroad to oversee an international branch of the business was a common practice among Netherlandish families wishing to expand their commercial trade.51

Economically and politically, the time was right for such a move. The Twelve Years’ Truce

(1609-21) was currently in effect and had temporarily restored Antwerp’s prosperity. This time of relative peace and economic stability increased the ease with which Flemish merchants could expand their European trade networks. While in retrospect, it is clear that Naples’ economy was beginning to flounder at this time, it was still a major commercial centre where the Roomer family had a solid network of connections.52

Melchior’s previous visit to Naples ensured Roomer’s affiliation with the Flemish business community in the city. The first record of Roomer’s presence in Naples is a bank document dated 1616 where he is already mentioned as the partner of Jacomo VanRay.53

VanRay had long been resident in Naples, the first document of his appearance being in 1565.54

Presumably, Melchior had met VanRay during his earlier visit to the city and subsequently arranged the partnership between his nephew (who undoubtedly arrived with a substantial amount

49 By the end of the sixteenth century, Naples’ population was around 244,000 citizens. The total population of the Kingdom of Naples was about 3.6 million. See: De Rosa, 121, 129. 50 Timmermans, 2012, 191. 51 Rengenier C. Rittersma, Luxury in the Low Countries, (Brussels: Pharo Publishers, 2010), 117. 52 Despite the economic opportunities Naples presented to foreign merchants at the end of the Cinquecento, Antonio Calabria argues that there were foreboding indications of an economic slowdown. See: Antonio Calabria, The Cost of Empire: the Finances of the Kingdom of Naples in the time of Spanish Rule, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 1. 53 A.S.B.N., Banco della Pietà, g.m. 74. Published in Nappi, 2000, 71. 54 A.S.N., Banchieri Antichi, m. 37 Montenegro e figli. Published in Nappi, 2000, 71. 21

of capital in hand) and the older merchant to ensure Roomer’s venture into the Neapolitan market would be lucrative.55 And it certainly was. As Edorado Nappi discovered through extensive research at the Archivio Storico di Banco di Napoli, Roomer and VanRay’s accounts from 1616 until 1627 (the year of VanRay’s death) totalled approximately 574,657 ducats. This fortune was accumulated through trade in various commodities. Primarily, Roomer and VanRay were merchants of silk and cloth, though they also bought and sold a variety of foodstuffs, grains and spices.56

The success of Roomer and VanRay’s business lay in their extensive trade networks that included merchants in both Italy and the Netherlands. The two most important resources for understanding the extent and complexity of these networks of exchange are the Archivio Storico di Banco di Napoli (A.S.B.N) and the fondo for the Società mercantile olandese in the Archivio di

Stato di Firenze (A.S.F.). The documents in these two archives reveal a vast system of exchange and a multitude of connections that were the foundation of Roomer and VanRay’s business.

Roomer and VanRay dealt with merchants as far reaching as the Scandinavian countries and perhaps even as distant as Constantinople.57 However, the majority of their contacts were in the Northern and Southern Netherlands and Italy. Many of the merchants with whom they were connected were originally from Flanders; network connections based on nationality were the norm. Ideally, familial contacts were the most desirable, the bonds of blood being the strongest of all.58

55 Immigrant businessmen normally settled where family or commercial contacts had already been established. See: Alexander Cowan, “Foreigners and the City: The Case of the Immigrant Merchant,” in Mediterranean Urban Culture 1400-1700, ed. A. Cowan, (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000), 47. 56 Nappi, 2000, 61. 57 Vaes, 1925, 187. 58Cowan, 47; Maria Keblusek, “Introduction: Profiling the Early Modern Agent,” in Your Humble Servant: Agents in Early Modern Europe, ed. Hans Cool et al., (Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren, 2006), 14; Clario di Fabio, “Due generazioni di pittori fiamminghi a Genova (1602-1657) e la bottega di Cornelis de Wael,” in Van Dyck a Genova: grande pittura e collezionismo, ed. Susan J. Barnes et al., (Milan: Electa, 1997), 90. 22

Predictably, Roomer’s primary contacts in Antwerp were his relatives. Shortly after his arrival in Naples, Roomer conducted several transactions with his uncle, Melchior Loway. The documents published by Nappi point to Roomer and Loway’s involvement in the textile trade. It was also through Loway that Roomer and VanRay received their payments from Flanders.59

After 1616, Melchior’s name does not appear in the documents published by Nappi. Roomer and

VanRay did, however, continue to receive Flemish textiles in Naples through Andrea Ascolese,

Francesco de’Medici and Vincenzo della Matissa – merchants about whom almost nothing is known.60

A reduction in direct transactions between Melchior Loway and the VanRay/Roomer operation may have been the result of a decision to utilize merchants in Livorno as intermediaries.

Livorno had become a major centre of exchange in the late sixteenth century due to incentives for foreign merchants proposed by Grand Duke Ferdinand de’Medici.61 The city was also a place from which many established Florentine dealers sent their goods to other European cities. Three merchants with whom Roomer and VanRay developed an amicable relationship were the brothers

Andrea, Rosso and Lorenzo del Rosso. The brothers primarily dealt in silk, but also acted as intermediaries between Naples, Venice and Amsterdam. It is unknown how the two Flemish merchants made the acquaintance of the Del Rosso brothers, but Roomer was likely the primary contact. Trade with the Del Rosso clan in Livorno only began in the second half of the 1620s and

VanRay died in October of 1627.62 In fact, Roomer may have maintained his relationship with the Florentine brothers throughout his lifetime. After Roomer’s death in 1674, Andrea and

Lorenzo asked Luca Giordano to purchase pictures for them from the merchant’s post-mortem

59 See documents published in: Nappi, 2000, 71. 60 Documents recording VanRay and Roomer’s transactions with these merchants are found in Nappi, 2000, 72. 61 Maartje van Gelder, Trading Places: The Netherlandish Merchants in Early Modern Venice. (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009), 33. 62 A.S.F. Società mercantile olandese 20, ff. 3v, 6r, 24r. 23

sale.63 Their knowledge of the collection may have been the result of their business relationship with Roomer.

Commercial exchange with Amsterdam was also important to Roomer and VanRay’s operation. In the early seventeenth century, Amsterdam was growing considerably. It had replaced Antwerp as the European centre of mercantile trade. In order to ensure a successful and growing business, trade relations with Amsterdam were a necessity. Again, Roomer’s familial connections helped him establish reliable agents in the Northern Netherlands. Roomer’s most significant contact in Amsterdam was Jan (Giovanni) de Wale. De Wale was the nephew of Jan della Faille, Melchior Loway’s brother-in-law who was active in Naples. Connections to the

Della Faille were advantageous, as they were members of the De Hane firm, one of the most important trading operations between Venice and the Netherlands. De Wale managed the

Venetian side of the De Hane business from 1578 until 1592, after which time he relocated to

Amsterdam.64 Once in the Netherlands, he began a partnership with a Giovanni Battista de Wale

– presumably a relative – whose name also appears frequently in the trade documents concerning

Roomer.65 Though based in the Low Countries, De Wale maintained his strong connections with

Venice, thus making him an ideal contact point for Roomer in the Northern Netherlands. Many

(but not all) of the goods shipped to Roomer from De Wale in Amsterdam would first arrive in

Venice and then were sent to Naples (via Livorno) by De Wale’s nephew Giovanni de Wale or by one Giorgio Ebbenz il Vecchio.

63The inventory of Andrea and Lorenzo del Rosso specifically mentions works that were purchased from Roomer’s collection by Luca Giordano. The inventory is published in Michelangelo Gualandi, Memorie originale italiane riguardanti le belle arti, series 2, vol. 1, (Bologna, 1840), 115-27. References to Roomer’s collection can be found on pages 117, 118, 120, and 122. 64 Van Gelder, 45 65 For Roomer’s transactions with Jan de Wale and Giovanni Battista de Wale of Amsterdam see: A.S.B.N., Banco dello Spirito Santo, g.m. 114, published in Nappi, 2000, 71; A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese 11, ff. 12v, 37v-38r; Ibid., 12, ff. 7v, 58r; 18, 59v; Ibid., 20, ff. 6r, 16v, 24v, 66r, 71r, 76r, 83r, 86r, 88v, 94r-v; Ibid., 22, f. 24v; and Ibid., 23, ff. 3r, 5v, 11v. 24

The tense political situation between the Northern Netherlands and Spain required

Roomer and VanRay to delicately handle their trade relations with Amsterdam. The majority of the documented transactions between Roomer and VanRay and merchants in Amsterdam occur after the Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-21) during a time when ships from the Dutch Republic were prohibited from entering the Neapolitan harbour.66 Venice would have been a suitable intermediary location from which merchants in Naples could receive goods from Amsterdam.

This may account for the numerous transactions between Roomer and VanRay in Naples and Jan de Wale in Amsterdam that were processed through Venice. Tensions between the Spanish and the Venetians existed for much of the first half of the seventeenth century and thus, Venice tended to sympathize with the Dutch Republic. While this strained the relationship between

Venice and Naples, there were no trade restrictions between the two cities. 67 Therefore, Venice could function as a processing point between Amsterdam and Naples, so that Dutch goods could find their way into the Neapolitan marketplace.

Aside from their role as intermediaries between Jan de Wale of Amsterdam and Roomer and VanRay, Giovanni de Wale of Venice and Ebbenz il Vecchio conducted their own business with the merchants in Naples.68 Little is known of Ebbenz il Vecchio, but Giovanni de Wale was a fairly prominent Netherlandish merchant in seventeenth-century Venice. His success was evident through his luxurious lifestyle and art collection.69 Again, the documents record that

Roomer and VanRay were mainly trading in textiles. Unfortunately, the documents found in the files of the Società mercantile olandese stop in 1633, so it is unknown whether or not Roomer

66 In my research, I found only one document (found in Nappi, 2000, 71) relating to Roomer’s trade with Amsterdam during the Truce. 67 Van Gelder, 31-2. 68 For Roomer’s transactions with Giovanni de Wale of Venice see: A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese, 15, ff. 41v-42r, 50v-51r; Ibid., 20, ff. 6r, 12v, 23r, 31v, 43v, 71r, 73r. For Roomer’s dealings with Giorgio Ebbenz il Vecchio see: A.S.F., 11, f. 4r; Ibid., 12, f. 19r; Ibid., 13, f. 42r; Ibid., 15, ff. 50v-51r; and Ibid., 20, f. 23r. For Ebbenz il Vecchio’s connection with the De Wales see: A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese, 15, ff. 57v-58r. 69 Van Gelder, 174-9. 25

maintained his relationship with the Flemish merchants of Venice after this time. It is possible that Roomer and Giovanni de Wale maintained their trade relationship until the latter’s death in

1663.

In general, Roomer and VanRay’s trade was focused northwards toward Livorno and

Venice and through to the Northern and Southern Netherlands. However, the documents do record one important contact in Sicily – Hendrick Dyck. Little is known of Dyck, but he does appear to have conducted a considerable amount of commercial activity. Roomer and VanRay’s relationship with Dyck commenced shortly after Roomer arrived in Naples, the documents ranging from 1618 to 1625. The records in the Florentine archives indicate most of their business concerned the trade of cloth and silk, though there are two documents in the Archivio Storico di

Banco di Napoli that refer to Roomer and VanRay dealing in ships.70 Trading in ships could be extremely lucrative, as merchants who owned vessels could then rent them out to other merchants or the government. Owning ships was also a sign of a growing business. In the years ahead,

Roomer would become the owner of 31 vessels.71

Roomer on his Own: 1627-1636

VanRay died in 1627 and Roomer operated on his own for the next nine years.72 Some of the documentation in the Archivio di Stato di Firenze is from these years. Though acknowledging

VanRay’s death, Roomer still operated under the title of “VanRay and Roomer”.73 He remained in contact with many of the same merchants – Giovanni de Wale of Venice, Jan de Wale of

70 A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese, 12, 41v; Ibid., 13, ff. 1v-2r, 12v, 34r-v, 46v-47r, 62v-63r; Ibid., 14, ff. 14r, 23v; Ibid., 15, ff. 41v-42r. For the documents in the A.S.B.N. see: Nappi, 2000, 73. 71 Nappi, 2000, 62. 72 For the death of VanRay see: A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese, 20, f. 9v. 73 A document from 21 December, 1627 explicitly mentions the business will still be identified under VanRay’s name. See: A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese, 20, f. 16v. 26

Amsterdam, and Andrea and Rosso del Rosso in Florence.74 His business clearly continued to thrive.

In addition to his associates in Livorno, Roomer maintained strong connections to

Flanders. Adriaen Haecke – likely a relative of his sister-in-law, Catharina Haecx – was one of

Roomer’s points of contact.75 However, Gaspare Roomer's brother, Lodewijk, had taken over the family business in Antwerp and was thus Roomer’s main contact in the city. Documentation regarding the exact nature of their commercial operations at this point is scarce. However, a document from the city of Antwerp records that in 1633 (due to the death of his wife), Lodewijk sought permission to leave Flanders for a few years and travel to Naples to live with his brother

(however, Lodewijk wished to maintain his residence in Antwerp). The government accepted

Lodewijk’s request and stipulated that he could leave Antwerp for up to three years without losing his citizenship.76 Evidently, the brothers were in frequent contact in order to discuss such an arrangement. Lodewijk’s grief over his wife, in combination with his brother operating the business in Naples on his own, may have provided the impetus for Lodewijk to consider a temporary move to the south. Yet, it does not appear that Lodewijk ever did make the voyage to

Naples, as no other documentation regarding this potential trip has surfaced. He remained in

Antwerp and continued to manage the Flemish side of the Roomer family business.

Working with Jan Vandeneynden

In 1636, Roomer entered into a partnership with Jan Vandeneynden that lasted until the latter’s death in 1671. By the time Roomer became his partner, Vandeneynden was already a prominent figure in the Neapolitan commercial market. The diarist Innocenzo Fuidoro wrote that

Vandeneynden arrived in Naples a poor man, but in reality, the merchant came from a prosperous

74 See numerous documents located in the A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese. 75 S.A.A., IB 128, 1633R, Letter from Roomer to Adriaen Haecke. 76 S.A.A., PK 733, f. 271. 27

family.77 Through his older brother, Ferdinand, Jan was very well-connected with the Antwerp art world, which will be discussed further in Chapter Three. By 1611, Jan was already living in

Naples and his brother Ferdinand moved to Rome in 1625. Little is known of Jan’s financial and business dealings in his early days in Naples, but his brother appears to have been quite a prominent figure in the Roman commercial market. Upon his death in 1630, Ferdinand made his brother his universal heir, thereby further augmenting Jan’s financial assets.78 Though the reasons for their partnership remain uncertain, the combining of Jan Vandeneynden’s and

Roomer’s wealth and network of connections would have made their team a veritable powerhouse of commercial enterprise.79

In the late 1630s and early 1640s, Roomer and Vandeneynden continued to find success trading mainly in silk from the North. Roomer’s brother, Lodewijk, remained a primary contact for the two merchants in Naples.80 Roomer was also in business with the De Groote family and the Van Colen/Hureau merchant operation.81 As with many merchant families at the time, the De

Grootes, Van Colens and Hureaus were interconnected. Margareta and Balthasar de Groote were children of the Flemish merchant Nicolas de Groote. Margareta married the merchant Martin

Hureau, whose relative married Jan Bartolomé van Colen. Balthasar de Groote married Johanna

Fourment, thereby further expanding the familial connections. Additionally, Johanna Fourment was related to Helena Fourment, who had married Peter Paul Rubens in 1630, thereby also connecting the family to the art market. These families had agents in numerous European cities,

77 Fuidoro, 1943, 202. 78 Vaes, 1925, 185. 79 Though Roomer and Vandeneynden did not become partners until the 1630s, their paths had already crossed. One document published by Nappi indicates the two merchants had at least on one occasion made a business transaction: “Partita di 200 ducati del 30 marzo 1619. A Gasparo de Roomer e Iacovo VanRay D. 200. E per essi a Lutieno Iacoby capitano della nave Chiesa de Betlemme a compimento di D. 750 ch l’altri D. 550 l’ha hauti cioè D. 100 per Banco del Monte e D. 450 in contanti. E se li pagano in conto de quello li deve Herrico Dich e Geronimo Ratton per noliti fattili con la detta nave. E per lui a Gio Vandeinde per altritanti.” A.S.B.N, Banco dello Spirito Santo, g.m. 141. Published in Nappi, 2000, 73. 80 See documents published by Nappi, 2000, 75. 81 For documents relating to Roomer’s business with these merchants see: S.A.A., IB 24; IB. 29; IB 42; IB 87. 28

including Amsterdam, Venice, Livorno, Naples and Lisbon.82 They were evidently important business connections for Roomer and Vandeneynden.

Increasingly, Roomer and Vandeneynden also began transporting products from the

South – Bari, Puglia, Malta – and from Spain. These shipments usually included a variety of foodstuffs, as well as oil, timber, soap and ship equipment.83 Their correspondents in these regions were varied. There seems to be no one dominating merchant with whom they frequently traded.

* * * * *

These interactions between Roomer and various merchants represent only the most important business relationships he had. The documents indicate innumerable other players. Until the last years of his life, Roomer continued to engage in overseas trade and bank records reveal his overwhelming financial success in this venture. Though the trade business was not without its risks and difficulties, it was through this means that Roomer acquired the majority of his wealth in the first half of the seventeenth century.84 Indeed, by this time, Roomer was touted as the wealthiest man in Naples – and he was certainly one of the richest merchants in all of Italy.

82 Baetens, vol. 2, 20-1; Van Gelder, 110-2; Marie-Christine Engels, Merchants, Interlopers, Seamen and Corsairs: The ‘Flemish’ Community in Livorno and Genoa (1615-1635), (Hilversum: Verloren, 1997), 169. 83 Nappi, 2000, 62. 84 Aside from the obvious hassle of organizing his goods from Amsterdam to circumvent the embargo on Dutch ships in the Bay of Naples, there are other instances where Roomer’s ships were destroyed or stolen while in transit. In October of 1626, for instance, it was recorded in the records of the Società mercantile olandese that Roomer and VanRay’s entire ship was stolen. Pirates were certainly a real threat in the Mediterranean and it would be unsurprising if this was the only instance in which a theft of the Flemish merchants’ property occurred. Additionally, ongoing wars between Spain and a variety of countries meant that at times, enemy forces would anchor just outside Neapolitan waters. Such occurrences were usually idle threats; rarely did these navel battalions attack Naples. However, the enemy would, at times, set fire to ships entering the port in order to impart a poignant message. According to Domenico Parrino and Antonio Bulifon, in 1640 the French set fire to one of Roomer’s ships. For the theft of Roomer and VanRay’s ship see: A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese, 17, f. 6v; for the burning of Roomer’s ship in the Neapolitan harbour see: Parrino, vol. 2, 285; Bulifon, 176. 29

A Shift in Focus and the Bestowal of Nobility: Roomer and Vandeneynden’s Financial

Dealings with the Spanish Crown

Roomer continued to engage in commercial exchange until the last years of his life. However, towards the end of the 1630s until his death in 1674, the nature of Roomer’s money-making ventures shifted. This may be due to a lack of documentation, but from what is available, it appears that Roomer and Vandeneynden’s business was evolving. They were becoming less concerned with importing and exporting various goods and more interested in working with the

Spanish government.

This shift in focus coincides with a general slowing of the Neapolitan economy. Naples had become a financial reserve and supply base for the Spanish Crown, whose numerous continental wars would cost Naples dearly.85 Due to increased debt and ever-rising taxes, the city became economically depressed. The trade in grain and silk was not as profitable as it once was, so many merchants – including Roomer – turned their attention to more lucrative spheres of activity.86

Therefore in the late 1630s/early 1640s, Roomer entered Naples’ financial operations and began to participate in political processes. It was at this time that he emerged as a key player in the city’s daily affairs. As mentioned, by this point, Roomer was one of the wealthiest and most well-connected men in Naples – a fact that made him an advantageous ally to the Spanish government at this precise moment. Spain’s wars with the Netherlands were escalating and the

Crown was in continuous need of ships, supplies and money. Roomer and Vandeneynden could meet all of these needs – and profit from it. A main source of their income was in the rental and

85 Rosario Villari, “The Neapolitan Financial Crisis of the 1630s and 1640s,” in Good Government in Spanish Naples, eds. Antonio Calabria and John A. Marino, (Naples and New York: Peter Lang, 1990), 240. 86 Villari, 244. It is important to note that Roomer and Vandeneynden did not entirely abandon their traditional mercantile activities, but rather added to them services to the Spanish government. 30

sale of their ships to the Spanish government.87 Their services were also commissioned to transfer troops to various locations.88 Furthermore, as discussed thoroughly in Chapter Seven, they became money-lenders to the King of Spain. This was considered risky business. Spain was notoriously in financial need and was known to default on its loans. On at least one occasion

(and likely many more) Roomer found himself in a difficult financial position due to the government’s inability to repay the merchant. In a letter to Gisberto van Colen from 1649,

Roomer laments that “if I could receive the 500 thousand the court still owes me, or at least part of it, then I could pay my debts much sooner...”89 Furthermore, the Spanish government’s preferred method of paying its creditors was awarding them the rights to various gabelle – public taxes. Roomer’s role as an arrendatore - tax collector – is elaborated upon in Chapter Seven.

However, needless to say, the populace was normally hostile towards people in his position, which exposed him to viable threats during the Revolt of Masaniello in 1647. Nonetheless, engaging in these deals with the Spanish government was strategic; it helped to ensure government officials grant Roomer and Vandeneynden special allowances with regards to their general trade. It also offered the merchants the potential to substantially expand their wealth, which indeed it did.

Providing financial support to the Spanish government had the added effect of elevating

Roomer’s social status as well. His contributions to the Crown of Spain may have served as the impetus for the government to grant the Roomer family nobility in 1649.90 This bestowal of

87 Archival documents found by Giuseppe Ceci reveal that Roomer sold five ships to the Spanish government in 1636, receiving 108,000 ducats in return. These ships were expressly sold for the Spanish monarchy’s war in Flanders. See Ceci, 1920, 161. See also: Maria Sirago, “Dalla galera al vascello. L’apporto economico di genovesi, ragusei, fiamminghi, napoletani nella constituzione della flotta napoletana tra Cinquecento e Seicento,” in Rapporti diplomatici e scambi commerciale nel Mediterraneo moderno, ed. M. Mafrici, (Salerno: Rubbettino, 2004), 476-7. 88 Nappi, 2000, 62. 89 S.A.A., IB 87, 24 August, 1649. Letter from Roomer to Gisberto van Colen. 90 In order to encourage support for the war in the Netherlands, the Archduke of Flanders – a representative of the Spanish Crown – would grant wealthy families noble status and involve them in the city’s government. During the second half of the seventeenth century, numerous elite families were 31

noble rank took place in Antwerp, where Roomer’s siblings resided (though his brother Lodewijk had passed away the year before) and it is unclear whether or not it was ever formally recognized in Naples. The existing documents never refer to Roomer as a man of the nobility, though this is not necessarily an indication of whether or not he was seen as noble.91 Nonetheless, the elite of

Naples would have been aware of the status of Roomer’s family in Antwerp, not to mention the fact that the societal influence his grandiose wealth afforded him essentially made him a de facto member of the Neapolitan aristocracy.92

Roomer’s Neapolitan Residences

In concurrence with his monetary wealth and with the intention of keeping up appearances,

Roomer was sure to live like no ordinary man. In addition to his immense art collection – the subject of Chapters Four through Six - Roomer’s status within Neapolitan society is demonstrated by his living arrangements. In 1622, he was leasing a house with VanRay in the

Portanova district of Naples, paying 350 ducats per year to Francesco Mormile, Duca di

Campochiaro.93 Being a major commercial area and close to the port of Naples, the location was ideal for the young merchant trying to establish himself within the foreign city. Months prior to

VanRay’s death, Roomer and his partner moved to a palace near the monastery of Monteoliveto.

Though the rent was less expensive (only 275 ducats and 50 grana for the year), the impetus for

admitted into the aristocracy in Antwerp. Between 1598 and 1669, 43 merchant families were given noble titles; between 1670 and 1699 another 34 families received noble rank. See: Timmermans, 2012, 193, 208; Timmermans, 2008, 56-7 91 Christopher Black notes that those families who earned their wealth through commercial enterprise and banking were often considered noble, but did not have a title. See: Christopher Black, Early Modern Italy: A Social History, (London: Routledge, 2001), 130. 92 Even before the Roomer family was awarded nobility, Capaccio referred to the merchant’s family as of “grand’essere, e d’infinito valore.” See: Capaccio, 577. Also, the high-esteem bestowed on the Roomer family was certainly known outside of Antwerp and in fact lived on even after each of the family members had passed. A document dated 1680 found in the Archivio de Protocolos de Sevilla notes the Roomer family as one of the houses “nobles y principales” in Antwerp. This document is published in Duncan Kinkead, “The Picture Collection of Don Nicolas Omazur,” Burlington Magazine 128, (Feb. 1986): 132. 93 Nappi, 2000, 54. 32

the move may have been an increased opportunity to purchase the property. By this point,

Roomer was accumulating quite a fortune and would have needed a palace to connote his rising status, not to mention that real estate was considered a solid investment. The merchant bought the palace at Monteoliveto by at least 1631, as at this time, Roomer paid to have the main entrance decorated with ironwork and the facade embellished with marble.94 It was during his residence at the Palazzo Monteoliveto that Roomer emerged as a representative of the cultural elite. It was at this palace that Capaccio describes Roomer’s collection, dispersed among twelve rooms.95

Roomer kept his palace at Monteoliveto throughout his life, eventually bequeathing it to the Corporation of Carpenters of San Giorgio Maggiore.96 There are numerous documents published by Nappi that document the merchant’s frequent renovations of the palace.97 However,

Palazzo Monteoliveto did not remain Roomer’s primary residence. In a complicated real estate deal with Ferrante Francesco d’Avalos, Marchese del Vasto and Diomede Carafa, Duca di

Maddaloni, Roomer came into the possession of the Palazzo della Stella in the Borgo dei Vergini.

The year Roomer moved into the Palazzo della Stella is uncertain, though it was likely sometime around 1656. The Palazzo della Stella originally belonged to the Carafa family, who had purchased the palace in the sixteenth century.98 In 1647, the palace – a residence of an entitled

94 A.S.B.N., Banco di S. Giacomo, g.m. 147. “Partita di 100 ducati del 7 agosto 1631. A Cola Iacovo Frate D. 100. E per lui a Gaspar de Roomer e Iacovo Vanray. E per loro a Sabatino Pacifico e Gio Batta Benincasa insolidum in conto della porta grande della loro casa dove habitano che se hanno da fare di ferro instagnato, in chiodi torniati e rosette intagliate, giusto come le mostre et disgeno hanno in loro potere il tutto per ducati 410 et questo in termine di tre mesi cominciando da oggi così d’accordo.”; “Partita di 50 ducati dell’8 agosto 1631. A Cola Iacovo Frate D. 50. E per lui a Gaspare de Roomer. E per lui a Domenico Agliani per resto e saldo di tutti li lavori fatti in sua casa sita a Monteoliveto tanto marmori quanto di piperni.” Documents published in Nappi, 2000, 81. 95 Capaccio, 577. 96 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 407v. See also: Ceci, 1920, 162; and Nappi, 2000, 62. 97 In 1640, Roomer had fountains built for his palace and in 1672, he had work done on the windows and balconies, in addition to some other interior renovations. See documents published in Nappi, 2000, 81. 98 For additional information on the Carafa family’s occupance of the Palazzo della Stella see: Francesco Ceva Grimaldi, Memorie storiche della città di Napoli dal Tempo della sua fondazione sino al presente, (Naples: Stamperia e Calcografia, 1857), 370. Ludovico de la Ville sur-Yllon, “Il Palazzo dei duchi di 33

aristocrat – was attacked by Masaniello’s rebels.99 Though Diomede Carafa had escaped

(disguised as a friar!), the palace was completely looted and ransacked by the rebels, leaving it in disrepair. According to Ludovico de la Ville Sur-Yllon, after the rebellion dissipated, Carafa did not want to return to his Palazzo della Stella, now only a shade of its former glory, and thus struck a deal with the Marchese del Vasto.100 The validity of this claim is questionable, as the documentation for the transaction is dated to 1656, well after the Revolt of Masaniello.101 Carafa exchanged his Palazzo della Stella, along with his villa at Posillipo called l’Auletta, for

D’Avalos’ palazzo near Spirito Santo.102 Carafa embarked on a major decoration programme for his new palace, whose name today, Palazzo Maddaloni, still connects it to the Carafa family.103

Where Roomer fits into this equation has been somewhat complicated in the literature.104

Many sources report that Roomer exchanged his villa at Barra for the Marchese del Vasto’s palace at Spirito Santo and then later traded that palace with Carafa’s Palazzo della Stella.105

Maddaloni alla Stella,” Napoli Nobilissima 13, (1904), 145; Cesare de Seta, Storie della città di Napoli dalle origini al Settecento, (Rome-Bari: Editori Laterza, 1973), 227. 99 The Carafa family was particularly hated by Masaniello and his followers, as Diomede Carafa’s plan to kill Masaneillo was discovered by the populace. In addition to the attack on Diomede’s Palazzo della Stella, his brother, Giuseppe, was beheaded by the rebels. See: De la Ville sur-Yllon, 145-6; and Ludovico Bianchini, Storia delle finanze del Regno delle due Sicilie, (1971 [1895]), 228. 100 This palace was built by the Marchese del Vasto around 1583 on land that had belonged to the Pignatelli di Monteleone family. See: De la Ville sur-Yllon, 146. 101 There is a chance that Carafa rented the Palazzo Maddaloni from D’Avalos before purchasing it in 1656. 102 See document published in Nappi, 2000, 82. See also the document cited by Gaetana Cantone from the archive of SS. Trinità dei Pellegrini, which states “Il palazzo [at Spirito Santo] fabbricato sopra d’esso pervenne a d. Francesco d’Avalos, doppo al Marchese di S. Giuliano, e poi al Marchese di Torella ed a’11 di Febraro 1656 pervenne all’Ill.e Duca di Maddaloni...” Gaetana Cantone, Il Palazzo Maddaloni allo Spirito Santo, (Naples: Regina, 1979), 16. 103 Carafa employed Cosimo Fanzago to redesign the entrance of the palace, as well as its loggia and staircase. For more on Palazzo Maddaloni see: Anthony Blunt, Neapolitan Baroque and Rococo Architecture, (London: A. Zwemmer, 1975), 83-5; Cantone, 16-63; and Alfred von Reumont, The Carafas of Maddaloni: Naples under Spanish Dominion, (London: H.G. Bohn, 1854), 401. 104 That Roomer was even doing real estate business with members of the Carafa and D’Avalos families is a testament to his status, as these two aristocratic houses were among Naples’ oldest and most prestigious. 105 This relay of events is recorded by numerous sources – all secondary – including: Ceva Grimaldi, 355, 370; Cantone, 55; Antonio Columbo, “La strada Toledo,” Napoli Nobilissima IV, (1895), 106; Gérard Labrot, Palazzi Napoletani: storie di nobili e cortigiani, 1520-1750, (Naples: Electa, 1993), 198; and L. Catalani and F.S. di Cangiano, Chiese, palazzi e castelli di Napoli dal Centro Antico al Centro Storico, (Naples: Luca Torre, 1994), 73. 34

However, based on the documents published by Nappi, Roomer never acquired the palace at

Spirito Santo from the Marchese. Rather, after D’Avalos had sold his palace for Carafa’s Palazzo della Stella (and his villa l’Auletta), he turned around and exchanged these two properties (and cash) for Roomer’s villa at Barra.106

The Palazzo della Stella then became Roomer’s primary residence. The merchant restored the palace to its former glory. A number of documents dating from 1668 to 1672 record

Roomer’s payments to various artisans for their work on the palace. He had the windows, doors and logge decorated with piperni by Domenico Pacifico and employed the engineer Onofrio

Tango to make some structural reinforcements and changes to the building itself in 1668. In the first years of the 1670s, Roomer hired Francesco Faiella to decorate the main entrance and the courtyard, and also had the balconies redone.107 It was to this newly aggrandized palace that

Roomer moved his illustrious personal collection of art.108 Unfortunately, although the Palazzo

106A.S.B.N, Banco della Pietà, g.m. 458. “Partita di 3.800 ducati del 14 febbraio 1656. Al duca di Maddaloni D. 3.800. E per lui a don Ferrante Francesco D’Avalos d’Aquino marchese del Vasto e Pescara, disse a compimento di D. 33.800 per l’intiero prezzo delle botteghe site circum citra et camere site similmente sotto il palazzo del detto marchese nella strada del Spirito Santo li mesi passati a lui venduto con patto di ricomprare escluse le botteghe et camere et per lo prezzo anco de ius del detto patto di reicomprare ad esso duca cederlo et renunciarlo. E detto signor marchese declarando che l’altri D. 30.000 se ne ha ritenuti D. 14.000 per lo prezzo delli censi debiti sopra detto palazzo et l’altri D. 16.000 ha dato insolutum al detto signor marchese le due sue case site a S. Maria della Stella et la sua casa chiamata l’Auletta con massaria sita a Posillipo come più amplamente appare dall’istrumento a 11 del presente mese rogato per mano di notar Ezio Carlo Piscopo di Napoli del quale s’habbia relatione. E per lui a Giuseppe Neli per altritanti.” A.S.B.N, Banco dello Spirito Santo, g.m. 420. “Partita di 12.000 ducati del 15 febbraio 1656. A Carlo Mazella D. 12.000. Et per lui al marchese del Vasto. E per esso a Gaspare de Roomer fra la somma di D. 34.000 integro prezzo della casa palazziata, massaria, giardino e boschetto in tutto di moia 18 incirca, annui censi, stigli di massaria, sita e posta nella villa della Barra, pertinenze di questa città di Napoli, iuxta suoi confini per esso Gaspare venduta al detto marchese come il tutto più amipamente appare dall’istrumento del 12 febbrario 1656 rogato per notar Andrea Bruno di Napoli.” Both documents published in Nappi, 2000, 82. It is important to note that Nappi himself never asserts that Roomer exchanged Barra for the Palazzo della Stella, as this is never explicitly stated in the documents. Rather, he notes that the Palazzo della Stella was in Roomer’s hands by 1668, when Roomer made a payment to have some work done on the palace. 107 See documents in Nappi, 2000, 82. 108 When he visited the Palazzo della Stella in 1692, Carlo Celano noted it housed Roomer’s collection of 1500 paintings, valued at 80,000 scudi. See: Celano vol. 5, 447. 35

della Stella still stands today, the building reflects the changes made by the San Nicandro family in the eighteenth century. (Fig. 2).109

In addition to these properties, Roomer owned numerous others in and around Naples.

His villa l’Auletta in Posillipo was second to his more prestigious country house in Barra, which is thoroughly discussed in Chapter Five. The merchant also owned another palace on the hill of

St. Elmo, near the monastery of the Splendore, which he had acquired from the heredity of

Lanfranco Massa, the procurator of the Genoese nobleman Marcantonio Doria.110 Another bank document records that Roomer and Jan Vandeneynden sold “una casa grande palazziata” in

Marano di Napoli, just northwest of Naples proper, to the noblewoman Caterina Manriquez.111

While some of Roomer’s properties (such as the palaces at Monteoliveto and the Borgo dei

Vergini) were acquired to highlight the merchant’s rising status in Neapolitan society, he clearly also considered some properties a financial investment, making money from buying and renting his various land possessions.

* * * * *

The extent of Roomer’s influence and integration into Neapolitan society is exemplified by the pomp and circumstance that surrounded his funeral (though he certainly ensured this would be the case, as he specifically set aside funds for the occasion). Fuidoro records that every Carmelite

109 The San Nicandro family employed the architect Pompeo Schiantarelli to carry out their desired changes to the palace. For more information on these renovations see: Francesco Divenuto, Pompeo Schiantarelli: ricerca ed architettura nel secondo Settecento napoletano, (Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1984), 124-5. 110 A.S.N., Montessori Soppressi 4603, ff. 114r-116r. See also: Antonio Delfino, “Documenti inediti per alcuni pittori napoletani del ‘600 e l’inventario dei beni lasciata da Lanfranco Massa, con una breve biografia (tratti dall’Archivio Storico del Banco di Napoli e dall’Archivio di Stato di Napoli),” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano, (1985): 90. 111 A.S.B.N., Banco dello Spirito Santo, g.m. 386. “Partita di 1.500 ducati del 6 aprile 1652. Gasparo de Roomer e Gio Vandenejnden vendono a Caterina Manriquez principessa di Marano una casa grande palazziata in Marano.” Published in Nappi, 2000, 83. 36

and canonical father in Naples attended the merchant’s funeral, accompanied by around 500 torches.112 The church of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was elaborately decorated and the following year, Father Andrea Mastelloni published a detailed account of the ceremony.

Mastelloni writes that many “cognoscienti” were in attendance, as well as the Presidente del

Conseglio from the Incurabili, the Principe dello Sciglio representing the aristocracy, and many government officials. According to Mastelloni, Roomer was “Galante e discreto nelle conversazioni, fedele e puntuale nelle amicizie, costante e ragionevole negli impegni; circospetto nelle pratiche ed avveduto.”113 While not everyone held such a positive opinion of the merchant, his mercantile and financial expertise was admirable and permitted him to climb the social ladder.

Most significantly, it was such expertise, wealth and connections that afforded Roomer a place among Naples’ cultural elite, making him a key player in the city’s art scene. In turn, it was his activities as a dealer, collector and patron that further allowed the merchant to advance his status and emerge as one of Naples’ foremost gentlemen.

112 Fuidoro, vol. 3, 155. 113 Andrea Mastelloni, La Pria Chiesa dedicata a Maria Maddalena de Pazzi, (Naples: Fasulo, 1675), 194. 37

Fig. 2. Pompeo Schiantarelli, Palazzo della Stella, Naples, 1787

Chapter 3

Gaspare Roomer and the Art Market

Sixteenth-century Europe saw the emergence of an open market for art, a system of artistic exchange that would expand and diversify in the following century. The basis for this new market was rooted in Europe’s growing middle class, who, finding themselves with the financial means, sought to demonstrate their newfound wealth and increasing sophistication through patronage and art collecting activities. As a result, overall demand for artistic products expanded, thus prompting more individuals to choose painting as a career and encouraging already established artists to move into Europe’s dominant economic centres.

That more and more artists began to appear on the scene led to an increasingly competitive art market, the effects of which were twofold. First, greater competition inevitably lowered the cost of paintings. As artworks became more affordable, more people were in a position to purchase them, thereby creating further demand. Second, such a competitive environment encouraged artistic ingenuity. The development of the “modern” genres – including landscapes, seascapes, prospettive, still lifes, battle pictures and genre scenes – during this period was in part due to the desire of artists to create artworks with broad appeal that had the potential to attract a greater range of prospective buyers. This cycle of supply and demand, and the artistic creativity that accompanied it, not only allowed for the formulation of an open art market, but indeed enabled it to flourish.114

The Netherlands and Italy were at the centre of these new market and artistic developments and mutually benefitted from the many processes of artistic exchange that took place between the two regions. Dealers and collectors like Roomer were a vital component of

114 Please see the following paragraphs for references. 39

that exchange, introducing Northern artistic achievements into the Southern Italian cultural scene, while at the same time helping to expand the market for Neapolitan works of art to an international level. This chapter examines the development of the open art market in Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, and Roomer’s place within this system. I will primarily focus on Antwerp, Venice, Rome and Naples – the four cities with which Roomer had the most contact as a dealer – with reference also to Amsterdam’s art market. I will then explore Roomer’s dealing activities specifically– his vast network of connections, his dissemination of Neapolitan painting through frequent exports, and the effects of the Northern paintings he imported from

Rome and Antwerp on the art scene in Naples.

Demanding Luxury Goods in Early Modern Europe

Increased Wealth and Conspicuous Consumption

The conditions were ripe in early modern Europe for the expansion and greater dissemination of wealth. Colonial exploration and settlement in the New World by Spain and Portugal necessitated trade routes between Europe and the Americas, which allowed South American products, most importantly silver bullion, to infiltrate the European market. In addition, trade routes to the East were being continuously improved, thereby increasing the flow of Asian goods into the West. This new, more global world required merchants, agents and intermediaries to facilitate trade between countries in order to disseminate new products. Participation in mercantile and financial activity often proved to be lucrative; consequently, these wealthy professionals had more money to spend on necessities and luxury items, and therefore the profits of local merchants, tailors, bakers, etc. were also increased. Thus, a new class of citizens began to emerge whose wealth and power was not based on noble ties and land ownership. Many prospective entrepreneurs migrated to geographically advantageous cities – i.e., those cities that were situated on an important body of water – and the cities' populations exploded. There were

more people involved in the market economy than ever before, which entailed greater wealth.115

Though some cities saw more profits than others and often one region’s financial collapse was another one’s gain, the European economy was generally expanding and it was under these kinds of circumstances that the arts thrived.116

This emergent bourgeoisie sought ways to showcase their newfound prosperity and looked to the behaviour and practices of the aristocracy as an example. Since the fifteenth century the concepts of splendore and magnificenza had been held in high esteem, being linked to notions of nobility and prosperity. The patronage of art was a particularly conspicuous method of achieving these attributes.117 Much of the European aristocracy constructed impressive city palaces and country villas, very public manifestations of their magnificenza. The interior decoration of a nobleman’s residences was equally important, and thus beautiful and expensive objects were acquired to populate the most public rooms. Along with tapestries and precious decorative objects, paintings were often collected as a means of displaying an aristocrat’s sophistication, erudition, affluence and status.118 In fact, a nobleman’s status could be threatened if he did not appear to have a lifestyle of more nobelium, which was defined by one’s palace, furnishings, and luxury objects.119 In the words of Richard Goldthwaite, “consumption was a creative force to construct a cultural identity.”120

115 Goldthwaite, 2010, 279. 116 Michael North, ed., Economic History and the Arts (Cologne: Böhlau, 1996), 1. 117 Cecchini, 2000, 12. 118 For more on the notion of conspicuous consumption see: Peter Burke, “Conspicuous Consumption in Seventeenth-Century Italy,” Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialinej 30, (1982): 43-56; Peter Burke, “ ‘Res et verba’: Conspicuous Consumption in the Early Modern World,” in Consumption and the World of Goods, eds. John Brewer and Roy Porter, (London and New York: Routledge, 1993): 148-161; Douglas Biow, In Your Face: Professional Improprieties and the Art of Being Conspicuous in Sixteenth-Century Italy, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010).; and Renata Ago, “Five Industrious Cities,” in Painting for Profit, eds. Richard Spear and Philip Sohm, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 255- 274. 119 Ago, 270. 120 Goldthwaite, 1993, 243.

The bourgeoisie mimicked these practices of conspicuous consumption. In a society where splendore and magnificenza were highly valued, collecting paintings became the quintessential method for the nouveau riche to obviously display their wealth. Such ostentation was directly connected to one’s social status. It helped raise the profile of the elite bourgeoisie and in fact was often a prerequisite for obtaining a position in high society.121 Acquiring luxury goods in order to carefully construct one’s outward identity became, for the most part, the behavioural norm for Early Modern Europe’s noble and bourgeois elites. The growing number of people who were in a financial position to pursue status-building activities, along with the fact that many luxury objects that had previously been costly were increasingly becoming more affordable (paintings being the most notable example), was, as Goldthwaite states, “why so much was spent on objects, why so many new objects came into existence, [and] why the arts flourished now in the domestic world as they had earlier in the ecclesiastical world.”122

Supplying the Demand with the “Modern” Genres

The demand for paintings was so great that artists flooded major commercial centres. This competitive environment required painters to develop new products and strategies of execution.

In 1987, economic historian John Michael Montias coined the concept of “product innovation” to explain the sudden popularity of landscapes, still lifes and related subjects in the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.123 It was necessary that artists working on spec – that is, for the open market – create paintings with wide appeal. Landscapes, still lifes, battle scenes, seascapes and genre subjects were conducive to this market because not only were they aesthetically pleasing, they could also be produced without the inclusion of specific details demanded by specific patrons (for example, patron saints or particular historical events). Significantly, these subjects

121 Burke, 1982, 45, 51. 122 Goldthwaite, 1993, 243. Goldthwaite makes this statement with regards to Italian Renaissance society, but it is as equally relevant for the Netherlands and Italy during the 1600s. 123 Montias, 1987, 456. 42

were often religiously neutral, an important factor considering the growing presence of

Protestantism in Northern Europe.124

In addition to appealing to a broad audience, landscapes, still lifes and related genres could be executed relatively quickly, as opposed to complex narrative scenes that required knowledge of historical events and literary sources.125 Because, in general, these “modern” subjects were less time-consuming to produce, artists could maximize their profit simply because they could generate numerous pictures in a fairly short period. The creation of such works was accelerated by the fact that these genres were conducive to serial production, consisting of repetitive forms and a standard number of colours. Landscapes, still lifes and related subjects were therefore ideal for workshop production, and workshops specializing in specific genres abounded. These new methods of artistic execution fall under the rubric of “process innovation”, a term introduced by Montias in tandem with “product innovation.”126 Coupled with the increased desire for paintings, product and process innovation help to explain the sudden rise of landscape, still life, battle scenes and genre subjects. These theories make clear how such subjects were developed and adapted to suit the new conditions of an open market.

Although the “modern” genres became popular among all collectors, especially in the second half of the seventeenth century, it was initially the bourgeoisie who collected these new subjects. Trying to form collections “from scratch”127, the nouveau riche wished to quickly amass paintings in order to materialize their wealth; landscapes, still lifes and the related genres

124 Producing works of art that were religiously neutral was important for those artists working on the open market. In an era when the foundations of the Catholic Church were being threatened by Reformers, religious images were contentious. Antwerp in particular would oscillate between Catholic and Protestant rule in the last half of the sixteenth century. See: Vermeylen, 2006, 112. 125 Of course, there were landscape artists who worked in the upper echelons of the market, like Claude Lorrain. Claude, who normally worked for specific patrons, rather than for the open market, did not need to execute paintings at the pace of an artist working on spec. On the other hand is Luca Giordano, who, although often commissioned to paint expansive history paintings and altarpieces, worked notoriously quickly. 126 Montias, 1987, 456. 127 Unlike the nobility, the middle class did not often have a family tradition of collecting works of art, as they had only recently accumulated enough wealth to spend substantially on luxury items. 43

were the most readily available subjects on the market. In addition, the current fashion of interior decoration dictated that sophisticated households should embellish their walls from floor to ceiling with paintings. The aesthetic qualities of the “modern” genres and the generality of their subject matter fulfilled this purpose, and their charm appealed to collectors. When artworks functioned solely as decorative objects, the quality of the paintings and their authorship were often thought irrelevant, or at least less important than the accumulation of the artworks themselves. Such decorative paintings could be executed at low cost, thereby allowing collectors to acquire them in large numbers.128 And these paintings were not only for the lower middle classes; even the wealthy purchased inexpensive decorative works of art.129

The Mechanisms of the Early Modern Art Market

The Beginnings of an Open Market for Art: Antwerp

Antwerp’s Art Market in the Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries

Though an open art market would eventually flourish throughout Europe, it found its beginnings in sixteenth-century Antwerp. During this period, Antwerp became the centre of an international market of consumer goods due to its strategic location on the river Scheldt and its access to overland trade routes.130 This enhanced opportunity and prosperity in the Flemish city, and merchants from all over Europe immigrated to Antwerp to take advantage of its newfound wealth.131 The

128 Cavazzini, 2008, 39. 129 Goldthwaite, 1993, 247. Covering one’s walls from floor to ceiling with only first-rate works of art was a financial impossibility for even some of the wealthiest collectors. Furthermore, those with high-end collections often used lower quality paintings to make their “masterpieces” appear that much grander. 130 The English used Antwerp as a gateway to the East to export cloth; the Portuguese used its port to provide spices to the rest of Europe; and southern Germans came to the city with silver in search of both spices and textiles. See: Vermeylen, 2003, 16; and Honig, 4. 131 There were significant groups of Germans, Spaniards and Italians living in Antwerp who had had come to take advantage of the city’s promising economic conditions. See: Larry Silver, Peasant Scenes and Landscapes: The Rise of Pictorial Genres in the Antwerp Art Market, (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 16. Herman van der Wee and Jan Materné also note that Antwerp’s population growth in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was mainly due to immigration. See: Van der Wee and Materné, 20. 44

success of trade, industry and foreign exchange elevated the general wealth of Antwerp’s citizens, creating a large middle class who earned capital through the avenues of the market. In addition to the local bourgeoisie, there were also numerous affluent foreigners who visited the city for business purposes. There were therefore many newly wealthy individuals in Antwerp looking to spend their expendable income on luxury goods befitting their new status. Paintings were one kind of expensive item that were sought by these consumers.132 And while commissioning artwork directly from the artist was still common, more and more prospective art buyers were looking for ready-made paintings, available on the open market.133

This augmented demand for art encouraged outside artists to flock to Antwerp. At the height of its golden age, the city was home to roughly 300 painters.134 Although developed for painting in the northern Netherlands, Montias’ theories of product and process innovation can be applied here as well. Historically, Flemish painters had often included vast landscapes and still life elements within their larger religious paintings, so the progression toward landscapes and still lifes as autonomous subjects was a natural one, conducive to the changing demands of the art market. Artists, with speed and profitability as their goals, began to serially produce particular subjects to meet the domestic and wider European demand for paintings.135 The “modern” genres were conducive to serial production, consisting of repetitive forms and a standard number of colours. To maintain a competitive edge, some artists would assess the art market for those genres that were under-represented and then in turn, would establish a workshop that specialized

132 Indeed, paintings as a luxury item were very popular, as their presence is recorded in 90% of all extant inventories in Antwerp from the late sixteenth century. See: Bruno Blondé, “Art and Economy in Seventeenth-and-Eighteenth Century Antwerp: a View from the Demand Side,” in Economia e arte, secc. XIII-XVIII, ed. Simonetta Cavaciocchi, (Florence: Le Monnier, 2002), 381. 133 Vermeylen, 2003, 9. 134 Neil de Marchi, “Size and Taste: Taking the Measure of the History of the Art Markets,” in Economia e Arte, Secc. XIII – XVIII, ed. Simonetta Cavaciocchi, (Florence: Le Monnier, 2002), 82. 135 Honig, 17. Also, though there is no archival evidence suggesting that most of the works produced by such workshops were intended for export, Vermeylen argues that the sheer number of paintings being executed at this time is a compelling enough reason to believe that this was the case. See: Vermeylen, 2003, 31. 45

in a subject for which there was a low supply.136 Within this environment of specialized workshops devoted to serial production, the consumer had an array of affordable options from which to choose.

These innovative artistic products and processes that developed in Antwerp as a result of increased demand could not properly function within the limiting constructs of traditional art exchange. Until the end of the fifteenth century, a patron directly commissioning artworks from an artist was the norm. There were some instances of artists selling ready-made paintings, but these were largely confined to annual fairs.137 In 1480, a market dedicated solely to the sale of art was founded in the Church of Our Lady; it was the first of its kind in Europe.138 However, like

Antwerp’s other panden, Our Lady’s pand was only open for six weeks a year during the city’s jaarmarkten.139

As Antwerp’s commercial and international trade markets grew, the city’s economic climate became more conducive to the establishment of an open art market, which was increasingly becoming necessary due to the heightened demand for paintings. In 1540, Antwerp became the first European city to establish a large central building dedicated to exchange that was open all year round. Called the Bourse, this venue was a market of international trade that attracted the business of a variety of foreign merchants. While many luxury goods were sold at the Bourse, the upper story of the building was dedicated exclusively to selling paintings. This schilderspand allowed artists to sell their products continuously on the open market, rather than wait for the jaarmarkten. Because the Bourse attracted numerous domestic and international merchants, there was a constant flow of consumers to whom artists could sell their works.

136 Patrick O’Brien, “Reflections and Mediations on Antwerp, Amsterdam and London in their Golden Ages,” in Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 26; Thijs, 106. 137 Antwerp had numerous trade fairs a year, which would draw merchants from all over Europe. The sale of artworks, however, was only one small facet of these fairly large events. See: Silver, 16. 138 Van der Stichelen and Vermeylen, 193. 139 Vermeylen, 2003, 21. 46

Antwerp’s advanced approach to commercial exchange, exemplified by the Bourse, therefore greatly contributed to the expansion of the city’s open art market.140

This transition from a “closed” to an open art market was not always smooth in many

European cities. Fortunately, while the rules of the artists’ Guild of St. Luke were often stringent, aiming to protect its members and the status quo, the Guild in Antwerp was much more progressive. Its main concern was still the protection of its constituents, but recognizing the importance of the art market for the city’s economy, the Guild tended to ignore outdated rules so long as its members continued to profit.141 Thus, the Guild did not attempt to monopolize the market. Its approach to the developing market conditions was much more practical than the draconian regulations imposed by the art guilds in many other European cities, which impeded the growth of the early open art market.

Antwerp’s Guild of St. Luke also had a surprisingly open attitude toward art dealers, who were becoming more prominent in the city due to the rapid growth and international character of the art market. The first art dealer in the city was documented in 1518.142 However, art dealing as a profession truly emerged in the 1570s.143 Various levels of dealing developed, cornering different aspects of the art market. There were high-end dealers, who liaised between artists and wealthy patrons to secure artistic commissions or notable pieces of ready-made artworks. At the other end of the scale, there were dealers who served the middle and lower classes with cheaper paintings and prints. At first, many of the dealers were artists themselves and had already established important contacts.144 Later, art dealing became a profession in and of itself. The

Guild of St. Luke welcomed those dealers who were not artists into their ranks; in fact, one

140 Van der Stichelen and Vermeylen, 193. 141 Vermeylen, 2003, 138; and Van der Stichelen and Vermeylen, 190. 142 Vermeylen, 2006, 110. 143 There is some documentation, however, that reveals there were a few dealers operating out of the schilderspand. One notable example is the Alleyns family, who was dealing in art at the Bourse from the 1560s. Also, from the second half of the sixteenth century, art dealers are noted in the records of Antwerp’s Guild of St. Luke. See: Vermeylen, 2003, 67-8, 71, 134. 144 Ibid., 62, 66. 47

needed to become a member of the Guild to legally deal art in Antwerp.145 The social status of dealers rose quickly and in 1576, a dealer was appointed dean of Antwerp’s Guild of St. Luke.146

There were, of course, some dealers who did not join the Antwerp guild, but there is no evidence that they were officially held accountable for their actions. It seems that as long as dealers were selling the work of local artists, the Guild was willing to ignore its own rules.147

It is not a coincidence that the emergence of art dealers in Antwerp coincided with a period of greater political, religious and economic uncertainty. In the latter half of the sixteenth century, Flanders became a veritable battleground between Catholic Spain and the Protestant

Dutch rebels. In 1557 and 1560, Spain declared bankruptcy, which caused a major financial crisis in the Southern Netherlands. As a tributary of Spain, the region had provided short-term credit to the Spanish to fund their ongoing war with the Dutch; when Spain defaulted on their loans, Flanders, by extension, entered into recession.148 In 1566, Antwerp was the victim of an iconoclastic binge by Calvinist reformers, which was followed by general unrest as Spain fought to maintain their control over the city. In the mid-1570s, Spain again went bankrupt, causing more financial hardship for the Southern Netherlands. Frustrated with the government’s inability to pay them, Spanish troops sacked Antwerp, destroying much of the city.149 And in 1577, without the funds to properly defend itself, Spain lost Antwerp to the Dutch rebels.150 Within this tumultuous environment, which saw a reduction in foreign visitors, Antwerp’s wealthiest citizens lost money and many of its Catholics (which included many painters and merchants) left for safer territories. As a result, the domestic art trade suffered.151

145 Though the Guild eventually warmed up to admitting dealers, they were at first, hesitant to do so. See: Vermeylen, 2003, 134-5; Van der Stichelen and Vermeylen, 194. 146 Vermeylen, 2003, 135. 147 Van der Stichelen and Vermeylen, 194. 148 Honig, 6; Silver, 17. 149 Silver, 17. 150 Honig, 100. 151 Vermeylen, 2003, 43. 48

In order for Antwerp’s art market to maintain some degree of its former vibrancy and lucrative success, its art trade needed to expand beyond the domestic sphere. International art dealing were the most logical answer to these trying circumstances. Though paintings continued to be bought and sold at the city’s panden, it was becoming increasingly necessary for art dealers to seek out buyers in other countries. Via the river Scheldt and the German hinterland, Flemish dealers began to ship the works of Antwerp’s artists throughout Europe. They were gradually becoming the “go-to” people, rather than artists, for international collectors seeking Flemish artwork.152

However, the situation in Antwerp was to get worse when the Spanish re-captured the city in 1585. This prompted Dutch rebels to block the river Scheldt, an action which significantly diminished the economic productivity of the city; it essentially eradicated the city’s maritime trade, including its art exports.153 Many more people, this time predominantly Protestants, left

Antwerp for places where market conditions were more promising.154 Amsterdam was the largest recipient of Southern Netherlandish refugees. A strong economy was emerging in the Dutch city and it had a reputation for being relatively tolerant of various faiths.155 Arriving in Amsterdam, the artists from Antwerp brought with them the product and process innovations developed in their homeland.156

152 Vermeylen, 2003, 3, 107, 123; Vermeylen, 2006, 112. 153 Honig, 104. 154 Honig notes that the population of Antwerp dropped about 50% during the years following the blockade of the Scheldt. See: Honig, 104. Van der Wee and Materné estimate that Antwerp’s population declined from 100,000 to 42,000 between 1582 and 1589. See: Van der Wee and Materné, 21. 155 Marten Jan Bok, “The Rise of Amsterdam as a Cultural Centre: the Market for Paintings, 1580-1680,”in Urban achievement in early modern Europe: Golden Ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, ed. Patrick O’Brian, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 187. 156 Michael North notes that at least 250 artists from the Southern Netherlands fled to the north at this time. See: Michael North, “Art and Commerce in the Dutch Republic,” in A Miracle Mirrored: The Dutch Republic in European Perspective, eds. K. Davids and J. Lucassen, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 285. See also: Ed Romein and Gerbrand Korevaar, “Dutch Guilds and the Threat of Public Sales,” in Mapping Markets for Paintings, 1450-1750, eds. Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2006), 169-71. 49

Significantly, in addition to the influx of painters from the Southern Netherlands, many of Antwerp’s nouveau riche migrated to Amsterdam as well. These merchants, businessmen and other professionals had developed a taste for paintings while living in the sixteenth-century

Flemish city.157 Therefore, with the artists came the consumer demand. Moreover, the Dutch saw the love of luxury their Southern counterparts displayed, and were thus also inclined to also demonstrate their wealth through conspicuous consumption.158 In short, the transfer of artists’ skills, strong consumer demand, and the continued religious and political upheaval in the

Southern Netherlands prompted a shift in the nexus of the art market from Antwerp to

Amsterdam.

The Antwerp Art Market in the Seventeenth Century

Despite Amsterdam’s emergence as the uncontested centre of the international art market at the beginning of the seventeenth century, not all was lost for Antwerp. The rising income of painters and the continuous enrolment of artists and dealers in the Antwerp Guild of St. Luke during the first half of the seventeenth century are signs that the art market was still alive and well in the city.159 Its return to Spanish power after 1585 meant the city underwent somewhat of a “re-

Catholicization,” which created greater demand for paintings at the domestic level. The archduke and archduchess Albert and Isabella arrived in Brussels and were in a position to commission artworks. They also set in motion an aggressive campaign, in the name of the Counter-

Reformation, to restore and replace altarpieces and other religious works of art that had been lost

157 Maarten Prak, “Guilds and the Development of the Art Market during the Dutch Golden Age,” Simiolus, 30, no. 3/4, (2003), 240. 158 Bok, 188. 159 In 1584, tax records indicate that most artists were in such financially dire straits that they were not required to pay their taxes. By contrast, in 1659, most artists had achieved a level of financial comfort and had entered the ranks of the bourgeoisie. See: Thijs, 112. Also, employment in the arts rose between 1601 and 1650, as is indicated by the records in the Guild of St. Luke. Apparently, there were 746 painters registered in this time period. See: Van der Wee and Materné, 29. 50

during the Protestant rule of the Southern Netherlands.160 At the same time, the preferences of private individuals were becoming increasingly secularized, and there remained a market for landscape and still life painting. In addition, though the closing of the Scheldt adversely affected

Antwerp’s position in the global economy, they were still able to maintain some export activity; trade relations with Spain continued to be successful and the city’s overland routes to Italy were still in place.161 In particular, the trade of some luxury goods, those which were small enough to be transported overland, remained more or less intact.162

Most importantly, in 1609 the Spanish and Dutch agreed to a truce until 1621, which led to twelve years of relative peace. Though the Scheldt was still blocked for the duration of the

Twelve Years’ Truce, the absence of war and the reopening of some land borders allowed business to flourish once again. Therefore, despite experiencing a significant blow to their economy with the Spanish takeover of the city in 1585, the Twelve Years’ Truce marked the beginning of what has been described as an “Indian Summer” for Antwerp’s art market in particular and their overall economy in general.163

A welcome accompaniment to the Twelve Years’ Truce was Peter Paul Rubens’ return from Italy in 1608. His presence in the city and his expansive workshop contributed to a revival of the arts in Antwerp.164 Corresponding with a renewed interest in Counter-Reformation art, the dynamic and persuasive technique of Rubens and his followers found an enthusiastic audience among Antwerp’s finest collectors and religious institutions. Moreover, Rubens and his workshop were effective in responding to this increased demand. Time-saving measures such as specialization and collaboration, which had originated in the sixteenth century, ensured quality

160 Under Spanish rule, Antwerp was the most significant centre of the Counter-Reformation in the Netherlands. See: Thijs, 112. 161 Ibid., 111. 162 Papers given at the Renaissance Society of America (RSA) and Historians of Netherlandish Art (HNA) conferences in 2014 presented research supporting this claim. See: papers given by Göttler, Rijks, and Baadj, op. cit. note 39. 163 Vermeylen, 2003, 113-4. 164 Vermeylen, 2006, 112. 51

paintings were produced efficiently.165 For example, Rubens had a “pay scale” by which he charged the patron based on how much of his own effort he expended in making the painting.

Works completed by the artists in his workshop were the cheapest, followed by those that were primarily the product of his students and assistants, but had been touched up by the master.

Finally, paintings that were 100% by Rubens’ hand were the most expensive. This system allowed the artist to service consumers based on their economic means, thereby expanding his client base. Rubens also collaborated with other prominent Flemish artists, such as Jan Brueghel the Elder, who often complemented the former’s figures with landscape and still life elements.

This relationship not only created a unique product combining the strengths of each artist, which in turn was hotly sought after by patrons and collectors, but it was also an efficient method of producing pictures.166

The war between Spain and the United Provinces would recommence in 1621, but military action was sporadic, and the market for paintings in Antwerp remained more or less stable until the latter half of the seventeenth century. This was partially due to the increased presence and role of the art dealer in Flemish society. The profession that had begun at the onset of Antwerp’s troubles was now fundamental to the survival of the art market. The blockade of the Scheldt and the general unstable conditions in the city further reduced the number of foreigners who visited Antwerp on business. These visitors had largely been responsible for introducing other European works of art into the Antwerp market, as well as buying Flemish paintings to bring back to their home cities. However, by the end of the Twelve Years’ Truce, the stalls of the schilderspanden, which had once been the heart of Antwerp’s art market, were no longer occupied.167

165 Silver, 18. 166 For more on the collaborative efforts of Rubens and Brueghel see: Anne T. Woollett and Ariane van Suchtelen, Rubens and Brueghel: A Working Friendship, (Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2006). 167 Vermeylen, 2006, 114; Van der Stichelen and Vermeylen, 194. 52

Therefore, Flemish dealers exporting to international consumers became all the more important, as they helped facilitate the interaction between artists and foreign consumers.168 Wars and political affiliations did inhibit Flemish dealers from gaining access to some markets, but overall, art traders in Antwerp established numerous international contacts. Though the political situation with Amsterdam was contentious, its close geographical proximity to Antwerp and its status as the centre of the open art market encouraged dealers to conduct business with their

Dutch counterparts. And of course, being under Spanish rule, Antwerp’s art dealers were free to trade with any place connected to the Hapsburg Empire, and thus trade relations were instituted with Vienna, Genoa, Naples, Messina, Bilbao, Madrid, Lisbon, Seville and Cadiz (from which

European goods would be sent to the Americas). In particular, connections with Italy were advantageous, as Italian artworks were heavily in demand in seventeenth-century Antwerp.

Many Flemish dealers had family members and friends residing in Italy who could act as their agents, successfully shipping Italian paintings to the north. As will be examined, Gaspare

Roomer was one such dealer who played a key role in exporting Italian artworks to his hometown of Antwerp.

To serve the high demand for paintings at home and abroad, dealers in Antwerp - usually at the lower end of the market, but not exclusively – often employed artists to efficiently execute the types of paintings that were the market’s hottest commodities: landscapes, still lifes and copies of sixteenth-century Italian artworks.169 In effect, some dealers had “stables” of painters, working out of their store.170 Some less prominent dealers only employed one or two painters, offering them room, board and a modest salary. Such was the case of the Flemish dealer

Bartholomeus Floquet, who hired the flower specialist Elias van den Broeck in 1674 to paint

168 Montias, 1994, 69; Keblusek, 10. 169 Vermeylen, 2006, 114. 170 The term “stable” was used by John Michael Montias to describe this arrangement. See: Montias, 1989, 252. A parallel in the Northern Netherlands would be the art shop of the famous art dealers Hendrick and Gerrit Uylenburgh in Amsterdam. See: Friso Lammertse, Uylenburgh and Son: Art and Commerce from Rembrandt to De Lairesse, 1625 – 1675, (Zwolle: Waanders, 2006). 53

exclusively for him, receiving as payment meals, lodging and 120 guilders for the year.171

Furthermore, many artists realized that this type of “patronage” by art dealers was profitable and so they adjusted their workshop production to satisfy the dealers’ needs. For instance, the

Brueghel workshop executed numerous landscapes and still lifes for dealers in addition to their high-end patrons.172 Dealers’ employment of numerous painters in Antwerp helped to stimulate the city’s art market economy during the tumultuous years of the seventeenth century. Many artists, who would otherwise not have had the resources to sustain their own businesses, were provided with the materials and the workspace to (serially) produce paintings and did not have to seek out their own clients.173

It was also common practice for a dealer to compile numerous paintings from Italy and the Northern and Southern Netherlands and then invite collectors to view his stock. Consumers were thus provided with a variety of artworks and were able to carefully examine the pieces in order to make an informed decision about which to acquire. This method saved collectors considerable time. Rather than visit a number of artists’ studios, consumers could make only one stop – at the shop of a dealer – which in addition allowed them to compare multiple paintings by various artists.174 It was also the most efficient way to see international works of art, being that many collectors could not travel abroad to purchase Italian or Northern works directly.175

Several Flemish families in the seventeenth century found great success in the art trade, including the Van Immerseels and Forchondts. The Van Immerseel firm was integral in the cross-cultural trade among the Southern Netherlands, Spain and the Americas.176 In 1621, with

171 Montias, 1989, 246. 172 Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, “Exploring markets for Netherlandish Paintings in Spain and Nueva España,” in Arts for the Market, 1500-1700, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50, eds. Reindert Falkenburg et al., (Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 1999), 92. 173 Montias, 1989, 246. 174 Montias, 1988, 245. 175 Though Montais’ research concerns only the Northern Netherlands, conditions were likely similar in the Southern Netherlands, as is explored by many of Vermeylen’s publications. 176 Honig, 111. 54

the intention to take over his father’s role in the tapestry trade, Chrysostomus van Immerseel relocated from Antwerp to Seville with his wife, Marie de Fourmestraux. However, Van

Immerseel and De Fourmestraux soon established a lucrative art dealing business. Van

Immerseel would often return to Antwerp to evaluate artistic trends and developments, coming back to Seville with new products.177 When he could not visit Antwerp himself, he relied on his agents – usually his cousins Pieter and Antoon Goetkint, both prominent Flemish art dealers – in

Antwerp to send him paintings, which he could sell to collectors in Spain and South America.178

Similarly, the Forchondt firm also engaged in cross-continental art dealing. They were responsible for sending Flemish works to New Spain, as well as introducing many American items into the South Netherlandish market; these activities were in addition to the influence they exerted within the European art market. With their agents placed throughout Europe, the

Forchondts were able to import a variety of international artworks into the Antwerp art market.

For their higher-end clients, both the Van Immerseels and the Forchondts were able to acquire the works of renowned artists. At the same time, both operations employed their own artists, who were responsible for executing copies and generic works that catered to the lower end of the market.179

Perhaps Antwerp’s most successful art dealer was Matthijs Musson, whose business epitomizes how the high-end of the open art market functioned in seventeenth-century Antwerp.

Musson had originally been a painter, but then left that profession to take up dealing full-time.

His marriage to Maria Fourmenois, whose family was also involved in the art trade, ensured he

177 De Marchi and Van Miegroet, 1999, 85-7. 178 Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, “Art, Value, and Market Practices in the Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century,” Art Bulletin 76, (1994), 453. For more on Pieter Goetkint, see: Fernand Donnet, Het Jonstich Versaem der Violieren: Geschiedenis der Rederikkamer de Olijtak sedert 1480, (Antwerp: J.E. Buschmann, 1907), 109. 179However, unlike other dealers whose employees worked in a “stable” within the same building as the art dealing office, the Van Immerseels and Forchondts allowed their artists to work from home. See: Vermeylen, 2006, 114; Montias, 2004, 77; Honig, 262. Additionally, Van Immerseel and De Fourmenstraux recognized the art market in Seville was suffering, so they increased their imports of cheap generic paintings. See: De Marchi and Van Miegroet, 1999, 87. 55

was firmly entrenched in Antwerp’s art market. Through Fourmenois, Musson was related to

Cornelis de Wael, a Flemish painter who operated a successful dealing business in Genoa and

Rome.180 De Wael appears to have been Musson’s main connection in Italy and worked to inform him of Italian tastes. In response to De Wael’s suggestions, Musson would send De Wael the works of Flemish artists to sell on the art market in Italy.181

Musson operated at a level above that of the average art dealer, who sold mainly generic landscapes and still lifes. He stocked the works of many Dutch and Flemish masters, including

Rubens, Van Dyck, Adriaen van Brouwer, Adriaen van Ostade, Frans Synder and Jan Brueghel, among others.182 He was also reputed to have had a gallery dedicated solely to Italian painting.

Musson had never been to Italy, but his agents in the Mediterranean were quite successful at obtaining for him the works of Veronese, Tintoretto, Titian, Bassano, Giorgione, the Carracci and

Ribera.183 Understanding the demand for Italian (mainly Cinquecento) works and their limited supply, he commissioned artists to execute copies of the most popular paintings, which he could then sell to Antwerp’s wealthy middle class, or to various customers in Paris and Spain.184 The originals of such works were usually reserved for Musson’s more aristocratic clientele. Among his clients were the Queen Christina of Sweden and Frederick Hendrick, Prince of Orange.185

Antwerp’s “Indian Summer” could not last forever, however. During the second half of the seventeenth century, its market for paintings was once again in decline. There were numerous

180 Roomer and De Wael were well-acquainted. Their relationship, as well as more about De Wael’s dealing business in general, is discussed later in this chapter. 181Jan Denucé, Na Peter Pauwel Rubens: Documenten uit den Kunsthandel te Antwerpen in de XVII eeuw van Matthijs Musson, (Antwerp: Uitgave de Sikkel, 1949), 81-2. Musson was also involved in other European art markets, most notably that of Paris. 182 Ibid., 27. 183 Ibid., 77. 184 Musson also had artists copy works by Rubens, which he then sold to his Spanish clients. See: Leo van Puyvelde, “Guillaume van Herp, bon peintre et copiste de Rubens,” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 22, (1959): 46-8. 185 Denucé, 77; Erik Duverger, “Le commerce d’art entre la Flandre et l’Europe central au XXIIo siècle. Notes et remarques,” in Évolution générale et développments régionaux en histoire de l’art. Actes du XXIIo congrès internationale d’histoire de l’art, (Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó, 1972), 159, 169; Robert W. Berger, “Rubens’s ‘Queen Tomyris with the Head of Cyrus’”, MFA Bulletin 77, (1979): 4-35. 56

contributing factors to this recession. First, there was a drop in expendable income and in general, people were simply buying fewer paintings.186 When paintings were purchased, they were often not the works of contemporary artists, but rather older pieces that had found their way back to the open market. Auctions became the preferred method of selling paintings (as they were more conducive to the sale of second-hand works) and the need for dealers decreased.187

This difficult market prompted the Antwerp Guild of St. Luke to tighten and better enforce its rules. By 1649, the Guild required anyone wishing to sell works of art to register with them first.

By 1689, the Guild decreed that no foreign goods could be bought or auctioned in the city.188

Second, paintings were falling out of fashion. There were still some wealthy individuals buying luxury objects, but they no longer gravitated towards collecting paintings, choosing to instead spend their money on textiles and decorative arts. This was due to an increased interest in

French tastes and luxury objects, a sign of the shifting fortunes of some European cities. As

Bruno Blondé explains, “For the members of the Antwerp upper class, at least, purchasing power was not a fundamental obstacle preventing them from buying traditional Antwerp luxury products, but French fashion was.”189

Third, not only were fewer people in Antwerp buying pictures; the art market in

Amsterdam was suffering as well.190 The decline of the Northern Netherlandish city affected

Antwerp business because so many Flemish art dealers sold paintings in Amsterdam. As was the case in Antwerp, the paintings produced at the beginning of the seventeenth century were now being resold and there was a reduced need for contemporary artworks.191 Furthermore, the economic health of Amsterdam was faltering. Two costly wars with the British had caused

186 Thijs, 112; Vermeylen, 2006, 114. 187 Vermeylen, 2006, 114-7. 188 Van der Stichelen and Vermeylen, 197-9. 189 Blondé 386. 190 Ibid., 390. 191 North, 1995, 297; Bok, 206-7. 57

financial hardship for many of the city’s citizens.192 A decline in expendable income among the city’s wealthy inevitably adversely affected the high-end art market. Many painters left the city for better employment opportunities in London, which would become the hub of the art market in the eighteenth century. Those who remained in Amsterdam could no longer work on spec and instead needed to rely on traditional patronage.193 If the local artists of Amsterdam were having trouble making ends meet, then there certainly was not a market for Flemish paintings in the

Dutch capital.

Finally, there was no Flemish painter in the second half of the seventeenth century that became as accomplished and internationally renowned as Rubens or Van Dyck. After the deaths of these two artists (1640 and 1641, respectively), no new artists, aside from Jacob Jordeans who lived until 1678, arose with enough fortitude to reinvigorate Antwerp’s art scene.194 In general, fewer individuals were becoming artists; enrolment in the Guild of St. Luke dropped after

1650.195 The depressed economic climate, the change in taste and the popularity of second-hand paintings as opposed to contemporary ones did not create the necessary conditions for producing a “star” painter; at the same time, no exceptionally talented artist that could reignite an interest in paintings emerged.

The Art Market in Italy

The market situation was slightly different in Italy than it was in Northern Europe, mainly because it had multiple cities acting as hubs of exchange, as opposed to one or two dominating centres. Though the general commercial infrastructure was in place, Italy was much more

192 The economic strain of the Anglo-Dutch war of 1652-3 contributed to Rembrandt’s bankruptcy. Another war with England and the invasion of France in 1672-4 saw Amsterdam’s stock market crash and one of the city’s most influential dealers – Gerrit Uylenburgh – go bankrupt. See: Bok, 204-6; Montias, 2004, 87. 193 Bok, 209. 194 Vermeylen, 2006, 114. 195 Thijs, 112. The same thing was happening in Amsterdam as well. See: Bok, 19 58

resistant to the idea of an open art market than was its northern counterparts. Until the seventeenth century, almost all artistic activity in Italy occurred in the realm of high-end patronage.196 Part of the difficulty in developing an open art market in Early Modern Italy was that the demand for paintings was predominantly derived from religious patrons and institutions and the nobility.197 For them, works of art needed to convey piety, social class, erudition and morality, and thus the generic paintings found on the open art markets in the Netherlands did not meet their needs.198

However, at the end of the sixteenth and throughout the seventeenth century, a more open market for art would develop. It never replaced the traditional patronage system, nor did it expand at the rate of or as wide as the art market in the Netherlands. Nonetheless, the influx of

Netherlandish merchants, dealers and artists, in conjunction with some forward-thinking Italian patrons and artists, would eventually contribute to a well-established open art market in Italy.

Trading Art in Venice

Medieval guild rules inhibited the development of an open market for art in sixteenth and seventeenth-century Venice. Guild rules favoured the conventional system of patronage, where artworks were directly commissioned from artists by patrician families and religious institutions.

Dealing in art on the open market was discouraged and considered an inferior practice to

196 An exception is the emerging merchant class that was living in Venice and those with an interest in humanism, which stimulated a more mid-level art market. See: Cecchini, 2000, 13-4. 197 The exception to this pattern was the serial production of religious images and small devotional paintings that were aimed at the lower ranks of society. Unlike the objects serially produced in Flemish workshops, these devotional items were not intended as interior decoration, or as a means to convey wealth. Rather, they were an expression of religiosity and personal devotion. See: Cavazzini, 2008, 96. 198 Michael North and David Ormrod, eds. Art Markets in Europe, 1400-1800, (Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 1998), 4; Volker Reinhardt, “The Roman Art Market in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries,” in Art Markets in Europe, 1400-1800, eds. Michael North and David Ormrod, (Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 1998), 86. 59

painting.199 Artists could only sell their artworks from their personal botteghe, unless they were participating in the weekly and annual markets. Dealing in the works of other artists was generally discouraged; it was only permitted if those artists were also members of the guild.200

An exception to these stringent regulations was the Festa della Sensa. The two weeks of this festival coincided with the pilgrimage voyage to the Holy Land. Its market was renowned in

Europe for its luxury second-hand goods. Originally, the fair was used as an opportunity for merchants to sell antiques, but by the seventeenth century, artists were taking advantage of the occasion to sell their own paintings. In general, the paintings sold at this venue were of higher quality than those sold directly from an artist’s bottega. Significantly, the two weeks of the Sensa were the only time during the year that foreigners were permitted to sell works of art without joining the Guild.201

However, like other Early Modern cities, Venice witnessed an increase in demand for ready-made pictures throughout the seventeenth century. As an important trade centre, Seicento

Venice was more demographically diverse than at any other moment in its history. Foreign merchants and artists sought to exploit Venice’s famed reputation of being a relatively free and open society.202 Many of these foreigners were from the Netherlands and were looking for pictures to buy on the open market. Artists specializing in landscapes and still lifes became more apparent – though they were almost all of foreign, usually Northern, descent.203 These types of

199 Such opinions were specifically recorded in documents from the Collegio – the organization of painters who separated from the Guild of St. Luke in 1682 – and were solidified by the fact that dealers were not allowed to hold office in the college. See: James W. Shaw, “Institutional Controls and the Retail of Paintings: The Painters’ Guild of Early Modern Venice,” in Mapping Markets for Paintings, 1450-1750, eds. Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, (Turnhout : Brepols, 2006), 120. 200 This stipulation was recorded by the Guild in 1436 and reiterated numerous times, including in the seventeenth century. See: Philip Sohm, “Venice,” in Painting for Profit, eds. Richard Spear and Philip Sohm, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 233-4; Cecchini, 2006, 125-6. 201 Cecchini, 2003, 392-3. 202 Sohm, 231-2. 203 Cecchini, 2006, 126. 60

paintings served, as they did in Antwerp, as household decoration for both aristocrats and the growing wealthy middle class.

In particular, there was a substantive demand for copies of sixteenth-century Venetian paintings. The popularity of the Cinquecento Venetian school – Titian, Tintoretto, Veronese, and

Bassano – was immense and a new collector wishing to demonstrate his erudition and cultural familiarity sought high-quality copies of the works of these artists.204 Furthermore, merchants working in Venice realized the demand for these copies elsewhere in Italy and Northern Europe and saw a lucrative opportunity to sell copies of Venetian works abroad.205

Because the art market in Venice clearly demanded it, many artists and dealers tried to subvert guild rules. This does not appear to have been very difficult; guild regulations were not often enforced. Numerous foreign artists who were unregistered with the guild lived in the warehouses surrounding the Rialto where they sold their paintings on spec.206 Along the

Merceria, many other painters showcased their artworks not only to sell them, but to also publicize their talent. Selling artworks in the city’s campi must have been common practice; the guild released numerous edicts prohibiting public sales, which appear, for the most part, to have been ignored.207

Relatively unknown artists appear to have engaged in the majority of the art dealing activity at the lower end of the art market. There were, however, some very prestigious foreign merchants who became renowned as high-end art dealers.208 The numerous copies of

Cinquecento Venetian paintings in circulation required these art dealers to also be connoisseurs;

204 Ibid., 129. 205 The financial security of the Early Modern artist in Venice was often tenuous. Producing copies of old master artworks became a way in which some artists could earn extra income, though this practice often only augmented a painter’s income minimally. However, selling good copies could be quite lucrative and was an option for more talented painters. See: Sohm, 218. 206 Cecchini, 2006, 126. 207 Sohm, 233. 208 These merchants usually traded in artworks in addition to their regular merchandise. See: Cecchini, 2000, 225. 61

their clients required that they distinguish between high quality copies and originals.209 These dealers often engaged in the export of paintings, which was less heavily regulated than the local art market. One of the most famous art dealers in Venice during the seventeenth century was

Daniel Nijs, a wealthy Flemish merchant of luxury goods. He acted as the agent for numerous aristocratic Englishmen, including Sir Dudley Carleton and the Earl of Arundel. Among his other legendary clients were Maria de’Medici and Cardinal Richelieu. His most prominent transaction was the sale of the Gonzaga collection to Charles I of England in 1627.210 Among other dealers who were also well-known collectors were the Reynst brothers, Lucas van Uffel (who relocated to Amsterdam in the mid-1630s), and the Florentine Paolo del Sera, agent of Leopoldo de’Medici.211

The Art Market in Rome

The traditional system of Italian patronage was most firmly entrenched in Rome, where the majority of cultural activity was the result of papal and aristocratic commissions. There did exist a small open market for cheaply produced and poorly executed religious pictures that were primarily used by the lower classes for devotional purposes. Copies of miracle-working images of the Madonna and Child and single-figure depictions of saints and important members of the

Church were widely circulated throughout the sixteenth century.212 However, the market for

209 Cecchini, 2006, 129. 210 Cecchini, 2000, 226; Van Gelder, 177; Goldthwaite, 2010, 293. 211 For more information on the Reynst brothers see: Anne-Marie Logan, The Cabinet of the Brothers Gerard And Jan Reynst, (Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1979). There are portraits of Van Uffel by Anthony van Dyck in both the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York and the Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum in Braunschweig. For more on Van Uffel, see: Walter Liedtke, “Anthony van Dyck,” Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 42, (Winter 1984-85): 24-7; Walter Liedtke, Flemish Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York, (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1984): vol. 1, 56–64; Stephanie Dickey, “Rethinking Rembrandt’s Renaissance,” Canadian Journal of Netherlandic Studies 28, (2007): 2-12; For Paolo de Sera see: Gloria Chiarini de Anna, “Nove lettere di Paolo del Sera a Leopoldo de’Medici,” Paragone Arte 26 (1975): 87-8; Edward L. Goldberg, Patterns in Late Medici Patronage, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983): 56-78. 212 Cavazzini, 2008, 100. 62

these types of paintings was not significant ; they did not appeal to higher-end collectors and their purpose was usually not aesthetic. Aside from this minor exception and perhaps a few small art dealing shops, a real open market for art did not develop in Rome until the seventeenth century.213

As the international centre for Catholicism, Rome was dedicated to promoting its political and religious strength through the arts. Especially in the years of the Counter-

Reformation, the use of major artistic commissions to put forth specific propagandistic agendas further cemented the traditional approach to patronage in Rome. Moreover, there was a widely held belief, most often expressed in artistic treatises and biographies, in the hierarchy of genres.

History painting – consisting of religious, historical and mythological subjects – was held in the highest esteem, while the genres typically sold on the open art market – landscapes and still lifes - were viewed as significantly inferior.

In addition, there was a popular movement among leading artists to establish their profession as a noble pursuit.214 Executing high level commissions often required an understanding of religious, historical and mythological sources, as well as the successful implementation of subtle allusions and the depiction of complicated illusionary effects. These factors contributed to the opinion that painting was an intellectual activity. Ideas of artistic genius and exceptional talent upheld the notion that artistic practice was unique and that its products were above commodification. These beliefs impeded the development of an open art market in Rome. Working on spec for an indeterminate audience and painting works of art

213 Loredana Lorizzo notes that there is some evidence that proves paintings were being sold by shopkeepers as early as the late Cinquecento. For example, Patricia Allerston cites a court document where a man named Costintino Spata described himself as a “regattiero de quadri vecchi.” However, such operations were still very rare. See: Lorizzo, 2006, 344; Patricia Allerston, “The Second-Hand Trade in the Arts in Early Modern Italy,” in The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII, eds. Marcello Fantoni, Louisa C. Matthew and Sara F. Matthews-Grieco, (Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003), 310. 214 Cavazzini, 2008, 1. Though such concerns were raised in Venice, Naples and the Netherlands (particularly in the case of Peter Paul Rubens) as well, the push for the noble recognition of artistic practice was by far more prominent in Rome. See also: Cecchini, 2003, 391; Giuseppe Ceci, “La corporazione dei pittori,” Napoli Nobilissima 7, no. 21, (1898): 8-13. 63

primarily considered “decorative” was problematic for some Italian artists. Indeed, producing artworks for the general market where paintings were treated as commodities was “from the mid- sixteenth until the end of the seventeenth century...long regarded as damaging to the status of the artist and as a cheapening of their position in society.”215

To further indicate the nobility of their profession and to discourage a low-end art market, some artists in sixteenth-century Rome decided to form an academy. Already in place at the time was the Compagnia di San Luca, but this institution accepted members from all kinds of artistic trades; it did not convey a sense of exclusivity. Thus, in 1570, the artist Girolamo

Muziano (Italian, 1532-92) attempted to form a proper artistic academy in the city; its establishment was cemented in 1593 by Cardinal Federico Borromeo and the painter Federico

Zuccaro (Italian, c. 1540-1609).216 The Accademia di San Luca required artists to adhere to quality controls and prohibited them from engaging in art dealing.217 It taught its students the theoretical underpinnings of their art, the importance of drawing, and that the value of a quality artwork could not be quantified in monetary terms. The artists who belonged to the Accademia were therefore considered more elite and tended to work directly for high-level patrons. In short, the Accademia was fundamentally opposed to an art market where serial production, repetition of subjects and rapid execution was commercially profitable.218

Throughout the seventeenth century, the Accademia continuously tried to inhibit the growth of Rome’s open art market. It attempted to control how many shops a dealer had and what they were selling. The academy also did not allow dealers to commission works for

215 Reinhardt, 82. On occasion, artists, such as Guido Reni and Annibale Carracci, technically did not sell their paintings. It was believed that such works of art could not be quantified in monetary terms. Rather, they gave their patron a painting as a “gift”, for which the patron would, in a voluntary gesture of his or her appreciation, give the artists money, jewels, gold, etc. However, this strategy was not always to the advantage of the artists, as is indicated by the well-known case of Annibale Carracci being displeased with the “payment” he received for the Galleria Farnese. See: Cavazzini, 2008, 123. 216 North, 1995, 298. For more information on the Roman Accademia di San Luca, see: Isabella Salvagni, Da Universitas ad Academia, (Rome: Campisano Editore, 2014). 217 Lorizzo, “Il mercato dell’arte a Roma,” 2003, 325. 218 Cavazzini, 2008, 44-5. 64

resale.219 Furthermore, in 1635, Urban VIII imposed a tax on artists and dealers who operated outside of the academy.220 Its aim was to encourage enrolment in the Accademia, which would require artists to give up any dealing activities, and to subdue competition. However, despite the

Roman academy’s hostility toward an open art market, one was more or less established by

1630.221 In fact, many artists opted to join the Compagnia rather than the Accademia, so that they could establish larger workshops and engage in dealing practices. Fortunately for them, Urban

VIII’s tax was fairly easy to avoid; Rome was a large city and artists could, in general, subvert the rules without any consequences.222

The development of Rome’s open art market was due to the city’s growing middle class, its influx of foreigners from Northern Europe and the increasing appreciation for landscapes and still lifes among both artists and collectors. Though wealth in Italy was less evenly distributed than elsewhere, a middle class of wealthy merchants and professionals began to form in Rome at the beginning of the seventeenth century.223 Modelling their behaviour after the nobility, this group of the nouveau riche began to accumulate works of art in order to showcase their wealth and status. Significantly, many of these individuals were not Italian, but rather Northern

European immigrants. Some of these immigrants took up residence in Italy in an attempt to expand their family’s mercantile business. The majority, however, were refugees, who had fled the north due to political, religious and military upheaval.224 Being more accustomed to an open market for art (and less so to traditional patronage), and having acquired a taste for the “modern” genres, the businessmen and professionals who arrived from the Netherlands helped to establish the demand for an open art market in Rome.

219 Ibid., 45. 220 Lorizzo, 2006, 343. 221 Cavazzini, 2008, 1-4. 222 Ibid., 48. 223 Goldthwaite, 1993, 251. 224 The refugees from Northern Europe were mainly Catholic, though there were some Protestants as well. Surprisingly, Rome was fairly tolerant of non-Catholics, so long as they took part in the Holy Communion at Easter. See: Cavazzini, 2008, 43-4. 65

As Northern businessmen had arrived in Rome at the end of the sixteenth century, so too did Netherlandish artists, who also greatly contributed to the formation of Rome’s open art market. Intent on succeeding in the Roman art market and responding to the demand created mainly by the foreign bourgeoisie and particularly avant-garde Italian collectors, these artists opened workshops specializing in those subjects that had been popular in the Netherlands. They introduced new artistic practices to Italy, including specialization and serial production, in addition to popularizing a whole slew of genres, including landscapes and still lifes.225 Among them were Matthias and Paul Bril (Flemish, 1550-83; c. 1554-1626, respectively) and Jan

Brueghel (Flemish, 1568-1625). For the most part, the Northern artists lived in and around Via

Margutta. Many of them banded together, forming the schildersbent in 1623, and were known for their raucous behaviour, which was exemplified in their gruff depictions of everyday life.226

The members of this group, also known as the bentvueghels, were not welcomed by the

Accademia. However, these artists were still permitted to join the Compagnia, which had adapted to include those involved in the so-called less prestigious segment of the art market.227

As the artistic practices and products of the North infiltrated seventeenth-century Rome, there were also Italian artists who exhibited ingenuity in line with these developments. For example, Agostino Tassi (Italian, c. 1580-1644) was a prominent artist and merchant of paintings in Seicento Rome. He operated one of the most productive botteghe in the city.228 It was in

Tassi’s workshop that many foreign landscape artists began their careers in Rome, including

Claude Lorrain (French, c. 1604-82) and Godfried Wals (German, c.1590-5 – c. 1638-40). A more upscale bottega was operated by the Cavaliere d’Arpino (Italian, 1568-1640), who was

Rome’s most prominent painter in the late sixteenth century. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio

225 Goldthwaite claims that the use of assistants and the formation of artistic schools reached its height in Seicento Italy. See: Goldthwaite, 2003, 429. 226 Haskell, 20. 227 Cavazzini, 2008, 44. 228Patrizia Cavazzini, “Claude’s Apprenticeship,” 2004, 134. For more information on Tassi see: Patrizia Cavazzini, ed. Agostino Tassi (1578-1644): un paesaggista tra immaginario e realtà, (Rome: Iride, 2008). 66

(Italian, 1571-1610) worked for d’Arpino as a still life specialist in the early 1590s upon his arrival to Rome. Venturing out on his own, Caravaggio demonstrated interest in both still life painting and genre scenes. Around 1597, he executed his Still Life with Fruit, today at the

Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan, which was the first painting of its kind in Rome (Fig. 3). In fact, Caravaggio is recorded telling Vincenzo Giustiniani that he found painting flowers as difficult as painting the human figure.229 Shortly before, the artist painted the Cardsharps (1594,

Kimbell Art Museum, Fort Worth) and Fortune Teller (two versions: c. 1594, Museo dei

Capitolini, Rome, Fig. 4; c. 1595, Musée du Louvre), both of which took regular people and activities as their point of departure. Again, the sources indicate that Caravaggio was explicit in his penchant for everyday subjects. In fact, in Bellori’s account of the execution of Caravaggio’s

Fortune Teller, he claims the artist, to emphasize to his critics his adherence to nature, pulled a peasant from the street to pose for his painting.230

Though Caravaggio’s style and choice of subject matter and models did have their detractors, some very powerful and influential patrons were adamant supporters of his work. The

Still Life with Fruit was purchased by Cardinal Federico Borromeo, while the Cardsharps and the

Fortune Teller were bought from a dealer by Cardinal Francesco del Monte.231 A few years later,

Caravaggio enjoyed the patronage of the Giustiniani brothers and Scipione Borghese. That such a high-profile artist as Caravaggio demonstrated an interest in the so-called “lower” genres, coupled with their endorsement by significant patrons, undoubtedly helped still life and genre scenes gain popularity in late sixteenth and early seventeenth-century Rome.

229“Ed il Caravaggio disse, che tanta manifattura gli era a fare un quadri buono di fiori, come di figure.” Letter from Vincenzo Giustiniani to his friend Dirk van Amayden (Teodoro Amideni), c. 1617-8. Original document published in: Stefania Macioce, Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: Documenti, fonti e inventari 1513-1875, (Rome: Ugo Bozzi Editore, 2010), 317. 230 Giovan Pietro Bellori, The Lives of the Modern Painters, Sculptors and Architects, ed. and trans. by Alice Sedgwick Wohl, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 180. 231 Trying to make his name in Rome, it appears Caravaggio tried to sell many of his early works through dealers. See: David Franklin, “The Public Caravaggio,” in Caravaggio and his Followers in Rome, eds. David Franklin and Sebastian Schütze, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011), 2. 67

In addition to the artistic advancements made by Caravaggio were those by Annibale

Carracci (Italian, 1560-1609). During his early career in Bologna, Carracci executed scenes from everyday life, such as his famous Butcher’s Shop (two versions: c. 1580, Christ Church Picture

Gallery, Oxford, Fig. 5; and c. 1582, Fort Worth, Kimbell Art Museum). The figures are seen in their everyday workplace attire, conducting their regular business. This is one of the first examples of a genre scene painted by an Italian. Furthermore, Carracci was one of the first

Italian painters to experiment with landscape painting. His River Landscape (c. 1590) in the

National Gallery of Art in Washington (Fig. 6) is an early example of the artist’s interest in the genre. After he arrived in Rome, Carracci put aside the naturalism displayed in the Butcher’s

Shop, in exchange for a more academic style based on classical ideals. However, he continued to explore the possibilities of landscape painting. Though Carracci’s Roman landscapes often served as backdrops for religious or mythological scenes, he nonetheless gave them a more prominent role within the picture. His concentration on the depiction of landscape helped to foster a taste for the genre in general.

The new genres would eventually become quite popular in Rome, which speaks to the influence of artists like Tassi, Caravaggio, Carracci and the host of painters from Northern

Europe, and their success at cultivating a wide and prosperous market. Eventually, these genres could be found in many Roman inventories, from those with limited means to the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. They appealed to the lower and middle classes because they were affordable, and to the more affluent because they were fashionable, which thus encouraged a strong market demand for such works.

As the seventeenth century progressed, the interest in these genres grew, thereby engendering a greater number of artists working on spec for a broad clientele. As in the North, art dealers increasingly became a prominent means through which to acquire paintings. Though the Accademia attempted to create a negative climate surrounding the profession, many

merchants found art dealing profitable and therefore ignored the academy’s stringent regulations.

Furthermore, many artists preferred to have dealers sell their works, as it usually ensured a quick sale of their paintings.232

The most significant art dealers in Rome were primarily of Genoese and Flemish origin.

One particularly well-known dealer in Seicento Rome was Pellegrino Peri. Originally from

Genoa, he opened a shop that specialized in the sale of genre works in 1655.233 Peri’s business attracted noble clients – such as the Pamphili family –and the middle class alike, a notable indication that Rome’s open art market was becoming increasingly accepted.234 Like the art dealers in the Netherlands, Peri employed his own artists to produce works exclusively for his shop.235 This appears to have been a fairly common practice in Rome once the open art market was better established.236 Artists often began their careers working for a merchant of paintings in hopes of developing a good reputation, so that they could in the future obtain prestigious commissions.237

However, that Peri sold works of art exclusively was the exception. Most art dealers in

Rome traded in other goods as well.238 The shop of Francesco Saluzzi, for example, was full of a variety of objects and even included a Wunderkammer section. Alongside these items he sold religious, landscape, genre, seascape, battle and flower pictures. His 1659 inventory indicates the

232 Cavazzini, 2008, 5; and Cavazzini, 2004, 367. 233 Lorizzo, “Documenti inediti sul mercato dell'arte,” 2003, 160. Lorizzo also notes that Peri probably began his career as a merchant of colours around 1635. 234 Lorizzo, 2006, 356. 235 In 1655, Peri had Giovan Battista Gaulli, Giovanni Benedetto Castiglione and Gaspar van Wittel in his employ, painting both copies and originals. It is also likely that Peri hired the Genoese painter, Cavaliere Troppa, and the Flemish painter, Monsù Rosa, as the merchant’s 1699 inventory records 88 original works by the former and 70 paintings by the latter. See: Lorizzo, “Documenti inediti sul mercato dell’arte...”, 2003, 159, 163; and Lorizzo, 2006, 352. 236 Lorizzo cites a quote from Giulio Mancini from his Considerazioni sulla pittura about Jusepe Ribera’s arrival in Rome, which attests to the prominence of this practice: “And, on [Ribera’s] arrival in Rome, began to work on a day-by-day basis for those who create shops and art merchandise from the labours of similar young men...” See: Lorizzo, 2006, 353. 237 Lorizzo, 2006, 352-5. 238 Lorizzo, “Il mercato dell’arte a Roma,” 2003, 325; and Lorizzo, 2006, 343-5. 69

paintings in his store were of varying qualities, indicating that he was trying to appeal to customers of all classes.239 Moreover, there were many dealers who were less specialized than

Saluzzi. Barbers, grocers, tavern-keepers, and other unrelated professions sometimes sold works of art that they had received from artists in lieu of payment.240 And of course, there were likely many instances of smaller art deals that were arranged verbally and therefore have gone undocumented.241

The open art market would never supplant the traditional method of patronage in

Seicento Rome, but it would grow to become an important component of the city’s art scene.

Throughout the century, art dealers continued to be barred from the Accademia; however, after the election of Pope Clement X (1670-1676), the tax instated against non-Accademia members by

Urban VIII was reduced.242 More and more artists earned popularity painting less traditional subjects. And as the century advanced, the percentage of landscapes, still lifes and related genres in a given collection increased. In short, the seventeenth century saw Rome’s rather “closed”, elitist art market expand to include a more open version of the market, which was driven and sustained by a new class of collectors and the innovation and creativity of the city’s artists.

The Open Art Market in Naples

Until the end of the sixteenth century, the traditional model of patronage was more or less the norm in Naples, though as in Rome, there was a limited open market for small, cheaply executed devotional pictures.243 However, the development of an open art market was not as hotly opposed

239 Lorizzo, 2006, 357-8. 240 Annibale Carracci would give some of his less expensive works to his barber, postman, etc. in return for their services. See: Cavazzini, 2008, 96, 128. 241 Ibid., 125. 242 Lorizzo, “Il mercato dell’arte a Roma,” 2003, 327-8. 243 The marketing of cheaply executed devotional pictures would be brought to its height in the seventeenth century. For example, in 1623 Jusepe de Torcalina, a Spanish merchant living in Naples, hired one Domenico d’Acquino to execute 100 single-figure saints on copper. As these works were priced 70

by Naples’ artists and collectors as was the case in Rome. The elitist attitude that commodifying artworks threatened the so-called nobility of painting was not nearly as prevalent in Naples as it had been in Rome.244 A formal academy was never formed in Naples before the eighteenth century; painters, along with many other artistic professions, were grouped under the

Corporazione dei Pittori, which itself was not founded until 1630. In essence, the Corporazione was similar to Rome’s Compagnia. It did have rules, but it more or less allowed a market to flourish in the city.245 Thus, throughout the seventeenth century, many Neapolitan artists were able to freely sell their works on the open market without compromising their status as an artist or inhibiting their ability to obtain private commissions.

Like Rome, Naples’ art market was heavily influenced by foreigners. The city was home to numerous foreign “colonies”, encompassing merchants and professionals from Genoa, Venice,

England and Northern Europe. In particular, numerous Flemish immigrants made the city their home after they had fled to Naples to escape the war-torn Southern Netherlands. Naples was a logical choice for them, since, being both Catholic and under Spanish rule, its religious and political context was similar to that of Antwerp.246 As a port city, Naples was especially good for merchants involved in overseas trade. As the capital of the Kingdom of Naples, it acted as the hub of trade and distribution for Spain’s southern Italian territories.247 Naples’ silk industry was especially successful and the government continued to encourage its expansion well into the seventeenth century.248 This booming industry and Naples’ advantageous location were also major incentives for foreign merchants.

at about ½ ducat each and were the same size and format, they were probably intended for export. See: Marshall, 2006, 369. 244 Marshall, 2000, 15-6. 245 Ceci, 1898, 8. 246 Van der Wee and Materné, 25. 247 De Rosa, 1988, 121. 248 De Rosa, 1988, 128-9; and Borrelli, 1988, 17. 71

Many of the foreign merchants and professionals who arrived in Naples became key figures in the city’s silk trade, and as a result, many became quite wealthy.249 As their wealth increased, so too did their influence in Neapolitan society. Some of them, such as Jan

Vandeneynden, were able to attain an aristocratic title for their children. To befit their new social position, many foreign merchants in Naples began to amass artworks. As many of the foreigners were from Northern Europe, they had a particular taste for the more “modern” and secular genres, which helped to encourage the Neapolitan market for these subjects. And again, that landscapes, still lifes and the related genres could be produced by artists rather cheaply and efficiently benefitted both the artists and aspiring collectors looking to accumulate pictures quickly.

Also contributing to the open market were numerous foreign artists, who specialized in the modern genres that had become popular in Northern Europe. Though not a hub of foreign artistic talent on the same scale as Rome, Naples still attracted many artists who at least wanted to visit the city and sometimes stayed for prolonged periods of time. These artists helped to introduce new artistic innovations into the city. The Flemish artists Jean Calcar, Jean and Jacques

Franckaert, Cornelis Pyp and Arnold Mytens had all lived in Naples at some point during the sixteenth century. The landscape painters Godfried Wals and Leonaert Bramer (Dutch, 1596-

1674) were both in Naples for significant periods of time, and Abraham Brueghel arrived in the city in the later seventeenth century.

Furthermore, in addition to the numerous Northern artists who visited or lived in Naples, active art dealers and collectors frequently imported paintings from the Low Countries and from the Netherlandish community of artists in Rome. The new mechanisms of the art trade allowed collectors and dealers to transcend geographical barriers to artworks with far more ease than had been achieved in the past. Via art dealers, collectors and artists in Naples were exposed to the

249 Gennaro Borrelli claims that many of these merchants arrived without much capital, thus making their money in Naples. This may have been true of some merchants, but most of them had already been a part of well-established trade firms in Antwerp and arrived with sufficient funds to continue their business in their adopted home. See: Borrelli, 1986, 89. 72

innovations of painters from Rome and the Netherlands who had never set foot on Neapolitan soil. As will be thoroughly discussed below, Roomer was the most influential art dealer in

Naples in this respect. Though other collectors and dealers may have acquired works of art from elsewhere in Italy and Northern Europe, no one did so as frequently as Roomer, whose collection would serve as a major source of influence for artists and collectors in Naples alike.

Thus, northern subjects, aesthetics and techniques filtered their way into Neapolitan society. While the new foreign bourgeoisie may have been among the first in Naples to support pictorial genres that had hitherto been viewed as “lesser”, these types of pictures were soon desired by many enlightened long-standing Neapolitan patricians, as well as the Spanish viceroys.

Two of the most progressive collectors in Naples were Ferrante Spinelli, Principe di Tarsia, and

Giuseppe Carafa, Duca di Maddaloni, who owned numerous works by Northern artists in the first half of the seventeenth century. Additionally, the Spanish viceroys played an important part in encouraging the development of these genres in Naples. Though they were often interested in acquiring the works of sixteenth-century Venetian painters, as well as elaborate history and religious works, they also demonstrated interest in the growing trend of landscape and still life painting. For much of the Seicento, Spain was not trading with Amsterdam due to political reasons, which meant the Spanish could not obtain these genres from the Dutch, who were by far the largest producer of them at the time. Instead, viceroys looked to the Neapolitan market, where such subjects were becoming increasingly available.250

The demand for and influence of paintings depicting modern genres was so great, that many Neapolitan artists established workshops to supply the market. The bottega of Giuseppe

Recco (Italian, 1634-95), for example, became particularly famous, as evidenced in seventeenth- century contemporary inventories. Giuseppe and other members of the Recco family specialized

250 The viceroys’ interest in these works, as well as in the paintings of Neapolitan artists in general greatly stimulated the art market in Naples. Records indicate that ships filled with paintings would be sent by the viceroys in Naples to the Iberian Peninsula. See: Marshall, 2000, 369. 73

in still life paintings that were easily sold on the open market. Indeed, still lifes became so popular that Naples could support two major workshops specializing in the subject – those of the

Recco and the Ruoppolo families – as well as the production of numerous other still life painters, including Luca Forte (Italian, c. 1615-1670) and Paolo Porpora (Italian, 1617-73). In time, still life paintings were not only sold on the open market, but were also privately commissioned, an indication of the genre’s rising status.251

While pure landscape painting per se did not attract the same kind of attention among

Neapolitan artists as had still life subjects, numerous painters in Naples began specializing in prospettive, which depicted interesting architectural aspects of the cityscape or aerial views of the coastline. Viviano Codazzi (Italian, c.1604-1670) was the most prominent proponent of this type of painting. Battle scenes, another genre that had found popularity in Northern Europe, were also of interest to Neapolitan painters. Merging the Italian tradition with that of the Netherlands, artists like Aniello Falcone (Italian, 1607-56) and Andrea de Leone (Italian, 1610-85) became renowned for their elaborate battle works.252

Landscapes, still lifes and the related genres were not the only types of artworks that were sold on the Neapolitan open market. As this system of economic and artistic exchange became more prominent in the city, numerous Neapolitan painters used the open market to sell and promote works of all genres. For example, a painter like Falcone (who painted a variety of subjects, not just battle scenes) executed works both for private individuals and for dealers, who then sold his work on the open market. Bernardo Cavallino (Italian, 1616-56), who found little success in the realm of religious patronage, was instead encouraged by his teacher – Andrea

Vaccaro (Italian, 1604-70) – to execute history paintings on a smaller scale, which attracted the

251 Marshall, 2000, 25. 252 For more information on both prospettive and battle painting in Naples, see Chapter Five. 74

attention of private collectors.253 Despite his success in obtaining direct religious and private commissions, Jusepe de Ribera (Spanish, 1591-1652) continued to paint single-figure paintings depicting saints and philosophers for the open market. Such subjects could be executed fairly quickly and were hotly sought after by many Neapolitan collectors and Spanish viceroys. Luca

Giordano (Italian, 1634-1705), who had achieved international success, also used Naples’ open market as a tool of self-promotion and frequently sold his works to dealers.254

The willingness of collectors in Naples to purchase paintings on spec (a sign of the city’s generally receptive attitude towards an open art market) and the profitability of this practice for artists encouraged painters to open the doors of their botteghe to collectors, allowing them to pick from a variety of readymade works.255 Engaging in the open market to sell one’s own work was common; it was also fairly typical of artists and artisans to exhibit the works of their colleagues alongside their own. For instance, in the early seventeenth century, Carlo Sellitto (Italian, 1581-

1614) sold the works of Northern landscape painters out of his own workshop. The artist Mario de’Fiori (Italian, 1603-73) also followed this model.256 This allowed them to attract a greater number of collectors, which increased the likelihood that their own work would sell. Artisans, such as Andrea Cautiero, followed a similar strategy, using the sale of paintings to increase the sale of their own products. Cautiero was a gilder and many of his already established customers, who went to him to have frames and furniture gilded, would have also been interested in decorative paintings. According to his 1703 inventory, he mainly dealt in landscapes and still lifes, most of his stock costing less than ten ducats, indicating his business was aimed at the lower

253 Marshall mentions that Cavallino would sometimes employ the style of Ribera in order to attract potential customers to his works. See: Marshall, 2004, 41-7; Borrelli, 1988, 28. 254 Marshall, 2003, 263-72. 255 Borrelli, 1989, 15. This idea of “walk-ins” was prevalent throughout Italy in the seventeenth century. See: Louisa C. Matthew, “Focus on the artist and the middleman: materials, workshop production and marketing during the age of transition,” in The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII, eds. Marcello Fantoni, Louisa C. Matthew and Sara F. Matthews-Grieco, (Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003), 14. 256 Marshall, 2006, 365-6, 369. 75

end of the market.257 Research undertaken by Christopher Marshall indicates that this practice was commonplace, that it was a “necessary adjunct which enabled [gilders] to provide [their] clients with everything necessary for interior furnishings and decorative ensembles.”258

Annual art fairs were another way in which Neapolitan artists could use the open art market to their advantage. Every May or June, during the Festa dei Quattro Altari (which coincided with the Corpus Domini), artists arranged their works outdoors along Via Toledo.259

Giordano’s activities during these fairs exemplify how artists could use such an opportunity to promote their work. In 1678, Giordano publicly displayed his Allegory of the Reintegration of

Messina into Spain (now lost) and in a large exhibition of 1684, he showcased fourteen monumental still lifes with figures that he had executed in partnership with the most important still life painters of his day (for his part, Giordano depicted the figures). In addition, Giordano would frequently work with prominent art dealers to secure advance funding before the fair, so that he had the monetary means to work continuously.260 For example, Antonio Ciappa and Carlo della Torre, two silk merchants who dealt almost exclusively in Giordano’s paintings, often helped the artist during these occasions. They would buy some of Giordano’s works prior to the fair, minimizing the artist’s risk; in turn, they would sell the paintings for a profit during the festival.261 Thus, although Giordano was often preoccupied with large-scale commissions, he still utilized art fairs as means to broaden his client base and as a tool of self-promotion.

257 There were two still lifes by Giuseppe Recco that were valued at 30 ducats each. These were the most expensive paintings listed in Cautiero’s inventory. See: C. Marshall, 2000, 17. 258Ibid., 17. 259 Via Toledo was the main street through Naples. Many merchants owned shops along this road and it was also home to numerous rivenditori – merchants of second-hand goods, including paintings – in the later seventeenth century. See: Borrelli, 1991, 9-10. Borrelli also states that it was the mercantile bourgeoisie who encouraged artists to showcase their artworks on Via Toledo during the festival of the Corpus Domini. However, exhibiting artworks during particular festivals and fairs had long been the practice in many Italian and European cities. While Naples’ nouveau riche would have undoubtedly been involved in the establishment of this practice in the city, it is unlikely that they were solely responsible for proposing the idea, as Borrelli makes it seem. See: Borrelli, 1989, 15. 260Marshall, 2003, 265-6. 261 Ibid., 264-6. 76

The example of Giordano’s activity at the annual fair also highlights the importance of art dealers in seventeenth-century Naples. As in other Italian and Northern European centres, general merchants often also functioned as art dealers; small business owners simply added artworks to the multitude of goods they already sold.262 However, many specialized dealers often catered to higher-end collectors and also actively exported Neapolitan works to and imported paintings from elsewhere in Italy and Europe.263 Such dealers were responsible for selling the works of living artists, but were also the “go-to” people for those collectors looking for older works. Called rivenditori, such dealers often bought paintings that found their way on to the market via estate or bankruptcy sales and auctions and then resold the works to interested buyers.

They could also purchase older paintings through other dealers. In fact, dealers of second-hand works became so prominent in Naples that the Corporazione di rivenditori di quadri usati e vecchi was established.264

One well-known rivenditori was Giacomo del Castro, a former artist, who transitioned into being an important art restorer and dealer. Because of his past as a painter and his ability to restore old works, he also gained some credibility as an art connoisseur. His clients included the wealthy merchant Pietro d’Amore and the Sicilian collector Don Antonio Ruffo.265 Del Castro was also responsible for inventorying and selling the small but significant collection of the

Neapolitan nobleman Francesco Salernitano. This included the sale of Ribera’s Drunken Silenus to Gaspare Roomer in 1653, a transaction that will be thoroughly discussed in Chapter Six.

262 Cavazzini, 2008, 137; Borrelli, 1991, 7. 263 The 1630s (in concert with the height of Ribera and Stanzione’s careers) mark the point when Neapolitan painting began to garner international attention. Some dealers, like Roomer, were exporting Neapolitan artworks overseas. Works by Ribera, for example, were regularly shipped to Spain. However, Christopher Marshall argues that there was not a large export market for Neapolitan painting until the 1660s, as there was no artist in Naples similar in repute to Annibale Carracci or Peter Paul Rubens. It was not until Giordano that a Neapolitan painter saw international success on a grand scale. See: Marshall, 2006, 369-73. 264Marshall, 2003, 263. 265For the deal with d’Amore see: Marshall, 2000, 20; on Ruffo and Del Castro see the publication of their correspondence in: Vincenzo Ruffo, “Galleria Ruffo nel sec. XVII in Messina,” Bollettino d’Arte 10 (1916): 288. 77

However, aside from Del Castro and other artist/artisan dealers, most of the significant art dealers in Naples were in fact silk merchants. Because these merchants were involved in the business of luxury goods, they already had a well-established wealthy clientele. Most importantly, they had well-developed networks of trusted agents, mainly comprised of relatives or members of the same nationality.266 Unlike the sixteenth century, when businessmen would often physically travel to various countries to engage in international commerce, merchants in the following century tended to utilize agents to represent their needs abroad.267 Vast, solid and trustworthy networks of connections were integral for conducting successful business transactions, reducing risk and obtaining a competitive advantage.268 Significantly, these networks allowed silk merchants to import and export paintings, which in turn enabled them to engage in the higher echelons of the art market.269

Many of these silk merchants/art dealers were often notable collectors themselves and considered knowledgeable connoisseurs, which also placed them in the realm of high-end dealership.270 De Dominici mentions a group of merchants in particular, which he described as

“onorati Cittadini dilettanti”.271 Included in this group were the silk merchants Antonio Ciappa,

Carlo Arici and, of course, Gaspare Roomer. Arici and Ciappa more or less dealt exclusively in the works of Luca Giordano, selling the artist’s paintings to elite customers.272 Roomer, as will soon be discussed, was very active in both importing paintings by Netherlandish painters into

Naples and exporting the works of Neapolitan artists abroad. Though art dealing at this level

266 Particularly trustworthy agents who were not related by blood were often referred to as “family members”; more often than not, these “family members” were of the same nationality. See: Keblusek, 13. 267 Ibid., 14. 268 Marx, 25. 269 The kinds of pictures sold by small business owners, such as book or furniture sellers were often by lesser-known local artists. 270 This is not to say this type of dealer did not engage in the sale of lower-end works of art at times. 271 De Dominci, vol. 3, 151. 272 In 1705, Olimpia Piccolomini (widow of Ferdinand Vandeneynden) recorded in her will that Ciappa sold her three works by Giordano. See: C. Marshall, 2006, 374-6 and the excerpt of Piccolomini’s will published in Ruotolo, 1982, 25. 78

could be quite lucrative, profit was often not the primary goal of these high-end dealers. Art dealing was an extension of their role as collectors and a means to further influence the artistic culture in which they lived.

According to De Dominici these “onorati Cittadini dilettanti” would meet at the bottega of the art merchant Aniello Mele, who is described only as one of Naples’ most famous art dealers.273 The artist biographer records that during these gatherings the men would engage in

“erudite, e virtuouso conversazione” amongst themselves and also with some of Naples’ finest painters: Micco Spadaro, Andrea Vaccaro, Aniello Falcone, Viviano Codazzi, Francesco di Maria and Luca Giordano.274 These meetings were thus a forum for merchants and artists to establish mutually beneficial relationships and were a venue for cultural discussion and social networking between artists and patrons.

This class of art dealer figuratively represented a compromise between those who simply bought and sold art for commercial reasons and those who appreciated art on a more sophisticated level. That these dealers engaged in such intellectual discussion, along with the fact that they did not need the income they earned from art dealing, earned them a privileged position within the art market. Unlike lower-end dealers, who were perceived by art theorists and prominent collectors as a crude intrusion into the art world, art dealers like Ciappa, Arici and Roomer were considered among the most culturally sophisticated in the city. They represent a shade of grey in a cultural environment where many art theorists, who prided themselves in their artistic sensibilities, described the practices of art dealing and sophisticated collecting as opposing activities.

Gaspare Roomer’s Place in the Seventeenth-Century Art Market

Roomer’s role in the Early Modern art trade between Italy and the Netherlands has not been overlooked in the scholarship. It has even been suggested that Roomer’s influence was so great

273 Unfortunately, little else is known of Mele’s art dealing activities. 274 De Dominici, vol. 3, 151. See also C. Marshall, 2000, 18. 79

that artistic dealings between Flanders and Italy noticeably decreased after his death in 1674.275

While this statement may be slightly strong, Roomer can certainly be considered among the foremost art dealers promoting trade with the Low Countries in the seventeenth century. No other dealer in Naples imported as many Northern European artworks, nor did any disseminate

Neapolitan painting abroad on the same scale.

Despite his influence, Roomer’s dabbling in the art market was not a focus of his overall business; he was an astute collector, a financier, a successful merchant and a political player, who happened to also deal in art on the side. While the wealthiest man in another Italian city may never have considered engaging in the art trade, seeing it as a lowering of his position in society,

Roomer was fortunate that the attitude toward art dealing in Naples was somewhat more flexible.

In fact, as mentioned, he and a few other dealers elevated the practice by forming the elite group of “gentlemen-dealers” that met regularly at the bottega of Aniello Mele.

Coming from the North, Roomer would have thought it natural that high-end dealers participate in such elite groups, that they were inevitably involved in shaping the tastes of collectors and the styles of artists. Unlike most areas of Italy, being a high-end art dealer in the

Netherlands usually entailed that one keep the company of erudite men and artists. The idea of the “gentleman-dealer” was prominent in seventeenth-century Antwerp; many of the city’s important traders belonged to the Republic of Letters.276 High-end dealers were a respected component of cultural society.

Among his contemporaries in Naples, Roomer’s activities as a dealer and as a collector were of the highest significance. He dealt in works of all subjects. He brought into Naples the works of major artists like Peter Paul Rubens (Flemish, 1577-1640) and Titian (Italian, c. 1485-

90 – 1576), while exporting the paintings of important Neapolitan history painters like Bernardo

275 Timmermans, 2006, 357. 276 In fact, the home of Roomer’s brother on the Keizerstraat in Antwerp was a frequent meeting spot for members of this association. See: Rittersma, 116-20. 80

Cavallino, Mattia Preti (Italian, 1613-99) and Luca Giordano. However, Roomer’s inventory suggests that he also frequently dealt in the “modern” subjects – landscapes, still lifes, genre scenes and battle pictures. Though this document does not explicitly differentiate among those works Roomer collected for personal enjoyment, those he considered investments and those that were for quick resale, it is clear that not all works of art recorded were intended for his personal collection. The inventory lists some paintings together in large groups; all works of art listed in this way depicted “modern” subjects. For example, in a room described as the “Cammerino ultima a mandestra” on one side of Roomer’s palace, there are numerous paintings listed as bulk lots: “Cinquanta quatri...di paese”, “cinquanta altri quatri di paesi figurine e marine”,

“Quarant’uno altri quatri con paesi figurine e marine”, and “Altri quatri sittanta nove di diversi paesi e figure”. These citations are among numerous others indicated in this room that are described in groups ranging from four to sixteen works of art.277 Another sign of works that were intended for export or resale rather than for Roomer’s permanent collection is that many paintings are described as being unframed. This does not necessarily mean all paintings without frames were intended for resale, but it was certainly easier to transport works of art without their weighty frames. And when a large group of paintings is described as unframed, it is almost certain that these works were destined for the art market. For instance, there were “sessanta sette pezzi d’quatri paessagi frutti battaglia tra grandi e pixcoli senza cornice” located in a small room of

Roomer’s palace.278 Though these descriptions are vague, they nonetheless give the impression that these works were not displayed on the walls, but rather stacked in a storage area, awaiting shipment.

Roomer’s successful commercial business meant he had trusted agents across Italy and the Netherlands, many of whom he employed to secure and ship artworks. These included his brother, Lodewijk de Roomer, Melchoir Loway, and the De Groote and Hureau families in

277 A.S.N., Notaio Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, sec. XVII, scheda 295, prot. 34, f. 184r. 278 Ibid., f. 191r. 81

Antwerp; Pietro Piscatore, Cornelis de Wael, Johannes Mueseur and Abraham Brueghel in Rome; and Giovanni de Wale and the Lumaga brothers in Venice. These networks had largely already been established by Roomer to accommodate his larger mercantile needs. Fortunately, many of the merchants on whom Roomer frequently relied were art collectors and dealers in their own right and thus had considerable knowledge of the art market and the proper handling and shipment of paintings.

Importing Paintings into Naples

Importing Artworks from Northern Europe

It has been assumed, with good reason, that Roomer acquired many landscape, battle and still life pictures from the North, encouraging the growth of a market for new genres in Naples. However, the merchant’s importing of artworks from the Southern Netherlands is the least documented and therefore most elusive aspect of his activities as an art dealer. Only six of the works mentioned by Capaccio – the still lifes by the little-known painter Gerrit van den Bosch (Dutch, active 1630-

1662) – are likely to have arrived from the North; the majority of pictures mentioned were executed in Naples or Rome.279 Nonetheless, the sheer number of the abovementioned subjects in his collection suggests that many of the works had been imported from Northern Europe. Indeed,

Roomer had numerous commercial contacts in the North that were actively involved in the art trade. In addition to his brother, who is discussed in detail below, Roomer was well-acquainted with the De Groote family. Balthasar de Groote was married to Johanna Fourment, whose family was heavily engaged in the art trade.280 He was also connected to the Van Colen and Hureau families, both of which had considerable influence in Antwerp. In Amsterdam, Roomer had long-standing contact with the merchant Jan de Wale, who himself was interested in art. The

279 Van den Bosch is not recorded as having visited Italy, making it likely Roomer acquired these directly from the Netherlands. 280 Baetens, vol. 2, 20. Joanna Fourment was related to Helena Fourment, the wife of Rubens. 82

frequency of his regular business transactions with these families and individuals would have provided Roomer with ample opportunity to request some paintings be included with a larger shipment of goods slated for Naples. Documents in the Archivio di Stato di Firenze indicate that this was a common practice.281

It should be mentioned that there is no documentation regarding a relationship between

Roomer and the man who was perhaps Antwerp’s most illustrious art dealer, Matthijs Musson, though their equal prominence and significance in the art market make their acquaintance likely.

Furthermore, Musson was related to Cornelis de Wael, who was one of Roomer’s foremost connections in Rome.282 It is certainly tempting to believe that Musson was responsible for sending Roomer many of the Northern works he received in Naples.

Roomer’s most important contact above all, however, would have been his brother

Lodewijk, family being the strongest of all bonds. It is Lodewijk who most likely acted as

Roomer’s agent in the transaction that brought Rubens’ Feast of Herod (c. 1638-40, National

Gallery, Edinburgh; Fig. 7) to Naples around 1640.283 This was the most notable painting in

Roomer’s collection – and indeed one of the most important works in all of Naples. A deal of this significance connotes a trusted, loyal and respected contact. Lodewijk certainly fulfilled these roles. Lodewijk’s wife, Catharina Haecx, was a good friend of Rubens, who recommended

Lodewijk for office at the Hôtel des Monnaies in Antwerp in 1629.284

281 See various records in A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese 23. 282 De Wael and Roomer’s relationship is discussed thoroughly later in this chapter. 283 De Dominici, vol. 3, 35. 284 The position of Warden in Antwerp had been recently vacated due to the death of Gaspard de Robiano. Rubens’ letter is addressed Jan Caspar Gevaerts and is dated 23 November, 1629: “Dear Sir: This letter will serve simply to let you know that today, according to your wishes, I strongly recommended to M. Montfort the application of M. Louis de Romere. I should be sorry if my sponsor had someone else in mind, but it could easily happen, for apparently there are many applicants for this office. I recall that even during the lifetime of M. Robiano there were many who sought to become his successor.” Letter from Rubens to Jan Caspar Gevaerts published in Ruth Saunders Magurn, ed. and trans., The Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955), 349. 83

Clearly Lodewijk de Roomer would have been in a position to act as an agent for his brother in this important transaction; and certainly, Roomer would have likely only engaged his most trusted contact in Antwerp – his brother – to communicate with Rubens on his behalf.

While no documentary evidence between the two brothers regarding the Feast of Herod exists, there is a bank statement which records Gaspare paying one Francesco Albino for delivering to him letters from his brother in Antwerp. The statement is dated 12 April 1640 and it is tempting to speculate that these letters may have contained some specifics about the acquisition of this monumental work.285

What is perhaps most interesting about Roomer’s purchase of the Feast of Herod is that it is likely he did not pay Rubens in cash, but rather in paintings. The only two paintings by an artist working in Naples recorded in Rubens’ post-mortem inventory of 1640 are the Balthazar’s

Feast and the Imprisonment of Christ, both by Ribera.286 It has been suggested that Roomer offered these two works to Rubens in exchange for the Feast of Herod.287 Though it is not certain that Ribera’s Balthazar’s Feast and Imprisonment of Christ had once belonged to Roomer’s collection, it is indeed plausible to think that this was the case, and that therefore, Roomer would at times use pictures from his own collection as “currency” when trying to secure an important deal. This adds yet another dimension to the merchant’s collecting practices and further elucidates the interconnectedness between his collecting and dealing activities.288

285 Document published by Nappi, 2000, 75. 286 Inventory of Rubens’ collection found in: Jeffrey M. Muller, Rubens: The Artist as Collector, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989), 95-146. Ribera’s works are listed as numbers 27 and 28 in the inventory. For more on Rubens’ collection in general see also: Kristin Lohse Belkin and Fiona Healy, A House of Art: Rubens as Collector, exh. cat., (Antwerp: Rubenshuis and Rubenianum, 2004). The paintings by Ribera that were in Rubens’ inventory have not been identified. 287 Michael Jaffé, Rubens and Italy, (Oxford: Phaidon, 1977), 102 288 The Feast of Herod may not have been the only work by Rubens that Roomer was responsible for bringing to Naples. The inventory of Pedro Antonio de Aragón, who served as viceroy of Naples from 1666 to 1671, records a Venus and Adonis and a Moses Giving Water to the Jews by Rubens that are noted as gifts from Roomer. It is not certain that Roomer acquired these works from Antwerp directly, although this could plausibly be the case. See Chapter Seven for Roomer’s gifts to the viceroy Pedro Antonio de Aragón. 84

The Acquisition of Paintings from Rome

Though Roomer certainly brought works of art into Naples directly from the North, Rome was the primary market from which the merchant acquired paintings. Indeed, many important

Northern artists were living in Rome in the first half of the seventeenth century; it was a veritable hotbed of Flemish and Dutch talent. These artists brought with them many of the pictorial and stylistic innovations that had developed in the Netherlands and were thus executing precisely the types of paintings Roomer required for his personal collection and for resale in Naples.

Importing works of art by Northern artists working in Rome was more convenient and cost- effective for Roomer than obtaining similar works from Antwerp.

The merchant certainly took advantage of all the artistic creativity taking place in Rome at this time. According to Capaccio, by 1630, Roomer owned works by Simon Vouet, David de

Haen, Paul Bril, Cornelis Poelenburgh and Valentin de Bolougne, among others.289 Later documents record the merchant acquiring paintings from Adriaen van der Cabel, Cornelis de

Wael and Abraham Brueghel. However, it was not only the Northern talent that piqued Roomer’s interest; records show that he also imported the works of numerous Italian artists who were active in the Eternal City. Capaccio notes paintings by the Carracci and Agostino Tassi at Roomer’s palace at Monteoliveto, while other archival documentation reveals the merchant also imported artworks by Viviano Codazzi and Filippo Napolitano.

The merchant-dealers in Rome with whom Roomer was associated upon his arrival to

Naples are unknown. Presumably, he had already made some connections with the Flemish merchants in Rome before he left Antwerp. Furthermore, it is equally conceivable that Roomer’s first business partner in Naples, Jacomo van Ray, had established contacts in Rome and passed this on to his younger compatriot.

289 Capaccio, 577-8. 85

There are two Flemish merchants in particular who were resident in Rome during the first thirty years of the Seicento and could have served as Roomer’s agents in that city. The first is

Pietro Piscatore, a Flemish merchant who had been working in Rome from at least 1605, when he was approved as “provisor” for the Flemish community that congregated at San Giuliano dei

Fiamminghi.290 Piscatore was active within the Flemish merchant community until his death in

1643. Documents linking Roomer and Piscatore are found in the archive of the church of San

Giuliano dei Fiamminghi, though all of them unfortunately date after Piscatore’s death.

However, these documents make clear that the two Flemish merchants were involved together in a number of unspecified business transactions.291

The second Flemish merchant who could have plausibly sent Roomer pictures by

Northern artists in the first thirty years of the seventeenth century is Ferdinand Vandeneynden, who operated out of Rome from 1626 to his death in 1630.292 Ferdinand was the older brother of

Jan Vandeneynden, who would become Roomer’s business partner in 1637. Though not yet working with Jan, Roomer still could have been acquainted with Ferdinand, who had been a prominent merchant in Antwerp.293 He was a well-known lover of the arts, being recorded as a liefhebber in the Antwerp Guild of St. Luke in 1621.294 Ferdinand was very well-connected in the Antwerp art world. He was married to Suzanne de Jode, the daughter of the famous engraver,

Gerard de Jode (Flemish, 1509 or 1517-1591). Her sisters had also married men connected with the art community in Antwerp. Elizabeth had married Jan Brueghel I and Gertrude had married

Jan de Wael. Moreover, Ferdinand was at some level involved in mediating artistic trades. A

290 Hoogewerff, 1913, 147. 291 It appears that Roomer was owed some money, from which the merchant was trying to obtain from Piscatore’s heirs. See: Hoogewerff, 1913, 208; and Archivio di San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi, Héritage de Johanne Mueseur, VI, vol. 2, f. 233. 292 Ferdinand moved to Rome after the death of his wife. See: Donnet, 122; Vaes, 1925, 184. 293 Greta Devos and Wilfred Brulez, Marchands flamandes à Venise, (Brussels, 1986), 534. 294 Ferdinand is mentioned multiple in the Liggeren in the years 1621 to 1627. See: Vaes, 1925, 184; Liggeren en andere Historische Archieven de Antwerpsche Sint Lucasgilde, vol. 1, (Antwerp, 1872), 577, 580, 582, 589, 591, 600, 602, 612-4, 617-9. 86

letter he wrote to Cardinal Federico Borromeo in 1625 records that Ferdinand had been asked by the artist Jan Brueghel I to send to the cardinal a small painting by Pieter Brueghel. Still living in Antwerp, Ferdinand sent the painting to Borromeo through the former’s agent in Rome,

Zaccheo van Lippeloo.295

Considering Ferdinand’s own reputation and his familial network of artists and art dealers, he certainly would have been a beneficial friend for Roomer to have.296 They may have known each other in Antwerp, though Roomer was considerably younger than Ferdinand and had left the city by 1616. However, the Roomer family did have connections to the Van Lippello clan. There is a letter from 1651 in the Rijksarchief Antwerpen addressed to Roomer’s sister,

Anna, who was living in Antwerp at that time. This letter was written from one Franciscus van

Lippello, a priest who was living in Heemskerk. In this correspondence, Franciscus refers to

Anna as his “beloved cousin.”297 Therefore, the “Zaccheo van Lippeloo” mentioned as Ferdinand

Vandeneynden’s agent in Rome may have in fact been a relative of Roomer’s, thereby providing another avenue through which Roomer and Ferdinand could have been acquainted.298

If Ferdinand had not already known Roomer through his family in Antwerp, there would have been ample opportunity for the two men to be acquainted once the former had settled in

Rome. Ferdinand’s rationale for moving to Rome after the death of his wife in 1626 is unknown, but it is clear he already had contacts in the city and that his brother Jan had been in Naples since

295 Jan Brughel stipulated in his will that the cardinal receive this painting. The letter from Ferdinand to Borromeo states: “...et servirà questa per notificarle che Gio. Breugel b.m ha lasciato per testamento un quadretto fatto di mano del Vecchio Breugel per mostrare la sua bona volonta verso V.S. Ill.ma...” Letter published in: Giovanni Crivelli, Giovanni Brueghel, pittore fiammingo o sue lettere e quadretti esistenti presso l’Ambrosiana, (Milan: Tipografia e Libreria Arcivescovile, 1868), 342. See also: Vaes, 1925, 184. On Ferdinand’s agent Lippello, see: Didier Bodart, Les peintres des Pays-Bas méridionaux et de la principauté de Liège à Rome au XVIIème siècle, vol. 2, (Rome : Academia Belgica, 1970), 48. 296 In the case that Ferdinand Vandeneynden and Roomer did not know each other, Roomer would have eventually been connected to the Brueghel, Janssen, De Wael and De Jode families through his partnership with Ferdinand’s brother, Jan, which was established in 1637. 297 R.A.A., 94, 26 September, 1651. 298 Consequently, this also opens the door to the possibility that Van Lippeloo helped Roomer acquire works of art from Rome. Unfortunately, there almost nothing is known about Van Lippeloo and no further documentation that would aid in making this connection. 87

1611.299 Though Roomer and Jan Vandeneynden did not work together until much later, they most likely would have known each other, both being part of Naples’ Flemish community and active in commercial enterprise. Thus, Roomer could have been introduced to Ferdinand through

Jan. Another point of contact between the two men was Pietro Piscatore. Piscatore must have been one of Ferdinand’s closest friends; when Ferdinand died in 1630, Piscatore was responsible for erecting the merchant’s funerary monument in the church of Santa Maria dell’Anima.300

These speculations on the identities of Roomer’s contacts in Rome before 1630 are plausible, but without any secure documentation they remain elusive. Luckily, better records of

Roomer’s connections in Rome exist for the second half of the seventeenth century. First among them was the prefect of the Flemish church of San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi, Johannes Museur.

In addition to his prefectural duties, Museur also mediated some of the trading activity that occurred between the artists that were members of the congregation and various art dealers. San

Giuliano dei Fiamminghi was a central location where correspondence and monetary transactions between artists and dealers could be organized. In 1662, a declaration by the artist Adriaen vander Cabel (Dutch, 1630 or 1631-1705) records that Roomer paid him via Johannes Museur to send three of his paintings to Naples.301 Though less specific, there are other letters conserved in the archive of the Flemish church in Rome that point to an ongoing dialogue regarding art trading

299 Alison Stoesser, “Lucas and Cornelis de Wael: the Family Network in Antwerp and Beyond,” in Family Ties: Art Production and Kinshop Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries, eds. Koenraad Brosens, Leen Kelchtermans and Katlijne Van der Stighelen, (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 231. 300 The prominence of the monument in Santa Maria dell’Anima serves as a testament to Ferdinand’s importance in the Flemish expatriate community in Rome. Piscatore and Breyl elected François Duquesnoy to execute Ferdinand’s tomb. This work by Duquesnoy is one of the first tombs executed by the sculptor that caught the attention of contemporary Italian writers. In fact, the putti on the tomb became quite famous. The epitaph was written by Jan Vandeneynden. It extols his brother’s virtuous character and laments his early death (Ferdinand was 46 when he died). See: Estelle Cecile Lingo, François Duquesnoy and the Greek Ideal, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007), 77-8; and Vaes, 1925, 185. 301 “Io infrascritto confesso haver ricevuto dal signor Gasparo de Roomer, mercante in Napoli, per mani di D. Giovanni Museur, prefecto di San Giuliano de Fiamenghi in Roma, otto doppie d’oro, cioè quattro di Spagna et quattro d’Italia, quali son per tre quadri fatti da me et mandati al sudetto signore Gasparo alli 18 Febraro prossimo passato. In ded ho sottoscritto la presente, in Roma questa di 10 Marzo 1662, Adrian Vander Cabel.” Published in Hoogewerff, 1913, 192. 88

deals between Museur and Roomer. For instance, in a letter dated 29 October, 1667, Roomer writes that “In risposta della cara de V.S. de 22 stanti dico, che al signore Anslo non posso compiacere in comprare li suoi quadri de mano del Vander Cabel ancora l’avanzano con tutto che meli offerisce de pagarglili a mia discretione per ritrovarmene tanti di mano del medesimo, conforma li scrivo con l’inclusa piacerà da farsel’ havere.”302 It was also Museur who informed

Roomer of the death of Cornelis de Wael (Flemish, 1592-1667), an important contact of

Roomer’s who will be mentioned again later in this chapter. Alternatively, it appears that

Roomer acted as an intermediary between Museur and some merchants in Naples. In particular, there are four “letters of receipt” in the archive of San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi written by one

Filippo Valberto Laurenten. These documents record that Laurenten had received some money from Roomer on the orders of Museur.303

Roomer’s relationship with Museur is of interest because the latter was not part of the

Flemish business or artistic community in Rome; rather, their association emphasizes the significance of nationality among art dealers. As prefect of San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi,

Museur was well-connected to the Flemish community and also in a position that commanded respect and trust. He evidently became the ideal intermediary for Roomer to use when negotiating deals with artists.

The artists themselves in Rome also proved to be beneficial agents to Roomer. As discussed above, artists acting as dealers had long been common in Rome, especially among foreign artists who were not vying for recognition in the Accademia di San Luca. As with merchants, it was a natural extension of their already established practice. As mentioned,

302 Published in Hoogewerff, 1913, 208. 303 Archivio di San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi, Liber Confraternitatis Sancti Julian, 28 January, 1652: “Io sotto scritto Filippo Valberto de Laurenten declaro per da presente d’haver recevuto dal Sig.r Gasparo de Roomer docati sette et carlini tre in oro, cioè due cecchini venetiani et una doppia spagnola et questo d’ordine del S.r Don Gio Museur da Roma et per essere la verita ho sottoscritto la presente de mia propria mano in Napoli a 28 di gennaro 1652.” There are similar letters dated 9 May, 1651, 10 March, 1652 and another dated 28 January, 1652. 89

Roomer was a friend of the artist Cornelis de Wael, who may have introduced the merchant to

Abraham Brueghel (Flemish, c. 1631-90).304 Abraham was the son of Jan Brueghel II and Anna

Maria Janssens. He was much younger than Roomer, being born in 1631, and moved to Italy in

1649.305 Although finding success as a flower painter, he was also extremely active as an art dealer, counting the collector Antonio Ruffo as one of his clients.306 In fact, a letter written by

Abraham to Ruffo on 16 June, 1665 indicates that he was also working as an agent for Roomer.

In this letter, Abraham explains to Ruffo that “il Sig.re Gasparo de Romar mi ha dato ordine di cercare qualche cosa di quel Bibiano [Viviano Codazzi] per che sono cose bellissime et molto stimate.”307 Undoubtedly, there must have been other occasions when Roomer asked Abraham to purchase paintings for him in Rome, or send the merchant some of his own works. The relationship between Abraham and Roomer may have continued after the former’s move to

Naples in 1671. Unfortunately, Roomer would only live three more years, but he may have originally encouraged Abraham to make the move.

Gaspare Roomer and Cornelis de Wael

A relationship between Roomer and Cornelis de Wael has been noted on numerous occasions. It is universally accepted that Roomer and De Wael worked together after the latter had moved to

Rome in 1657. This conclusion is based on the letter published by G.J. Hoogewerff in which

Roomer sends his condolences to Museur, writing that “La passat’ all’ altra vita del signor C. de

Wael me ha dispiaciuto per la buona corespondenza habbiamo hautto insieme fin doppo il

304 There is another hypothesis that speculates Abraham Brueghel introduced De Wael to Roomer. However, considering that Abraham was so much younger and less established than De Wael it makes more sense that De Wael would have introduced Roomer to Abraham. See: Stefania Bedoni, Jan Brueghel in Italia e il collezionismo del Seicento, (Florence: Selbstuerlag. 1983), 79. 305 Ibid., 79. 306 Ibid., 24. 307 Published in Ruffo, 176. 90

contaggio.”308 This sentence has been interpreted as meaning that Roomer and De Wael became acquainted after the plague of 1656, roughly around the time De Wael moved to Rome.309 It is plausible to think that some of the paintings found in Roomer’s collection had been sent to him by De Wael from Rome, such as those by Claude Lorrain or Pieter van Laer.310 Indeed, De Wael may have sent some of his own paintings to Roomer, as in another letter addressed to Museur, the merchant states his opinion of the artist’s works, noting that he was “sempre assai diligente nella sua arte.”311 De Wael was primarily reputed for his battle pictures and chances are good that some of his paintings were in Roomer’s collection, as numerous works of this subject are found in his post-mortem inventory.

However, a relationship between De Wael and Roomer was already possible when the former still lived in Genoa. Though there is no concrete evidence linking the two men before De

Wael’s move to Rome, the phrase “fin doppo il contaggio” is more ambiguous than normally interpreted. These words have been translated as “since after the plague”, but they can also mean

“until after the plague.” Corroborating this later understanding of the phrase is Hoogewerff himself, who first published the letter in 1913. In a footnote, he writes that the “‘contaggio’ is

“de pestziekte bedoeld die in 1667 te Rome woedde.”312 This suggests that Roomer had good relations with De Wael until his death, that is, until after the plague of 1667 that took the artist’s life.

The context in which Roomer and De Wael lived also supports this hypothesis. The two men were exact contemporaries, were born in the same city, and moved to Italy around the same time. Furthermore, Naples and Genoa were two port cities, on more or less amiable terms, as the

308 Letter published in Hoogewerff, 1913, 207. 309 This was Maurice Vaes’ initial reading and has been the standard belief ever since his 1925 publication on Cornelis de Wael. See: Vaes, 1925, 203. Based on Vaes’ original assumption that Roomer and De Wael became acquainted after the latter’s move to Rome, Stoesser suggests that Adriaen van der Cabel may have been responsible for introducing the two compatriots to each other. See: Stoesser, 231. 310 See Chapter Five for more discussion on the works by these artists in Roomer’s collection. 311 Published by Hoogewerff, 1913, 208. 312 Hoogewerff, 1913, 207. 91

former was under Spanish rule and the latter was a primary creditor of Spain. Thus, the geographical and political disposition of the two cities alone created a situation in which Roomer and De Wael could have met (if only through correspondence). Furthermore, from a letter dated

18 August, 1654, the merchants Cornelis van Weckevoort and Sebastian van Dale (both working in Naples) write to their correspondent in the Southern Netherlands (Margarita de Groote) that

Roomer “had expected to receive some money from the nation of Genoa, but had not yet received it,” indicating that Roomer did indeed have business contacts in the Ligurian port city.313

De Wael’s extensive web of familial relations and Roomer’s association with Jan

Vandeneynden could also serve as a link between the two compatriots. Jan Vandeneynden was related through marriage to the De Wael Family. As mentioned, his brother, Ferdinand, was married to Suzanne de Jode. She was the sister of Cornelis de Wael’s mother, Gertrude;

Ferdinand was therefore De Wael’s uncle. The relationship between De Wael and Ferdinand was close. De Wael’s presence in Italy may have even contributed to Ferdinand’s decision to move to

Rome. In 1625, De Wael left Genoa for Rome and stayed there until 1626. Presumably, he was in the city to greet his uncle and acquaint him with Rome’s Flemish community. Though De

Wael returned to Genoa, the two relatives undoubtedly maintained contact until Ferdinand died in

1630. When De Wael died in Rome in 1667, his will stipulated that he be buried next to his uncle in Santa Maria dell”Anima.314 This suggests that De Wael and Ferdinand had shared a close relationship, one that was still felt by De Wael 37 years after his uncle’s death. Through

Ferdinand, Jan would have been well-acquainted with De Wael and could have therefore introduced the artist to Roomer.

313 S.A.A., I.B. 29, 18 August, 1654. The letters from Weckewoort and Van Dale to Margarita de Groote concern Roomer’s debt to the latter and will be discussed more thoroughly later in the chapter. 314 “1667 April 21. Obiit in parochial Sancti Nicolai a Capo le Case D. Cornelius de Wael, Antverpiensis, cujus corpos delatum est ad hanc ecclesiam et die sequenti persolutis honorifice exequiis sepultum in sepulchre D. Ferdinandi Van Den Eynden. Pro sepultura solvit:” Published in Hoogewerff, 1913, 607. See also: A. Bertolotti, Giunte agli artisti belgi ed olandesi a Roma nei secoli XVI e XVII: notizie e documenti raccolti negli archive romani, (Florence: Tipografia editrice della Gassetta d’Italia, 1880), 2. 92

The contents of Roomer’s collection may also provide indications of a relationship between Roomer and De Wael well before the latter’s move to Rome. In 1630, Capaccio notes a

“Susanna” and a “S. Sebastiano” by Anthony van Dyck (Flemish, 1599-1641) in Roomer’s possession.315 There is no documentation pertaining to how these works entered his collection; however, it could well be the case that they were sent to Roomer from Cornelis de Wael. Van

Dyck arrived in Genoa in 1621. Though he would also travel to Venice, Rome and Palermo, he frequently re-visited the Ligurian capital. Upon his arrival in the city Van Dyck resided with

Cornelis and Lucas de Wael, whose house and bottega had become a gathering place for Flemish expatriates.316 Evidently, the De Wael brothers and Van Dyck were on very good terms and their friendship would grow during Van Dyck’s stay. In 1627 he painted a double portrait of the brothers, which serves as evidence of this friendship.317 Moreover, when he returned to Antwerp, he painted the portraits of Cornelis’ mother and father, Gertrude de Jode and Jan de Wael (a single portrait of each and also a double portrait of the couple).318

The two paintings by Van Dyck in Roomer’s collection in 1630 were both from the artist’s Italian period. There is currently only one version of Susanna and the Elders (1622; Fig.

8) by Van Dyck, which is today in the collection of the Alte Pinakothek in Munich. That this painting may have been the one in Roomer’s collection has been hypothesized by both Erik

Larsen and Susan J. Barnes in their respective catalogues of Van Dyck’s paintings.319

The subject of St. Sebastian, on the other hand, was one to which Van Dyck returned often between 1616 and 1622, spanning his early career in Antwerp as well as the first years of his Italian sojourn. Any one of several paintings could have been in Roomer’s collection in 1630.

315 Capaccio, 577. 316 For more information on the numerous artists who stayed with the De Waels in Genoa, or worked in their bottega see: Di Fabio, 88-101. 317 This painting is now in the Pinacoteca Capitolina in Rome. 318 The double portrait of Jan de Wael and Gertrude de Jode is in Munich at the Alte Pinakothek. 319 Erik Larsen, The Paintings of Anthony Van Dyck, (Düsseldorf: Luca Verlag Freren, 1988), 201; Susan J. Barnes. Van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004), 151. 93

The version in Munich (in the Alte Pinakothek), however, is a particularly interesting candidate

(Fig. 9) because not only is it considered a work of the artist’s Italian period (c. 1620); it also shares a similar provenance to the Susanna and the Elders. Vague references to a Susanna by

Van Dyck in Antwerp were made by Cornelis de Bie in 1662320 and in the travel diary of

Nicodemus Tessin in 1687,321 but there is no certainty whether or not these references denote the same work that was in Roomer’s collection. However, the first secure documentation of both paintings is found in the catalogue of the collection of Elector Palatine Johann Wilhelm (ruled

1690-1716) from 1719.322 In 1778, the paintings were referred to as pendants of the same size in the catalogue of the Düsseldorf Gallery and in 1806 they were transferred together to Munich.323

That the Susanna and the St. Sebastian were considered pendants suggests that the two works were conceived as a pair by their original owner, who could very well be Gaspare Roomer.

Though Van Dyck is recorded as having travelled to Sicily, there is no documentation that he ever stopped in Naples.324 Considering the dating of these pictures and De Wael’s relationship with Van Dyck at this time, it is conceivable that Roomer acquired the Susanna and the Sebastian from him. Therefore, there is a possibility that Roomer and De Wael’s relationship dated from long before the latter’s move to Rome.

Whether Roomer knew De Wael in the earlier seventeenth century, or whether the two dealers became acquainted after 1656, a connection to De Wael would have been advantageous for Roomer’s art trading activity. As mentioned above, De Wael was very well-connected.

320 “Ghekijk sy met vermaeck heft meesten-deel gedaen/Besonder als sy van, van Dyck heft groot gegaen./ Soo heft sy mette naeld`seer aerdich net ghesteken/ Een Schou-cleet wonder fray, en vol van cloecke treken/Seer wel gecoloriert en wonder wel ghestelt/Dat de Histori van de schoon Susan af belt.” Cornelis de Bie, Het Gulden Cabinet can de Edel Vry Schilderconst, (Soest: Davaco Publishers, 1971 [orig. 1662]), 78. 321 Barnes et al., 2004, 151. 322 This catalogue is of the Wittelsbach collection and is the first catalogue of the Düsseldorf Gallery. 323 I would like to thank Dr. Mirjam Neumeister curator of Flemish paintings at the Alte Pinakothek in Munich for the provenance information she provided me with regards to these paintings. 324 For a detailed account of Van Dyck’s Italian sojourn see: Maurice Vaes, “Le Séjour de Van Dyck en Italie,” Bulletin de l’Institut Historique Belge de Rome 4 (1924) : 163-234. See also: Gauvin Bailey, “Van Dyck in Sicily”, Apollo 175, (March 2012): 116-21. 94

Either directly or by marriage, he was related to the De Jode, Janssen, Breughel, Vandeneynden and Musson families.325 Through De Wael (and to a lesser extent, Jan Vandeneynden), Roomer would have had access to this extensive network of artists and dealers.

Exporting Neapolitan Paintings

Sending Paintings to Antwerp

While optimizing his network to import paintings from elsewhere into Naples, Roomer’s role in the art trade was also critical to the dissemination of Neapolitan artwork in Northern Europe and other Italian cities. Exporting paintings was an important aspect of Roomer’s cultural influence in Naples. Again, his activities as a dealer in this regard intersected with his interests as a collector; the merchant only exported paintings by artists represented in his collection. It appears that Roomer was not too concerned with reaping financial rewards from the art trade, as his other businesses were already lucrative. Instead, Roomer may have engaged in art dealing to enhance the career of his favourite Neapolitan painters and thereby raise their European profile.

Much of what is known about Roomer’s export activity is gleaned from De Dominici’s biographies. The writer reports that on numerous occasions Roomer sent Neapolitan artworks to

Flanders, ranging from battle scenes and still lifes to larger history paintings. All of Naples’ foremost painters seem to have benefitted from Roomer’s art dealing practices.

Aniello Falcone was among the artists most admired by Roomer. As detailed in Chapter

Five, Roomer owned numerous works by Falcone and had hired him to fresco his villa at Barra, the only major decoration project the merchant ever commissioned. Falcone also benefitted from

Roomer’s attempts to broaden the artist’s influence beyond the Kingdom of Naples; part of the merchant’s encouragement of Falcone came in the form of disseminating his works outside of

Italy. According to De Dominici, Roomer exported numerous battle pictures by Falcone based on

325 The De Wael family tree can be found in Stoesser, 239. 95

struggles between the Christians and the Turks, on episodes from the Old Testament and on scenes from Torquato Tasso’s Divine Gerusalemme (Fig. 10).326 The types of generic battle pictures for which Falcone was known – those that emphasized the aesthetic of fighting rather than the underlying narrative – were popular in Flanders; indeed, it was likely Roomer’s Flemish background and promotion of Northern painting motifs that encouraged Falcone to specialize in the genre in the first place. While the Low Countries had their fair share of battle painters, such as Sebastian Vrancx (Flemish, 1573-1647) and Pieter Snayers (Flemish, 1592-1667; Fig. 11),

Roomer must have felt there would be a market for an Italian’s interpretation of the battle scene.

Italian still lifes must have also appealed to a Netherlandish audience, despite the prevalence of native artists specializing in this genre. Through his art dealing activities, Roomer assisted in cultivating the career of the still life painter, Giovan Battista Ruoppolo (Italian, 1629-

93). Roomer’s import of many still life paintings from the north helped to foster a school of

Neapolitan still life painters, whose careers are explored in Chapter Five. G.B. Ruoppolo was part of a family of still life painters, whose workshop had found great success in Naples. In addition to introducing the works of Ruoppolo to his friends, including the Vandeneyndens,

Roomer also sent many of the artist’s paintings to Flanders.327 It was perhaps the monumental format and exuberance of G.B. Ruoppolo’s style that attracted Northern buyers to his work (Fig.

12). In any case, as with Roomer’s exportation of Falcone’s battle scenes, the production and distribution of these “modern” genres had come full circle: these subjects that originated in the

Netherlands were introduced to Italy by artists and collectors like Roomer and were now successfully produced by Italian artists, whose works in turn were exported to Northern Europe.

Though battle pictures and still lifes were conducive to the art trade, Roomer still exported the works of history painters. In fact, history subjects by Neapolitan painters are better

326 De Dominici, vol. 3, 73. 327 Ibid., 294. It is very likely that Roomer also exported the works of Naples’ other still life artists, such as the members of the Recco family. De Dominici, however, does not include a biography of any of the Reccos and thus there is no information about their relationship with Roomer. 96

represented in inventories outside of Naples than landscapes and still lifes. Above all, the works of Ribera appear the most frequently in the possession of collectors from other European cities. It is therefore surprising that there is no evidence that Roomer ever exported his works to the North, aside from the two paintings by the artist found in Rubens’ inventory. This does not mean that the merchant did not export Lo Spagnoletto’s paintings. Roomer was the most active dealer sending Neapolitan paintings to his homeland and as noted in Chapters Five and Six, he was an avid collector of Ribera’s works. Though there may be no documentary evidence suggesting

Roomer promoted Ribera’s works abroad, the writer Carlo Celano makes a point in his Notizie of

1692 that Roomer often exported the works of Ribera’s pupil, Bartolomeo Passante (Italian,

1614-56). In fact, Celano laments that so few of Passante’s works remained in Naples because

Roomer sent so many to Flanders.328 For the most part, the career of Passante remains elusive.329

He was a student of Ribera, adopting the older artist’s naturalism and dramatic chiaroscuro techniques, so it is no surprise that his paintings would have appealed to Roomer (. ).

De Dominici recounts that Roomer also exported the works of the Calabrian artist Mattia

Preti, who was in Naples from 1653 to 1660. After being introduced to the artist by the

Neapolitan lawyer Bernardino Corrado, Roomer immediately recognized Preti’s potential and commissioned from him a Wedding at Cana (c. 1655-60; Fig. 14). This painting, now in the

National Gallery in London, was acquired for Roomer’s personal collection, but the merchant also ordered works from Preti to send to Antwerp.330 When he wrote his Patrons and Painters in

1963, Francis Haskell claimed that because De Dominici mentions that Roomer kept only one work by Preti (in contrast to the numerous pictures by the artist in the collection of Ferdinand

328 Celano, vol. 4, 379. 329 Some have speculated that Passante may in fact be the Master of the Annunciations, but there is no concrete proof of this as of yet. 330 De Dominici, vol. 3, 344. 97

Vandeneynden331), choosing instead to send the artist’s works to Flanders, the merchant may not have been pleased with the artist’s Wedding at Cana.332 However, subsequent research has shown that Roomer did own other works by Preti, as is discussed in Chapter Six. Thus, the merchant’s desire to export Preti’s paintings to his hometown was due not to his disinterest in the artist’s work. Rather, Roomer’s aim was to establish a market for Preti’s paintings in Flanders precisely because he valued the artist’s ability; the merchant wanted the Cavaliere Calabrese’s work to be appreciated by a wider audience, thereby further expanding the painter’s career.

Bernardo Cavallino was yet another artist working in Naples whose paintings Roomer frequently exported north. At the onset of his career, Cavallino was employed by the Neapolitan merchant Giuseppe di Felice. Felice paid the artist five carlini per day to paint “varie istorie gli dipinse in figure,” that were not to exceed three palmi. These paintings were clearly intended for export. Felice did quite well selling these works to different European countries, but De

Dominici mentions that he also sold these paintings to various “Signori Napolitani,” including

Roomer. According to De Dominici, however, Roomer may have exported Cavallino’s small history works under the name of a different, perhaps more famous artist.333 If true, Roomer evidently believed in the artist’s talent – thinking his works to be as accomplished as a more prominent painter – but nonetheless thought the paintings would be easier to sell and would garner greater financial benefits if they were marketed under another name. However, in time,

Roomer and Cavallino would establish a stronger relationship, signified by the merchant allowing the artist into his gallery to view his collection.334 By that time, we may assume that Roomer would have happily exported Cavallino’s works to Flanders as paintings by the artist himself.

331 See the inventory of Ferdinand Vandeneynden in Ruotolo, 1982, 27-39. See also: De Dominici, vol. 3, 344. 332 Haskell, 207. 333De Dominici says that “non si sà se [Roomer] ne mandasse in Fiandra, come opere di quell rinomato Pittore sotto il nome del quale eran da lui comperati.” De Dominici, vol. 3, 35-6. 334 De Dominici, vol. 3, 35. 98

The speculation by De Dominici that Roomer may have exported Cavallino’s paintings to

Antwerp under the name of a different artist is surprising, considering it would have hurt the merchant’s reputation as a gentleman dealer. However, this is not the only instance where

Roomer was accused of selling “forgeries.” The artist biographer Francesco Baldinucci claimed that Roomer sold works by Luca Giordano as by the hands of fifteenth and sixteenth century artists.335 Giordano was notorious for imitating the style of other artists, especially those of Titian and Veronese. The artist was so successful at this that his forgeries had apparently even fooled

Roomer.336 Baldinucci records, with a hint of bitterness, that Roomer used Giordano’s talent of imitating old master painters to his advantage, selling copies of works by Raphael, Dürer, Titian and Ribera as originals in Venice, Flanders and Germany. Baldinucci accused Roomer of purchasing the imitations from Giordano for a cheap price, only to resell them for “gran guadagno.”337 While mislabelling Cavallino’s small works is ethically questionable, attempting to take advantage of high-end collectors by selling them a Giordano labelled as a Titian would run a greater risk of damaging the merchant’s reputation. On the one hand, Roomer’s shrewd business side may have influenced his actions in this regard; on the other, his desire to maintain credibility as a connoisseur, dealer and collector should have weighed on his conscience. Unless corroborated by another document, the veracity of Baldinucci’s story will remain in question.

What is known is that aside from this excerpt in Baldinucci, most contemporary sources speak glowingly of Roomer, which indicates that the merchant maintained a high level of respectability among his peers.

335 Francesco Baldinucci, “Notizie de’Pittori, Scultori e Architetti che dall’anno 1640 sino al presente giorno hanno operato lodevolmente nella citta e Regno di Napoli,” in Notizie dei professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua, ed. F. Ranalli, (Florence: Studio per Edizioni Scelte, 1975), 341-2. 336 In a letter to Antonio Ruffo, the dealer Giacomo del Castro notes that “uno Luca Giordano contrafacendo ora Titiano ora Paolo Veronese tranne di quello copiato molte cose in tempor dell’almirante di Castiglia ce a fatto buona pratticha e poi ci da una tinta anticha che non fanno mala vista il Sig.re Gaspare ne a molti e altri mercanti molti.” Letter published in Ruffo, 288. De Dominici also included the story in his Life of Luca Giordano. See: De Dominici, vol. 3, 398. 337 Baldinucci, 341-2. 99

In any case, what Baldinucci’s account does make clear is that Roomer was also involved in exporting the works of Luca Giordano. Though the paintings of other Neapolitan artists did gain a limited audience outside of Naples, Giordano was the first painter from the city to truly achieve an international reputation. Unfortunately, Roomer was only alive during the onset of the artist’s career; he could not fully take advantage of the fame of Giordano’s more mature years.338 Regardless, Roomer did work frequently with Giordano while he could as both his patron and his dealer. As will be discussed in Chapter Seven, the merchant was responsible for giving the artist’s works as diplomatic gifts to some of Naples’ Spanish viceroys. His early support of Giordano undoubtedly helped the artist achieve the international recognition that he did.

The anecdotes told by De Dominci and Celano make it appear as though Roomer was continuously exporting paintings to Flanders. Indeed, this may have well been the case; however, the archival documents published by Erik Durverger and J. Denucé indicate Neapolitan paintings were not well-represented in Flemish inventories.339 There are many possible reasons why this is the case. First, many paintings in these inventories are simply identified as “Italian.” A number of these could in fact have been by Neapolitan artists. Furthermore, some works are not attributed at all, and again there is the possibility that some of these originated in Naples. Second, it is possible that some of the Neapolitan paintings that had been in Antwerp collections were sold to collectors outside of the city; alternatively, pictures may have been sent to Antwerp with the intention of resale elsewhere.340 Many of the inventories recorded by Durverger and Denucé were those of merchants and art dealers. Third, Durverger and Denucé’s studies are only a partial representation of the inventories in seventeenth-century Antwerp; presumably, some unpublished

338 Marshall, 2006, 375-6. 339 I have based my conclusions on the inventories from Antwerp published by Erik Duverger and J. Denucé. See: Durverger, 1984-2002; and J. Denucé, De Konstkamers van Antwerpen in de 16o en 17o Eeuwen: Invetarissen van Kunstverzamelingen, (S’Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1932). 340 This idea was presented to me by my supervisor, Dr. Sebastian Schütze. 100

collections would have contained Neapolitan artworks. Or fourth, their research signifies that perhaps Roomer did not engage in international trading as much as once suspected. This conclusion does not, however, diminish the importance of Roomer’s art trading with the

Netherlands for the dissemination of Neapolitan painting. He was certainly one of the only merchants in Naples exporting paintings north. It simply supports the idea that Roomer was first a merchant of regular (and some other luxury) goods, a financier and a ship and arms dealer, and that art dealing was a practice he conducted on the side.

The “Neapolitan” artist who appears most prominently in Duverger and Denucé’s published inventories is Jusepe Ribera. Ribera, until the advent of Luca Giordano, was the artist who attracted the most international attention of all the painters in Naples. His paintings would have been seen by Antwerp’s art connoisseurs in the collections of the Spanish officials who lived in the city.341 Certainly, the presence of Ribera’s works in the collections of the Spanish nobility resident in Flanders would have encouraged other collectors to acquire pieces by the artist.

Works by Ribera appear relatively frequently in Flemish collections beginning in the

1640s. There were of course the two pictures by Ribera in Rubens’ collection, mentioned above.

The 1642 inventory of the art dealer Herman I de Neyt recorded “Eenen Sint-Jeromus op doeck van Spangelet, geteekent,”342 and in 1649 George Villiers, whose collection contained works

(generously) attributed to Caravaggio, Titian, Tinoretto, Leonardo da Vinci, Bassano, Giorgione,

341 For example, Miguel Mendes de Vasconcelos owned “un Huerto de Spanoleto.” He was likely one of many Spaniards who owned works by Ribera while stationed in Antwerp. Inventory published in Durverger, vol. 6, 1992, 210. 342 Durverger, vol. 5, 1991, 10. 101

Veronese, Raphael and Guido Reni, owned a Conversion of St. Paul by Ribera.343 The 1673 inventory of Maria Anna Lenaerts contained a “Biddende levit oft Priester” by Ribera as well.344

As mentioned, there is no documentary evidence that suggests Roomer dealt in Ribera’s works, though considering the merchant’s trading practices, it would be surprising if he had not exported some of the artist’s paintings to Flanders. However, works by the artists that Roomer supposedly exported according to De Dominici and Celano are scarce in the inventories published by Durverger and Denucé. There are no references to works by Bernardo Cavallino or Luca

Giordano. Aniello Falcone and Bartolomeo Passante are only noted once in Durverger’s publication. Maria Anna Lenaerts, whose collection was inventoried on 27-28 March, 1673 (this is the same collection discussed in the preceding paragraph) owned a painting of a school mistress with young boys by Falcone, a rather odd subject for this artist, and a life-size Prodigal

Son by Passante.345 These two paintings appear again the inventory Peter Wouters from 23

August, 1673.346 Wouters was related to Lenaerts through her husband Gisberto van Goor. Van

Goor likely gave the paintings to Wouters after the death of his wife.

Neapolitan and Northern Pictures in Venice: The Lumaga Collection

Baldinucci’s bitter reference to Roomer’s sale of Giordano’s copies as originals notes the merchant was sending paintings to Venice. Aside from this offhand remark, the inventory of the collection of Giovanni Andrea Lumaga provides further evidence of Roomer’s dealing in paintings in the city. Research undertaken by Linda Borean, Isabella Cecchini and Lino Moretti

343 “No. 79. La Conversion de Saint Paul avecq la bordeure, Spaniletto.” Published in Durverger, vol. 6, 1992, 71. 344 Durverger, vol. 9, 440. This may be the work found in the 1682 inventory of Diego Duarte described as “een knielend Pristerken van Spaniolette.” Durverger, vol. 11, 2001. 345 “Een Maitresse oft schoolvrowe met jongers van Agnello Falcone” and “Eenen Verloren Sone levensgroote van Barozzio Passanti.” Inventory published in Durverger, vol. 9, 1997, 440. The painting of the school mistress by Falcone is now found in the Museo di Capodimonte in Naples. 346 “Eenen Verloren Sone, levensgrootte, van Barrassio Passanti” and “Een matresse oft schoolvrowe met jongers, van Aguello Falcone.” Published in Denucé, 263-4. 102

has identified numerous paintings in the Lumaga collection that were once in Roomer’s possession. Specifically, many of the artworks noted by Capaccio in 1630 found their way into the hands of Giovanni Andrea Lumaga.

The Lumaga family had an illustrious history. Originally from northern Italy, near

Chiavenna, the family was of noble lineage, owning many territories around Piuro. However, the loss of much of their capital during an economic recession in 1512 resulted in the family turning to commercial enterprise. The family was active in numerous European cities, including

Nuremberg, Venice, Vienna, Verona, Naples, Sicily and Paris.347

Giovanni Andrea Lumaga was born in Italy in 1607, but when he was twelve years old, he and his brother Francesco were brought to Nuremberg. Under the tutelage of their uncle, the two brothers learned the family business. In 1633 or 1634, Giovanni Andrea and Francesco moved to Venice.348 Here, they became successful merchants and financiers. They also assembled a significant collection of art.

In 1677, five years after the death of Giovanni Andrea Lumaga, his widow, Lucrezia

Bonamin, presented the 1676 inventory of her husband’s collection to the Giudici del Proprio.349

The inventory was remarkable for the presence of numerous Neapolitan painters. Aside from works by Ribera and Giordano, it was not common to see paintings by Neapolitan artists in

Venetian collections. It contained 102 Neapolitan artworks; twelve painters from Naples were represented. Northern artists were also very well represented – the inventory included 106 paintings by Flemish, Dutch, German and French artists.350 Lumaga’s tastes were strikingly similar to Roomer’s, and in fact, some of the paintings in the inventory of the former appear in

Capaccio’s 1630 description of the latter’s collection.

347 Lino Moretti, “La raccolta Lumaga. Giovanni Andrea Lumaga.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2005): 27. 348 Ibid., 27. 349 Linda Borean and Isabella Cecchini, “Microstorie d’affari e di quadri. I Lumaga tra Venezia e Napoli,”in Figure di collezionisti a Venezia tra Cinque e Seicento, eds. Linda Borean and Stefania Mason, (Udine: Forum, 2002), 197. Moretti has published this inventory. See: Moretti, 38-61. 350 Moretti, 32-3. 103

At least twenty of the paintings found in the Lumaga inventory are those that were described by Capaccio. They were as follows: Martha and the Magdalen by Carlo Saraceni; an allegory of Painting Music, Poetry and Sculpture, a Leandro, an Adam and Eve Chased out of

Paradise , the Mystical Marriage of St. Catherine, and a Buffoon by Massimo Stanzione; the

Christ and the Samaritan Woman by Battistello Caracciolo; a Tityus and Cain and Abel by David de Haen; a Bacchus by Giovanni Antonio Galli; five single figure paintings by Valentin de

Boulogne; and four still lifes by Gerrit van den Bosch. However, there are many more works in the Lumaga collection that likely also came from Roomer. Paintings by Godfried Wals, Gilles

Backereel, Johann Heinrich Schönfeld, one “Steenwinkel”, Matthias Stomer, and Giovanni del

Campo are all included in the inventory. Aside from Schönfeld, these artists are also mentioned in Capaccio’s description of Roomer’s collection. Additionally, the pictures in the Lumaga inventory by Aniello Falcone, Jusepe de Ribera, Bernardo Cavallino, Viviano Codazzi, Micco

Spadaro and Mattia Preti all could have originated in Roomer’s collection.351

When and how these works entered the possession of Giovanni Andrea Lumaga is left to speculation. Roomer certainly had many contacts in Venice, most notably Giovanni de Wale, through whom he could have arranged the deal. In fact, a letter in the Stadtsarchief Antwerpen reveals Giovanni de Wale did indeed purchase pictures from Roomer.352 The letter implies that

Roomer sent paintings to Amsterdam through De Wale (whose relative was living in the Dutch city), but it is certainly possible that De Wale also acquired paintings from Roomer to sell on the

Venetian art market.

351 Moretti annotates the Lumaga inventory, noting which paintings seem to have come from Roomer’s collection. See: Moretti, 38-43. See also: Borean and Cecchini, 191-220. 352 A letter written to Margareta de Groote from Cornelis Weckewoort and Sebastian van Dale, two merchants resident in Naples, states that “Therefore, it seems to us the best, when we sent them [paintings to De Groote] with a Dutch convoy to Amsterdam. Mr. De Wale Ven. has done the same, when he bought p 20 000 of paintings from mr. De Romer. See: S.A.A., I.B., 29, letter from Cornelis Weckewoort and Sebastian van Dale to Margareta de Groote, dated 29 December, 1654. 104

However, it is more likely that Roomer maintained direct contact with Giovanni Andrea

Lumaga and his brother Francesco. Throughout the 1630s and 1640s, the brothers were funnelling money through the Neapolitan financier Bartolomeo d’Aquino to the Spanish viceroys of Naples.353 On at least two occasions – in 1642 – the brothers did business directly with

Gaspare Roomer.354 Because of their dealings with the Spanish government, Francesco Lumaga went to Naples in 1644 and remained in the city until 1648. Giovanni Andrea also travelled to the city in 1648.355 They both would have had the opportunity to see Roomer’s collection, and based on the contents of the Lumaga inventory, it certainly appears that they did. Not only are numerous paintings from Roomer’s collection found in the inventory, the overall preferences of the brothers were quite in line with Roomer’s. This has led Moretti to suggest that Giovanni

Andrea (and presumably Francesco) Lumaga used Roomer’s collection as a model for his own, revealing that Roomer’s collection often served as inspiration for other collectors.356

The deal arranged between the Lumaga brothers and Roomer must have been quite satisfactory for the latter, given that he allowed the sale of some very important works. However, it also reveals the transitory nature of Roomer’s collection, an idea discussed in more detail in the next chapter. Though there are certainly pieces Roomer kept for most of his life, his collection would nonetheless have been always changing, given his activities in the world of art dealership.

The dealings with the Lumaga also elucidate the close links between the business of being a merchant and financier and the pleasure of being an art collector and dealer. These two aspects of his character went hand in hand, which is made all the more clear in the following section.

Settling Debts with Pictures: Roomer’s Debt to the De Grootes of Antwerp

353 Borean and Cecchini, 179-81. 354 Ibid., 180, 183. 355 Ibid., 185, 220. 356 Moretti, 34. 105

Eight letters located in the Stadtsarchief in Antwerp indicate that in at least one case, Roomer tried to satisfy a debt incurred through his regular business activities with paintings (Appendix E).

These letters were written by the merchants Cornelis Weckewoort and Sebastian van Dale in

Naples to Margareta de Groote in Antwerp. Weckewoort and Van Dale were both considered

“Flemish”, though van Dale may have been born in Hamburg.357 Aside from being Van Dale’s business partner, Weckewoort’s position and role in Neapolitan society is unknown. However, there is more information concerning Van Dale. Though the date of his arrival in Naples is unclear, Van Dale’s letters to De Groote regarding Roomer’s debt to her are from 1654. He probably arrived at least a few years before this date, as the tone of the letters indicates he was already well-integrated into the merchant culture of the city. Like most successful merchants in

Naples, he dealt primarily in silk and was registered in the Arte dei Mercanti di Seta in 1667, as was his brother Guglielmo.358 Van Dale’s inventory indicates that his mercantile endeavours in

Naples had been lucrative; it included many paintings (some of which were intended for export), decorative artworks and expensive furniture.359

Through his activity in the silk trade and his interest in paintings and art dealing, Van

Dale must have been well-acquainted with Roomer. This is perhaps why Margareta de Groote enlisted his and Weckewoort’s assistance in settling Roomer’s loan. The first piece of correspondence between De Groote and Van Dale and Weckewoort regarding this issue is dated 3

March, 1654. It indicates that De Groote had sent a letter to Roomer via Weckewoort and Van

Dale, requesting he pay his debt to her. It appears that Roomer owed De Groote the sum of

357 Van Dale may have escaped Hamburg through Flanders, after which time he was thought to be Flemish. As the Flemish community in Naples was larger than that of the Germans, being “Flemish” would have been more commercially advantageous for van Dale. This was not an uncommon situation. The Grutther brothers, who were also silk merchants, were probably from Cologne, but again, had escaped through Flanders and decided to perpetuate the myth that they were from the Southern Netherlands. They, too, became well-integrated into the Flemish merchant community, being taken in my Jan Vandeneynden. See: Borrelli, 1993, 7; Borrelli, 1990, 144. 358 Guglielmo died in 1677; in 1679, Van Dale’s other brother, Cornelis, came to Naples to help with the business. See: Borrelli, 1993, 7. 359 Ibid., 8. 106

6223:4:12 (whether this was in ducats or gulden is unspecified) – for quite some time, as other merchants from Antwerp had also been in contact with Roomer about the matter. Weckewoort and Van Dale relay to De Groote that Roomer “suggests to pay a part of the debt in paintings, and the other part in cash.” The two merchants advise De Groote that “to accept the paintings would mean a loss,” but nonetheless they hope she can resolve the matter with Roomer “amicably.”

They tell De Groote that they will attempt to convince Roomer to make a better offer and in the meantime will await her response.360

The next letter from Weckewoort and Van Dale to De Groote is dated 9 June, 1654. As it turns out, De Groote was “satisfied to accept the offer of mr. de Romer to give...p. 4000, - in cash, and the rest of the sum, p. 2223:4:13, with interest, in paintings of famous masters.” The two merchants write that “especially the first three paintings are very beautiful, but the money he claimed they were worth was very much, and we could not understand that they could be worth so much money, however, he said that this was the right price for the paintings.” In light of their suspicion that Roomer overestimated the price of the paintings, Weckewoort and Van Dale advised De Groote to see how much the paintings would be worth in Antwerp (unfortunately, though the letter refers to an included “bill” that contains information about the paintings, this document was not in the archive). They further inform her that they will try to have Roomer include more paintings in his offer to her.361

The third letter dates from 18 August, 1654 and it appears as though the matter between

De Groote and Roomer has almost been settled. This letter clarifies that the money De Groote was seeking from Roomer was actually a debt he owed to the heirs of Balthazar de Groote.

While Weckewoort and Van Dale inform De Groote that they have come to an agreement with

Roomer, they state that unfortunately, Roomer does not have the p. [Flemish pounds] 4000 immediately at his disposal: “we agreed that he would pay the money and give the paintings, and

360 S.A.A., I.B. 29, 3 March, 1654. 361 Ibid., 9 June, 1654. 107

then he said he did not have the money ready, and that we would have to wait for it, he had expected to receive a shipment of money from the nation of Genoa, but had not received it, because all the funds from that nation were yet to arrive.”362 Because Roomer was so wealthy, it is often taken for granted that he had essentially unlimited amounts of expendable income.

However, it appears that much of Roomer’s wealth was tied up in investments, loans and other business transactions, which is probably why he suggested to pay part of his debt in paintings in the first place. Roomer may have, in fact, kept the works of particular artists or styles on hand to use as a type of “currency” when he could not immediately satisfy his creditors.

The next three letters from Weckewoort and Van Dale assure De Groote that Roomer has instructed a “Giovan van den Eijnde” in Antwerp to pay her the p.4000 in cash.363 Of greater importance is that these letters claim Roomer admitted his estimates of the four paintings he was to give to De Groote in lieu of money were inflated and agreed to include four more works of art in the deal. The letters indicate that Roomer had already given the paintings to Weckewoort and

Van Dale and that the two merchants would store the paintings for De Groote “in a dry room” until she communicated to them how she would like the paintings shipped. They make reference to an included “note” that apparently described the paintings, which unfortunately is lost.364

Despite the fact that a thorough description of the paintings is lacking, in Weckewoort and Van Dale’s last letter of 1654, they do indicate that the paintings were of high quality.

Referring to a letter from De Groote dated 13 October, 1654, the two merchants state that:

The paintings we received from mr. De Roomer will stay here in good preservation. It is impossible to sell them here, paintings as valuable as these are not bought here, except by the viceroy and other important gentlemen, and they do not pay the money the paintings are worth, but they pay the money they like to pay for them, and when

362 Ibid., 18 August, 1654. 363 This “Giovan van den Eijnde” should not be confused with Roomer’s business partner, Jan Vandeneynden, who was in Naples. The surname van den Eijnde” was common in the Southern Netherlands at this time. 364 S.A.A, I.B., 29, 1 September, 1654; Ibid., 8 September, 1654; Ibid., 24 October, 1654. 108

they have them in their hands, you will have to do what they want, to prevent falling into their disfavour and the worst is that they do not pay their bills and you have to chase them constantly to get your money. We could not easily have the paintings estimated, because we did not want to make it publicly known that we have these pieces here in our possession. Therefore, it seems to us best to send them with a Dutch convoy to Amsterdam.365

From this passage it appears that De Groote asked Van Dale and Weckewoort to try and sell the paintings in Naples and to send her the profits. Their letter is telling about the state of the

Neapolitan art market in that according to Van Dale and Weckewoort, there was not a strong demand in the city for highly valuable works of art, unless of course one was willing to go through the apparent rigmarole of selling paintings to the viceroys, an issue discussed in Chapter

Seven.366 Evidently, the two merchants did not want to explore that option, even wishing to conceal the fact that the paintings were in their custody, presumably to avoid any awkward requests from or business deals with “the viceroy and other important gentlemen.”

That these paintings were so valuable as to not have a viable market in Naples indicates that the works were likely not executed by a Neapolitan artist. This is not to say that paintings by

Neapolitan artists were not valuable – they certainly were. However, the works of the most famous Neapolitan painters sold well in the city. Van Dale and Weckewoort imply that the works

Roomer had given them were rarer: “paintings as valuable as these are not bought here.”

Therefore, at least some of the paintings offered by Roomer to De Groote were likely “old master” works. Perhaps they were Venetian, as such pieces would have been hotly sought after by the viceroys for their own collections or to serve as gifts to the Spanish king.

In any case, this letter makes clear that Roomer was capable of acquiring very expensive works of art on a market where such paintings were relatively scarce. Was he offering De Groote

365 Ibid., 29 December, 1654. 366 Or aristocrats, apparently. This opinion seems justified considering Rembrandt’s dealings with Antonio Ruffo in Sicily, for example. 109

pictures from his personal collection as a desperate measure to pay off what appears to have been a long-standing debt? Or did Roomer often use paintings as a means to satisfy his creditors? As will be discussed in the following chapter, Roomer’s personal collection was primarily comprised of contemporary seventeenth-century paintings; he did own a few sixteenth-century works, but these were very much in the minority. He is known, however, to have certainly acquired

Cinquecento works of art and used them to sell or give to the viceroys.367 The merchant may have employed a similar tactic when settling his debts; that is, when the opportunity presented itself, he could have purchased pictures by artists who were more or less universally admired to essentially use as “cash” in particular situations. Such a strategy makes sense when considering that much of Roomer’s capital was not easily accessible, being tied up in investments or debts, as the previous letters imply. While De Groote’s letters are missing, those by Weckewoort and Van

Dale indicate that she did not object to accepting the paintings, which suggests that such offers were not uncommon. Most wealthy merchants, after all, collected paintings as a symbol of their affluence, or were in a position to find a collector who would pay a good price for them.

* * * * *

Whether or not the paintings ever made it to Antwerp is unknown. They were still in Van Dale’s possession in 1657 when he wrote to De Groote stating that “I received your letters of 3 August and 9 September in which you give me the order to keep the eight paintings which were entrusted to our company by Gasparo de Roomer.”368 However, it is nonetheless interesting to consider that not all of the paintings Roomer exported to the Netherlands were sold in a traditional exchange of “money for paintings”. Artworks were sometimes exchanged for other artworks, as was probably the case in Roomer’s acquisition of Rubens’ Feast of Herod. And sometimes,

367 See Chapter Seven. 368 S.A.A., I.B. 24, 18 October, 1657. This letter is from only Van Dale. Weckewoort may have died by this time and Van Dale was operating the company alone; or perhaps he and Weckewoort had parted ways. 110

pictures could be offered to clear one’s debt. Furthermore, dealing in paintings was not necessarily solely motivated by a desire to enlarge one’s collection, or free up money for new acquisitions – though these reasons were also significant factors. Paintings were often viewed as commodities and used as such, especially among merchants. Importantly, it is necessary to view

Roomer’s activities as a dealer as inextricably intertwined with his occupation as a merchant and financier and with his habits as a collector of paintings. Motivated by a variety of factors and through a multitude of avenues, Roomer was integral in the dissemination of Neapolitan painting outside of the city, in addition to introducing and promoting new styles and artists within Naples itself.

111

Fig. 3. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Still Life with Fruit, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milan, c. 1597

Fig. 4. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Fortune Teller, Musei Capitolini, Rome, c. 1594

112

Fig. 5. Annibale Carracci, Butcher’s Shop, Christ Church Picture Gallery, Oxford,

c. 1580-90

Fig. 6. Annibale Carracci, River Landscape, National Gallery of Art, Washington D.C.,

c. 1590

113

Fig. 7. Peter Paul Rubens, Feast of Herod, National Gallery of Scotland, Edinburgh, c. 1639

Fig. 8. Anthony van Dyck, Susanna and the Elders, Alte Pinakothek, Munich, c. 1622-3

114

Fig. 9. Anthony van Dyck, Martyrdom of St. Sebastian, Alte Pinakothek, Munich, c. 1620

Fig. 10. Aniello Falcone, Battle between Christians and Turks, Musée du Louvre, Paris, c. 1631

115

Fig. 11. Pieter Snayers, Calvary Skirmish, Dulwich Picture Gallery, before 1641

Fig. 12 Giovan Battista Ruoppolo, Still Life with Fruit and Vase of Flowers, Private Collection, 1653

116

Fig. 13. Bartolomeo Passante, Adoration of the Shepherds, São Paulo Museum of Art, Brazil, c. 1630-5

Fig. 14. Mattia Preti, Wedding at Cana, National Gallery, London, c. 1655-60

117

Chapter 4

Collecting in Naples and the Collection of Gaspare Roomer

Collecting paintings was a necessary part of the formula for conspicuously demonstrating one’s material prosperity, and thus was a predominant activity among Naples’ wealthiest citizens.

Aristocrats, viceroys and the wealthy bourgeoisie, which consisted mainly of merchants, lawyers and government administrators, were the principal collectors in Seicento Naples; through their collecting activities, these groups helped to stimulate the artistic culture within and outside of the city.

The collecting patterns that developed in seventeenth-century Naples were markedly different from other places in Italy, in particular Rome. Naples’ political structure, the diminishing power of the noble class, and the emerging influence of the bourgeoisie allowed this latter group to play an important role in the development of artistic trends. Having both the money and desire for social recognition, the members of this rich middle class (who were often wealthier than much of the nobility) were in a position to contribute significantly to the flourishing of the arts in Seicento Naples.

Types of Collectors in Naples

Collecting Patterns of the Spanish Viceroys

The men who arrived in Naples as viceroys of the Kingdom were either members of the Spanish nobility or high-level ecclesiastical figures,369 and thus were accustomed to a lifestyle of opulence. As a result, many of them were great patrons and did much to stimulate the artistic environment in Naples. Like all ruling figures, many viceroys concerned themselves with

369 Jonathan Brown, “Mecenas y coleccionistas españoles de Jusepe de Ribera,” Goya, 181/186 (1985): 141. 118

marking their reign through monuments, as did the Viceroy Oñate when commissioned the

Fontana della Selleria. Many also established charitable institutions, such as the Ospedale di San

Gennaro, which was patronized by Pedro Antonio de Aragón. Others made their mark through their patronage of religious institutions, the Viceroy Penarañda’s involvement in the post-1656 plague church of Santa Maria del Pianto being a notable example. In addition, spectacular parades and festivities were staged to welcome guests of honour and to glorify Spanish rule.370

However, the vice regal court was not a patron on the scale of the papacy in Rome. The relative brevity of each viceroy’s reign meant that the court in Naples was not a centralized source of patronage. In many cases, the families of the viceroys remained in Spain and thus a viceroy’s arrival in the city did not necessarily bring with it a wider network of elites interested in artistic patronage. This differed from Rome, where the pope’s family would relocate to the city and where the pope himself would reign until his death. In attempts to glorify the family name and gain political, social and religious power, most popes and their families embarked on massive public architectural and artistic projects. In general, such patronage was not the primary aim of the Spanish viceroys; rather, they took advantage of their time in Naples to collect paintings by

Italian masters to decorate their palaces in Spain or to donate to the Spanish king.

Though the Spanish had a penchant for sixteenth-century Venetian paintings, they were also avid collectors of seventeenth-century Neapolitan art. Jusepe de Ribera, Andrea Vaccaro,

Micco Spadaro, Luca Giordano, Cosimo Fanzago, and many others were all patronized by various viceroys. Ribera was particularly held in high esteem.371 He was a favourite of the Duke

370 Processions were often used by the Spanish viceroys to preoccupy the aristocrary with rather trival matters, such as their placement within the parade to other noble families. See: John A. Marino, Becoming Neapolitan: Citizen Culture in Baroque Naples, (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2011),, 94; Gabriel Guarino, Representing the King’s Splendour: Communication and Reception of Symbolic Forms of Power in Viceregal Naples, (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2010). 371 Aside from a few notable exceptions, Spanish patrons avoided collecting the works of artists from their native country. Ribera’s unique position as a Spaniard in Italy, as well as his tenebristic style, which appealed to the severity of Spanish religious devotion, help account for his popularity among Spanish 119

of Osuna372 and was also patronized by many subsequent viceroys, such as the Count of

Monterrey, the Duke of Medina de las Torres, the Duke of Alcalá and the Admiral of Castille. In fact, Monterrey owned 18 works by Ribera and was a strong supporter of Neapolitan artists in general. In the 1630s, he commissioned paintings by Ribera, Micco Spadaro, Viviano Codazzi,

Andrea de Leone and Aniello Falcone for Philip IV’s decoration of the Buen Retiro.373 He also ordered works from Ribera, Massimo Stanzione and Fanzago for the Church of the Agustinas

Descalzas in Salamanca.374 In a similar project, the Viceroy Count of Peñaranda donated works by Andrea Vaccaro and Luca Giordano to a Carmelite Church in his hometown of Peñaranda de

Bracamonte.375 These latter two artists were highly respected among the viceroys and their works appear in many of the viceregal collections from that of the Count of Peñaranda to Pedro Antonio

Aragón to the Marchese del Carpio.

Patronage from the viceroys was prestigious and certainly assisted artists in gaining popularity among Neapolitan collectors, especially when the works the Spanish commissioned remained in Naples.376 “Endorsing” the careers of particular artists, the viceroys helped to raise the profile of many painters and sculptors within circles of erudite collectors. However, most of the paintings they commissioned were exported to Spain to be displayed in their personal

collectors. See: Pérez Sánchez, New York, 1992, 35; Brown, 1985, 140. For Spanish interest in Ribera’s works see: Pérez Sánchez, New York, 1992, 35-49; Brown, 1985, 140-50; Gabriele Finaldi, “Ribera, the Viceroys of Naples and the King: Some Observations on their Relations,” in Arte y diplomacia de la monarquía hispánica en el siglo XVII, ed. José Luis Colomer, (Villaverde: Madrid, 2003): 378-87. 372 The duke can be considered largely responsible for introducing Ribera’s work to Spanish collectors, and thus served as a catalyst for Ribera’s Spanish success. See Pérez Sánchez, New York, 1992, 37. 373 Monterrey sought paintings from Domenichino and Giovanni Lanfranco for this project as well. See: Burke and Cherry, 129. 374 Monterrey also commissioned works from Guido Reni, Giovanni Lanfranco and Giulio Finelli for this church. See: Burke and Cherry, 148-8; Madruga Real, Naples, 1992, 277-82; and Angela Madruga Real, “Cosimo Fanzago en las Agustinas de Salamanca,” Goya, no. 179, (Mar.-Apr. 1975): 291-7. 375 Harold Wethey, “The Spanish Viceroy, Luca Giordano, and Andrea Vaccaro,” Burlington Magazine 109 (Dec. 1967): 681-5. 376 This was the case with the Count of Peñaranda who ordered works from Andrea Vaccaro and Luca Giordano to decorate the church of Santa Maria del Pianto. For more on this commission see: Wethey, 678-87; Rebecca Ehlert, Santa Maria del Pianto: Loss, Remembrance and Legacy in Seventeenth-Century Naples, M.A. thesis, Queen’s University, 2007. 120

collections and family churches.377 Therefore, viceregal patronage was particularly important for expanding the reputation of Neapolitan artists beyond Italian borders. The significance of their collecting habits lay in their dissemination of Neapolitan paintings throughout Spain. It was in this way that painters from Naples attracted the attention of the Spanish King. Philip IV had numerous works by Ribera distributed among his various collections and also owned works by

Vaccaro, Stanzione and many other Neapolitan artists. Luca Giordano was held in such high esteem that he was invited to Spain to work for Charles II in 1692. In addition, the Neapolitan paintings brought to Spain by the viceroys and other Spanish officials intrigued other members of the Spanish nobility, making Neapolitan artworks a necessity for any substantial collection.

Aristocratic Collections

The sixteenth-century centralization of the Spanish vice regal government within the city of

Naples produced a veritable deluge of new inhabitants. Peasants arrived from the countryside in hopes of employment; politicians and professionals came to work for the government; and aristocrats left their fiefdoms in the provinces for palaces in the city. Unlike the peasants and the professionals, however, the nobility moved into Naples more by force than by choice. The viceroy Pedro Alvarez de Toledo, Marqués de Villafranca (ruled 1532-52) sought to remove these nobles from their provincial territories to the watchful eye of the Spanish government in the city.

Throughout the history of Spanish rule in Naples the Neapolitan aristocracy had often attempted to supplant the occupation of the Kingdom by foreign powers. That these men lived in fortified castles fairly far from the capital meant that they were relatively safe from any governmental response to their actions. By transferring them to the city, Toledo ensured the subjugation of the nobility to Spanish rule and at the same time created an atmosphere of jealousy and rivalry

377 In fact, at the time of Ribera’s death, there were more paintings by the artist in Spain than there were in Naples. See: Jonathan Brown, Painting in Spain, 1500-1700, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998), 140. 121

amongst the aristocratic families themselves. Drawn out of isolation and into the capital, the nobles became more aware of their fellow aristocrats, which engendered a climate of competition.378

It is no surprise then that some of the finest collections in Naples were owned by the nobility. Possession of luxury goods had long been a marker of status, erudition and wealth among aristocratic crowds.379 The seventeenth-century collections of some of Naples’ most distinguished families were characterized by the presence of numerous Cinquecento paintings centered on history subjects and portraiture. Artists such as Titian and Raphael were prized above all, their status solidified as “old masters” at the beginning of the seventeenth century.380

Religious paintings, primarily pertaining to the themes of the Counter-Reformation, were predominant. Images of Counter-Reformation saints, of martyrdoms and of spiritual conversions abounded.381 Complex mythologies provided a foil to these religious images; they were symbols of their owners’ interest in literature and were often used to parallel an event in the noble’s life.

In the hierarchy of artistic subject matter, history paintings had pride of place and were considered representative of their owners’ virtuosity, intelligence and religious convictions.

Additionally, to further emphasize their privileged roots, ancestral portraits were showcased in places of prominence. Political affiliations were also laid bare by portraits depicting various members of a particular royal family.

The emphasis on sixteenth-century works of art found in noble collections stands in contrast to those of the Neapolitan bourgeoisie who, as will be discussed, were considered more

378 Labrot, 1992, 5; Marino, 15, 95. 379 Religious patronage, participation in the city’s processions and involvement with the Spanish government were also methods with which the aristocracy could demonstrate power, importance and wealth. See: Marino, 56. 380 By the beginning of the seventeenth century, paintings by Titian, Raphael, Michelangelo, etc. were termed “old masters”. In 1602, the Grand Duke of Tuscany decreed that works by these artists could not be exported from Florence because of their special status. See: Fabia Borroni Salvadori, “Le esposizioni dell’arte a Firenze dal 1674 al 1767,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, vol. 18,.(1974): 1. 381 Labrot, 2002, 268. 122

modern and avant-garde. The difference between the two types of collectors lies in the fact that aristocratic collections were often inherited from prior generations.382 In some cases, aristocratic collectors found little impetus to add further paintings to a collection they believed was already well-established. For instance, when Alfonso Gaetani d’Aragona, Duca di Laurenzano, died in

1646, he bequeathed his collection to his son, Francesco. Francesco made few changes to the collection in the seven years he lived after his father’s death.383

However, in most cases noblemen tried to contribute to what was already a notable collection. In Naples, many became great patrons of the city’s painters. For example, the collection of Giosuè Acquaviva d’Aragona, Duca d’Atri, inventoried in 1680, contained some works by Raphael, Barocci and Titian, which he had most likely inherited.384 However, numerous paintings by artists working in Naples are also represented. Luca Giordano, Massimo

Stanzione, Jusepe de Ribera, Salvator Rosa and Giacomo Farelli are all included in the Duke’s collection. With the exception of Cardinal Ascanio Filomarino, it appears most aristocratic collectors showed significant interest in Neapolitan painters.385 In fact, some noble collections were dominated by Neapolitan paintings, as was the case with Ferrante Spinelli, Principe di

Tarsia and his wife Eleonora. While the Spinelli collection contained many old master works by

Tintoretto and Palma Giovane, it also included works by Aniello Falcone, Stanzione and

382 Ruotolo, 1977, 72. 383 For both Gaetani inventories see: Labrot, 1992, 72-4; 90-1. 384 For Acquaviva’s inventory see: Ibid., 139-43. 385 Cardinal Filomarino’s collection is centered around seventeenth-century Roman painting, particularly those artists who were preferred by the Barberini family. See: Loredana Lorizzo, La collezione del cardinale Ascanio Filomarino : pittura, scultura e mercato dell'arte tra Roma e Napoli nel Seicento; con una nota sulla vendita dei beni del cardinal Del Monte. (Napoli: Electa Napoli, 2006); Loredana Lorizzo, “Simon Vouet, Valentin e i Filomarino: nuove date e qualche ipotesi sugli scambi artistici tra Roma e Napoli nelle prima meta del Seicento,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano, (2003/2004): 123-36; and Ruotolo, 1977, 71-82. 123

Ribera.386 The same is true of the collection of Giuseppe Carafa, Duca di Maddaloni, where

Stanzione, Ribera, Bartolomeo Passante and Viviano Codazzi were all represented.387

There is a significant difference, however, between Acquaviva’s collection and those of

Carafa and Spinelli. Though Acquaviva’s inventory was executed in 1680, much later than those of Carafa and Spinelli, whose collections were recorded in 1648 and 1654, respectively, his collection is nonetheless indicative of a more antiquated approach to art collecting. Many noble collectors in Seicento Naples, though actively patronizing Neapolitan artists, were still primarily concerned with the collecting of history paintings, despite the development of new genres like landscapes and still-lifes. Few works with these subjects appear in Acquaviva’s collection, being far outnumbered by history paintings, mainly with religious themes. The long-held belief, especially among the city’s aristocrats, in the superiority of history painting prevented some noblemen from collecting the newer genres.

The Carafa and Spinelli collections, by contrast, are remarkable for their time. Both collections were assembled before mid-century at a time when very few aristocrats were interested in the genres of landscapes and still-lifes. In fact, as Acquaviva’s inventory demonstrates, even at a much later date, these subjects still played a minor role in noble collections. Both Carafa and Spinelli collected works by not only Neapolitan artists, but many

Northern European ones as well. Carafa owned a landscape by a “Bartolomeo Fiammingo”, who may have been Bartolomeus Breenbergh, a Dutch artist working in Rome in the 1620s.388 He also collected animal pictures by one “Pietro Fiammingo”, who has yet to be identified. Of particular note was Carafa’s collection of still-lifes, which must have been one of the first of its kind in Naples. He evidently supported the development of Neapolitan still-lifes, owning

386 For Ferrante Spinelli’s collection see Labrot, 1992, 92-100; for the collection of Isabella Spinelli see Labrot, 1992, 126-8. 387 For Giuseppe Carafa’s collection see Ibid., 75-8, 82-3. 388 For more on Breenberg see: Oxford Art Online (Benezit Dictionary of Artists), “Breenberg”; and Marcel Roethlisberger, Bartholomãus Breenberg: Handzeichnungen, (Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969). 124

numerous paintings by Giacomo Recco and Luca Forte. Though Carafa possessed many history paintings in addition to his landscapes and still-lifes, their presence was not overwhelming. In fact, Labrot states that many of Carafa’s religious and mythological paintings were primarily viewed as landscapes.389

In its modernity, the Spinelli collection is similar to that of Giuseppe Carafa. It is notable for its combination of old master paintings and contemporary works by Neapolitan and Northern artists. “Pietro Fiammingo” re-appears in this collection, in addition to pieces by Cornelis Brusco and Claude Lorrain. Newer genres were also well-represented. Still-lifes, though not as prevalent as they were in Carafa’s inventory, are still numerous, being represented by the works of Giovanni Battista Recco and Luca Forte.390 Above all, the Spinelli appreciated battle scenes, owning many works by Aniello Falcone. In fact, Falcone lived and worked in the Spinelli household.391

Though generalizations are sometimes helpful in indentifying collecting patterns, the

Spinelli and Carafa collections indicate that the collecting habits of Naples’ aristocrats cannot be summarized as completely traditional, lacking the avant-garde approach of many bourgeois collectors. This has often been the case in the scholarship, which has more or less ignored the fact that the nobility essentially set the standards of collecting for the newly wealthy to follow and that some of seventeenth-century patricians were trendsetters within Naples’ cultural sphere.

The Bourgeoisie

At the end of the sixteenth century, a sizeable merchant population was settling in Naples, consisting of many foreigners. Other professionals – bankers, lawyers, judges, etc. – also made their way to the city to serve Naples’ burgeoning population and to participate in government

389 Labrot, 1992, 75. 390 Ibid., 92. 391 F. Saxl, “The Battle Scene without a Hero. Aniello Falcone and His Patrons,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 3 (Oct. 1939-Jan. 1940): 82. 125

affairs. That residents of the city of Naples were exempt from state taxes was a notable advantage (the people in the provinces thus carried the majority of the tax burden) that provided many foreigners with the impetus to establish themselves in the Southern Italian city.392 Some of these merchants and professionals became immensely wealthy, which resulted in their ascension up the social ladder. Thus, throughout the seventeenth century, Naples saw the emergence of a prosperous middle class, whose money enabled them to actively participate in the economic, political and cultural spheres of Neapolitan life.

To befit this increasing power, the bourgeoisie turned to the social model of the aristocracy for methods of displaying and promoting their status and wealth. In fact, realizing that titles were significant markers of status, many nouveau riche purchased feudal lands or married into an aristocratic family. These actions granted them titles that officially labelled them as “noble”. The case of Jan Vandeneynden, the business partner of Gaspare Roomer, and his son,

Ferdinand is a notable example of these practices. Jan Vandeneynden purchased the territory of

Castelnuovo, bestowing on his son the title of Marchese del Castelonuovo, and arranged a marriage between Ferdinand and Olimpia Piccolomini, the daughter of one of Naples’ oldest aristocratic families. Ferdinand, following his father’s example, arranged strategic marriages for two of his three daughters.393 His daughters Elisabetta and Giovanna married Prince Giuliano

Colonna di Galatro and Carlo Carafa di Belvedere, respectively. Both these men were from prominent Neapolitan patrician families. While the aristocracy resented these attempts to enter into their ranks, they nonetheless were often forced to concede to the purchase of their lands or to a bourgeois spouse, as many were in dire financial straits.394

392 Labrot, 1992, 1. 393 The third daughter, Caterina, was born with a variety of disabilities and did not marry. See: Ruotolo, 1982, 12. 394 Borrelli, 1990, 86-7. In fact, Borrelli also mentions that many aristocrats reacted against the bourgeoisie encroaching on their traditional markers of status. In 1650, one P.Blasio published a book defending the elevated status of the long-standing nobility, entitled La nobiltà in cappella, in cui si esamina quale sia la vera nobiltà. This publication argued that it was not sufficient to purchase a title and 126

The mindset of the “new nobility” was fundamentally different from that of long-standing patrician families. Despite their actions to achieve aristocratic status, the nouveau riche did not cease from engaging in their businesses. Marriage into a noble family did not prevent the bourgeoisies from maintaining their mercantile, financial and administrative activities. The purchase of land, while integral to their goal of entering the nobility, was also commercially beneficial to merchants, who could then exert more control over the products they sold and traded.395 Furthermore, owning territory was considered an economic investment by many bourgeoisies. It was a relatively safe method of saving money, to be used in the event of a financial crisis.396

Historically, until the seventeenth century, the Spanish viceregal government and the aristocracy had been the primary patrons of the arts in Naples and they inarguably helped move the wheels of artistic production in the Seicento as well. However, as mentioned, noble collectors sometimes hesitated to accept new artistic trends and the impact of the viceroys’ artistic patronage was limited within Naples, as much of what they commissioned was immediately shipped overseas.397 This left room for the bourgeoisie to participate in driving cultural production through their collecting and patronage activities. Traditionally, the aristocracy had used collecting as an expression of their wealth and erudition, and the bourgeoisie followed suit.

In a society that championed the conspicuous display of material wealth, the nouveau riche were well aware that a reputable art collection was yet another avenue to demonstrate their social call oneself a “noble,” but that one was required to also commission a chapel in one of the city’s old churches. See: Borrelli, 1986, 97. 395 Borrelli, 1990, 43. 396 Renato Ruotolo, “Aristi, dottori e mercanti napoletani del secondo Seicento. Sulle tracce della committenza ‘borghese,’” in Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano, 1987: 177. 397 In some cases, the sense of entitlement of the viceroys worked to denegrate Neapolitan culture. For instance, De Dominici tells a story of how the Viceroy Pedro Antonio de Aragón asked Giacomo di Castro to loot Neapolitan churches of their most precious works. Apparently, Di Castro fooled the viceroy by saying many of the artworks in the churches were in fact copies. This account by De Dominici is likely inaccurate – Di Castro was the art advisor to the Count of Peñaranda, not Aragón. However, the concept – that of viceroys stealing artistic treasures from Naples – is likely not too far from the truth. See: De Dominici, vol. 2, 290-1; Wethey, 681. 127

significance and could evoke both envy and admiration from others. Their economic dominance, desire for social recognition and permanent residency in the city allowed many of the bourgeoisie to emerge as important collectors of seventeenth-century Neapolitan and foreign painting in the city.

Thus, prosperous merchants and professionals began amassing paintings to display in their palaces. This emergence of a new social class financially capable of forming collections was fairly new in Italy. Merchants and other members of the bourgeoisie had acquired their wealth relatively recently. The generation of bourgeoisie that emerged at the end of the sixteenth century and the beginning of the seventeenth century were often the first in their families to amass considerable wealth. Therefore, they were the first members of their families to acquire significant art collections. Unlike members of the Spanish and Neapolitan aristocracy who often inherited their collections (which usually included several old master works), the nouveau riche had to assemble their collections quickly and “from scratch”.398 By the seventeenth century, the number of old master paintings on the market had decreased. There was, however, an abundance of contemporary painting readily available on the art market. Focusing their collecting efforts on

“modern” genres, such as still-lifes, landscapes and genre paintings, and on contemporary painters – both Neapolitan and foreign – the wealthy middle class was able to quickly assemble collections that were comparable in size to those of the nobility.

Yet, members of the bourgeoisie did not only purchase contemporary paintings for convenience; we may assume that they were, in general, genuinely interested in modern painting styles and genres. Many merchants in particular originated from Northern Europe, bringing with them a preference for landscapes and still-lifes, which had already been accepted and encouraged as legitimate genres in the Netherlands. As noted in Chapter Three, their interest in these types of

398 This changes toward the latter quarter of the seventeenth century. For example, Jan Vandeneynden – who mainly accumulated his collection himself - did pass his collection of paintings to his son, Ferdinand upon his death. Subsequently, Ferdinand divided his collection among his three daughters. 128

paintings fuelled the contemporary art market and helped to spread the popularity of these genres throughout Italy. Thus, the bourgeois preference for contemporary paintings was due to both practical and aesthetic factors. As a result, the study of their collecting allows for a better comprehension of Seicento taste with regard to contemporary painting, and it serves as a valuable approach to understanding the evolution of seventeenth-century artistic preferences among not only the bourgeoisie, but also other factions of Neapolitan society as well.

Strategies of Display

The display of one’s collection could be as important as its contents. Labrot’s study of

Neapolitan collections indicates that paintings were normally displayed systematically – dictated by the function of the rooms in which works of art were showcased. Being a demonstration of power, wealth and culture, the largest, most spectacular paintings were normally hung in public formal rooms. Arrangement was conceived so as to highlight the masterpiece. Conversely, drawing rooms were usually adorned with portraits of Roman emperors, landscapes, seascapes and other such non-narrative paintings. Works of lesser quality appeared in the private living areas. Many of these were devotional images.

Labrot states that serious collectors often put great effort into arranging their collections, creating a progression from room to room, starting with smaller, more minor works, and ending with the most impressive paintings. For example, the collection of the Spanish aristocrat

Geronimo Ferdinando Alacon de Mendoza, Marchese della Valle Siciliana, was arranged so that small landscapes and still lifes were displayed in the first antechamber, followed by larger religious and mythological works in the second antechamber. However, only a few paintings were hung in the second antechamber in order to amplify the effect of the next room, which housed four large paintings by Mattia Preti, as well as numerous family portraits.399 A similar

399 Labrot, 1992, 17, 216-17 (inventory). 129

strategy, though on a grander scale, is found in the display of the collection of Neapolitan nobleman Ferrante Spinelli, Principe di Tarsia. The rooms leading to the gallery contained mainly small portraits (some unidentified), landscapes, single figure saints and battle scenes

(many by Aniello Falcone). The gallery itself is then the showcase for many of Spinelli’s sixteenth-century paintings, including works by Raphael, Perugino, Giovanni Bellini, Veronese and Bassano.400 Also included are works by Ribera, Caravaggio and Rubens. While the larger works by these artists would have served as the focal point for the gallery, Spinelli offsets these paintings with battle scenes and landscapes by notable painters such as Falcone, Paul Bril and

Claude Lorrain.401

The strategic arrangement of pictures was not only employed by the nobility; it was in general a practice of bourgeoisie collectors as well. The inventory of the merchant Pompeo d’Anna from 1676 reveals a similar method of display. In the Sala were listed mainly portraits of the Spanish royal family and of the d’Anna family. In the antecamera, d’Anna displayed some of his most notable works by Mattia Preti, Andrea Vaccaro, Jusepe Ribera and Matthias Stomer.

These, with the exception of Preti’s Ratto di Din, depicted large-scale religious subjects. Moving through the second to fifth rooms, there were solely religious images, mainly of single figure saints. The subjects represented were fairly simple and all but two of these paintings (“due quadri piccolo di Gioseppe Scarpato”) are unattributed. The gallery, on the other hand, was the venue for a comparative display of still lifes; juxtaposed in this room were works by foreign and Italian artists. Included among these still lifes were some mythological paintings – most notably a

Cleopatra by Guercino – and one large religious work – the Solomon Worshipping Idols by

Mattia Preti.402

400 Labrot notes that because Spinelli was evidently an ambitious collector, the attributions to these artists are likely legitimate. Labrot, 1992, 92. 401 Ibid., 93-7 (inventory). 402 Ibid., 1992, 129-31 (inventory). 130

A conscious effort of display is recognized also in the collection of Pietro Giacomo d’Amore, a member of the bourgeoisie heavily involved in state politics. His Sala contained family portraits, a few mythological works and many landscapes, all by unidentified artists. The viewer was then led into an adjacent room, described only as “una Camera à mano sinistra di detta Sala”. The quality of the artwork in this room denoted its greater importance: displayed here were works by the sixteenth-century artists Andrea di Salerno (a Pietà valued at the grandiose sum of 2000 ducats), and Paolo Veronese. However, the majority of the paintings were by high-profile Neapolitan artists; Massimo Stanzione, Jusepe Ribera, and Battistello Caracciolo were all represented with large, impressive religious works.403

The Collection of Gaspare Roomer

Gaspare Roomer’s collection is one of the best examples of bourgeois collecting in Naples. Like the other members of the affluent middle class, Roomer needed to display his monetary wealth in material form and purchasing palaces, villas and paintings was the most effective way to achieve this goal. In fact, Roomer managed to create a more splendid assortment of paintings than any other merchant in Naples; indeed, his collection was certainly one of the city’s finest. The fame of his collection was such that it attracted the attention of both artist and biographer Joachim von

Sandrart and the Neapolitan antiquarian Giulio Cesare Capaccio. Around 1631, Sandrart travelled to Naples; he later recollected works by Ribera and Falcone in the merchant’s collection.404 A more thorough account of Roomer’s collection was recorded for posterity in

Capaccio’s Il Forastiero, written in 1630.405 The author tells of a multitude of paintings displayed over twelve rooms, the majority of which appear to have been acquired since Roomer had settled Naples in 1616. Already by 1630, Capaccio records around 400 paintings in

403 Ibid, 1992, 105-7 (inventory). 404 Sandrart’s Academie der Bau-, Bild- und Mahlerey-Kuenste von 1675 : Leben der beruehmten Maler, Bildhauer und Baumeister was not published until 1675. For the passage on Ribera see page 191. 405 Capaccio, 577-8. 131

Roomer’s palace at Monteoliveto, indicating that the merchant must have been very active as a collector since his arrival in Italy.

At Roomer’s death in 1674, his inventory recorded almost 1,200 paintings.406 The 50 paintings transferred to Ferdinand Vandeneynden just prior to Roomer’s death should also be understood as part of the collection, making the size of Roomer’s holdings roughly 1,250 paintings by the end of his life. Evidently, Roomer maintained his interest in collecting throughout his lifetime and his collection was memorialized by numerous Neapolitan guidebooks and historical accounts including those by Innocenzo Fuidoro (1660-1680), Carlo Celano (1692),

Pompeo Sarnelli (1685), Domenico Parrino (1700), Antonio Bulifon (1706), Giuseppe

Sigismondo (1788), and Lorenzo Giustiniani (1797-1805). In addition, Roomer’s interest in artwork is repeatedly mentioned by Bernardo De Dominici, whose Vite de' pittori, scultori, ed architetti Napoletani was published between 1742 and 1745.

General Themes of the Collection

It is difficult to trace the evolution of Roomer’s taste from the time of Capaccio’s account until his death in 1674, as documentation is scarce. While there are a variety of consultable sources – guidebooks, letters, and Roomer’s inventory and will – many of them are incomplete or vague.

Nonetheless, with the availability of the information at hand, it is at least possible to reconstruct

Roomer’s collection in part. Based on the above sources, it appears that Roomer’s tastes changed little between 1630 and 1674. While between these years paintings were frequently bought and sold, there is consistency with regard to the genres, styles and artists most appreciated by the

406 Writing in 1692, Carlo Celano notes that Roomer owned 1,500 paintings, while in his 1982 essay on Roomer and Vandeneynden, Ruotolo tallies 1,100 works. I have counted 1,197 paintings. Celano may have been exaggerating or unsure of the exact number. Ruotolo’s record and my own may differ slightly due to our individual idea of what constitutes a “painting”. For example, I included “due quatretti sopra rame” and “sette quattrolini di figure diverse” that were found in two of Roomer’s desks. Because these were small and not hanging on the walls, Ruotolo may not have included them in his number. See: Celano, vol. 3, 116; and Ruotolo, 1982, 7. 132

merchant. It therefore proves more useful to approach Roomer’s tastes as a whole, rather than chronologically.

Roomer was first and foremost a collector of contemporary paintings. In the list given by

Capaccio, the names of only two sixteenth-century painters appear: Jacopo Bassano (Italian, c.

1510-92) and Giorgione (Italian, ?1477-1510). Aside from these two artists, the only other sixteenth-century painter associated with Roomer’s personal collection is Polidoro da Caravaggio

(Italian, c. 1499-c. 1543). Celano notes that Roomer bought fresco fragments by the artist from the façade of Bernardino Rota’s palace, exporting some to France, while keeping the best pieces for himself.407 Also, as noted in Chapter Seven, Roomer did appear to give old master paintings as gifts to various viceroys. Roomer’s collection, however, abounds with the works of contemporary painters from Rome, Naples and Antwerp. Most history paintings owned by the merchant were executed by Neapolitan and Flemish painters and the majority of his collection focused on the “modern” genres – landscapes, seascapes, still-lifes of fruit, flowers and animals, and battle, genre and hunting scenes. At the time, these subjects were just gaining popularity in

Italy. This preference for contemporary painting is completely in keeping with the collecting habits of the bourgeoisie living in Naples. Inventories of other merchant collectors, such as Jan

Vandeneynden, Guglielmo Samuelli and Pompeo d’Anna reveal similar collecting patterns.408

Another general trend in Roomer’s collection is the emphasis on Northern European painting. In his will, Roomer explicitly states that his collections should be inventoried by the

Flemish painter, Giovanni Vandeneynden (not to be confused with Roomer’s by then deceased business partner, Jan Vandeneynden)409 because “la maggiore parte d’autori forestieri e non bene

407 Celano, vol. 3, 431-2. After Roomer’s death, the viceroy Marchese de los Velez purchased the merchant’s fragments and sent them to Spain. 408 For Jan Vandeneynden’s inventory see Ruotolo, 1982, 27-39; For Guglielmo Samuelli’s see Gérard Labrot, “Deux collectionneurs étrangers à Naples,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (1984): 138-9; and for Pomepo d’Anna’s collection see Labrot, 1992, 129-31. 409 The exact identity of this painter is unknown, though Ruotolo suggest he may be the “Giovanni Fiamengo” noted in many Neapolitan inventories from this time. See: Ruotolo, 1982, 21. 133

conosciuti da pittori napoletani.”410 Roomer seems to have been the most prominent collector of

Northern European artwork in Naples at the time. As early as 1630, Capaccio records artworks by Simon Vouet, Pietro Condito di Bavaria, Anthony Van Dyck, David di Haen, Brallone

Fiammingo, Valentin de Boulogne, Steen Roichel, Cornelis Poelenburgh, Gerrit van den Bosch,

Paul Bril, Godfried Wals, Jacob Sibraut and Leonaert Bramer. Subsequent documents reveal that the merchant maintained his interest in Bril and Wals and also demonstrated a preference for the works of Peter van Laer, Peter Paul Rubens and Claude Lorrain.

The penchant for works from one’s native country was common, and in fact, the norm.

Aristocrats and bourgeoisie alike usually patronized artists from their home cities.411 The inventory of Davide Imperiale, a businessman whose family hailed from Genoa, included works of Genoese artists Cambiaso, Giovanni Battista Paggi and Giovanni Andrea Ferrari.412 In the collection of the Florentine silk merchant Santo Maria Cella are paintings by Tuscan artists such as Jacopo Vignali (Italian, 1592-1664) and Cesare and Vincenzo Dandini (Italian, 1596-1657 and

1609-75, respectively).413 Similarly, Ribera was a favourite among the Spanish viceroys, who, though reluctant to patronize Spanish painters while residing in Spain, nonetheless were among the ex-patriot Ribera’s best patrons while serving their viceregal terms in Naples. Collecting paintings could be an expression of patriotism and an assertion of one’s identity within a diverse society. Roomer’s interest in Northern artists was thus likely shaped by a familiar aesthetic – the kinds of paintings he appreciated while still in Antwerp – and fuelled by his own sense of national pride. A collection of paintings was an overt way of exhibiting such identity and functioned as an advertisement for the artistic accomplishments of Northern Europe.

410 A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino 298/39, 411r. 411 The most notable exception of this pattern is Cardinal Ascanio Filomarino, whose collection was primarly comprised of works by Roman artists, especially those active around the Barberini court. 412 For Imperiale’s collection see: Labrot, 1992, 118-9. 413 For Cella’s collection see Ibid., 144-49. 134

Yet, at the same time, Roomer was also an avid collector of Neapolitan painting, which is unsurprising as he spent the majority of his life in Naples. The merchant patronized many of the best artists working in the city during his lifetime. As part of the process of “becoming

Neapolitan,”414 collecting Neapolitan painting would be crucial for his integration into the city; however, he evidently appreciated the city’s artists on a more profound level as well. Owning numerous works by Ribera, Massimo Stanzione, Falcone, Giordano, Preti, Vaccaro and

Cavallino, Roomer was one of the city’s foremost champions of Neapolitan painting.

In terms of subject matter and artistic styles, Roomer had many preferences. His inventory is overwhelmed by landscapes, seascapes, battle and hunting scenes, and still-lifes.

These genres constitute roughly 62% of Roomer’s entire collection. Among these subjects, landscapes and seascapes feature most predominantly, followed by still-lifes, then battle and hunting scenes. He particularly appreciated the Northern representatives of these genres, but he also employed Neapolitans like Viviano Codazzi to create prospettive and Aniello Falcone to execute battle scenes, and his taste undoubtedly contributed to the success of the Ruoppolo and

Recco still life enterprises mentioned in Chapter Three.

Though there were fewer mythological and religious subjects in Roomer’s inventory than there were “modern” genres, they still comprised a significant component of his collection

(around 20%). Other documentation shows that many of Roomer’s most important purchases were religious and mythological paintings. So, while landscapes and like genres composed the majority of the collection, it appears that mythological and particularly religious paintings represented his most prized works. Within this category of painting, it has been noted that

Roomer enjoyed rather gruesome images – there are numerous pictures of beheadings, flaying and buffoons in his post-mortem inventory. However, at the same time, many religious and

414 This phrase is borrowed from the title of John Marino’s 2011 publication entitled, Becoming Neapolitan, op cit. note 372. 135

mythological subjects of a more vibrant or spiritual nature are present. Single-figure portraits of saints and philosophers abound, as do representations of bacchanals and the Holy Family.

Roomer’s interest in violent images and the naturalistic has led some to the conclusion that the merchant favoured tenebrist painting over the neo-Venetian aesthetic that captivated

Naples after 1630. Contributing to this (mis)understanding of Roomer as a collector is the oft- told story in De Dominici’s Vita di Giordano in which the merchant was reported to have told

Luca Giordano to give up painting like the Venetians and return to his former Caravaggesque style.415 Certainly, Roomer did own many Caravaggesque works, including some by Ribera,

Saraceni, De Haen, Vaccaro, Cavallino and Stanzione. However, while Roomer maintained his interest in paintings of gore and deformities in the Caravaggesque style throughout his life (in spite of the fact that tenebrism was decreasing in popularity in Naples after the 1630s) he certainly owned many other works that were not depicted in this manner. He possessed Van

Dyck’s Susanna and the Elders by 1630 and proceeded to acquire the Feast of Herod from

Rubens in 1640. Both these Flemish artists’ styles contained neo-Venetian elements in their expression of colour and light. Considering Roomer invited artists to view his Rubens, it appears that the merchant was in fact encouraging this new style within the city.

Motives for Collecting

Roomer was an informed buyer with specific preferences and a variety of motivations. His reasons for collecting paintings were complex and particular works of art may have been more conducive to one motive than another. For instance, some of the landscapes he acquired were designed to simply fill wall space or to be traded on the open market, while other landscapes were purchased because they added to the prestige of the collection and were aesthetically appreciated by the merchant. Other works, such as Rubens’ Feast of Herod, engendered envy from his fellow

415 De Dominici, vol. 3, 398. 136

collectors, while at the same time providing inspiration for Naples’ painters; it was also very much in line with the merchant’s general tastes.

Social Recognition

A primary motive for Roomer’s collecting lies in the societal expectations of the time. As explained in detail above, many wealthy middle class citizens mimicked the aristocracy’s behavioural patterns in an attempt to display their wealth and growing influence. Roomer easily fits into this paradigm. He arrived in Naples a foreigner, eager to gain respect from the government, the aristocracy and other members of the bourgeoisie. As Capaccio makes clear,

Roomer rose to the rank of the Neapolitan nobility (socially, not officially) within fourteen years of having arrived in the city. Capaccio’s very inclusion of the merchant in his Il Forastiero together with long-standing patricians demonstrates that by 1630, Roomer had established himself within the upper echelons of Neapolitan society.416

In line with the practices of the nobility, Roomer became a renowned collector of paintings – a crucial element in the constructing of his social identity. In terms of quantity,

Roomer’s collection was the largest in the city. Its very size was notable among the elite of

Naples. However, Roomer’s collection could not have earned its reputation through size alone.

The merchant was sure to acquire many works of high quality that would engender envy from other Neapolitan collectors. He possessed works by every major Neapolitan artist – Stanzione,

Ribera, Giordano, Vaccaro, Falcone – in addition to paintings by prominent Northern artists, most notably Anthony van Dyck, Peter Paul Rubens, Jan Brueghel, Paul Bril and Claude Lorrain. The excellence of his collection was such that it not only warranted mention by the seventeenth and

416 Like many of the wealthy middle class, Roomer purchased land outside of the city. A document in the Archivio Capitolino in Rome records that in 1627, Roomer attempted to give his friend David Haecx part of his territory in Castel di Resina near Naples. Though no documentation has surfaced that Roomer ever acquired an official title for owning rural land, that he purchased the land was in following with bourgeois attempts to gain social recognition. See: Archivio Capitolino, Rome. Apoche, vol. 2 (1625-27), no. 173, f. 420-r-v; see also: Cecilia Grilli, “David de Haen, pittore olandese a Roma,” Paragone Arte 48, (1997): 45. 137

eighteenth-century authors discussed above; it attracted national and international attention, drawing interest from Cardinal Leopoldo de’Medici and the Duke of Braunschweig, both of whom purchased works from the post-mortem sale of the merchant’s paintings.

Investment?

It is important to remember that in addition to being a collector, Roomer was also a very active art dealer and thus his collection was not a static entity. He was continually trading, selling and buying pictures throughout his life. As noted in Chapter Three, Roomer exchanged paintings for other works of art, he used artworks to pay off debts, and he also sold pictures as a leisure activity. The transitory nature of his collection has prompted an argument that Roomer collected paintings solely for investment purposes.417 The bourgeoisie often viewed property and expensive objects as a type of insurance, and among all types of collectors, it was not uncommon for paintings to be sold if one was in financial trouble.418 As much of Roomer’s capital was tied up in other investments (mainly property and loans), paintings from his collection could be and in fact were used to pay off debts. However, though the notion of investment would have certainly weighed into some of Roomer’s collecting decisions, it by no means completely guided them.

Roomer had other assets he could liquidate if need be, though he was never in a financial bind that would require such drastic action. The profitability of the merchant’s other commercial and money-lending practices was more than enough to maintain Roomer’s wealth. Collecting (and dealing in) paintings, on the other hand, was much more of a pastime for the merchant, rather than a means of financial security.

417 Nappi, 2000, 65. 418 For example, in 1607 the viceroy Don Juan Alfonso Pimentel, Count-Duke of Benevente, sold off many of his paintings, including works by Caravaggio, to pay off debts when he thought his political term had ended. See: Mercedes Simal López, “Don Juan Alfonso Pimentel, VIII Conde-Duque de Benevente, y el coleccionismo de antigüedades” inquietudes de un Virrey de Nápoles (1603-1610),” Reales Sitios 42, (2005), 56-7. 138

Intellectual and Genuine Interest

The utilitarian nature of the above motives has contributed to Roomer being dubbed an “un- intellectual” collector. This argument has been supposedly reinforced by the fact that the merchant rarely commissioned specific subjects from artists and was mainly interested in collecting the “lower” genres – landscapes and still-lifes.419 Setting aside for the moment that this view demonstrates a particular prejudice about what constitutes an “intellecutual”, there is plenty of evidence to suggest Roomer was actively and intellectually engaged with his collection and the artists from whom he acquired many of his paintings. Though social advancement and investment indeed played a role in his collecting practices, so too did a genuine interest in artistic matters.

Roomer may not have been a collector who enjoyed complex allegories and mythologies, but he was genuinely interested in the cultural development of Naples, thereby directing his interests to matters of style, artist development and the art market. His appreciation of artworks likely began while he was still in Antwerp, where a culture of bourgeois collecting had developed much sooner than it had in Italy. Roomer’s family’s relationship with cultural patronage prior to his move south is unknown; however, the fact that he, his brother Lodewijk and his sister

Christina were all involved in the art trade and were active participants in the decoration of the

Roomer family chapel (discussed in Chapter Eight) indicates that an interest in paintings may have been fostered in his childhood. Thus, it appears that Roomer’s interest in art collecting was not completely in response to his particular position in Naples; rather, it had been initiated during his life in Antwerp and was carried with him to the southern city.

Once in Naples, Roomer not only collected paintings, but also fully integrated himself into the artistic climate of the city. The conversations held in Mele’s bottega discussed in

Chapter Three were just one of many ways in which Roomer was involved in Naples’ art scene.

419 Jeanne Chenault-Porter, “Ribera’s Assimilation of a Silenus,” Paragone Arte 30 (Sept. 1979): 42. 139

Furthermore, Roomer encouraged artists to view the contents of his gallery, making him directly involved with the development of certain trends in Naples, such as neo-Venetianism. De

Dominici specifically mentions that Roomer showed the Feast of Herod to Bernardo Cavallino and Mattia Preti, and Sandrart notes he met with Ribera at the merchant’s palace.420

Undoubtedly, he allowed other painters into his home to see his collection as well. Introducing

Neapolitan artists to artistic practices outside of Italy and creating an international market for

Neapolitan painting were primary aims of Roomer as a collector.

The presence of artist biographies in the merchant’s library also points to Roomer as an informed, sophisticated and engaged collector. His library contained works by Giorgio Vasari

(volumes two and three of his Lives), Carlo Ridolfi and Giovanni Baglione.421 Evidently, he must have had an understanding of past artistic movements that informed his present choice of pictures. That he owned Baglione and Ridolfi also reveals that Roomer was interested in artist biography and criticism of his own day.

The Display of Gaspare Roomer’s Collection

Because of the ambiguity of the inventory, it is difficult to fully understand Roomer’s method of display. Fortunately, the inventory is divided by room; however, the function of each room is usually unspecified. In contrast to the other Neapolitan collections discussed above, the display of Roomer’s collection appears less calculated. Landscapes, religious works and mythological scenes were often hung together in the same room. Still lifes were sometimes paired with narrative paintings; religious works were often surrounded by landscapes. There are some rooms with no paintings at all, but instead contain numerous pieces of decorative furniture. There are some rooms that contain both paintings and decorative objects. In short, Roomer’s inventory seems to resemble a written description of one of those Flemish paintings that depict a collector’s

420 De Dominici, vol. 3, 35, 344; Sandrart, 278. 421 A.S.N. Notai del Seicento, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, ff. 181r-182r. 140

gallery, where paintings are hung floor to ceiling and an attempt is made to showcase a variety of works in one image.

The first room – and its chapel - described in the inventory is more or less an exception to this “pattern”.422 On the walls of the chamber attached to the chapel were textiles from

Damascus and stone-carved buffets, as well as two quite large religious paintings, measuring five by six palmi. One represents a Doubting Thomas, while the other depicts Christ and the

Samaritan Woman. That these two seem to be pendants perhaps indicates that they were executed by the same artist. Offsetting the Doubting Thomas and the Samaritan Woman is a floral still life with a putto that, at eight by six palmi, is larger than the two religious works. This room attaches to Roomer’s private chapel where the decorative program clearly adheres to an overarching vision. The altar of the chapel was adorned with a painting of the Pietà. On the right side was a large painting by Giacinto Brandi of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, to whom

Roomer, as discussed, was particularly devoted. This painting was one of Roomer’s most prized works. It was accompanied by three small paintings, measuring only one palmo by one-half palmo: a San Pietro Alcantara, a Saint Mary Magdalen, and a San Antonio of Padua. Peter

Alcantara was connected to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, as they were canonized around the same time and the celebrations of their sainthood were held in conjunction.423 While San Antonio of Padua is less directly connected to Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, he was a popular Italian saint and therefore his presence in personal chapels was common. In addition to these paintings, the chapel also contained a St. Jerome and a Madonna. The Madonna is depicted alone and whether

St. Jerome is portrayed as a hermit, scholar or cardinal is unspecified. The two paintings were measured at two by three palmi and may have been pendants.

The next three rooms list a variety of tapestries, draperies, vases and buffets. The types of paintings gracing the walls are a mix of both religious paintings and landscapes. One picture

422 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovanni Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, 171r-v. 423 The relationship between these two saints is further outlined in Chapters Seven and Eight. 141

of a philosopher is noted.424 It is in the fifth room that Roomer began to display his paintings in greater numbers. This room was dominated by 19 still lifes, depicting fish, fruit, flowers, rabbits, birds and kitchen scenes. For the most part, these paintings were quite large, though there were some smaller ones, measuring at only one and a half palmi. Interspersed amongst the still lifes are four landscapes, two prospettive and one battle scene. There were five religious paintings, each one depicting a different subject. There were multiple pictures of single figures, as well as two works described as portraits. One of these was described as “antico” and apparently depicted the son of an unspecified king.425

A little less than half of the pictures in this room were noted as “senza cornice.” That this room displayed such a wide range of subjects, in addition to the fact that many of them were without frames, may signify that many of the pictures were intended for resale. Since he was an art dealer as well as a collector, it is reasonable to assume that Roomer’s palace functioned as both a home for his own permanent collection and as a warehouse for the numerous artworks that were continually coming into and going out of his possession. It contained many different types of paintings, from small devotional works (for example a Madonna measuring three by two and a half palmi) to antique portraits, from large pictures of fish to a single-figure philosopher. It even contained some small paintings on copper. There is a feeling that some of the paintings were hung on the walls, some were stacked on the floor, while others were sitting on tables. Among all the paintings are numerous pieces of decorative furniture and textiles from buffets to fabrics from the Middle East. In other words, the description and contents of this room indicate an active site for art trading.

Moving to another area of the palace, there are two rooms that were perhaps attached and seem to have displayed many significant works.426 There are a total of 37 religious scenes and 24

424 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovanni Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, 174v. 425 Ibid., 174v-176r. 426 Ibid., 177v-180v. 142

landscapes, seascapes or prospettive. There are also a few half-figure and battle paintings, as well as a small history piece depicting the story of Romulus and Remus. There is some method of organization at work in these rooms, especially in clustering the religious subjects. There are numerous paintings dedicated to the life of the Madonna. In the first room, there are six paintings of virgins, which would have underlined the Madonna’s celibacy. The second room contains a St.

Anna, the mother of Mary, followed by two paintings illustrating the birth of the Virgin. There is a small Flight into Egypt (which is complemented by a large and medium version of the same subject in the first room). There are also a Death of the Virgin and an Assumption of the Virgin, which are next to each other in the inventory and of a similar size, meaning they could have been pendants. Placed around the two rooms are numerous images of the Holy Family.

The description of the palace then moves into what must have been the library, indicated by the numerous books listed in the room.427 There are no paintings listed among the books, though mention is made of a portrait of Cardinal Antonio Barberini, situated between two books and therefore likely an engraving. In the room next to the library, there is a mélange of small and medium-sized works, ranging from the allegorical figures of Hope and Peace to still life representations of flowers and antiquities. There are pictures of the nativity and of the crucifixion and scenes from the apocryphal Book of Tobit. There are very few landscapes and only one battle scene, though there is also a depiction of a lone soldier. Again, this room appears to contain a variety of genres, following no obvious program. There are, however, numerous empty frames listed and two paintings noted without their frames.428 Perhaps this was the room in which some of Roomer’s paintings were framed, rather than a place where works of art were intended to be displayed.

427 Ibid., 181r-182r. 428 Ibid., 182v-183v. 143

Further on in the inventory are a series of smaller rooms, all of which have a multitude of paintings.429 The first room features six small works: four landscapes and two still lifes of game, while in the next room, the viewer enters to see a monumental painting of the martyrdom of St.

Lawrence – perhaps the piece by Ribera Capaccio saw in 1630. Beside this work were two paintings measuring eight by six palmi, one an unidentified half-figure and the other a St.

Sebastian. Next is a pair of square paintings, undoubtedly conceived as pendants; one illustrates the beheading of St. Paul, while the other depicts St. Peter, possibly his crucifixion. Monumental religious works, many of which were martyrdoms, are offset by forty landscape pieces.

Landscapes would have helped to emphasize the drama of the violent action of some of the history paintings.

The third of this string of rooms contains only a few paintings, most notably a St.

Bartholomew; another painting of him is located in the following, fourth room. These modest areas are followed by what is described as the “sala di detto parto”, which clearly must have held a prominent and public function, for it was full of impressive paintings.430 There are more works of art classified as mythological or classical subjects in this room than in any other in the palace.

Pictures of nymphs, satyrs and bacchanals are present, as are three images of a buffoon. The atmosphere of this room is lighter and more jovial than in other areas of Roomer’s residence.

Though a few serious religious paintings are included, none depicts a martyrdom. There are relatively few landscapes, though there are numerous still lifes illustrating fish, flowers, tapestries and fruit.

There then follows a series of rooms completely full of paintings, some containing more than 100 works of art. In general, these rooms demonstrate a similar eclecticism to those preceding them. Religious and mythological paintings, landscapes, still lifes and portraits were all displayed together. The disorganization of Roomer’s collection is difficult to explain. While

429 Ibid., 186r-190r. 430 Ibid., 187v-188v. 144

a motive for his collecting was undoubtedly connected to his desire for elevated status, there seems to be little attempt on his part to highlight some of his more notable works or to guide the viewer through a provocatively conceived tour of his collection. Rather, his strategy appears to have been to overwhelm the viewer with the sheer size and variety of his collection.

* * * * *

Though the extant primary source information regarding Roomer’s collection is fragmented and vague, there nonetheless exists enough material to adequately reconstruct the merchant’s preferences, motivations and influence. Despite the seemingly eclectic display of his collection,

Roomer’s tastes were quite in line with or anticipated many of the the major artistic movements of his time, attesting to his reputation as one of Naples’ most important collectors. His collecting habits correspond to those of other members of the bourgeoisie and his wealth allowed him to acquire some outstanding pieces, such as Rubens’ Feast of Herod, that would enact immense influence on Neapolitan artists, as attested to by De Dominici, and elicit admiration from fellow collectors. Indeed, his collection obtained international attention. Cardinal Leopoldo de’Medici,

Andrea and Lorenzo del Rosso, the Duke of Braunschweig, Charles I of England and the

Marchese del Carpio all expressed interest in the post-mortem sale of Roomer’s collection.431 His preferences and motivations for collecting, as will be demonstrated in two following chapters, were a product of both his Flemish background and his residence in Naples. These factors helped

431 For more information on the interest in Roomer’s collection by Leopoldo de’Medici, the Del Rosso brothers and the Duke of Braunschweig, see Chapter Five and Six. As for Charles I of England, Antonio Delfino published a document that says his agents bought 2000 ducats worth of paintings from Roomer’s estate in 1679. See: A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Domenico de Vivo di Napoli, 1340/16, ff. 533r-v. Published in Delfino, 1993, 38. Regarding the Marchese del Carpio, Confuorto writes that “A il detto, domenica, il signore viceré [Carpio] andò alla casa del quondam Gasparo Romer a Santa Maria della Stella, ove fe’ compra d’alcuni quadri, indi, al ritorno a Palazzo, in molti luoghi della città fe’ pigliare tutto il pane che trovò di male qualità o mancante del giusto peso e, conforme al solito, lo fe’ buttare a ‘poveri.” See: Domenico Confuorto, Giornale di Napoli dal MDCLXXIX al MDCIC, vol. 1, ed. Nicola Nicolini, (Naples: Presso Luigi Lubrano, 1930), 101. I thank Leticia de Frutos for pointing this out to me. 145

to create a collection that was one of the best examples of its time of seventeenth-century

Northern European and Neapolitan painting.

146

Chapter 5

The Collection of Gaspare Roomer: Collecting Landscapes, Still Lifes,

Genre Paintings, Battle Scenes and Single-Figure Works

As discussed in Chapter Three, landscapes, still-lifes and the related genres suffered in Italy from the pretension that they were inferior to history painting, and therefore were not as avidly collected by Italian patrons in the early years of the seventeenth century. Overwhelmingly, most of the inventories (published by the Labrot and the Getty Provenance Index) until mid-century were devoid of landscapes and still lifes.432 The presence of two works by Paul Bril in the

Neapolitan collection of the lawyer and professor Giovanni Francesco de Ponte in his 1614 inventory is exceptional.433 By 1648, many landscapes and still lifes appear in the collection of

Giuseppe Carafa, Duca di Maddaloni, and in 1654 many of these subjects were recorded in the inventory of Ferrante Spinelli, Principe di Tarsia.434 However, even at these later dates, significant numbers of the modern genres are few and far between. It is not until the inventories of the 1680s that such pictures consistently appear in large numbers in Neapolitan collections.

In contrast to this trend, Roomer’s collection by 1630 contained hundreds of landscapes and still-lifes. In fact, these subjects constituted the majority of paintings in the merchant’s collection. His predilection for these genres was undoubtedly a result of his Flemish heritage.

These genres, as noted in Chapter Three, had been more appreciated in Antwerp since the sixteenth century, where they were not subjected as harshly to the hierarchal categorization of

432 Labrot, 1992, 37. 433 Aside from these two paintings by Bril, De Ponte’s collection was more or less representative of the time, consisting primarily of ambitious attributions to various old masters, including Titian, Raphael and Michelangelo, and religious subjects. Labrot, 1992, 37, 49-52. 434 Ibid.,75, 92. Carafa and Spinelli were notable for being very open-minded, sophisticated aristocratic collectors. Their inventories are not representative of the majority of noble collections in Naples at this time. 147

painting. They were exactly the type of paintings produced for the growing number of newly wealthy merchants in both the Northern and Southern Netherlands.

Roomer’s arrival in Italy coincided with the establishment of many Northern artists in

Rome; some even travelled to or settled in Naples. Paul Bril, Pieter van Laer, Godfried Wals,

Cornelis van Poelenburgh and Leonaert Bramer were all in Italy at this time. The many foreign merchants who also came to Italy during these years, along with some Italian avant-garde patrons, patronized and purchased paintings from these artists, helping to ensure their success in Italy. In

Naples, Roomer was one of the first to collect large quantities of landscapes and still-lifes, the majority of which came from Rome. His patronage was extended to those Northern artists who visited Naples as well. By importing these types of works from Rome and by providing steady patronage for those foreign artists who came to Naples, Roomer fostered interest within the city’s artistic community. This contributed to the establishment of still-life workshops, for instance those operated by the Recco and Ruoppolo families and to the rise of specialists in prospettive and battle scenes, such as Viviano Codazzi and Aniello Falcone, respectively.

Landscapes, Seascapes and Prospettive

Capaccio’s account of Roomer’s collection includes a “borasca di mare” by Cornelio Brusco,

“dieci quadri di Paolo Bril”, “sessanta paesi del Goffredo Todesco [Godfried Wals]”, “cento sessantotto trà grandi e piccoli di Iacobo Sibraut,” and “quaranta del Leonardo [Leonaert

Bramer]”.435 Added to this are “tre paesi d’Agostino Tasso” and “una prospettiva di Filippo napolitano” from a 1630 bank record uncovered by Renato Ruotolo in the Archivio Storico di

Banco di Napoli.436 Therefore, by this date, Roomer had already accumulated over 300 landscape, seascape and prospettive paintings. While some of these would have likely been sold

435 Capaccio, 578. 436 Published in Ruotolo, 1982, 19. 148

during his lifetime, the merchant’s post-mortem inventory – recording the extraordinary number of around 560 landscape, seascape, and prospettive scenes – clearly signifies that Roomer maintained his interest in these genres until his death in 1674.437

As noted in Chapter Three, not all 560 paintings within this genre belonged to Roomer’s personal collection; rather, many of them would have been slated for resale. However, despite the fact that some of the landscapes, seascapes and prospettive would have been purchased for resale, many of them were intended to adorn the walls of his palace as part of his personal collection. As they are represented in such large quantities, it is presumable that not all of them were of the highest quality. As previously mentioned, landscapes and the related genres were often bought in large quantities by collectors in order to conform to the contemporary fashion in interior decoration, which dictated that the walls of large galleries be hung floor to ceiling with paintings. The trend was pervasive throughout both Italy and Northern Europe, as attested through artistic depictions of palace interiors of the day (Fig. 15). Within this context, Roomer’s immense collection of the “modern” genres is better explained. It was not uncommon for even great collections to contain fairly cheaply produced landscapes to function as “furnishings”, especially when the collector resided in a large palazzo with many walls to decorate.

Accepting that some of Roomer’s landscape, seascape and prospettive paintings may have been of questionable quality, it is also the case that the merchant owned numerous pictures that represented the best in the genre. Many of the artists in his collection were highly respected among aristocratic collectors: Bril had worked in the Vatican and the Lateran Palace, frescoing the Galleria delle Carte Geografiche, the Torre dei Venti, the Sala Santa and the Sala Clementina;

Poelenburgh worked at the court of the Grand Duke in Florence; and Claude was considered the

437 A.S.N., Notai dell’600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, ff. 171r-208r. 149

best landscape painter of his day, attracting the attention of such scholarly collectors as Cassiano del Pozzo.438

The Flemish Landscapes of Paul Bril

By 1630, according to Capaccio, Roomer owned ten artworks by Paul Bril, indicating that the merchant was actively pursuing the paintings of Rome’s finest landscape painters at an early date.439 Bril, who arrived in Rome sometime around 1582, was somewhat of an anomaly at the time, being a painter of landscapes that managed to attract some prestigious commissions. His work was collected by important patrons like Francesco Maria del Monte and the Mattei family and contributed to landscape painting being recognized as a respected genre.440

It appears that Roomer maintained an interest in Bril until his death in 1674. The 1689 inventory of the Florentine brothers Andrea and Lorenzo del Rosso records two scenes by Bril that are described as from the estate of Roomer and valued at 250 florins.441 Furthermore, in

May of 1675, Cardinal Leopoldo de’Medici’s agent, Pietro Andrea Andreini, was in Naples with a mission to purchase some paintings from Roomer’s collection. A letter dated 14 May, 1675 from Andreini to the Cardinal noted with disdain that “Ho riconosciuto ancor più volte li quadri dell’Eredità del qm. Gaspero de Roomer che essendo tutti li scartati non ci ha trovato cosa che

438 On Bril’s work for the Vatican see: Nicola Courtright, The Papacy and the Art of Reform in Sixteenth- Century Rome: Gregory XIII’s Tower of the Winds in the Vatican, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 105-6, 176-7. For a comprehensive overview and analysis of all of Bril’s fresco projects see: Carla Hendriks, “Northern Landscapes on Roman Walls: The Frescoes of Matthijs and Paul Bril, (Florence: Centro Di, 2003): 31-72. For Poelenburgh see: Nicolette Cathérine Sluijter-Seigffert, Cornelis van Poelenburch, PhD Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, 1984. 439 Capaccio, 578. It is unknown how Roomer acquired these works, whether through the artist himself before his death in 1626, or through an agent in Rome, perhaps Pietro Piscatore or even Ferdinand Vandeneynden. 440 For more on Bril, see: Francesca Cappelletti, Paul Bril e la pittura di paessaggio a Roma 1580-1630, (Rome: Ugo Bozzi, 2005-2006); Société des Expositions du Palais des Beaux-Arts de Bruxelles, ed. Fiamminghi a Roma 1508-1608, exh. cat. (Brussels: Snoeck-Ducaju & Du, 1995), 97-111; P.M. Jones, “Italian Devotional Paintings and Flemish Landscapes in the Quadrerie of Cardinals Giustiniani, Borromeo, and Del Monte,” Storia dell’Arte 107 (2007): 86-7. 441 Del Rosso inventory published in: Gualandi, 117. 150

potesse appagare il buon genio di S.A.R. ma, ne quello del Ser.mo Granduca.” He then adds, while complaining that many of the paintings are overpriced, that there are “alcuni piccoli di

Paolo Brille assai piccolo, e di poca maniera, d. 200 l’uno.” However, Andreini’s assessment is improved when, on 18 June, 1675, he writes to Leopoldo that “Stimo aver trovato due belle cose di Paolo Brille per S.A. Ser.ma.”442

Capaccio, Andreini and the Del Rosso inventory unfortunately do not offer precise descriptions of these paintings. This makes it impossible to know if the Brils mentioned by

Capaccio were the ones later purchased by the Del Rosso brothers and Leopoldo de’Medici.

However, the post-mortem inventory of Leopoldo de’Medici from 1675 records only two works by Bril. The first is described as “un paese grande e con pastori et una donna che per mano tiene un bambino e molte pecore, capre, agnelli et uccelli, di mano di Paolo Brill” and the other as a

“paesino con un ferito ignudo giacente, et un cavallo legato con altra figurina guardante il ferito di mano di Paolo Brill.”443 Considering that little time passed between Andreini’s purchase of two

Bril paintings for the Cardinal and the execution of this inventory, the two works by the Flemish artist in Leopoldo’s collection at the time of his death must have originated from Roomer’s collection. Fortunately, Francesca Cappelletti has identified these two paintings by Bril as the

Landscape with the Rest on the Flight into Egypt (c. 1600) and Landscape with the Good

Samaritan (c. 1600), both in the collection of the Pinacoteca Nazionale in Lucca (Fig. 16, Fig.

17). These works, which functioned as pendants, are on copper and are good examples of how the artist subordinated religious narratives to the dominating landscape.

Roomer’s interest in Bril is unsurprising. First, Bril was from Flanders, so even at this base level there was a possible reason for Roomer to take interest in him. Second, some of Bril’s works (especially his earlier ones) were representative of the Flemish tradition of rendering

442 Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Carteggio d’artisti, vol. XXI, ff. 144, 156. Published in Ruotolo, 1982, 21. 443 Miriam Fileti Mazza, Eredità del Cardinale Leopoldo de’Medici, 1675-1676, (Pisa: Scuolo Normale Superiore, 1997), 124-5. 151

perspective through colour and light (using dark brown in the foreground, green in the middle and light blue for the background).444 This unmistakable “Flemishness” of his paintings, despite his inclusion of elements from ancient Rome, perhaps attracted Roomer to the artist. Bril has been touted as the transition point between an older generation of Flemish landscape painters and the

Northern artists who were arriving in Rome at the beginning of the seventeenth century.445

Growing up in Antwerp, it is plausible to think that the style of sixteenth-century landscape artists may have served as a sentimental link for Roomer.

Additionally, in terms of landscape artists, Bril was reputed as one of the best. As mentioned, he worked in the Vatican and his paintings were collected by many of Rome’s most sophisticated collectors.446 In the later Seicento, Bril maintained his popularity, as the interest of

Leopoldo de’Medici and the Del Rosso brothers signifies. Though appreciation of landscapes was limited in the first half of the seventeenth century, there was nevertheless some degree of prestige associated with owning an artwork by Bril. Collecting in the early decades of the

Seicento, Roomer was one of only a few collectors in Naples who owned paintings by the artist.

Bril’s works in the 1614 inventory of the lawyer Giovanni Francesco de Ponte may be the first paintings by the artist to have reached Naples. Another picture by Bril is found in the 1631 inventory of the Spaniard Juan de Lescano. Roomer was thus at the forefront of a new trend in collecting. While his collection helped to elevate his social standing, at the same time, it was precisely his reputable status within Neapolitan society that made him an example others should follow. As the century progressed, more of Bril’s paintings began appearing in various collections, including those of Ferrante Spinelli and Ettore Capecelatro,447 both of whom were

444 Cappelletti, 26; Anne Sutherland Harris, Landscape Painting in Rome, 1595-1675, (New York: Richard L. Feigen & Co., 1985), 15, 18. 445 Sutherland Harris, 18. 446 Hendriks, 26-7. 447 The inventories of de Ponte, Lescano, Spinelli and Capecelatro are found in Labrot, 1992, 49-52; 56-9; 92-100; and 101-4, respectively. See also: Labrot, 1992, 484. 152

likely acquiring the artist’s works before 1650, as well as that of Ferdinand Vandeneynden and the Gaetani d’Aragona family.448

Landscape Painters in Rome and Naples: Cornelis Poelenburgh, Leonaert Bramer,

Agostino Tassi, Godfried Wals and Claude Lorraine

Paving the way for success in landscape painting, Paul Bril was one of the first who took up the genre in early Seicento Rome. Others followed and a sizeable group of mainly Northern artists established themselves in the city. Many of the landscape artists recorded in Roomer’s collection were a part of this community. These painters knew each other well; most of them were residing on or near Via Margutta. Their living arrangement allowed these artists to mutually influence one another, so it is unsurprising that Roomer was interested in a number of them. Many were members of the Schildersbent, a group of Northern artists who settled in Rome and specialized in landscape and genre painting. The group was founded by Cornelis Poelenburgh (Dutch, c. 1593-

1667) and Bartolomeus Breenbergh (Dutch, 1598-1657) in the early 1620s and included painters such as Godfried Wals and Leonaert Bramer.449

Many members of the Schildersbent are documented in Roomer’s collection in 1630.450

Because Capaccio’s account of Roomer’s gallery at Monteoliveto is fairly vague, it is impossible to know which paintings by these artists Roomer owned. Capaccio only states that there are “altri

[paintings] di Cornelio sopranominato il Satiro del Baccarelli [Poelenburgh]” and “Quaranta del

448 Ferdinand’s inventory was published by Ruotolo, 1982, 27-39. The Gaetani family’s inventories can be found in Labrot, 1992, 232-43; 409-29; 484. 449 For more on the schildersbent see: G.J. Hoogewerff, De Bentvueghels, (‘S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1952); David Levine, “Schildersbent,” Oxford Art Online; David Levine, “The Bentvueghels: ‘Bande Académique,’” in IL 60: Essays Honoring Irving Lavin on his Sixtieth Birthday, ed. Marily Aronberg Lavin, (New York: Ithaca Press, 1990), 207-25. 450 Capaccio, 578. Capaccio identifies Poelenburgh as “il Satiro del Baccarelli.” When Poelenburgh founded the Schildersbent, he took the name “Satyr.” See: Peter C. Sutton, Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, exh. cat. (Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1987), 402; Hoogewerff, 1952, 141. Most members of the schildersbent had nicknames based on a physical characteristic. See: Levine, 1990, 209. 153

Leonardo [Bramer].”451 Poelenburgh was renowned as a painter of mythological and pastoral subjects set within a landscape populated by lively figures and architectural ruins (Fig. 18). He was in Rome in 1617 and stayed there until 1621, at which time he moved to Florence to work for the Grand-Ducal court. He was back in Rome by 1623, but then returned to his hometown of

Utrecht around 1625.452 Roomer likely collected Poelenburgh’s works while the artist was living in Rome, using his connections in the city. Though Roomer had agents in Livorno, who could have acquired Poelenburgh’s paintings for him, the artist’s work for the Grand Duke would have kept him preoccupied.

The fact that forty paintings by Leonaert Bramer are recorded by Capaccio in Roomer's collection has led some to believe that Bramer must have resided in Naples at some point before returning to his hometown of Delft in 1628 (the artist was in Italy from 1619-25).453 Whether or not this was the case, Roomer was likely the artist’s most significant patron in Italy.454 In contrast to Poelenburgh, Bramer’s style was less idyllic. While his paintings were often set within a landscape, the figures and narrative play a more prominent role (Fig. 19). They would have provided an interesting contrast to Poelenburgh’s paintings. Furthermore, Bramer was also a prolific draughtsman and Roomer probably owned quite of few of the artist’s drawings as well.455

451 Capaccio, 578. 452 For more on Poelenburg, see: Sluijter-Seigffert, op. cit. note 439; Luigi Salerno, Landscape Painters of the Seventeenth Century, (Rome and Milan: Ugo Bozzi Editore, 1977), 224-5; Sutton, 402-410; Alan Chong, “The Drawings of Cornelis van Poelenburch,” Master Drawings 25, (Spring 1987): 3-62, 85-116; Hoogewerff, 1952, 43-8; Marco Chiarini, “Ipostesi sugli inizi di Cornelis van Poelenburgh,” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 23 (1972): 203-12; Marco Chiarini, “Filippo Napoletano, Poelenburgh, Breenbergh e la nascita del paessaggio realistica in Italia,” Paragone Arte, no. 269, (July 1972): 18-34. 453 Vaes, 1925, 193. 454 Michiel Plomp and Jane Ten Bring Goldsmith, “Leonart Bramer the Painter,” in Leonart Bramer, 1596- 1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Rome and Delft, eds. Jane Ten Brink Goldsmith et al. (Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 1994), 53. 455 Michiel Plomp, “Leonaert Bramer the Draughtsman,” in Leonaert Bramer, 1596-1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Rome and Delft, ed. Ten Brink Goldsmith et al., (Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 1994), 209-276; Michiel Plomp: “Een merkwaardige verzameling teekeningen” door Leonaert Bramer,” Oud-Holland, (1986): 81–153. 154

Poelenburgh is only moderately represented in Neapolitan collections, in spite of the fact that he had worked for a decade for the Grand Duke of Florence. His works are found in five of the collections published by Labrot, three of which belonged to members of the bourgeoisie.456

However, his work does appear fairly early in Naples. The 1620 inventory of politician Scipione

Porzio notes two paintings by Poelenburgh. His work also is recorded in the 1654 inventory of

Ferrante Spinelli, who owned three paintings by the artist.457 Clearly, that Roomer owned many paintings by the artist by 1630 was unusual for his time. Bramer fares worse than Poelenburgh, being noted in only one collection in Labrot’s study, even though he received prestigious patronage from the Giustiniani and Rospigliosi families in Rome.458 Francesco Salernitano – a low-ranking nobleman who also owned Ribera’s Drunken Silenus – was the only Neapolitan collector discussed by Labrot who possessed three works by Bramer; he owned two landscapes and a circular canvas of a soldier.459 What is remarkable, however, is that Salernitano acquired works by Bramer in the first half of the seventeenth century. He and Roomer appear to have been the only collectors in Naples who owned Bramer’s paintings. While he often used paintings as a way to assert social status, that Roomer also collected the works of lesser-known artists such as

Bramer demonstrates that he also acquired pieces whose purpose was only to please himself as a patron. It is also a possibility that Roomer wished to promote Bramer’s works in Naples.

Some members from the Schildersbent were connected to the Italian landscape artist

Agostino Tassi. Apparently having trained under Paul Bril,460 Tassi was one of the first Italians to take up landscape painting with vigour (Fig. 20). He operated a large bottega that specialized in landscape, seascape, quadratura and other fresco painting and his influence was felt among the landscape painters in the area. He was remarkably successful and was employed by many notable

456 Labrot, 1992, 547. 457 For Spinelli’s inventory op.cit. note 68. See also Ibid., 547. 458 Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 15 April, 2012. 459 Labrot, 1992, 79, 483. 460 Cavazzini, 2008, 109; and Patrizia Cavazzini, “Agostino Tassi and the Organization of his Workhop: Filippo Franchini, Angelo Caroselli, Claude Lorrain and the others,” Storia dell’arte, 91, (1997), 405. 155

patrons, including Paul V and Scipione Borghese.461 Though Tassi’s works are not well- represented in Neapolitan collections,462 Roomer was evidently aware of the artist’s success in

Rome. In January of 1630, he purchased three landscapes by the painter from the heredity of one

Domenico della Vigna,463 and Capaccio mentions works by Tassi in the merchant’s collection in his Il Forastiero.464 The works by Tassi seen by Capaccio may have been those bought by

Roomer from the Della Vigna collection, but there may have been more works by the artist in the merchant’s possession. In addition to landscape subjects, Tassi also specialized in marine paintings (Fig. 21),465 which appear frequently in Roomer’s inventory (there were around 90 in the post-mortem inventory). Unfortunately, the available information is too vague for anything to be asserted with certainty.

In his Vite de’pittori, scultori e architteti genovesi, Raffaello Soprani notes that Godfried

(or Goffredo) Wals was in the studio of Tassi, though their working relationship soured in 1618 when the two artists engaged in a physical fight.466 Shortly after this incident, Wals moved from

Rome to Naples and this is likely when he met Roomer.467 Roomer seems to have been the artist’s greatest collector, as Capaccio records sixty landscape paintings by Wals in the

461 Cavazzini, 1997, 401. 462 Labrot’s study of Neapolitan collections and the Getty Provenance Index note that Tassi’s works were only found in the 1741 inventory of Niccolò Gaetani d’Aragona, Duca di Laurenzano, Principe di Piedimonte. Additionally, three works attributed to Tassi were found in the 1710 inventory of Giuseppe Gaetani d’Aragona, a high-ranking church official. See: Labrot, 232,409, 567; and the Getty Provenance Index http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb, accessed 20 November 2013. However, the inventory of Domenico della Vigna is not included in Labrot’s publication. The bank document published in Ruotolo, 1982 (p. 19) indicates that there were more works by Tassi in circulation in Naples than Labrot’s study accounts. 463 Document published in Ruotolo, 1982, 19. 464 Capaccio, 578. 465 Malcolm Waddington, “Notes on Agostino Tassi and the Northerners,” Paragone Arte, 13, no. 147, (1962), 14. 466 Raffaele Soprani, Vite de’pittori, scultori e architetti genovese, 322; Marcel George Roethlisberger, “From Goffredo Wals to the Beginnings of Claude Lorrain,” Artibus et Historiae, 16, no. 32, (1995), 9; and Salerno, 186. For more on the Wals’ career, see: Anke Repp, Goffredo Wals: Zur Landschaftsmalerei zwischen Adam Elsheimer und Claude Lorrain, (Cologne: Walter König, 1986). 467 For Wals’ time in Naples, see: Repp, 40-1. 156

merchant’s collection.468 Roomer may have been attracted to the simplicity of Wals’ compositions – many of his paintings depicted three distinct planes: foreground, middle ground and background.469 In general, Wals painted minute figures, being sure not to overpower his landscapes with their presence; rather, the artist sought to emphasize the calmness of the landscape and the variety of architectural forms (Fig. 22).470 The tranquility of the artist’s works would have provided a suitable foil to the violent images Roomer also owned. Additionally,

Wals was known for executing paintings in a tondo format.471 Interspersing circular paintings amongst the usual rectangular or square canvases would have created a less monotonous impression on the viewer.

The presence of paintings by Wals in Naples is minimal, especially considering the artist lived and worked in the city for several years. Labrot found that his works were only represented in three collections, those of the lawyer Pompeo Gagliano, the low-level nobleman Francesco

Salernitano and the patrician Spinelli family.472 Additionally, the Getty Provenance Index records three of Wals’ paintings in the collection of Vittoria Sgambata, inventoried in 1641, and one tondo in the collection of Carlo Vincenzo Ronca, whose inventory was executed in 1686.473

In light of the rarity of Wals’ paintings, Roomer’s collection of sixty works as early as 1630 seems remarkable. It is unknown whether or not Roomer retained all sixty paintings by Wals noted by Capaccio. His works were, after all, particularly conducive to trading on the art market.

However, there is one tondo and three tonnetti depicting landscapes that are recorded in

Roomer’s inventory.474 These could have very well been painted by Wals. At the very least, it

468 Capaccio, 578. 469 Roethlisberger, 1995, 13. See also: M. Roethlisberger: ‘Da Bril a Swanevelt: Tondi olandesi di paesaggio, 1600–1650’, Palatino, xii/4 (1968): 386–93. 470 Salerno, 1977, 187; Repp, 27-33. 471 Repp, 24. 472 Labrot, 1992, 57. 473 Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 27 November, 2013. 474 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 180v; 201v. 157

can be reasonably concluded that considering Roomer’s appreciation of Wals, the artist was represented in the merchant’s collection throughout his life.

Claude Lorrain, another co-worker of Tassi’s and possibly a student of Wals’ (though not a member of the Schildersbent), was also represented in Roomer’s collection. In the abovementioned letters from Pietro Andrea Andreini to Cardinal Leopoldo de ‘Medici in 1675,

Andreini complains that the pieces by Claude in Roomer’s collection were quite expensive, saying that “alcuni pezzi di Monsù Claudio grandi forse di lunghezza Braccia 1 ½ et uno d’altezza non temono dimandarne d. 500 l’uno.”475 There are unfortunately no other references to paintings by Claude in Roomer’s collection, but the size and price of the ones mentioned by

Andrieni indicate that the merchant must have owned some impressive works by the artist.

Claude arrived in Naples around 1620 and was said to have lived with Godfried Wals.476

It is certainly plausible, then, that Roomer was introduced to Claude through Wals, who had been in the city since 1619. There is no indication that the paintings mentioned by Andreini above were executed during Claude’s stay in Naples. In fact, considering Roomer’s paintings by Claude were selling for 500 ducats, it is unrealistic to assume that those works were from the French artist’s early stay in Naples. He was much too young at that point to have produced the monumental and classical landscapes that define his maturity. However, Roomer may have detected talent in the young artist and evidently decided to collect his works at a later date. When

Claude left Naples, he entered into Tassi’s studio and later became the most notable landscape artist in Rome (Fig. 23).477 At this point, works by Claude were highly regarded in Rome and in

Naples. In Rome, Claude’s paintings were sought after by important collectors such as Cardinal

Massimi, the Pamphili family and Cassiano del Pozzo. His works were collected in Naples by

475 A.S.F. Carteggio d’artisti, XXI, f. 144. Also published in Ruotolo, 1982, 21. 476 Roethlisberger, 1995, 22. 477 Claude was out of Tassi’s service by 1627 when he is recorded as living on via Margutta with Herman van Swanevelt. See: G.J. Hoogewerff, Nederlandsche Kunstenaars te Rome (1600-1725): Tittreksels uit de Parochiale Archieven, (S’Gravenhage: Gedrukt ter Algemeene Landsdukkerij, 1942), 23. 158

members of the aristocratic Gaetani d’Aragona family, by the nobleman Ferrante Spinelli and by

Antonio Fullacchi, a wealthy baker.478 With Ferrante Spinelli, Roomer must have been one of the earliest collectors of Claude’s works in Naples, which again attests to his avant-garde tastes.

Given his evident preference for landscapes, Roomer would have of course desired works by

Claude. His classicism and monumental paintings would have contrasted well with the more petite landscapes in Roomer’s collection by Bril and Wals. They would have also certainly made an impression on visitors to Roomer’s gallery.

The Prospettive of Viviano Codazzi

The abovementioned bank document of 1630 records that Roomer bought a prospettive from

Filippo Napoletano (Italian, c.1587-1629) at the same time he purchased the three works from

Tassi. These architectural views while not, strictly speaking, landscapes, maintain the focus on man’s physical surroundings, rather than on man himself. Their appearance in the history of art coincides with the rise of other “decorative” genres – landscapes, still lifes, battles, etc. – with the development of the open art market. In 1630, Roomer seems to have been only one of a few collectors who were interested in the genre, but the presence of prospettive in his collection at this early date would have encouraged its popularity among other collectors. These architectural views, using strong horizontals and verticals, were particularly appreciated by collectors because of their contrast to the natural settings depicted in landscapes.479

Napoletano was primarily reputed for his landscapes, rather than his prospettive. In fact, none of the collectors surveyed by Labrot owned any architectural views by the artist.480 Roomer likely had more paintings by Napoletano, but for prospettive, the merchant preferred Viviano

Codazzi. Codazzi arrived in Naples from Bergamo sometime in the 1620s and quickly became a

478 Labrot, 1992, 494. 479 David Ryley Marshall, Viviano and Niccolò Codazzi and the Baroque Architectural Fantasy, (Milan: Jandi Sapi, 1993), 22. 480 Labrot, 1992, 505. 159

specialist of prospettive painting. While he did execute some “didactic” and topographical paintings, the majority of his works invite the viewer into a world of architectural fantasy. The structures he depicts are often real buildings, but they do not necessarily appear in their original locations. In Naples, he frequently partnered with Micco Spadaro (Italian, 1609-10 - ?1675), who was responsible for depicting the figures; it appears that Codazzi was never trained as a figure painter.481 These figures were often represented in a bamboccioesque manner; among ancient ruins, for example, people are seen climbing balustrades, engaging in discussion and enjoying other activities, as seen in Codazzi and Spadaro’s Capriccio with an Obelisk (Fig. 24).

There are around twenty-one prospettive in Roomer’s inventory, many of which were presumably by Codazzi. The merchant’s interest in the artist is confirmed by De Dominici in his

Life of Domenico Gargiulio detto Micco Spadaro. The biographer mentions that shortly after

Codazzi “aveva...asservato con maraviglia le graziose figure che Domenico dipingeva”, he decided that only Spadaro could execute the figures for his prospettive. Together, the two artists completed “varie istoriette del Vecchio Testamento” for Roomer.482

Recollecting his visit to the residence of Giuliano Colonna, Principe di Stigliano, De

Dominici speaks of a “probatica piscina, con architettura d’ordine dorico...narrato da san

Giovanni al capo V [Pool of Bethesda]” and its pendant, “la storia della donna adultera condotto innanzi a Nostro Signore [Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultry] (Fig. 25, Fig. 26).”483 He confirms that these works were originally painted for Roomer and were passed down to

Ferdinand Vandeneynden. Ferdinand then bequeathed the works to his daughter, Giovanna, who married Giuliano Colonna, Principe di Stigliano. This record of events is consistent with

Roomer’s codicil, which dictated that 70 paintings from his collection be given to Ferdinand

Vandeneynden. Unfortunately, the four works by Codazzi listed in Vandeneynden’s inventory

481 D.R. Marshall, 22. 482 De Dominici, vol. 3, 193-4. 483 De Dominici, vol. 3, 203-4. These paintings have been identified through copies as the Pool of Bethesda and Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery by D.R. Marshall. See: D.R. Marshall, 15. 160

are simply called “prospettive” and do not correspond to the dimensions given by De Dominici.484

These four paintings appear again in the Colonna inventory, but their description and measurements match those from the Vandeneynden document.485 However, though much of De

Dominici’s account of Codazzi’s life (in the biography on Spadaro) is exaggerated or simply false,486 the extensive descriptions of these paintings given by the biographer indicate he saw them first-hand, giving his recollection validity.

Though the two pictures depict historical subjects, that Roomer viewed them first and foremost as prospettive is evidenced in De Dominci’s detailed account of the two works. Of the

Pool of Bethesda, he first writes of Codazzi’s architectural setting as “ornata di bassi rilievi istoriati, e con statue situate fra le colonne in loro nicchie,” and then continues to give an account of how Spadaro’s figures interact with the surrounding architecture: “intorno al quale sono varie figure così di apostoli, che di spettatori, e più in dentro sparte fra l‘architettura, e intorno alla piscina (che ha ‘acque tutte riflessate dalle colonne fatte dallo Spadaro naturalisme)”.487 The

Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultery is given the same treatment, except here De Dominici gives a more elaborate description of Codazzi’s contribution:

L’altra prospettiva è dipinta con architettura d’ordine jonico, e ha uno sfondo mirabile di lunghissima veduta e continuate, con lammia stuccata di varii lavori di basso rilievo...ha da un lato altre vedute di colonne e portici, con sfogo d’ingresso che li fa un bel gioco; essendo lumeggiata per fianco a lume diritto, e con ciò viene a passare il sole fra le colonne e fra gli archi, e

484 De Dominci writes that the two works measured “10 palmi larghi e 6 alti.” The only paintings listed as by Codazzi and Spadaro were a set of four prospettive, which measured at 4 x 5 palmi. See: De Dominici, vol. 3, 203-4; the inventory of Ferdinand Vandeneynden published in Ruotolo, 1982, 27-39; and D.R. Marshall, 605. 485 Ferdinando Colonna, “Inventario dei quadri di casa Colonna,” Napoli Nobilissima, vol. 4, no. 1, (1895), 31. 486 For example, De Dominici states that Codazzi arrived in Naples around the time of the Revolt of Masaniello in 1647, whereas it is documented that he left Naples for Rome that year. Additionally, when he was married in Naples in 1636, he reportedly said that he had been living in Naples for 15 years. For De Dominici’s story see: De Dominici, vol. 3, 193-4; for documents regarding Codazzi’s presence in Naples see those published in D.R. Marshall, 566. 487 De Dominici, vol. 3, 203-4. 161

terminando nel lungo piano messo in prospettiva.488

After describing the main characters of Spadaro’s figures, De Dominici emphasizes that the painting is first and foremost about its setting, saying “Altre figure principali osservano l’azione, altre caminano in lontananza per adornare ed accompagnar dappertutto la bellissima prospettiva.”489

As with all of his favourite painters, Roomer not only purchased work from Codazzi; he promoted his career as well. It appears Roomer was integral in obtaining at least one important commission for Codazzi and Spadaro. De Dominici recounts the two artists’ involvement in the

“Compagnia della Morte”, a group that “hunted Spaniards by day and painted by night,”490 during the Revolt of Masaniello. After the uprising, Roomer is said to have intervened on their behalf with the Spanish government through the Reggente Stefano Carrillo y Salsedo. Roomer apparently persuaded the Reggente to accept as gifts various landscape, marine and history scenes by Codazzi and Spadaro. Recognizing the talent of these artists and wishing to gain favour with the Court in Madrid, Carillo ordered an Eruption of Vesuvius and a Revolt of Masaniello. De

Dominici then states that Spadaro painted a Triumph of Augustus Caesar, “tanto maraviglioso”, which was much admired in Spain.491 The “Compagnia della Morte” has been discounted as a figment of De Dominici’s imagination and it is known that Codazzi was in Rome immediately following the revolution, so the biographer’s account of the artist’s activities is confused.

Nonetheless, De Dominici may be correct to assert that Spadaro and Codazzi worked for Carillo;

488 Ibid., 204. 489 Ibid., 204. 490 D.R. Marshall, 14. 491 De Dominici, vol. 3, 194. The paintings of the Triumph of Constantine and the Triumph of Vespasian, attributed to Codazzi and Spadaro, in the Prado have sometimes been associated with this story in De Dominici. Ryley Marshall, however, questions the attribution to these artists and also their relation to the passage in De Dominici. See: D.R. Marshall, 81. 162

the Reggente’s inventories do mention works these artists.492 In any case, the story underlines three important factors. First, it highlights Roomer’s relationship and influence with the Spanish court, more of which is discussed in Chapter Seven. Second, it establishes a fairly personal relationship between Roomer and Codazzi and Spadaro. It insinuates Roomer’s appreciation for these artists, without which he would have been unlikely to assist them in obtaining Court patronage. And third, it illustrates how Roomer used his position in Neapolitan society to influence cultural production and patronage.

Though Codazzi moved to Rome after the revolt, Roomer appears to have continued acquiring his works. In a letter written to Don Antonio Ruffo, Abraham Brueghel, who was then in Rome, noted that Roomer had asked him to “cercare qualche cosa di quell Bibiano [Viviano

Codazzi].”493 Many of the works from Codazzi’s Roman period were executed in collaboration with Michelangeo Cerquozzi (Italian, 1602-60) and Adrian van der Cabel. Filippo Baldinucci in his Notizie di Michelangelo Cerquozzi makes reference to Codazzi’s work with Cerquozzi in the

Chigi collection: “Sonovi anche due altre grandi tele: in una della quali è una nobile prospettiva, e nell’altra un bagno, tutte di mano di Viviano Codazzi; ma però ripiene, tanto la prima che la seconda, di gran numer di figure del nostro Michelangelo.”494 Codazzi's and Cerquozzi’s names also appear together in many inventories from the period.495 That Codazzi worked with

Cerquozzi is unsurprising, considering the latter artist specialized in the types of lively figures

Codazzi sought to complement his architectural backgrounds and landscapes (Fig. 27).

Cerquozzi appears to have been the main artist with whom Codazzi collaborated in Rome, though there were others, including Adriaen van der Cabel. In the same letter to Ruffo quoted above,

492 Recorded in Carillo’s inventory are “numero undeci prospettive, mano del Viviano, figura di Micco Spadaro, misura 4 e 5,, in detta cornice intagliate indurate. D. 550.” For Carrillo’s inventory see: Ruotolo, , 1973, 149-53. 493Letter of 16 June, 1665 published in Ruffo, 176. 494 Filippo Baldinucci, Notizie dei Professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua, vol. IV, ed. F. Ranalli, (Florence: V. Batelli e Compagni, 1846), 516. 495 D.R. Marshall, 17. 163

Abraham Brueghel states that in the two paintings by Codazzi that he was sending to Ruffo the figures were executed by “Adriano Cabello [Adriaen van der Cabel] valent’homo nelle figure piccolo.”496 Van der Cabel was in Rome from around 1660 to 1665, meaning the collaboration between these two painters would have happened within this timeframe. In fact, a document in the archive of San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi in Rome records that Roomer paid Van der Cabel for three paintings in 1662.497 If Roomer appreciated the works of Codazzi and Van der Cabel individually, it is quite likely he also owned paintings where the two artists worked in concert

(Fig. 28).

The prospettive paintings by Codazzi and his collaborators would have fit well into

Roomer’s collection. As already mentioned, they would have provided visual interest in rooms that were dominated by landscapes. They also complemented some of the paintings already owned by the merchant. Codazzi would occasionally paint his architectural scenes with a rolling landscape in the background (Fig. 29). One can imagine, for example, how such views, where the landscape is subjugated to the architecture, would pair well with a painting by someone like

Poelenburgh, whose antique ruins are often set within a vast landscape. Likewise, Spadaro’s lively figures encased in their surroundings would have complemented Pieter van Laer’s bambocciate, where the figures are the focus.

Still Life Painting

Roomer played a similar role in the acceptance, proliferation and popularity of still life painting in Naples. He was among the first collectors of still life subjects in Naples and owned one of the most extensive collections of the genre during his time.498 Though by the end of the seventeenth

496 Ruffo, 176. 497 Archive of San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi, Rome, Héritage de Johannes Museur. Published in Hoogewerff, 1913, 192. 498 The 1648 inventory of Giuseppe Carafa was full of still life paintings by Paolo Carramara, Giacomo Recco and Luca Forte. The same is true of the collection of Ferrante Spinelli, whose collection was 164

century, still lifes were ubiquitous in Neapolitan collections,the city’s collectors were generally slow to accept this new type of painting. It was not until the late 1620s and 1630s that a substantial Neapolitan market for the genre developed.499 This was in distinct contrast to other

Italian cities. In Venice, the animal works of Jacopo Bassano marked an early inclination toward still life painting in the sixteenth century.500 In Northern Italy, the farmers’ market scenes by

Vincenzo Campi (Italian, 1530-35 – 1590) in the late Cinquecento were the predecessors of the tradition of still life painting introduced in Rome by Caravaggio around 1596. Additionally, still life subjects found early popularity in the Netherlands, and the Dutch and Flemish artists who visited and settled in Italy in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries continued to execute still life works in Rome. Italian patrons seemed more receptive to still life subjects than to landscapes and helped to foster the market for the genre.501

Despite the relatively slow beginning of still life painting in Naples, Roomer demonstrated his predilection for the genre fairly early. By 1630, Capaccio notes that Roomer owned at least fourteen still life paintings at his palace at Monteoliveto.502 His interest in still life painting continued throughout his life, his post-mortem inventory recording around 150 examples. The number of still life paintings in Roomer’s collection was second only to the merchant’s holdings of landscapes. His penchant for still life was likely a result of his upbringing

inventoried in 1654. Spinelli’s owned many pictures by Giovanni Battista Recco and ten works by Luca Forte (one of which was executed in collaboration with Falcone). See Labrot, 1992, 75, 506. 499 Carlo Volpe, “Still Life Painting in Seventeenth-Century Naples,” in Painting in Naples from Caravaggio to Giordano, eds. Clovis Whitfield and Jane Martineau, (Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1983), 58. 500 In fact, artist-biographer Giorgio Vasari refers to some “piccole cose” by Bassano that have been interpreted as an allusion to still life painting. See: Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the Artists, vol. 1, trans. George Bull, (London: Penguin Books, 1987), 460; and John Spike, Italian Still Life Painting from Three Centuries, (Florence: Centro Di, 1982), 12. For more on Bassano’s animals works, see: Bernard Aikema, Jacopo Bassano and His Public: Moralizing Pictures in an Age of Reform, ca. 1535-1600, trans., Andrew P. McCormick, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), 42, 84-100. 501 A more open attitude toward still life painting, as opposed to landscapes, may be connected to the presence of the former genre in antiquity. Spike, 1982, 13. 502 Capaccio, 577-8. Capaccio does not always specify the subject of the works he saw in Roomer’s palace. Some of these unspecified paintings could have been still lifes. Capaccio does, however, explicitly mention fourteen depcitions of animals and fruit. 165

in Flanders, where the market for still life subjects was established in the early sixteenth century.

Even some Northern art writers were willing to concede that still life was an acceptable genre, closely on par with history painting. In 1604, Karel van Mander suggested that if an artist could not paint history subjects, he should focus his efforts on one of the up and coming genres, such as still life. And around the mid-seventeenth century, the artist Philips Angel promoted a theory that all subjects of art were created equal.503

Aside from Roomer, there were only two other collectors in Naples before 1650 who seemed significantly interested in still life painting: Giuseppe Carafa and Ferrante Spinelli.

Carafa owned many works by the first Neapolitan still life artists, such as Luca Forte and

Giacomo Recco. His inventory is the first recorded that indicates a systematic collection of still life painting.504 Ferrante Spinelli had a predilection for the works of Luca Forte and seemed to collect still lifes for their pictorial qualities.505

The popularity of still life painting in Naples grew as the century progressed. In fact, interest in the genre was so high that artist workshops dedicated solely to still life painting were sustainable. As mentioned in Chapter 3, the workshops of the Recco and Ruoppolo families were particularly successful. By the end of the century, most reputable collectors owned numerous still lifes.506 However, it was Roomer, along with Carafa and Spinelli, who had initially ignited this trend in Naples.

503 It is not until Samuel van Hoogestraten’s treatise in 1678 that still life is explicitly stated as the lowest form of painting. Guido M.C. Jansen, “’On the Lowest Level:’ The Status of Still Life in Netherlandish Art Literature of the Seventeenth Century,” in Still-Life Paintings from the Netherlands, 1550-1720, eds. Alan Chong and Wouter Kloek, (Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 1999), 51. 504 Labrot, 1992, 75. 505 Ibid., 92. 506 Note the collections of Pompeo d’Anna (1676); Francesco Cavallino (1677); Benedetto Cuomo (1687); Ignazio Provenzale, Duca di Collecorvino (1693); Francesco Montecorvino (1698); Pompeo Gagliano (1699); and Carlo de Cardenas, Conde di Accerra and Marchese di Laino (1699). See: Labrot, 1992, 129, 135, 168, 176, 182, 196, 202. 166

Gerrit van den Bosch and Jacopo Bassano

In 1630, Capaccio records that Roomer’s still life collection was represented by “otto quadri di animali e altro, bellissimi,” by Jacopo Bassano and “sei quadri di frutti e animali” by Gerrit van den Bosch.507 The presence of Van den Bosch in Roomer’s collection by 1630 indicates that by this early date, the merchant had introduced Naples to the works of Netherlandish still life painters. Unfortunately, very little is known of Van den Bosch, also known as Gherardo di

Bosco. He was registered in the Guild of St. Luke in Antwerp in 1623, but it is uncertain whether or not he came to Italy.508 His works are characterized by a combination of live animals and fruit, giving the impression of bounty and wealth. Evidently, Van den Bosch’s artworks were desired by other Italian merchant collectors, as four paintings by the artist are recorded in the Lumaga inventory of 1676.509 These works were probably the ones mentioned by Capaccio in Roomer’s collection in 1630.

Jacopo Bassano is one of the only sixteenth-century artists Roomer collected. However, it is telling that the only works by the Venetian painter documented in his collection were those depicting animals. Even during his lifetime, Bassano’s animal paintings garnered praise. Though he did execute numerous religious works, his interest in animals as subjects was what distinguished him from other Cinquecento Venetian artists.510 Though perhaps not defined as strictly still life (the animals were depicted as living, rather than as “trophies” from the hunt),

Bassano’s paintings of animals are important to the history of still life painting in Italy (Fig.

30).511 As it appears Roomer aimed to be comprehensive in his collecting of still lifes, works by

Bassano would have been vital to his collection. In addition, the fact that they were by a

507 Capaccio, 577-8. 508 Moretti, 41. 509 Ibid., 41. 510 Paola Marini, “Jacopo Bassano seen anew,” Jacopo Bassano, c. 1510-1593, eds. Beverly Louise Brown and Paola Marini, (Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum, 1993), 32; Aikema, op. cite, note. 116. 511 It is remarkable that by 1548, Bassano was being asked to paint pictures that only depicted animals. Bernard Aikmea published a contract from October of that year that required the artist to paint “two hunting dogs, that is only dogs.” See: Aikema, 42. 167

renowned Venetian artist means these paintings would have also added positively to Roomer’s status as a collector.

Though there were a substantial number of pictures by Bassano in Naples by 1630, the majority of them were of religious subjects.512 Thus, Roomer’s collection of eight animal paintings by Bassano is somewhat unusual for the time.513 Aside from one picture by Bassano in the collection of Scipione Porzio described as a “mercato”, no animal paintings by Bassano appear in the published Neapolitan inventories until much later in the century. One animal painting by Bassano surfaces in the collection of Ferdinand Vandeneynden in 1688, and it is possible that this work came from Roomer. Other than that, such works do not appear in

Neapolitan inventories until the eighteenth century.514

Jan Brueghel the Elder

At the same time that he recorded the works by Van den Bosch and Bassano, Capaccio noted “i quattro elementi di Estruengel e quattro altre con molte figurine” in Roomer’s collection.515 Jan

Brueghel the Elder, who was one of the earliest proponents of still life subjects in Antwerp, was a favourite of Cardinal Federico Borromeo and indeed his works earned popularity throughout

Italy. Brueghel’s work was known in Naples at an early date, as the artist had visited the city in

512 See the Getty Provenance Index: http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 20 December, 2012. 513 These pictures may have depicted a story from the Old Testament, as many of Bassano’s animal pictures use Biblical narratives as a pretext. There are, however, some works in his oeuvre that are simply of shepherds and their flock. See: Aikema, 84-96. In any case, that Capaccio distinguished these paintings as depictions of animals means that the writer clearly understood the works as just that, rather than as Old Testament narratives. 514 Some inventories note paintings by Bassano, but do not give a proper description of their subject matter. There were also two works of Noah’s ark in the 1687 inventory of the viceroy Marchese del Carpio, which would have showcased the Venetian’s talent for animal painting. See: Getty Provenance Index. For Vandeneynden’s inventory, see Ruotolo, 1982, 28. 515 Capaccio, 578. “Estrungel” has been interpreted as referring to Jan Brueghel the Elder. See: Bedoni, 21. 168

1590 and had painted for an abbot from the illustrious Caracciolo family.516 Despite this sixteenth century reference to his work in the city, it does not appear that Brueghel’s paintings had been especially popular in Naples in the first half of the seventeenth century. The only person in Labrot’s study to own a piece by Jan Brueghel the Elder before 1650 was Francesco

Salernitano, whose inventory of 1648 records a “Ballo della Madonna di Brucolo Vecchio” valued at one hundred ducats.517

Thus, it is remarkable that Roomer owned five works by Brueghel by 1630. The four paintings with “molte figurine” are not described in enough detail by Capaccio to be identifiable.

However, Brueghel executed a number of paintings with the four elements as their subject that were, though technicially categorized as allegorical paintings, essentially detailed still life and landscape studies. His first attempt at the subject was the painting commissioned in 1604 by the

Archduke and Archduchess of the Southern Netherlands, Albert and Isabella.518 Another version, today found in the Prado, was executed around 1615 (Fig. 31), while a series of four canvases

(each one representing a particular element) are from 1608-10. These paintings were executed in conjunction with either Hendrick van Balen (Flemish, 1574-1632) or Hendrick de Clerk (Flemish, c. 1570-c.1629). Collaboration was common practice in the Netherlands, developed to meet the demands of an ever-growing art market.519 In these collobrative projects, Van Balen or De Clerck would depict the figures, while Brueghel would focus on the still life elements.

While the figures play a role in these paintings, it is the vast landscape and river and the acutely executed flowers and greenery, fruits and vegetables, and animals and fish that give the work its meaning. Arianne Faber Kolb connects Brueghel’s particularized depiction of nature

516 A document dated 23 June, 1590 statest that “D. Nicola Cristiani paga D.ti 5, a Gio: Battista Brueghel per prezzo et final pagamento di una pittura sopra al rama di un Orolgio dell’Ill.mo Sig. Abate D. Francesco Caracciolo.” Published in G.B. D’Addiosio, Documenti inediti di Artisti Napoletani dei secoli XVI e XVII, (Naples: Arnaldo Forni Editore, 1991), 23. 517 Inventory published in Labrot, 79-81. 518 This painting is now in Vienna in the Kunsthistorisches Museum. 519 Woollett and Van Suchtelen, 4. 169

and his scientific approach to its organization in the various versions of the Four Elements with the artist’s visit to the Emperor Rudolf II in Prague in 1604. The emperor owned an expansive

Wunderkammer and menagerie of animals; the impact of Rudolf’s collection of natural paraphernalia is seen clearly in Brueghel’s first version of the Four Elements and this approach to nature is witnessed in all of his representations of the subject. Additionally, Brueghel had been exposed to numerous publications devoted to natural science and a variety of curious objects while in the household of Cardinal Federico Borromeo in Milan. The artist also would have seen the Wunderkammer of Ferrante Imperato during his stay in Naples, which was in fact organized according to the four elements.520 The theme of the four elements served as a pretext for the artist to apply his extensive scientific understanding to the representation of animals and vegetation.

There is a possibility that the Four Elements by Brueghel and De Clerck in the Prado

(Fig. 31) may have belonged to Roomer. It was recorded in the Spanish royal collections in 1732.

It seems plausible that the painting could have been given by Roomer to one of the viceroys (a frequent practice of the merchant’s, as discussed in Chapter Seven), who then donated it to the

Spanish monarchy.

The Madrid picture represents a brilliant display of still life and nature painting. The figures are surrounded by lush vegetation and a variety of natural elements. Minutely depicted fruits, flowers and seashells occupy the foreground. While the figures are present in the space, it is clear that it is the still life elements that demonstrate Brueghel’s virtuosity and form the picture’s main subject.

It is most likely this attention to minute detail and realistic representation of nature that attracted Roomer to Brueghel's painting, rather than its allegorical theme. The merchant’s preference for still lifes over allegories is clear from his post-mortem inventory; allegories are quite under-represented. After the death of Jan Brueghel, Roomer appears to have continued his

520 Arianne Faber Kolb, Jan Brueghel the Elder: The Entry of the Animals into Noah’s Ark, (Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2005), 52-9. 170

interest in the Brueghel family of artists. The still life painter Abraham Brueghel was an agent of

Roomer’s in Rome and undoubtedly sent the merchant a number of his own works. In fact,

Abraham’s still life paintings found popularity in Naples, likely due to Roomer’s acquisition of them, and the artist moved to the city in 1671.

The Neapolitan Still Life Painters: Luca Forte, the Recco and Ruoppolo Families

By 1630, Roomer’s influential collection inspired some Neapolitan artists to specialize in the genre of still life. His collection was proof of a demand for such subjects, yet until Luca Forte, there were no important still life painters in Naples who could fill this void in the art market.

Forte blazed the trail for other still life artists, most notably those belonging to the Recco and

Ruoppolo families, who devoted their entire workshops to the genre.521 While there is minimal documentation regarding Roomer’s relationship with the still life artists of Naples, it is nonetheless likely that the merchant owned many of their works. The paintings of Luca Forte and of the Recco and Ruoppolo families are typical of the kinds of pictures Roomer appreciated; the styles of these artists reflected knowledge of the Caravaggesque still life techniques in Rome and the exuberant baroque quality of the Northern painters.

Luca Forte emerged in the 1620s as Naples’ first important still life painter.

Surprisingly, Capaccio does not mention works by Forte in Roomer’s palace in 1630. However,

Forte was too significant a still life painter to conceive that Roomer would not have owned any of his paintings at some point; the merchant must have purchased the artist’s works after Capaccio’s visit to his palace at Monteoliveto. Forte’s works were found in the collections of other notable collectors in the first half of the century, most importantly those of Giuseppe Carafa and Ferrante

Spinelli, and later, the artist’s paintings were sent to Antonio Ruffo in Sicily. In fact, in 1649

Ruffo bought a flower painting from Forte for 200 ducats, a sum that reveals the artist’s works

521 Roberto Middione, Nicola Spinosa and Angela Tecce, “La natura morta a Napoli,” in La natura morta in Italia, vol. 2, ed., Francesco Porzio, (Milan: Electa, 1989), 865. 171

were highly valued.522 Considering the importance of Forte in the development of Neapolitan still life painting and his popularity among collectors of high repute, owning paintings by Forte would have been almost necessary for Roomer to maintain his status as one of the city’s most progressive collectors.

In addition, Forte’s style depended on Caravaggesque models, which would have appealed to Roomer. The dark background and play of light in the work of Forte reflects not only the detail and naturalism of Caravaggio’s still lifes, but also of the latter’s later religious paintings. Still Life with a Tuberose and Crystal Vase (Fig. 32) shows Forte’s Caravaggesque tendencies in the naturalistic lumpiness of his fruit and in the reflection of light off the glistening surfaces of the cluster of grapes and the flower vase.523 The use of the grape vine and the arrangement of the fruit in the bowl also demonstrate an indebtedness to Caravaggio. This type of still life, focused on highlighting fruit and flowers against a dark background, would have complemented many of the tenebrist paintings in Roomer’s gallery.

As with Forte, there is no documentation concerning whether or not Roomer had a relationship with the members of the Recco family; however, again, it seems likely the work produced by the Reccos would have appealed to the merchant. The paintings of Giacomo Recco

(Italian, 1603-before 1643) and his brother, Giovan Battista, draw on Northern models that would have been familiar to Roomer. While Giacomo, like Forte, also highlights the colours in his paintings using a darkened background, his pictures of elaborate vases filled with flowers are reminiscent of Jan Brueghel the Elder, who, as seen, was of interest to Roomer (Fig. 33, Fig. 34).

Though Giacomo’s arrangement of flowers appears more formulaic than the older Brueghel’s, the flower displays of both artists are not so rigidly executed as to look unnatural.

522 Ibid., 853. 523 Ibid., 872. 172

Similarily, the work of Giovan Battista Recco (Italian, c. 1615-c.1660) is also derived from Northern types (Fig. 35).524 His expansive displays mixing game, fish and fruit show knowledge of the works of Frans Snyders (Flemish, 1579-1657), whose many smaller paintings often depicted such an assortment of objects.525 In fact, it has been suggested that Giovan Battista may have even seen Snyders’ work in Roomer’s collection (Fig. 36).526 While there is no documented evidence that Roomer owned works by Snyders, it is certainly a possibility. Snyders was a prominent Flemish still life artist, who often worked together with Peter Paul Rubens.

Given his agents and family in Antwerp, Snyders' works would have been easily accessible to

Roomer. Furthermore, Roomer’s collection is the most obvious place where Recco could have encountered Snyders’ paintings. No other Neapolitan collection is known to have contained a work by the Flemish artist.527

If Roomer had collected the work of both Giacomo and Giovan Battista Recco, he most certainly took an interest in the still lifes of the most reputed Recco family member, Giuseppe.

Giuseppe’s greatest achievement – his call to the Spanish court and the knighthood awarded to him by Charles II – would come after Roomer’s death, but the artist did gain early success in

Naples. Many of his works drew on the Spanish tradition of bodegones, the display of various kitchen utensils and cookware with different types of fruit, meat or fish (Fig. 38).528 Numerous works described as “cocina” in Roomer’s inventory indicate that the merchant appreciated this type of subject matter. It seems likely that some these kitchen scenes were in fact been executed by Giuseppe. A particularly notable example of a kitchen scene by Giuseppe is his Interior of a

Kitchen (Fig. 37). This painting constitutes a combination of a genre scene with numerous still life elements, exactly the kind of picture that appealed to Roomer’s tastes.

524 Ibid., 890. 525 Alan Chong and Wouter Kloek, Still-Life Paintings from the Netherlands, 1550-1720, (Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 1999), 139. 526 Middione et al., 890. 527 This statement is based on the information provided by the Getty Provenance Index online. 528 Middione et al., 903. 173

Roomer’s relationship with another one of Naples’ famous still life painters, Giovan

Battista Ruoppolo, is better documented. Ruoppolo is the only still life artist for whom De

Dominci wrote a biography, which attests to the painter’s success in his day. By the time

Ruoppolo began painting, still life as a genre had made significant inroads with Naples’ elite collectors; his popularity and the prices he could attain for his works are evidence of this. As another indication of his importance in the Neapolitan artistic scene, Ruoppolo co-founded the

Congregazione de Santi Luca ed Anna (the Congregazione de’Pittori) in 1664.529 Along with the

Recco family, the Ruoppolo workshop constituted Naples’ foremost group of still life painters.

De Dominici states that Roomer and Ruoppolo knew each other well and that, in fact, the merchant exported the artist’s works to Flanders.530 Ruoppolo’s artworks were more elaborate in appearance than those of Giuseppe Recco. His paintings, many of which are quite monumental, include beautiful arrangements of fruit, flowers, vegetables, foliage and baskets (Fig. 39).

Sometimes, the artist even included a putto in the shadowy background, giving an allegorical undertone to the painting. It may at first seem odd that Roomer would export Ruoppolo’s paintings to the Netherlands, which was essentially the birthplace of the still life subject.

However, the Neapolitan artist’s work offered a unique quality that is not found in Northern images of the genre. While Northern artists were skilled at creating bounteous scenes of fruit and flowers, Ruoppolo’s pictures are often set against a dark Caravaggesque background, highlighting the vibrant colours of the fruits and flowers. His images convey a true sense of abundance. The fruits are displayed, despite their imperfections, as tasty, aromatic and fresh.

Considering Roomer shipped Ruoppolo’s works abroad, the merchant undoubtedly kept some of the artist’s works for himself and some of the still life paintings in the inventory can probably be attributed to him. In addition, it is likely that Roomer introduced Ruoppolo to other

529 Spike, 1982, 90. 530 De Dominici, vol. 3, 294. It should also be noted that because Roomer is known to have exported still lifes, some of the paintings of that genre indicated in his inventory may have been slated for resale. 174

important patrons, including Ferdinand Vandeneynden, whose collection contained numerous works by the artist.531 It is unfortunate that so little is recorded about Roomer’s relationship with

Naples’ still life painters, as he was clearly essential in encouraging the genre in the city.

However, the vast number of still life paintings indicated in Roomer’s inventory confirms that the merchant had an encompassing variety of still life subjects that must have included the major

Neapolitan painters of that genre.

Types of Still Lifes

Perhaps a better approach to analyzing Roomer’s collection of still lifes is to study and evaluate the types of the genre that the merchant possessed. That the inventory included the subject matter of most of the paintings makes this possible. Roomer’s collection mainly contained pictures of fruit, flowers, game and birds, though instruments, kitchen scenes and fish are also represented.

Remarkably, the theme of vanitas, a popular subject for still life painting, especially among

Northern artists, is conspicuously absent from his collection.

The pictures noted in Roomer’s inventory seem to demonstrate his desire to flaunt his wealth. As is explored by Julie Berger Hochstrasser, still life painting is often associated with consumerism and prosperity. Her analysis of the use of still life pictures in the Northern

Netherlands can also in part be applied to elsewhere in Europe, including Naples. In the United

Provinces, still life paintings could reflect the successful trade business of their owners through the inclusion of “exotic” motifs (often chinaware and tapestries) and also by conveying the notion of abundance.532 Similar conclusions can be drawn about Roomer’s collection of still lifes.

While the descriptions in the inventory are too vague to discern to what degree his involvement in

531 Middione et al., 916. 532 Julie Berger Hochstrasser, Still Life and Trade in the Dutch Golden Age, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007), 1. 175

trade was reflected in the images, it can be said with some degree of certainty that Roomer’s appreciation of still lifes was connected to his desire to publicly display the fruits of his wealth.

Fruit, Game and Fish

Fruit and other foodstuffs, including game and fish, were well represented in Roomer’s collection. In particular, images of fruit seemed to pique Roomer’s interest. Capaccio’s mention of the paintings of fruit by Van der Bosch indicates the merchant was interested in such images from a fairly early time. In his inventory, around sixty pictures of fruit (some were combined with flowers) were recorded. In addition to his numerous pictures of fruit were almost forty paintings of game, birds and fish. In the Netherlands, pictures displaying various types of food were often connected with the notion of abundance. The still life pictures owned by Roomer would have undoubtedly demonstrated those foods that were fit for the urban table.

Part of a still life’s value in the Netherlands was that it could display the kinds of food which were necessary to import. The presence of these foods in a Netherlandish household signified that their owner must have been involved in trade or was wealthy enough to afford such luxury items. For the most part, the Neapolitan still life painters only included food that was regional, much like the Spanish bodegones. The warm climate of Naples of course produced all kinds of fruits and vegetables that could not be grown in the North and the city’s position on the

Mediterranean accounts for the numerous images of fish and seafood.533 So, while the food itself may not have indicated anything foreign or particularly luxurious, the quantity of the food displayed played into the idea of showcasing abundance.

Images of game and birds also fall into this category of “food”, but they also held associations with the noble sport of hunting. In the Southern Netherlands, where these pieces were the most popular, pictures of game were considered “trophies” of the hunt (Fig. 36). As

533 Sybille Ebert-Schifferer, Still-Life: A History, (Harry N. Abrams, Inc.: New York, 1999), 173. 176

Scott Sullivan argues, because of their reference to hunting, these types of paintings gave their owners a “mark of aristocratic distinction” and conveyed a “noble and privileged social position.”534 Such connotations were particularly relevant in light of the fact that gamepieces were especially popular among the wealthy bourgeois, who were often vying for noble recognition. In the Southern Netherlands, a wealthy burgher was not allowed to hunt, so if pictures of game adorned a collector’s walls, the viewer could assume the owner engaged in the sport and was therefore considered an aristocrat or landowner (whether or not this was actually the case).535 Such pictures in Roomer’s collection would have certainly conveyed such notions to those who viewed it. However, unlike other members of the wealth bourgeois, it appears that

Roomer did engage in hunting. In his will of 1673, Roomer mentions his firearms that were bequeathed to his servant Andrea Montorio.536 The representations of hunting and game Roomer owned were an indication of his actual hobby.

Kitchen Scenes

Related to the images of foodstuffs are the pictures denoted in Roomer’s inventory as “cocina”.

There are nine such paintings recorded in Roomer’s collection. Depictions of kitchen scenes were particularly popular among Spanish artists. Copper pots and pans, water jugs, goblets, serving platters, plates, bowls and mugs are portrayed usually amongst some fruit, vegetables and meat (Fig. 38). Being governed by Spain, Naples was in the unique position to absorb some artistic developments from the Iberian country. The Spanish version of still lifes and genre scenes, the bodegón, undoubtedly impacted the development of the Neapolitan still life.

Particularly the work of Giuseppe Recco, whose work combines fruit, fish, savory pies and

534 Scott A. Sullivan, The Dutch Gamepiece, (Totowa, New Jersey: Allanheld and Schram, 1984), 40-1. 535 Ibid., 40. 536 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 411r. 177

vegetables with kitchenware such as glasses and copper pots demonstrates a reliance on Spanish images (Fig. 37).

The humbleness of many of these scenes contrasted to the luscious displays of the other still lifes. In fact, such kitchen scenes appear more in line with genre paintings that often depicted the “everyday life” of the poor. The inclusion of these types of scenes in Roomer’s collection would have both added a visual contrast to the abundance depicted in his fruit still lifes and signified the merchant’s knowledge of non-Italian trends, such as bodegón scenes.

Flowers

After images of fruit, pictures of flowers ranked second among Roomer’s still life subjects (and in some cases, fruit and flowers were combined in one painting). Like fruit, flowers were a suitable subject for still life painting because of their colourful vibrancy (Fig. 33, Fig. 34). However, in constrast to images of fruit, depictions of flowers did not necessarily relate to the notion of abundance. Rather, flower painting had been initiated to signify objects that were not at the immediate disposal of the collector. The origins of flower painting likely began in Antwerp, where a popular anecdote told of a lady who was unable to purchase some tulips and therefore asked Jan Brueghel to paint her some instead. Whether or not this story is true, it does explain why people were interested in acquiring flower pictures in the first place.537 While a person of

Roomer’s wealth would have kept well-maintained gardens with a multitude of flowers, there were some varieties that could not grow in a particular climate and most had a limited growing season. Flower paintings allowed even owners of elaborate gardens to enjoy a range of flowers at all times of the year; they permitted their collectors to arrange different types of flowers that

537 Paul Taylor, Dutch Flower Painting, 1600-1720, (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995), 115. 178

would otherwise not be seen in the same setting. As Paul Taylor describes, flower paintings were fantasies, “horticultural wish-fulfillments.”538

Roomer’s interest in flower painting would have originated during his upbringing in

Antwerp, where presumably, he would have seen such work in the homes of his family and friends. Flower pieces, like most still lifes, were highly decorative works of art, used as a type of

“furnishing”. When Roomer arrived in Naples in 1616, there were no flower artists in the city.

Roomer may have brought some flower paintings with him from the Netherlands, but Capaccio does not mention any in his 1630 description of the merchant’s collection. This does not mean, however, that Roomer did not import any flower pictures from the Low Countries into Naples; in fact, there is a very strong likelihood that he did, considering the works of Forte and the Reccos strike a resemblance to the works of Jan Brueghel (and Roomer did own some allegorical works by Brueghel at the time of Capaccio’s visit). Such pictures found a receptive audience in Naples, evidenced in the success of so many painters who practiced this type of still life painting.

Instruments

As with other Italian cities, music was frequently integrated into seventeenth-century Neapolitan life, mainly via the city’s various festivals. Choruses of singers and elaborate instrumental demonstrations were a prominent component of many of Naples’ most important annual celebrations, including those related to Lent and Easter (which featured the popular theatrical performances for the Quarantore), Christmas, the Spassi di Posillipo, as well as the feast days of various saints, especially St. John the Baptist and St. Gennaro.539

Roomer, like most seventeenth-century erudite and affluent individuals, appreciated

Neapolitan musical culture. A man of his stature undoubtedly attended the opera and perhaps

538 Ibid., 115-8. 539 For a thorough examination of the role of music in Neapolitan festivities, see: Dinko Fabris, Music in Seventeenth-Century Naples: Francesco Provenzale (1624-1704), (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007): 1-49. 179

even hosted musical entertainment in his palaces. He would have certainly also enjoyed the public festivities that occurred so frequently in the city. And though the majority of the merchant’s patronage was directed toward the visual arts, Roomer did support some of Naples’ most reputed conservatories as well. The conservatories in Naples were established to house orphaned children and musical instruction became an important component of their education.

Not all conservatories offered a strong musical program, but three in particular specialized in this kind of training: San Onofrio, Santa Maria della Pietà dei Turchini and Santa Maria di Loreto.540

The Pietà dei Turchini was particularly linked to viceregal power, as it was situated close to the Palazzo Reale. The Turchini was built in 1595 as a conservatory, though the church was subject to subsequent building projects in the seventeenth century. In 1633, donations were solicited from wealthy individuals in order to extend the church’s transcept. Though the amount is unspecified, Roomer’s name is included in the list of benefactors who gave money to the

Turchini to support this project.541

Roomer is also recorded as giving money to Santa Maria di Loreto in 1669 and 1670.542

As with the Turchini, Santa Maria di Loreto was an important conservatory in the seventeenth century that specialized in musical instruction for orphaned or poor children. In the 1660s, the prominent Neapolitan musician Francesco Provenzale was director of the conservatory, which greatly enhanced Santa Maria di Loreto’s prestige. It became the most important conservatory in

Naples, a fact that caused an increase in applicants for admission into its programs.543 Roomer’s donation to the Loreto was perhaps a consequence of this increased expansion.

While Roomer was certainly involved in the musical culture of Naples, he nonetheless owned few still life paintings of instruments. In general, this motif was not particularly popular

540 Ibid., 79. 541 Eduardo Nappi, “Il Conservatorio e la Chiesa della Pietà dei Turchini, Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano, 1993: 84, 96. 542 Fabris, 80. 543 Ibid., 82-4. 180

among the collectors of Naples, which is surprising considering the city’s musical culture.

Perhaps due to this lack of interest, Neapolitan still life painters did not produce many musical still lifes.544 They tended to focus on genres more in line with the Northern tradition of still life painting – flowers, fruit and game.

* * * * *

Roomer’s early collecting of still lifes helped develop Naples into one of the foremost Italian centres for the genre during the Seicento. With the support of influential collectors such as

Roomer, the genre rose in stature as the seventeenth century progressed, a fact that is epitomized by Charles II’s patronage of Giuseppe Recco in 1695.545 Furthermore, the growing prominence of still lifes in Neapolitan collections throughout the Seicento, as well as their increasing prices, testify to the genre’s importance in the history of Neapolitan collecting.

Scenes of Everyday Life

Considering his evident penchant for realism, Roomer’s interest in the paintings of the

Bamboccianti is unsurprising. The rise of the genre scene in Italy can again be attributed to the influence of Northern Europe. While Caravaggio and some of his followers also played a role in popularizing images of everyday life, their scenes appear more contrived and structured, centering on taverns, cardsharps, gypsies and prostitutes,while many works of the Bamboccianti tended to depict the truly mundane and gritty aspects of life. They too painted the raucous

544 There are very few images of instruments among the oeuvre of Naples’ still life artists. One notable example is the Ancora Imparo by Juan Do (private collection). In this work, the artist depicts himself painting instruments that are arranged before him. This picture in unusual in that there are no other known paintings attributed to the artist that display instruments. It is also one of the only depictions of instruments in Neapolitan painting. 545 Middione et al., 904; Ebert-Schifferer, 198. In fact, Giuseppe was knighted by Charles II, an honour that was bestowed on only those painters most important to the Spanish Crown, including Titian, Rubens and Velázquez. Unfortunately, Giuseppe died en route to Spain. 181

interiors of taverns, but they also focused on the weariness of travellers, animals and shepherds in a field, hunters at rest, and both men and women engaging in unexciting daily routines. This is not to say that the works of the Bamboccianti truly illustrated the plight of Rome’s poor; the disease, destitution and desperation seen everyday in the streets is somewhat minimized in the artists’ representation of the city’s poor in favour of the perception that such people were “poor but happy.” Nonetheless, such visual portraits of Rome’s less fortunate had never before been depicted with such detail.

Pieter van Laer and the Bamboccianti

The leader of this movement in Rome was Pieter van Laer, called “Bamboccio” (Dutch, 1599-

?1642). Born in Haarlem, Van Laer moved to the Eternal City in 1625. His early formation as an artist in the Netherlands had been influenced by the Van de Velde brothers, whose artistic philosophy was to “look at reality, a Dutch reality, with new and fully opened eyes.”546

Though Van Laer’s works would focus on his surroundings in Rome, his resolve to reflect the world around him was founded while still in his hometown. In Rome he met artists such as Bartolomeus Breenbergh and Cornelis Poelenburgh, whose naturalistic approach to painting also attracted Van Laer. Under these influences, Van Laer would develop a personal style of genre painting that would impact the works of numerous Northern artists in Rome, as well as the Italian Michelangelo Cerquozzi.

546 Giuliano Briganti, Ludovica Trezzani and Laura Laureati, The Bamboccianti: The Painters of Everyday Life in Seventeenth Century Rome, trans. Robert Erich Wolf, (Rome: Ugo Bozzi Editore, 1983), 42. See also: Clemente Marigliani, La Campagna Romana: dai Bamboccianti alla Scuola Romana, (Rome: De Luca Editori d’Arte, 2010), 17-20; Italianisanten en bamboccianten: Het italianiserend landschap en genre door Nederlandse kunstenaars uit de zeventiende eeuw, (Rotterdam: Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, 1988), 7-14; A. Janeck: ‘Naturalismus und Realismus: Untersuchungen zur Darstellung der Natur bei Pieter van Laer und Claude Lorrain’, Storia dell’Arte 28 (1976): 285–307

182

It is well known that seventeenth-century proponents of a more classical manner abhorred the work of the Bamboccianti, deeming it indecorus and vulgar.547 However, these artists, working in Rome, found interested clientele throughout Italy and a market for genre scenes gradually grew. Helping Bamboccianti subjects achieve renown were the many Northern merchants residing in Italy, who, as was the case with depictions of landscape and still life, were not as inclined to consider such painting as “low art”. This again explains why Roomer demonstrated a predilection for genre themes well before many Neapolitans. Works by the

Bamboccianti are scarce in Neapolitan inventories, even at dates later than 1650. The inventory of the aforementioned aristocrat, Francesco Salernitano, whose 1648 inventory demonstrates a unique sophistication, owned numerous works by genre artists Jan Both and Jan Miel, but this collection was an exception. Pieter van Laer’s paintings only appear in two inventories, aside from the four works mentioned in the Ferdinand Vandeneynden collection (which probably came from Roomer, as discussed below). The first is that of Ignazio Provenzale, Duca di Collecorvino, whose 1693 inventory notes one work by Il Bamboccio; the second is the 1741 inventory of

Niccolò Gaetani d’Aragona, Duca di Laurenzano, Principe di Piedimonte, where only one Van

Laer painting appears. Similarly, Cerquozzi’s genre works are not well-represented in Neapolitan collections. One appears in the Ferdinand Vandeneynden inventory, but again, it may very well have come from Roomer. Another is described in the collection of Gaetani d’Aragona of 1741 and two are mentioned in the merchant Pompeo Gagliano’s 1699 inventory.548 While there are certainly some works in Neapolitan collections not assigned to particular artists that could be genre subjects of this type, in general, it seems that the works of Il Bamboccio and his followers were not widely appreciated in the southern city.

547 Briganti et al., 4-5; Levine, 1990, 208. 548 Getty Provenance Index: http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 20 November, 2012. 183

It is difficult to assess how many genre works Roomer owned, as detailed descriptions are absent from his inventory. Numerous paintings described as depicting “molte figurine” may in fact represent scenes of everday life. There is one painting in Roomer’s inventory described as

“un tonno d’un palmo sopra rame di bambocci.”549 This may refer to Pieter van Laer; however, that the executor of the inventory would single out one particular painter among the hundreds in

Roomer’s collection is unusual and it is more probable the word “bambocci” is being used descriptively to denote a genre scene, rather than identifying the author of the painting.

Nonetheless, Roomer’s interest in Van Laer is confirmed by one of the letters written to Cardinal

Leopoldo de’Medici by Pietro Andrea Andreini. The letter indicates that the Cardinal had specifically asked Andreini to acquire works by Van Laer from Roomer’s estate, which signifies that the merchant’s collection must have been reputed for its Bamboccio paintings. Unfortunately for Leopoldo, Andreini was unable to acquire any of Van Laer’s works, saying that “L’opere del

Bamboccio, che desiderava S. A. passarono tutte nelle mani del sig. Vandeneynden come cose pretiose.”550

Whether Andreini was simply giving the Cardinal an excuse for not having purchased any works by Van Laer, or whether he believed that Roomer’s works by Bamboccio were given to Ferdinand Vandeneynden, his statement is not entirely true. Ferdinand’s inventory does include four works by Van Laer, which may have come from Roomer’s collection. Three were genre scenes, while one depicted the flight into Egypt.551 However, there are two paintings by

Van Laer in the collection of the Del Rosso brothers in Florence that are identified as originating from Roomer’s collection. The first is described as illustrating “due Cavalli con valige con tre

549 A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Giovanni Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 180v. 550 A.S.F., Carteggio d’artisti, vol. XXI, f. 144. Published in Ruotolo, 1982, 21. 551 “Un altro di palmi 2 e 1 con cornice d’ebano un pezzo di monte con villano a cavallo, et un altro che sede, mano del Bambocci”; “Un altro di un palmo e mezzo con cornice d’ebano, cavalli, e cacciatori avanti un’osteria mano del Bamboccio”; “Un altro di un pal. In quattro con cornice indorata consistente una Donna con tre, che magnano mano del Bambocci”; and “Un altro di pal. 3 e 2 in circa con cornice d’ebano liscia consistente il Passaggio d’Egitto con diverse figure, et animali mano del Bamboccio.” Inventory of Ferdinand Vandeneynden, Ruotolo, 1982, 31, 33-4, 37. 184

huomini uno a cavallo l’altro che raccomoda le valige et un ped.e”; the other details “un pastore che guarda diverse bestie.”552 So, while the best of Van Laer’s works from Roomer’s collection may have been given to Ferdinand Vandeneynden, there were others that found their way into the hands of other collectors.

The depictions of travellers, shepherds, hunters, etc. (Fig. 40) – like those described in the Vandeneynden and Del Rosso inventories – were common in Van Laer’s oeuvre and it is difficult to pinpoint exactly whether or not the abovementioned paintings correspond to any extant works of art. In any case, though Roomer’s inventory fails to provide adequate descriptions, it is probable he owned various works by Van Laer and other genre artists, in particular Michelangelo Cerquozzi. Cerquozzi, as discussed, often collaborated with Viviano

Codazzi. Some works by Codazzi and Cerquozzi described as vedute or prospettive could also be interpreted as scenes of everyday life. These types of paintings fit well into Roomer’s artistic interests. Genre paintings suited the merchant’s appetite for realism, seen also in his collecting of landscapes, still lifes and works by the Caravaggisti.

Depictions of Battles

The Southern Netherlands and Italy both had a tradition of battle painting that shaped Roomer’s interest in the subject. For most of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, Flanders was a battlefield, the centre of continued fighting between the Dutch and the Spanish. This meant that the Southern Netherlands acutely felt the effects of the Reformation and the Thirty Years’ War.

This tumultuous environment engendered artistic interest in militaristic subjects. Soldiers at rest, marching, or at play were common genre subjects for Northern artists. At the same time, intensely active scenes of unspecified battles that emphasized the dynamic entanglement of horses, soliders and weapons were also popular. This type of subject was produced by Flemish

552 Gualandi, 120. 185

artists, particularly Sebastian Vrancx and Pieter Snayers, for the open market, its main purchasers being those belonging to the nouveau riche. It has been suggested that such paintings of

“anonymous” action were preferred by Northern customers, whose everyday encounter with war created disillusionment with the idea of the “heroic battle.”553

Battle pictures in Italy had traditionally been commissioned to commemorate successful military endeavours. Specific individuals and events were intended to be identified. For example, the battle paintings of Paolo Uccello (Italian, c. 1397-1475) often depicted particular military feats, as is the case of his San Romano trilogy (c. 1438-40, National Gallery, London), which portrays the 1432 battle between the Florentines and the Sienese. While dynamism is an important consideration in these compositions, Uccello does not hesitate to highlight the

Florentine hero of the battle: Niccolò Mauruzi da Tolentino.554 Such pictures were, after all, intended to highlight military victories and the most notable generals.

However, as early as the second half of the fifteenth century, works emphasizing no specific battle began to surface in Italy, such as Antonio Pollaiuolo’s Combat between Naked

Men (c. 1471-2) and Michelangelo’s Battle of the Centaurs (c. 1492, Casa Buonarotti, Florence), though the depiction of the male nude in a variety of poses was their ultimate goal. Leonardo’s

Battle of Anghiari (1505), while referencing a notable battle, emphasized the act of fighting, rather than showcasing the feats of particular war heroes. Guy Wilson argues that the tradition of the battle protagonist, as seen in the work of Uccello, was supplanted by a focus on the army as a whole – an artistic turn that followed a change in approach to Italian militaristic strategy.555

Perhaps a greater catalyst for this shift in battle depictions was the Thirty Years’ War that ravaged much of Northern Europe from 1618 until 1648. The extent of the war and its effects on

553 Julie Anne Plax, “Sevententh-Century French Images of Warfare,” in Artful Armies, Beautiful Battles: Art and Warfare in Early Modern Europe, ed. Pia Cuneo, (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 134, 137-8. 554 Guy Wilson, “Military Science History and Art,” in Artful Armies, Beautiful Battles: Art and Warfare in Early Modern Europe, ed. Pia Cuneo, (Leiden: Brill. 2002), 15-17. 555 Ibid., 24-9. 186

daily life precipitated a greater interest among the elite and populace alike in current events, which sometimes translated into a desire to collect battle scenes.556 As noted, this was the case in the Southern Netherlands. However, unlike Northern Europe, Italy was fairly removed from any violence associated with the the war. Most knowledge of the events of the conflict was the result of second-hand information. There was thus a movement towards the depiction of unspecified battle scenes that focused on the action, rather than on the figures.

By the seventeenth century, there is certainly evident an approach to battle painting in

Italy more akin to that in the Southern Netherlands. To be sure, depictions of particular battles were still desired; however, among those not personally involved in such affairs, the idea of the

“battle scene without a hero,”557 depicting an unknown or ancient land, gained popularity. This happened around the same time as the demand for genre, landscape and still-life paintings grew.

This change in practice was partially the result of a de-emphasis on the military hero, as outlined by Wilson, and a relative detachment from war. However, it was also a product of the ever- increasing number of Northern artists and collectors infiltrating Italy. Noting the success of such battle scenes in Northern Europe, primarily Netherlandish painters resident in Italy introduced these genre battle depictions to the Italian open market. With the growing popularity of the subject, Italian artists began to take up this practice as well. In Italy the genre was championed by Michelangelo Cerquozzi, Aniello Falcone and Jacques Courtois, known as Borgognone

(French, 1621-76).

Unlike the relatively slow acceptance of landscape and still lifes in Naples, this new type of battle scene gained popularity among Neapolitan collectors rather quickly, a fact likely due to

Italy’s well-rooted historical tradition of the genre. Battle scenes are found in many of the earliest inventories published by the Getty Provenance Index, including those of Partenio Petagna

556 Giancarlo Sestieri, I pittori di battaglie: maestri italiani e stranieri di XVII e XVIII secolo, (Antiche Lacche, 1999), 641. 557 This expression is taken from Saxl, op. cit. note 392, 70-87. It will be discussed in relation to Roomer later in the chapter. 187

(1644), Onofrio de Anfora (1644), Ferrante Spinelli (1654), Ettore Capecelatro, Marchese di

Torella (1655/1659) and Pietro Giacomo d’Amore (1656).558 As the seventeenth century progressed, the popularity of these pictures was even greater, being represented in most

Neapolitan collections. Unsurprisingly, in addition to the numerous works labelled as anonymous, the predominant artist that appears in these inventories is Aniello Falcone, though

Andrea de Leone and Borgognone are also well-represented. There were also some battle works by Salvator Rosa, and in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the paintings of Giacomo del Pò appear frequently. However, there is only one battle scene by Cerquozzi in the published records; it appears in the 1732 inventory of Francesco Carlo Spinelli (a relative of Ferrante

Spinelli).559 Also absent from these inventories are the works of Northern battle painters.

As with the other genres discussed, Roomer was one of the first collectors in Naples to seriously collect battle pictures. Capaccio notes the presence of battle paintings in his record of

Roomer’s collection in 1630, specifically works by Aniello Falcone and Provireur del Giordano

(who has not been identified). In 1674, Roomer’s post-mortem inventory records around 42 battle pieces, including one picture of a single soldier.560 This last picture is the only one that follows the Northern tradition of depicting soldiers outside of a battle; overwhelmingly, the merchant chose active battle scenes. Historical events or literary descriptions were often used as a pretext for the scene, though their relevance was secondary to the depiction of figures engaged in violent actions.

Battle paintings by Falcone would have undoubtedly held a place of prominence in

Roomer’s collection; the merchant was particularly fond of the artist (their artist-patron relationship is discussed in further detail below). Other battle painters who were popular in

558 Getty Provenance Index http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed November 20, 2012. 559 Ibid., Accessed November 20, 2012. 560 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34. The picture of the solider is found in this document on f. 183v. 188

Naples would have also been included in his collection. Undoubtedly, the works of Andrea de

Leone, who trained under Falcone, would have figured prominently, as well as the paintings of

Borgognone, who played a key role in the development of the genre. Roomer may have also owned works by Cerquozzi. Although not well-represented in Neapolitan inventories, Cerquozzi could have been in contact with Roomer through Viviano Codazzi, whose working relationship with Cerquozzi has already been discussed. In addition, that Cerquozzi was known as a leader of this new type of battle scene – in fact he was called “Michelangelo delle battaglie” – would have prompted Roomer to acquire his works.

The Battle Scenes of Aniello Falcone

Though Roomer certainly owned works by other battle painters, the works of Falcone – the

“Oracolo delle Battaglie” – must have made up the majority of the merchant’s collection of battle pictures (Fig. 10). Judging from the available sources, Falcone was perhaps Roomer’s favourite painter. De Dominici writes that Roomer’s interest in Falcone was piqued after the Cavalier d’Arpino praised the painter’s work.561 Additionally, Roomer could have been aware of

Falcone’s paintings when the artist was under the tuteledge of Jusepe de Ribera, another painter whom Roomer patronized. While Falcone painted all kinds of subjects for Roomer – including a

San Gennaro and a Flight into Egypt today in the collection of the Duomo in Naples – it was above all the artist’s ability to execute battle scenes that appealed to the merchant.562 In fact, it appears that Roomer actively encouraged Falcone to specialize in battle painting and thus helped to develop a place for the genre on the Neapolitan open market. De Dominici claims the merchant “effortandolo [Falcone] a solamente prosequire il suo studio nel genere delle battaglie,

561 De Dominici, vol. 3, 72. 562 The will of Olimpia Piccolomini, the wife of Ferdinand Vandeneynden, bequeathed the Flight into Egypt painting to Cardinal Francesco Pignatelli, mentioning it was given to her by Roomer. Her will is published in part by Ruotolo, 1982,25. 189

poichè vi risusciva singolare, e con pochi Pittori uguali.”563 Such a story further underlines

Roomer’s in-depth understanding of the art market of the time and his position as an arbiter of taste.

This active promotion of Falcone in Naples spurred a lucrative market for battle paintings in Seicento Naples. Other notable collectors began to show interest in the artist’s work. Not only are Falcone’s paintings recorded in eighteen of the collections in Labrot’s study; he also moved into the palace of Ferrante Spinelli for a short time.564 Until his death from the plague in 1656,

Falcone remained the most significant painter of battle scenes in Naples.565

Despite Falcone’s busy schedule, Roomer maintained his close relationship with the artist. According to De Dominici, Roomer enjoyed watching the painter at work and frequently visited Falcone’s workshop to “poach” some of the artist’s works intended for other customers, a habit which required the painter to stipulate to his clients, “Se non la vuole il Signor Romer, l’opera per il tal tempo sarà finito.”566 Capaccio notes numerous works by Falcone in Roomer’s collection in 1630 and many works by the artist must have been in the merchant’s possession at the time of his death. In fact, two battle pieces by the artist appear in the collection of Ferdinand

Vandeneynden and there is a strong possibility that these two paintings originated in Roomer’s collecton.567 Most importantly of all, Roomer chose Falcone to execute the fresco cycle at his villa at Barra, which was the only major decorative project Roomer ever commissioned.

563 De Dominci, vol. 3, 72-3. 564 Saxl, 82. 565 As discussed in Chapter Three, Roomer also sought to promote Falcone’s career abroad, exporting the painter’s works to Flanders. In particular, De Dominici mentions that Roomer exported Falcone’s depictions of the Divina Gerusalemme by Torquato Tasso, as well as other scenes of battles between the Turks and the Christians, a subject which the artist-biographer suggests was invented by Falcone. See: De Dominici, vol. 3, 73. 566 However, Falcone apparently did not always appreciate this arrangement. A dispute between Roomer and Falcone is recorded by De Dominci regarding two battle paintings the artist did not want to surrender to the merchant, as they were intended for a “signore di gran merito.” De Dominici, vol. 3, 73. 567 Inventory published in Ruotolo, 1982, 37. 190

Roomer’s Villa at Barra

Littered along the coast of the Bay of Naples stand many villas that were erected or amplified by the wealthiest residents of the city. A place of relaxation and serenity was a luxury the Italian nobility could afford, and the ownership of a villa (or two or three) was considered a marker of elite status.568 In Naples, the areas of Posillipo and the Riviera di Chiaia were at first the preferred locations for the country homes of the city’s patrician families. Their coastline vistas and proximity to Naples were features attractive to the Neapolitan aristocracy, as well as to many of the Spanish viceroys.569 Indeed, the most luxurious villa along the coast of Posillipo – the

Palazzo Donn’Anna - belonged to Anna Carafa, the wife of the viceroy Medina de las Torres.570

Even Roomer owned a villa in the area, called Auletta, which he purchased sometime after 1648.

Unfortunately, very little is known about this villa. It first belonged to the Duke of Maddaloni but came into Roomer’s possession in a complex real estate exchange involving the Duke, the merchant and the Marchese del Vasto, the particulars of which are discussed in Chapter Two.

Despite the scarcity of information concerning this residence, that Roomer owned a villa in this prestigious area underlined his elite social position.

Posillipo and Riviera di Chiaia were not the only areas in close proximity to Naples that found favour with those looking for a quieter and calmer atmosphere. Just east of the city, lying between the Bay of Naples and Mount Vesuvius, was the region of the Vesuviana. Interest in this area recommenced in the Cinquecento (it had been home to villas in antiquity) and continued to grow in the subsequent century. Its evolution into an area of retreat was slower than that of

Posillipo and Rivieria di Chiaia, due to the very real possibility of volcano eruption. In fact, after the 1631 eruption of Vesuvius, the area was avoided for a short period.571 However, the

568 Ovidio Guaita, Italian Villas, (New York and London: Abbeville Press Publishers, 2003), 17-20. 569 Cesare de Seta, Leonardo di Mauro and Maria Perone, Ville Vesuviane, (Milan: Rusconi Immagini, 1980), 11. 570 This villa is discussed thoroughly in Chapter Seven. 571 De Seta et al., 18. 191

Vesuviana was not as densely populated as Posillipo and Riviera di Chiaia and was also easily accessible by land and sea. Above all, the area offered rich, fertile soil, which was ideal for the vineyards, orchards and gardens used to embellish noble estates.572 The region, therefore, became home to numerous villas and estates of the Neapolitan nobility and rich bourgeoisie.573

Roomer’s villa at Barra was one of the most notable in the area, mentioned by a variety of guidebooks from Celano (1692) to Ceva Grimaldi (1857).574 Unfortunately, the building today reflects the major renovations undertaken in the eighteenth century by the Principe di Bisignano, so it is difficult to gauge the villa’s appearance during Roomer’s occupancy (Fig. 41).575

However, its location is telling, standing on the grounds of an ancient ruin, nestled between

Vesuvius and the sea.576 Its tower was a symbolic remnant of its classical past (historically used as both a lookout and a sign of power).577 Its monumentality is undeniable, its dimensions as grand as a viceregal palace,578 making it clear that the villa was certainly an expression of

Roomer’s power and wealth. It was surrounded by luscious gardens, a characteristic common to

Seicento villa construction (though they gained much more popularity in the eighteenth

572 Ibid., 20. 573 The popularity of this area is evidenced by a 1775 map produced by Giovanni Carafa, Duke of Noja. Many of the villas present in the eighteenth century are represented on this map, including the Palazzo degli Spinelli, the Villa Bisignano (Roomer) and the Villa dei Pignatelli di Monteleone. See: Arnaldo Venditti, “La costa vesuviana da Napoli a Torre del Greco e la mappa del Duca di Noja,” in Ville Vesuviane del Settecento, ed. Roberto Pane, (Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1959), 20; Aldo Blessich, “La carta topografia di Napoli di Gio. Carafa duca di Noja,” Napoli Nobilissima 4 (1985): 183-5. 574 Celano, vol. 5, 669; Confuorto, vol. 2, 165; Pompeo Sarnelli, Guida de' forestieri curiosi di vedere et d'intendere le cose piœ notabili della Regal Città di Napoli e del suo amenissimo distretto, ritrovata, (Naples, 1697), 330; Ceva Grimaldi, 355. 575 Not only did the villa’s Settecento owner – the Principe di Bisignano – renovate the building, its facade was ruined by one of Vesuvius’ eruptions in the eighteenth century. See: Arnaldo Venditti, “Le ville di Barra e di S. Gregorio a Cremano,” in Ville Vesuviane del Settecento, ed. Roberto Pane, (Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1959), 56; and Blunt, 1975, 152-3. 576 Teresa Colletta, “La villa Sanseverino di Bisgnano e il casale napoletano della Barra,” Napoli Nobilissima 13 (July/Aug. 1974): 125. Blunt also suggests it may have once been a medieval castle. See: Anthony Blunt, “A Frescoed Ceiling by Aniello Falcone,” Burlington Magazine III, (Apr., 1969), 215. 577 Colletta, 1974, 123. 578 Roberto Pane, “La ville e la strada costiera,” in Ville Vesuviane del Settecento, ed. Roberto Pane, (Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1959), 9. 192

century).579 Orchards, vineyards and gardens added a sense of grandeur and embellishment to country residences and were considered a significant contributor to property value.580 Therefore in purchasing the villa at Barra, Roomer was not only acquiring a refuge away from the city, but was also positioning himself among the Neapolitan elite. As Teresa Colletta aptly states,

Roomer’s villa demonstrates not only his “desiderio di vita bucolica, ovvero l’ambita occasione di un otium tipicamente umanistico, bensì la volontà di affermare pubblicamente la propria potenza, con una fabbrica degna dei maggiori patrizi.”581

Evidence of the importance of Roomer’s villa at Barra lies in the possibility that it was host to two notable guests. The first was Maria d’Austria, Queen of Hungary, who was the sister of Philip IV of Spain. Many guidebooks from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries recorded her visit to Naples, and Pacichelli (1685) and later Giustiniani (1797) note that she stopped in the villa of Gaspare Roomer at Barra on her way into the city.582 The second was the incoming viceroy, the Count of Peñaranda, who was awaiting his predecessor's departure from

Naples. Unfortunately, this latter episode is only recorded by the twentieth-century scholar

Giuseppe Coniglio in his study of the Spanish viceroys of Naples.583

579 Celano wrote of Roomer’s villa (which he notes at his time belonged to the Marchese del Vasto): “questa non ha che desiderare sì magnificenza delle stanze come nella amenità de’ giardini.” Sarnelli speaks of the villa’s “bellisimi giardini”. Pacichelli is more elaborate in his description of the villa writing that it had a “bella fronte di pietra, con vari quarti all oderna, e con un giardino à veduto del cortile, che ha grotte, e vari scherzi d’acqua artificiali, e non fluidi, con vigna, e boschetto per la caccia, ed alberi fruttiteri ne’passeggi...” See: Celano, vol. V, 669; Sarnelli, 365; and Giovanni Battista Pacichelli, Il Regno di Napoli in prospettiva, parte IV, ed., Rosario Jurlaro, (Bologna: Forni, 2008 [1703]), 245. 580 De Seta et al., 20. 581 Colletta, 125. 582 See: Pacichelli, parte IV, 245 and Lorenzo Giustiniani, Dizionario Geografico ragionato del regno di Napoli, vol. 2, (Naples: Vin. Manfredi, 1797-1805, 215. Giustiniani probably obtained this information from reading Pacichelli. 583 Coniglio writes that the incoming viceroy Count of Peñaranda and the leaving viceroy Count of Castrillo were not on amiable terms. Peñaranda had not ordered an outgoing ship for Castrillo, meaning the latter had to provide his transportation out of Naples at his own expense. Coniglio cites a document in the Archvio Generale di Simancas that recorded Castrillo’s complaint of Peñaranda’s behaviour. Unfortunately, it is unclear whether this document only notes Castrillo’s complaint or whether it also mentions Peñaranda’s visit to Roomer’s villa. The visit is not recorded in any of the guidebooks of the city. See: Giuseppe Coniglio, Il viceregno di Napoli nel sec. XVII: Notizie sulla vita commerciale e 193

The validity of both these visits, or at least of Roomer's involvement in them, is questionable. First, archival records document that Roomer only purchased the villa at Barra from Partenio Petagna in 1634, four years after the Queen of Hungary apparently visited.584

Further complicating matters is the fact that Roomer sold the villa to the Marchese del Vasto in

1656, two years before the Count of Peñaranda was said to have visited.585 The discrepancy in dates can be explained if Roomer had rented the villa from Petagna before 1634 and then from the Marchese del Vasto after 1656. This is not an unlikely possibility. Renting properties before acquiring them was common practice in Seicento Naples. In fact, documents indicate that

Roomer had rented his palace at Monteoliveto with his business partner Jacomo VanRay in the mid-1620s (Roomer owned the palace by 1631).586 This plausible scenario would help clarify the accounts of the Count of Peñaranda stopping at Roomer’s villa before he assumed the viceregency in 1658. It may also explain the situation with the Queen of Hungary; however, in this case the documentation is slightly more complicated. While Giovanni Battista Pacichelli and

Lorenzo Giustiniani write that Maria d’Austria did visit Roomer’s villa, other sources outline a different series of events. Domenico Antonio Parrino’s Teatro Eroico e Politico records that the

finanziaria secondo nuove ricerche negli archivi italiani e spagnoli, (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1955), 275-6; Ehlert, 60. 584 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Pietro Antonio dell’Aversana 912/12, f. 265: “Gasparo de Roomer fiammingo di Anversa acquista da Partenio Petgna una masseria arbustata e vitata con alberi e viti latine e greche di circa moggi 18 con un palazzo con membri superiori ed inferiori sita nella villa di Barra, iuxta li beni del marchese di Laino, di Giovan Angelo Vicale e via pubblica da due parti per prezzo di D. 9000 di carlini.” A.S.B.N., Banco di S. Eligio, g.m. 171: “Partita di 9.000 ducati del 7 giugno 1634. A Gaspare Roomer D. 9.000. Et per lui a Partenio Petagna disse per lo intero prezzo de una masseria arbustata et vitata di latino et greco de moia 18 in circa con palazzo et case in più et diversi membri inferiori e superiori consistente sita e posta nella villa della Barra pertinentie di questa Città di Napoli, vicino li beni del marchese di Laino et altri confini una con licenzi enfiteutici.” Both sources are published in Nappi, 2000, 81. 585 A.S.B.N., Banco dello Santo Spirito, g.m. 325. “Partita di 12.000 ducati del 15 febbraio 1656. A Carlo Mazella D. 12.000. Et per lui al marchese del Vasto. E per esso a Gaspare de Roomer fra la somma di D. 34.000 integro prezzo della casa palazziata, massaria, giardino e boschetto in tutto di moia 18 incirca, annui censi, stigli di massaria, sita e posta nella villa della Barra, pertinenze di questa città di Napoli, iuxta suoi confini per esso Gaspare venduta al detto marchese come il tutto più amipamente appare dall’istrumento del 12 febbraio 1656 rogato per notar Andrea Bruno di Napoli.” Published in Nappi, 2000, 82. 586 Nappi, 2000, 64. 194

Queen of Hungary stayed in the residence at Barra of the Duca di Monteleone at the end of her visit on the night of 18 December, 1630.587 Antonio Bulifon is more detailed. He writes that on

25 July, 1630, Maria d’Austria stopped at Procida on her way into Naples at the palace of the

Marchese del Vasto. After that, she then travelled to Posillipo to stay with Fabrizio Carafa,

Principe di Colobrano. On 21 November of the same year, the Queen was at Barra in the house of the Marchese di Laino. Bulifon’s account coincides with that of Parrino when stating that on

18 December, 1630, Maria d’Austria was in Barra at the palace of the Duca di Monteleone.588 As these various versions of the historical event all include villas in Barra and make mention of the

Marchese del Vasto, it is unsurprising that confusion has arisen over the exact circumstances of the Queen’s visit to Naples in 1630.

However, that Roomer’s name is connected at all to those of Maria d’Austria and the

Count of Peñaranda attests to the political and diplomatic role played by Roomer and his adoption of aristocratic behaviour. The villa functioned as both a personal place of repose and a venue for entertaining important guests. Confirming the villa’s particular significance is the fact that this is the only building owned by Roomer for which the merchant commissioned significant interior decoration.

In the late 1630s, bank documents show that Roomer ordered some significant stonework to embellish the villa. Between 1636 and 1638, Roomer spent over 1200 ducats for this purpose.589 The majority of this work was executed by one Matteo Figliolini and likely involved

587 Parrino, vol. 2, 209. 588 Bulifon, 1932. 589 A.S.B.N., Banco di S. Giacomo, g.m. 183: “Partita di 146 ducati del 23 agosto 1636. A Gasparo de Roomer D. 146. E per lui a mastro Matteo Figliolini a compimento di D. 600 in conto di pietre di Sorrento consignate e da consignargli a grana 8 e ½ il palmo per servitio della sua casa alla Barra.” Ibid., Banco della Pietà, g.m. 291: “Partita di 200 ducati dell’11 settembre 1637. A Gasparo de Roomer D. 200. Et per lui a Matteo Figliolino a conto di lavoro di pietra di Sorrento fattoli e da farli alla sua casa alla Barra.” Ibid., Banco di S. Eligio, g.m. 200: “Partita di 100 ducati del 26 gennaio 1638. A Gasparo de Roomer D. 100. E per lui a Matteo Figliolino in conto di lavoro di pietra di Sorrento fattoli e da farli alla sua casa alla Barra.” 195

the decoration of balustrades, balconies and terraces. Little is known of Figliolini, though other bank records published by Nappi seem to indicate he came from a family of stonemasons who were commissioned by members of the nobility and religious institutions, signifying the work of this family was held in high-esteem.590 In addition, one payment for 98 ducats was given to a

Thomase Picone for pipernieri work at Barra.591 It is perhaps this artisan who was commissioned to decorate the balustrades with warrior figures and grotesques.592 Such carvings were in line with the theme of Aniello Falcone’s fresco cycle, as will soon be seen.

Poor condition and multiple re-paintings have led to some confusion over the author of the frescoes at Barra and their subject matter. It was not until 1969 that Anthony Blunt first posited the paintings to be by Falcone and it was not until Annachiara Alabiso’s article of 1989

(based on the 1982 restoration of the paintings) that it was argued the frescoes depicted scenes from the life of Moses.593 Currently, the villa is inaccessible and so the following observations on the series of paintings are based on the black and white images found in Alabiso’s article and in

Achille della Ragione’s catalogue raisonné of Falcone’s works.594

Ibid., Banco di S. Eligio, g.m. 200: “Partita di 233 ducati e 77 grana del 24 luglio 1638. A Gasparro de Roomer D. 233,77. E per lui a mastro Mattheo Figliolino per resto e saldo de tutti li lavori di pietra de Surrento, basole del cortiglio et altro fatto nella sua casa et giardino sita nel casale della Barra sino alli 22 del presente.” The above documents are published in Nappi, 2000, 81. 590 Ibid., 81. 591 A.S.B.N., Banco del Popolo, g.m. 227. “Partita di 98 ducati dell’11 settembre 1638. A Gaspar de Roomer D. 98. Et per lui a mastro Thomase Picone, dite per resto e saldo di tutti li lavori di piperni ha consignati nella Barra per servitio della sua casa e giardino.” Published in Nappi, 2000, 81. 592 Ruotolo, who at one time had access to the villa, notes the presence of these kinds of decorations in the villa. See: Ruotolo, 1982, 12. 593 Blunt, 1969, op. cit. note 560; Annachiara Alabiso, “Aniello Falcone’s Frescoes in the Villa of Gaspar Roomer at Barra,” Burlington Magazine 131, (Jan. 1989): 31-6. The works were attributed to the other prominent battle painter of Naples, Andrea de Lione, by Magda Novelli Radice, “Contribuiti alla conoscenza di Andrea e Onofrio de Lione,” Napoli Nobilissima XV, (1976): 162-9; and Nicola Spinosa, Bernardo Cavallino of Naples, 1616-1656, exh. cat. Cleveland Art Museum and the Kimbell Museum of Art, Fort Worth, (1984-5), 41-2. Alabiso notes that both these latter authors now accept the attribution to Falcone. See: Alabiso, 31. 594 Achille della Ragione, Aniello Falcone: opera complete, (Naples: Napoli Arte, 2008). 196

In a room with an unknown function, Alabiso identifies five scenes from the Old

Testament relating to the life of Moses: the Finding of Moses, Moses Striking the Rock, the

Crossing of the Red Sea, the Battle of the Israelites and the Amalekites, and the Brazen Serpent

(Fig. 42, Fig. 43, Fig. 44, Fig. 45, Fig. 46). The precise rationale for this choice of subject is difficult to discern. It is certainly not within the traditional mode of villa decoration in Italy.

Typically, Italian villas since the sixteenth century were decorated with mythological stories and allegorical scenes of triumph, love and leisure. This was conducive to the overall concept of a villa as a place of relaxation and repose. These images were topics of erudite conversation. This is quite the contrast to Roomer’s villa in which he commissioned a series of frescoes that, conversely, do not evoke calmness and solitude, but rather strife and warfare.

The frescoes are odd on another level as well. Not only are Old Testament subjects atypical as villa decoration, such themes were, in general, relatively uncommon in Early Modern

Italy. There were certainly Old Testament subjects represented in the collections of private individuals, but rarely seen is an entire series of such works.595 For the most part, series of Old

595 An exception is the Life of Moses cycle found in the collection of Amadeo dal Pozzo, Marchese di Voghera, the cousin of Cassiano dal Pozzo. In 1674 Luigi Pellegrino Scaramuccia visited Amadeo’s palace in Turin and noted four paintings related to the life of Moses. Two of these works were by Poussin, which have been identified as the Adoration of the Calf (mid-1630s, National Gallery, London) and the Crossing of the Red Sea (mid-1630s, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne). The other two were by Pietro da Cortona. These works have not yet been identified, though it is speculated that they belonged to this cycle. In addition, a 1634 inventory of Amadeo’s collection notes not only these two paintings by Poussin, but also a Finding of Moses (There is a painting of this subject by Poussin from 1638 in the Musée du Louvre, but it has never been connected to the Dal Pozzo collection because Félibien stated it was painted for an unnamed patron). It also includes a Moses and the Gathering of Manna by Cortona; a Moses and the Building of the Tabernacle by Romanelli; and a copy of Moses Breaking the Tablets of the Law (unattributed). See: H.W. van Helsdingen, “Poussin’s Drawings for the Crossing of the Red Sea,” Simiolus 5, no. 1/2, (1971), 64; and Roberto Ferretti, "A Preparatory Drawing for one of the Dal Pozzo Paintings of Scenes from the Life of Moses,” Burlington Magazine 127, (Sept. 1985), 618; Marco Fagiolo dell’Arco, Pietra da Cortona e i “cortoneschi”: Gimignani, Romanelli, Baldi, il Borgognone, Ferri, (Milan: Skira, 2001), 38-9; Arabella Cifani and Franco Monetti, “Two Unpublished Paintings by Pietro da Cortona and Giovanni Francesco Romanelli from the Collection of Amadeo dal Pozzo,” Burlington Magazine 137, (1995): 612-6; Arabella Cifani and Franco Monetti, “The Dating of Amadeo dal Pozzo’s Paintings by Poussin, Pietro da Cortona and Romanelli,” Burlington Magazine 142, (Sept. 2000): 561-4; Christopher Wright, Poussin: Paintings A Catalogue Raisonné, (London: Chaucer Press, 2007), 125-7, 149; Arabella Cifani and Franco Monetti, “Poussin dans les collections piemontaises au XVIIe, XVIIIe, et XIXe siècles, in Nicolas Poussin (1594-65), Actes du colloque organise au Musée du Louvre, (Paris, 1996), 747-807. 197

Testament subjects were relegated to religious institutions. Paintings depicting the life of Moses had been also been used in political contexts, paralleling contemporary leaders to Moses himself.596 Located in the villa of a bourgeois merchant, the Falcone frescoes do not carry this connotation.

So what, then, is the purpose of these frescoes in Roomer’s villa at Barra? The answer is multifaceted, taking into consideration Roomer’s appreciation for battle scenes, the political and societal context of Naples during the Revolt of Masaniello in 1647 and his Northern heritage.

And unfortunately, even within these contexts Roomer’s true intention for such a fresco series is not completely clear.

As mentioned, Falcone often employed Old Testament subjects as a pretext for his battle scenes. Furthermore, De Dominici claims Roomer ordered many paintings by Falcone that depicted scenes from the life of Moses, David and Saul.597 The focus of many of these paintings was not the specific subject matter, but the battle scene itself. In the villa at Barra, two of the compositions represent a battle: the Crossing of the Red Sea and the Battle of the Israelites and the Amalekites. Both depict a struggle and both lack the presence of an active protagonist. In the

Crossing of the Red Sea, Moses and Joshua stand in the right foreground of the picture, looking calm, almost passive, while the Egyptians are seen battling the water on the left. While the scene is dramatic in premise, the composition is missing the momentum and dynamism seen in other renditions of the Crossing, such as Poussin’s version from 1634 (National Gallery of Victoria,

Melbourne).598 The Battle of the Israelites and Amalekites is more intense (being much more of a

596 Such is the case in the Cappella di Eleonora di Toledo in Palazzo Vecchio, Florence. Commissioned by Cosimo de’Medici in 1540 after his marriage to Eleonora, the daughter of viceroy Pedro Toledo, the fresco cycle depicts the Brazen Serpent and the Crossing of the Red Sea to propagate Cosimo as the “saviour” of the people of Florence. See: Janet Cox-Rearick, “Bronzino’s Crossing of the Red Sea and Moses Appointing Joshua: Prolegomena to the Chapel of Eleonora di Toledo,” Art Bulletin 69, no. 1, (March 1987): 45-67. 597 De Dominici, vol. 3, 73. 598 Della Ragione, however, does note the paintings’ affinities to works by Poussin, who was represented in Roomer’s collection. See: Della Ragione, 15. 198

“battle” than the Crossing), but as was typical of Falcone, it is missing the presence of a prominent hero. Figures are lost in a mass of entangled men and horses.

The main types of collectors to whom these “battle scenes without a hero” appealed were not those directly involved in military action, but rather noblemen and many members of the bourgeoisie. Especially in Italy, where the effects of the Thirty Years’ War were felt, but not necessarily experienced firsthand, aesthetic pleasure could be derived from violence encountered at a distance, that is, through a painting.599 That many of these types of paintings – including those by Falcone for Roomer’s villa – lacked a hero was part of their appeal. Frans Saxl argues that Roomer, like Falcone’s other patrons Cesare Firraro and Ferrante Spinelli, was generally disliked by the populace and was considered a member of the elite, though he was not distinguished as a warrior or as a member of the government administration; that is, as Saxl suggests, there was nothing heroic about Roomer. However, as a merchant engaged in international trade, he still on some level experienced ramifications from the Thirty Years’ War, and the local unrest that culminated in the Revolt of Masaniello (1647-48) certainly had an immediate effect on him. It is this characterization of Roomer – as a disliked, unheroic member of the elite – that Saxl supposes disposed Roomer to enjoy realistic battle pictures that lacked a strong protagonist.600

This argument, while highly speculative, becomes more relevant when considering that

Falcone’s frescoes may have been executed during the 1647 Revolt of Masaniello, when Roomer sought refuge from the uprising at his villa.601 During the revolution, many of the palaces of the

599 Plax, 138. 600 Saxl, 84. This fresco cycle is something I plan to research further in the future. 601 Nappi cites two payments from Roomer to Falcone from 1640 and 1643, which he claims were for the commission at Barra. This may be the case, but at the same time, the payments do not allude to the work at the villa. This seems odd considering that the payments made to Figliolino make specific reference to Roomer’s villa. If the Falcone records do correspond to the commission, they can only represent a partial payment, as they are only for 80 and 90 ducats, respectively. See Nappi, 2000, 65. However, Della Ragione dates the frescoes to 1647. See: Della Ragione, 15. 199

rich bourgeoisie and aristocracy were looted and burned.602 To avoid the same fate for his city residence, Roomer apparently bribed Masaniello’s people with 10,000 ducats and his palace was spared. After this arrangement (which took place sometime after 7 July, 1647), Roomer left the city for Barra, bringing with him many of his most precious belongings. The merchant stayed in

Barra until 16 July, when Masaniello’s confidante, one Fra Savino, ordered Roomer to pay a further 5,000 ducats. At this time, Roomer returned to Naples and went, with many other members of the nobility, to Castel Nuovo to escape the rioters. Not feeling entirely safe, Roomer boarded one of his ships, sailing it out into the bay far enough that the cannons on shore could not reach him.603

Though Roomer did not retreat to Barra for long, it is plausible that Falcone completed at least part of the villa decoration during the revolution. To paint violence on the walls and ceiling of a building that was fairly removed from the action is exactly the type of situation that is conducive to battle scenes without heroes. The Crossing of the Red Sea and the Battle of the

Israelites and the Amalekites would have allowed Roomer to delight in the movement of the thrashing figures, without fearing a similar fate, being safely out of harm’s way in the countryside. The merchant may have appreciated the variety of figures and the evocation of a strange land in the midst of the very real upheaval.

Contributing to the idea that these frescoes were in some way connected to the Revolt of

Masaniello is the presence of a shouting figure in the Battle of the Israelites and Amalekites on the left side of the image. This figure, who resembles Leonardo da Vinci’s drawing of a warrior head for the Battle of Anghiari, corresponds to a drawing by Falcone in the Pierpont Morgan

Library (Fig. 47). The drawing was sold in 1683 by Andrea de Lione, at which time the buyer

602 Of particular note is the destruction of Palazzo Zevallos-Stigliano, then owned by Giovanni Zevallos, and Palazzo della Stella, which was in the possession of the Carafa di Maddaloni. After the Revolt, these residences were sold to Jan Vandeneynden and Gaspare Roomer, respectively. On the rebellion’s destruction of Palazzo Zevallos-Stigliano see: Columbo, 125. On its impact on Palazzo della Stella see: De la Ville Sur-Yllon, 145-7. 603 De la Ville Sur-Yllon, 146. 200

wrote on its back that the work was by Falcone and that it resembled Masaniello.604 While such inscriptions are sometimes suspicious, that this drawing was sold by De Lione, Falcone’s pupil and relative, lends it credence. Saxl concedes that De Lione may have attempted to fetch a higher price for the drawing by claiming it was a portrait of Masaniello, but he also notes its similarity to a seventeenth-century engraving of the rebel.605 Therefore, this figure in the Battle at Barra may very well represent Masaniello. Why would Roomer want such a representation in his villa, the very place in which he sought refuge? Despite being the instigator of the Revolt, Masaniello, as a character, could be fascinating. The notion of a fishmonger from the lower classes who was capable of motivating the populace to rebel is undeniably compelling. Roomer may have in fact been slightly intrigued by the dissident. It is also notable that the painted figure of “Masaniello” is not central to the composition, but rather is one of a slew of heads engaged in the attack. His presence is but a slight notation marking an historical event.

The particular circumstances of the period, Roomer’s disposition toward battle paintings and Falcone’s aptitude at delivering these kinds of works perhaps help to explain why the merchant chose scenes of violence to decorate his villa. However, the question of why episodes from the life of Moses were selected remains unclear. Why did the artist and patron not simply choose generic battle pictures? Part of the explanation may lie in the fact that, as mentioned,

Falcone tended to use scenes from the life of Moses as the setting for many of his battle scenes; to choose this subject matter was thus part of the artist’s working method. By the same token, there are many images in the cycle that do not display fighting – notably, the Finding of Moses and the

Brazen Serpent, though the latter subject is in some sense “violent”. This piece of the puzzle may be best explained by Roomer’s Northern European roots. In other aspects of its decoration,

Roomer’s villa at Barra appears in line with Northern traditions – the use of playful pipernieri of

604 Saxl, 84. 605 Ibid., 85. 201

buffoons and gargoyles were common in Netherlandish decoration.606 In the same vein, Old

Testament subjects were much more commonplace in Northern Europe. Their prominence among the works of Rembrandt and his followers is a prime example of how these types of paintings were objects of desire.607 Prints depiciting Old Testament subjects were frequently circulated in Antwerp.608 Public buildings were often decorated with Old Testament pictures as well. In addition to providing artists with a variety of emotional and engaging scenes to illustrate, the themes of redemption, royal lineage, perseverance and the notion of being chosen by God were attractive to individuals wanting to promote such messages.609 Thus, Roomer grew up where scenes from the Old Testament were more commonplace in the visual language.

In particular, the themes of sin and redemption are relevant to Roomer. Moses served as the redeemer to the Israelites, despite their sins. This notion is best represented in Falcone’s depiction of the Brazen Serpent. This painting recalls the story in Numbers 21: 4-9, where God, in response to the Israelites’ lack of faith, unleashed poisonous snakes. Upon this act, the

Israelites realized their sins and asked Moses to pray to God for forgiveness and to save them from the snakes. In response to Moses' request, God told him to find a serpent and put it on a pole. Anyone who was bitten by a snake need only look at the serpent to be saved. Following

God’s orders, Moses made a serpent out of brass and placed it on the pole and the wounds of those Israelites who were bitten were healed.

It is difficult to establish a direct connection between Roomer and Moses or even the

Israelites. He is, however, a figure who could be considered as in need of redemption. Roomer

606 De Seta et al., 38. Such decoration was, at least, in line with the idea of a villa as a place of enjoyment. 607 For more on Rembrant’s and his followers’ depictions of the Old Testament see: Shelley Perlove and Larry Silver, Rembrandt’s Faith: Church and Temple in the Dutch Golden Age, (University Park, Penn: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009). 608 Such prints had the didactic purpose of teaching the masses these Biblical stories. See: Peter van der Coelen, Patriarchs, Angels and Prophets: The Old Testament in Netherlandish Printmaking from Lucas van Leyden to Rembrandt, exh. cat. (Amsterdam: Museum Het Rembrandthuis, 1996), 16. 609 Van der Coelen, 8; Marloes Huiskame, “De Uittocht uit Egypte en der Verovering van het Land,” in Het OudeTestament in de Schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw, ed. Christian Tümpel, (Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 1991), 54-65. 202

and his fellow financiers’ lending activities to the Spanish government finally came to a head in

1647 when the infamous tax on fruit erupted in the citizen revolution led by Masaniello. To the populace, the perpetrators of the crime were obvious: it was people like Roomer who had contributed to the ruined financial state of the Kingdom. An image conveying sin and redemption would therefore seem to suit Roomer’s frame of mind. While he was able to bribe the rebels in order to preserve his possessions and palaces, a fundamental change to his overall image in

Naples was necessary following the tumultuous events of the rebellion. Though Roomer made a few donations before 1647, his most substantial acts of charity occurred after the revolt. This notion will be explored in more detail in Chapter Eight, but it may serve as evidence of Roomer’s psychological state during the time that he commissioned the Life of Moses frescoes.

The paintings at Barra represent an anomaly in both Roomer’s customary patronage

(being the only fresco programme he ever commissioned) and traditional villa decoration, which adds to the complication of their interpretation. However, their uniqueness serves to underline the depth of Roomer’s interests as a patron and collector and his desire to demarcate himself among the nobility and wealthy bourgeoisie of Naples. And indeed, he achieved this goal, as the frescoes in Roomer’s villa at Barra remain some of the most fascinating battle scenes of the period and are a glimpse into the lifestyle and artistic preferences of this merchant who made so significant an impact on Seicento Neapolitan art.

Single-Figure Paintings and Portraits

Saints, Philosophers and other Single-Figure Subjects

Single-figure works were a direct response to the market demand for paintings by a flourishing middle class. Paintings of the five senses, four elements, and various virtues had long been popular, but were usually part of a complete set; they were not often sold individually. In the seventeenth century, collectors continued to buy these series of works, but a growing number also

203

began to purchase single-figure paintings (often half-length) that could stand alone or function as part of a pendant pair or a series. This was economical for those less wealthy collectors who could not afford many history paintings. Single-figure works, however, became increasingly popular and infiltrated the homes of the upper classes as well. The phenomenon of the tronie – depictions of the heads of old men and women with a variety of facial expressions – was popular in Northern Europe, especially in Amsterdam, where the bourgeoisie were active collectors (Fig.

48).610 In Italy, the figures were normally half-length and given a religious, historical, or literary pretext. The subjects for these paintings were often saints, historical figures and philosophers, and could therefore connote their owner’s religiosity, erudition and/or sophistication. For the artist, executing single-figure paintings was much less time consuming than painting grandiose narrative works and they could easily be sold on the open market.

Capaccio notes numerous single-figure subjects in Roomer’s collection in 1630 and the merchant’s interest in the genre continued throughout his lifetime. His post-mortem inventory contained 21 pictures with an unidentified figure; five which were identified as philosophers; one depiction of an astrologer; and roughly 41 specified as saints.611 While not all of these works were necessarily in the half-length, single-figure format, presumably many of them were. Some are even specified as such.

In addition to these works, the inventory also includes some paintings portraying a

“Madonnina”. These small Madonnas and some of the single-figure saint portraits may have been for resale as devotional images, or could have been for Roomer’s personal piety. Small religious paintings were easily sold for devotional purposes.

610 For more on tronies see: Dagmar Hirschfelder and León Krempel, eds., Tronies: das Gesicht in der frühen Neuzeit, (Berlin: Mann, 2014); and Franziska Gottwald, Das Tronie - Muster, Studie und Meisterwerk: die Genese einer Gattung der Malerei vom 15. Jahrhundert bis zu Rembrandt, (Berlin: Dt. Kunstverl, 2011). 611 This number is not exact as it is sometimes difficult to discern whether or not a painting describing a saint actually depicted a narrative. I did not include those paintings of saints that were quite large, assuming these must have been narrative scenes. 204

Capaccio mentions five depictions of unidentified saints by Ribera in Roomer’s collection in 1630, as well as five half-length portrayals of singers by Valentin de Bolougne

(French, 1591-1632).612 Ribera’s numerous single-figure paintings elevated him to the foremost painter in the genre working in Italy; his use of intense naturalism and chiaroscuro were a fascination to viewers.613 Undoubtedly this is what also attracted Roomer to his works. The depiction of half-length saints provided the artist with the opportunity to explore a variety of expressions and textures – the smooth glowing skin of a young martyr could be contrasted to the old and wrinkled appearance of a weathered saint.

The depictions of singers, like the ones by Valentin described by Capaccio, were akin to genre scenes. Usually such works were jovial; the common man singing in a relaxed atmosphere.

Such types of works were particularly popular among Dutch painters. It is difficult to assess how these paintings in Roomer’s collection appeared. While Valentin is certainly renowned for his

Manfredian depictions of taverns and concerts, he usually portrayed entire scenes, rather than individual figures. Exceptions are his depictions of lute players, mouths slightly open as though readying to sing (Fig. 49). Judging, however, from his depictions of concerts (like his one in the

Louvre, for example), it is clear that Valentin would have executed his singers naturalistically and in an animated fashion, reflecting the bohemian lifestyle for which Valentin was reputed.614

Paintings by Valentin were relatively rare in Naples, especially around 1630. Aside from the Filomarino collection, there are only two other instances noted in the Getty Provenance Index in which a work by the artist appears. All but one of these works is of a religious subject.615

Thus, Roomer’s possession of these particular works by Valentin was quite unusual for his

612 Capaccio, 577-8. Capaccio also notes a St. Jerome and a St. Lawrence by Ribera, though these two works – being distinguished from the “cinque altri con figure di santi” likely contained more narrative elements and are not properly considered part of the single-figure genre. 613 For more on Ribera, see Chapter Six. 614 For more on the influence of Caravaggio and his followers, see Chapter Six. 615 Getty Provenance Index http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 14 October, 2013. 205

context. The paintings by Valentine mentioned by Capaccio would have provided the best example of the French artist’s Caravaggist style in the city until the arrival of Cardinal

Filomarino’s collection in 1641.

Philosophers were a popular subject among Neapolitan collectors. Painters like Ribera and Giordano applied an intense naturalism to these portrayals; they were usually depicted as worn, old figures (Fig. 50) Despite the disheveled appearance of these philosophers, there was a certain romanticism about their depiction – their faces were full of the kind of character that comes with age and wisdom. Their appearance, in addition to their naturalistic depiction, made them popular among collectors. They would have certainly fit in well within Roomer’s collection. Distinguishing philosophers from other types of single-figure paintings could be difficult – it was not always easy to read their attributes – which may account for the numerous unidentified single-figure works in Roomer’s collection and the relatively few specified as philosophers.

Portraits

In addition, there are many paintings in Roomer’s inventory described as “portraits”, though most of them are unidentified. There are a total of 35 pictures described as “ritratti”. This includes a portrait of Cardinal Antonio Barberini – which was likely a print as it was inventoried in the same section as Roomer’s books of prints and drawings –one of a monk, a priest, and another of an unidentified prince. Owning portraits of monarchs and religious figures could symbolize one’s alliances, especially if they were displayed in a public room of the palace. With this in mind, it is plausible to think the portrait of the prince may be the son of a Spanish monarch, whereas the religious figures may depict members of the Carmelite order (see Chapter Eight for Roomer’s connection to this order through his devotion to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi). In addition, there are two portraits described in the same sentence – one of a man and one of a woman. These

206

portraits could have been of Roomer’s family members, perhaps his parents, or his brother

Lodewijk and his wife. Oddly, no mention is made of a portrait of Roomer himself.

The fact that the majority of the portraits in Roomer’s collection are unidentified indicates that perhaps his primary reason for collecting such works was their artistic merit, rather than their particular subject. Though the evidence for the inventory is unspecific, it does not appear that Roomer systematically collected portraiture as an overt display of his heritage or affliations. This is further supported by the fact that his portraits were distributed throughout his palace; the usual practice was to display one’s portraits together in a room with a public function.

In all likelihood, Roomer did not commission many (if any) of his portraits, preferring instead to purchase them from the open art market.

* * * * *

Roomer collected the works of many more artists of the “modern” genres than could be discussed here. Matthias Stom, Louis Finson, Johann Heinrich Schönfeld and Johann Wilhelm Baur were all in Naples in the first half of the seventeenth century and would have certainly been of interest to a collector like Roomer.616 There are undoubtedly innumerable unnamed artists who could have also been represented in a collection the size of the merchant’s. What is clear from the available scholarship and documents is that Roomer began collecting these genres before most of his fellow collectors. In particular, his interest in landscapes, still lifes and battle scenes were

616 Capaccio briefly mentions works by a “Stopper” in Roomer’s collection, who is assumed to be Stom. Until recently, it was uncertain whether or not Stom had actually worked in Naples, but new documents discovered by Marije Osnabrugge published in 2014 reveal the artist did spend some time in the Southern city. See: Marije Osnabrugge, “New Documents for Matthias Stom in Naples,” Burlington Magazine 156 (2014): 107-8. For Finson see: Didier Bodart, Louis Finson, (Brussels: Palais des Académies, 1970), 10-6, 141-2, 161-2. For information on Schönfeld’s time in Naples and his likely connection to Roomer see: Cécile Michaud, Johann Heinrich Schönfeld: Un peuintre Allemand du XVIIe siècle en Italie, (Munich: Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2006), 39-42. For more on Baur see: Régine Bonnefait, Johann Wilhelm Baur 1608- 1642): Ein Wegbereiter der barocken Kunst in Deutschland, (Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Tübingen, 1997), 48-9. 207

ahead of his time and encouraged a greater Neapolitan market for such pictures. With his support, Naples established significant schools of still life, prospettive and battle painters that have been integral to the understanding of the development of these genres in Italy.

208

Fig. 15. Michele Regolia, Antechamber of a Nobleman’s Palace, Archivio dell’Arte/Luciano Pedicini, Naples, 17th century

Fig. 16. Paul Bril, Landscape with the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Lucca, c. 1600

209

Fig. 17. Paul Bril, Landscape with the Good Samaritan, Pinacoteca Nazionale, Lucca, c. 1600

Fig. 18. Cornelis Poelenburgh, Figures Dancing Near Ruins, Institute of the Arts, Detroit, c. 1624

210

Fig. 19. Leonaert Bramer, The Fall of Simon Magus, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dijon, 1623

Fig. 20. Agostino Tassi, Landscape with Scene of Witchcraft, The Walters Art Museum, Baltimore, after 1620

211

Fig. 21. Agostino Tassi, The Coral Fishers, Private Collection, c. 1622

Fig. 22. Godfried Wals, Pastoral Landscape, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, c. 1616

212

Fig. 23. Claude Lorrain, Landscape with Dancing Figures, National Gallery, London, 1648

Fig. 24. Viviano Codazzi and Micco Spadaro, Capriccio with an Obelisk, Private Collection, Milan, mid-1640s

213

Fig. 25. Anonymous Italian, after Viviano Codazzi and Micco Spadaro?, Pool of Bethesda, Sale, Christie’s London, 17th Century

Fig. 26. Anonymous Italian, after Viviano Codazzi and Micco Spadaro?, Christ and the Woman Taken in Adultry, Sale, Christies London, 17th Century

214

Fig. 27. Vivanio Codazzi and Michelangelo Cerquozzi, Ruined Palace with Simple Portico and Temple Front, Whereabouts Unknown, mid-1650s

Fig. 28. Vivano Codazzi and Adriaen van der Cabel, Capriccio with a Triumphal Arch and Soldiers, Private Collection, c. 1660-8

215

Fig. 29. Viviano Codazzi and Micco Spadaro, Composite Triumphal Arch with Landscape, Visconteum Antichità, Milan, mid-1640s

Fig. 30. Jacopo Bassano, Two Hounds, Musée du Louvre, c. 1548-9

216

Fig. 31. Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick de Clerk, The Four Elements, Museo del Prado, c. 1615

Fig. 32. Luca Forte, Still Life with a Tuberose and Crystal Vase, Galleria nazionale d’arte antica di Palazzo Corsini, Rome, Second quarter of the 17th century

217

Fig. 33. Giacomo Recco, Still Life with Flowers, Private Collection, 17th Century

Fig. 34. Jan Brueghel the Elder, Bouquet in a Clay Vase, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, c. 1599-1607

218

Fig. 35. Giovanni Battista Recco, Kitchen Interior, Private Collection, Cremona, 1660s

Fig. 36. Frans Snyders, Hunting Still Life, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, c. 1640/1650

219

Fig. 37. Giuseppe Recco, Kitchen Interior with Copper Ware, Octopus, and Onions on a Stone Ledge, Galerie Caness, Paris, 1660s

Fig. 38. Ignacio Arias, Bodegón with Cookware and Asparagus, Museo del Prado, after 1650

220

Fig. 39. Giovan Battista Ruoppolo, Still Life with Fruit and Vase of Flowers, Private Collection, 1653

Fig. 40. Pieter van Laer, The Herdsmen, Musée du Louvre, 1639-42

221

Fig. 41. Villa Bisignano, formerly the Villa Roomer, Barra

Fig. 42. Aniello Falcone, Finding of Moses, Villa Bisignano, Barra, c. 1647

222

Fig. 43. Aniello Falcone, Moses Striking the Rock, Villa Bisignano, Barra, c. 1647

Fig. 44. Aniello Falcone, Crossing of the Red Sea, Villa Bisignano, Barra, c. 1647

223

Fig. 45. Aniello Falcone, Battle of the Israelites and the Amalekites, Villa Bisignano, Barra, c. 1647

Fig. 46. Aniello Falcone, Brazen Serpent, Villa Bisignano, Barra, c. 1647

224

Fig. 47. Aniello Falcone, Portrait of Masaniello, c. 1647

Fig. 48. Rembrandt van Rijn, Bust of an Old Man in a Fur Cap, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum, Innsbruck, 1630

225

Fig. 49. Valentin de Boulogne, The Lute Player, Metropolitan Museum of Art, c. 1626

Fig. 50. Jusepe de Ribera, Archimedes, Museo del Prado, Madrid, 1630

226

Chapter 6

The Collection of Gaspare Roomer: History Paintings, Prints and

Drawings

Crowning the top of the hierarchy of painting, depictions of historical events were prized by collectors everywhere. Though the genres of still life, landscape and battle scenes became more popular in the seventeenth century, their significance did not supplant the importance or the prestige associated with history subjects. So, although Roomer’s collection primarily consisted of landscapes and still lifes, many of his most significant works were paintings with religious or mythological narratives. Roomer’s inventory indicates that the merchant displayed history paintings in almost every public room in his house. The monumentality of many of these images and their complex subject matter was often highlighted by contrast to the relative monotony of the “modern” genres. Thus, Roomer’s religious and mythological paintings can often be identified as his collection’s “showpieces”, which included works by Rubens, Ribera, Stanzione and Van Dyck. Despite his collection’s emphasis on the “modern” genres, it is clear that Roomer was still concerned with owning exceptional history paintings that both satisfied his personal taste and contributed to his status as a first-rate collector.

Religious Paintings

The seventeenth century was a period of intense religiosity in Naples, ushered in by the fervor of the Counter-Reformation. The vehement Spanish response to Protestantism ensured that Naples was a state of religious convictions and a defender of the faith.617 The cults surrounding relics and particular saints were strong and religious devotion was a part of everyday life. As such,

617 Romeo de Maio, “The Counter-Reformation and Painting in Naples,” in Painting in Naples 1606-1705: From Caravaggio to Giordano, eds. Clovis Whitfield and Jane Martineau, 32. 227

biblical stories and images of the Virgin, of saints and of Christ were immensely popular among collectors. Paintings of martyrdoms, such as those of St. Sebastian, St. Lawrence, St. John the

Baptist and St. Gennaro; of doctors of the Church like St. Jerome and the Evangelists; of pentitent saints, in particular Mary Magdalen; of those who exemplified the tenets of the Counter-

Reformation, such as St. Charles Borromeo, St. Ignatius Loyola and St. Francis Xavier; and of the saints who claimed to engage in mystic communication with God, especially St. Teresa of Avila, appeared frequently in the private homes of lay individuals. Depictions of events from the life of

Christ and of the Virgin were also popular. Old Testament subjects were less ubiquitous, though not exceptionally rare.

Despite the overwhelming number of landscapes and still lifes in his possession, Roomer still owned 193 religious paintings. The intense religiosity of the time undoubtedly informed many of Roomer’s collecting choices and, since it appears he was quite pious himself, it is not surprising that many devotional images decorated the private rooms of his palace. However, it was his monumental religious narratives that garnered much of the public’s attention to his collection. Coupling the purchase of large, impressive works of art by reputed painters with religious subjects that were particularly revered by the general population ensured the prominence of Roomer’s collection within the city of Naples.

Certain themes were repeated more often than others among Roomer’s religious works.

New Testament subjects, primarily depicting the stories of the life of Christ, the Virgin and St.

John the Baptist, predominate; these narratives were common among collectors in Italy in general. His inventory also included numerous Old Testament subjects, such as episodes from the life of Abraham, as well as a few works focused on stories from the life of Jacob. While some

Italian collectors did own narrative paintings of stories from the Old Testament, these subjects were much more popular in Northern Europe, which is where Roomer’s interest in them probably originated.

228

Other common themes among Roomer’s religious paintings include depictions of the

Madonna – alone, with the Christ child and other saints, and as part of larger narrative scenes; and of saints, especially St. John the Baptist, St. Jerome, and St. Sebastian. This, of course, was completely common for the time.

Mythological Paintings

Notably, Roomer owned significantly fewer mythological subjects than he did religious ones.

Capaccio notes four mythological subjects in Roomer’s collection in 1630 and in his 1674 inventory, such works number around forty. It is difficult to assess whether or not Roomer gained more of an appreciation for mythological subjects later in the century or if this increase in such paintings is simply because his collection grew. In any case, though they have less of a presence in Roomer’s collection than religious works, there were still numerous mythological paintings of significance in the merchant’s possession. Among the most important were the

Apollo and Marsyas and the Drunken Silenus, both by Ribera. Depictions of Venus also appear rather frequently in Roomer’s inventory. He owned seven pictures in total of the goddess: two paintings of Venus and Adonis, a Venus and Jove, a Venus and Mars, a Mercury and Venus, a

Sleeping Venus and a Venus with a putto.

Images of Violence in Roomer’s Collection

Many of the mythological and religious paintings in Roomer’s collection depict martyrdoms, beheadings or acts of torture, a particular interest of the merchant. His post-mortem inventory records a Death of John the Baptist, two paintings generically described as “sacrifices”, a Head of the Baptist, two works depicting the Sacrifice of Isaac, two portraying the Martyrdom of St.

Catherine, a Martyrdom of St. Lawrence, a Beheading of St. Paul, possibly a Crucifixion of St.

229

Peter618, a Tityus, the martyrdoms of St. Andrew and Saint Agatha, a David with the Head of

Goliath, a Cain and Abel, a Lucrezia, and an Apollo and Marsyas.619

However, this preference of Roomer’s was not particularly unique. On the contrary,

Neapolitan painters often depicted unsettling narratives; such subjects were popular with many collectors living in the city. In Labrot’s Collections of Paintings in Naples: 1600-1780, 25 collectors had at least one picture of Judith and Holofernes in their collection.620 Paintings representing the beheading of John the Baptist, Salome with the Baptist’s head, the head of St.

John on a platter were present in 28 of the collections covered by Labrot.621 Furthermore, many collections contained the martyrdoms of various saints, particularly those of St. Bartholomew, St.

Sebastian and St. Paul. There were many mythological and historical narratives that also provided artists with opportunities to portray torture and death. Apollo flaying Marsyas,

Prometheus, Lucrezia and Tityus were all prominent subjects.

Depictions of violent imagery increased in the sixteenth century as a tool used by the

Church in their counter-attack on the Reformation. Paintings of martyrdoms in particular were utilized to demonstrate the strength of a saint’s faith in an attempt to emphasize the power of

Catholic belief. Predominantly, these types of paintings were found in churches and were intended to dissuade the populace from abandoning the Catholic faith.622 However, in the seventeenth century, depictions of violence became more or less popular in their own right.623

Artists and collectors in Naples – more than other Italian states – demonstrated a penchant for

618 This painting is paired with the noted Beheading of St. Paul, thereby leading me to believe that even though it is simply described as a St. Peter, it depicts the saint’s martyrdom. 619 A.S.N, Notai del ‘600, Giovanni Battista dell’Aversana, 295/31, ff. 171v-201v. 620 Labrot, 1992, 746. 621 Ibid., 1992, 759-60 622 Harlod Hendrix, “Pietro Aretino’s Humanità di Christo and the Rhetoric of Horror,” in Il Rinasciemento Italiano di fronte alla Riforma: Letteratura e arte, ed. Chrysa Damianaki, (Rome: Vecchiarelli Editore, 2005), 93. 623 Harlod Hendrix, “The Repulsive Body: Images of Torture in Seventeenth-Century Naples,” in Bodily Extremities: Preoccupations with the Human Body in Early Modern European Culture, eds. Egmond Florike and Robert Zwijnenberg, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003), 68. 230

what has been termed “horror art,” especially between 1630 and 1660.624 Ribera’s naturalistic executions of scenes of pain and suffering were popular among Spanish viceroys as well as bourgeois collectors like Roomer. His lead was followed by Preti and Giordano, whose paintings of martyrdoms and torture also found an interested clientele among Neapolitan patrons.

Since the time of Aristotle, when the Greek philosopher published his Poetics, a purpose of art was to bring about pleasure, which seemingly runs contrary to the depiction of disturbing narratives. However, as Harold Hendrix relates, Aristotle also notes that “we enjoy contemplating the most precise images of things whose actual sight is painful to us.”625 Hendrix connects Aristotle’s opinions, which relate to artful mimesis, to the idea that representing horror in a manner that engenders pleasure is the mark of a skillful artist. This notion is solidified by the sixteenth-century art theorist Gregorio Comanini, who wrote of Giulio Romano’s frescoes of giants in the Palazzo del Tè who are “crushed and hurt by masses of falling stones and rocks, in positions and forms so strange and horrible, that if someone else would see a similar spectacle in real life he would certainly be horrified and feel great displeasure at such a sight. None the less, because it is imitation and painting, there is no man who does not enjoy seeing this work and finds it most pleasant.”626

Hendrix reasons that the artistic challenge of representing horrific subjects as beautiful artworks was particularly seized in Naples after 1630 due to the popularity of Giambattista

624 Hendrix, 2005, 93. With the plague Neapolitans experienced death on a massive scale. It represented a near decimation of a society; the residents of Naples were completely surrounded by an almost inevitable death. Significantly, the cruel realism of Ribera began to lose popularity; artists were looking more and more toward Venetian examples. While the neo-Venetianism that took hold of Naples began long before the plague (and in fact there is evidence of this style even in Ribera’s work), this technique was approached with more vigour post 1656. Images of death were more or less limited to sombre depictions of the plague, or less violent representations of martyrs. See: Harold Acton, “Preface to the London Edition,” in Painting in Naples 1606-1705: From Caravaggio to Giordano, eds. Clovis Whitfield and Jane Martineau, (Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1983), 17. 625 Hendrix, 2003, 82; Aristotle, Poetics, ed. and trans., Stephen Halliwell, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995), 37. 626 Quoted in Hendrix, 2003, 84. 231

Marino’s La Strage degli Innocenti, which was published in the city post-humously in 1632.627

Marino’s use of contrasting language – he juxtaposes the description of a woman “with her beautiful breast and beautiful face” to the actions of her tormenter, “a threatening and cruel man who has wrapped her golden hair around his arm and the curling and fine gold of her blonde splendour jerk by jerk he uproots and breaks” – provokes a tension that is nonetheless pleasureable because it creates equilibrium.628 A similar sense of balance is evident in many of the most violent Neapolitan paintings, a good example of which is Ribera’s Apollo and Marsyas from 1637 (Museo di Capodimonte), where the beauty of Apollo is contrasted to his torturous act against Marsyas (Fig. 66).

However, not all Neapolitan horror art contains mitigating pleasurable elements.

Ribera’s paintings of Ixion and Tityus found in the Prado, for example, combine pain, suffering and darkness without alleviation. In these cases, the viewer derives pleasure from the beauty of artistic execution. This is a true testament to the skill of an artist. Hendrix again relates this practice to Marino’s La Strage degli Innocenti, where he cites some passages where the poet allows violent imagery to predominate. In these instances it is Marino’s rhythmic and rhetorical use of the language that conveys beauty.629

Roomer certainly encouraged paintings of this nature, as evidenced from the numerous works in his inventory that can be described as “horror art”. However, his interest in this subject matter was part of a much wider fascination with the artistic challenge of deriving pleasure from violent depictions. Marino’s poem, in addition to theoretical treatises on art and imitation, helped to stimulate artistic interest in the equilibrium of violence and beauty in Neapolitan art, whether it

627 Ibid., 85. 628 Quoted in ibid., 2003, 85. 629 Ibid., 86-7. 232

was achieved through the juxtaposition of contrasting elements or a tension between the subject matter and the fineness of its depiction.630

Battistello Caracciolo, Carlo Saraceni, David de Haen and Simon Vouet

These four painters were all in Roomer’s collection by 1630. They were all referred to by

Capaccio and Vouet’s name appears again in the same bank document that recorded the purchase of paintings by Agostino Tassi and Filippo Napoletano.631 Their commonality is found in the fact that in the early Seicento they were all followers of Caravaggio’s style. Battistello was active in

Naples, while Saraceni, Vouet and de Haen were based out of Rome. That Roomer owned works by all these artists (and also Valentin, as mentioned in Chapter Five) indicates the extent of his appreciation for the Caravaggisti and his desire to amass a fairly thorough representation of the artists of this style at the beginning of the seventeenth century.

Battistello Caracciolo

Battistello (or Giovanni Battista) Caracciolo ( Italian, 1578-1635) was the first in Naples – perhaps along with Carlo Selitto – to adopt Caravaggio’s dramatic naturalism. Caravaggio’s first visit to Naples was from 1606 to 1607; he was in the city again from 1609 to 1610. His stays were brief, his presence in Naples represented only by a few works – the Flagellation (1607,

Museo di Capodimonte, Naples) and the Seven Acts of Mercy (1607, Pio Monte della

Misericordia,Naples; Fig. 51) in particular. The impact of these paintings on Neapolitan artists, however, cannot be overstated. Battistello Caracciolo’s Immaculate Conception, executed for the

630 It is worth noting that there were instances when the horror of the image outweighed the painting’s pleasurable aspects. Such was the case (told by Sandrart) with a painting of Prometheus that Ribera executed for the Flemish merchant Lucas van Uffele, who was then residing in Naples. Shortly after the work came into Van Uffele’s possession, the merchant’s wife gave birth to a deformed child. The child’s physiological defect was blamed on the horrific nature of Ribera’s painting and was thus returned to the artist. See: Sandrat, 278. 631 Capaccio, 577; bank document published in Ruotolo, 1982, 19. 233

church of Santa Maria della Stella in 1607, demonstrates a thorough understanding of

Caravaggio’s dramatic lighting and his physical and psychological realism. In 1612, and then again in 1617-8, Battistello travelled to Rome, where he would have been exposed to

Caravaggio’s earlier genre and religious works; however, his paintings maintained their affinity to the deep spirituality typical of Caravaggio’s Neapolitan works. Battistello’s adoption of

Caravaggio’s style was met with great success in Naples. According to the Getty Provenance

Index, his paintings were immensely popular, finding themselves in Naples’ foremost collections.

He obtained significant religious patronage, executing work for the Carthusians of San Martino, the Jesuits and the trustees of the Cappella Tesoro in the city’s Duomo.632

Roomer was apparently keen to collect Battistelo’s works, as Capaccio mentions a

“Samaritana” and “due putti” by the artist in Roomer’s palace at Monteoliveto.633 There is a chance that a painting of two putti found in the Moretti collection in Rome may be the one to which Capaccio refers, but Stefano Causa, in his catalogue raisonné of Battistello’s paintings, suggests the work is likely related to Battistello’s altarpiece in Santa Maria della Stella in

Naples.634 The “Samaritana”, however, may in fact be the painting of Christ and the Samaritan

Woman at the Well in the Pinacoteca di Brera in Milan (c. 1622-3; Fig. 52). In 2000, Causa stated that the work mentioned by Capaccio was lost and in 2007 Francesca Cappelletti noted that

632 Stefano Causa, Battistello Caracciolo: l’opera completa, (Naples: Electa Napoli, 2000), 16-48. Richard Spear, From Caravaggio to Artemisia: Essays on Painting in Seventeenth-Century Italy and France, (London: The Pindar Press, 2002), 40, 52, 59-60, 69; Richard Spear, Caravaggio and His Followers, (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1971), 61-7; Wolfgang Prohaska, Caravaggio e l’Europa: il movimento caravaggesco internazionale da Caravaggio a Mattia Preti, exh. cat., (Milano: Skira Editore, 2005), 496; Tres siglos de oro de la pintura napolitana: de Battistello Caracciolo a Giacinto Gigante, exh. cat., (Sala de Exposiciones San Eloy, Salamanca, 2003), 28. 633 Capaccio, 577. Capaccio makes reference to “Giovan Battistello”, as well as to a “Caracciolo”. While both could be identified with Battistello Caracciolo, the latter name actually refers to one of the Carracci (which one is not specified). It was common for the Carracci to be called “Caracciolo” in some primary source documents. See: Michael William Stoughton, The Paintings of Giovanni Battista Caracciolo, Ph.D dissertation, University of Michigan, 1974, 180; and Alfonso Pérez-Sánchez, Pintura italiana del s. XVII en España, (Madrid : Universidad de Madrid), 1965, 95. 634Causa, 176. 234

the provenance of the painting at Milan was unknown.635 Yet, there is no reason to believe the

Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well in the Brera was not the work in Roomer’s collection in 1630.636 In fact, in his study of the Lumaga collection in Venice, Lino Moretti asserts that the “Christo al pozzo con la Samaritana, figure al naturale” by Battistello in the

Venetian brothers’ 1676 inventory – which he identifies with the painting that was in Roomer’s collection in 1630 – is the one currently in the Brera.637 The painting entered the gallery as a work by Caravaggio, but was later revealed to be by Battistello.638 The work is dated around

1622-23, meaning its dating is consistent with the idea that Capaccio saw the work in 1630.639 It is also precisely the type of work that would have appealed to Roomer. It is a significant example of Battistello’s interest in Caravaggio and his followers in Rome, using an interplay of light and shadow to intensify the dramatic gestures and reactions of the figures. The use of bold colours, reminiscent of Orazio Gentileschi, and the fluidity of the movements add elegance to Battistello’s retelling of the narrative. Its large size (200 x 165 cm) would have made it a showpiece of

Roomer’s collection.

Found in John 4: 7-30, the story recounts Christ’s encounter with and conversion of a woman from Samaria. Paintings depicting this story were prominent in the years following the

Counter-Reformation, as it exemplified the notion of conversion championed by the Church at this time; there are numerous examples in seventeenth-century Neapolitan collections, including

635 Ibid., 348. Francesca Cappelletti, Caravaggio e I Caravaggisti. (Florence: Il Sole 24 ORE S.p.A, 2007), 275. 636 In 1937, Margaretta Salinger wrote that a Christ and the Samaritan Woman at the Well by Battistello had entered the collection at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. This painting, however, has since been attributed to an unknown Neapolitan artist around 1620. See: Margaretta M. Salinger, “Christ and the Woman of Samaria by Caracciolo,” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 32, no. 1, (Jan. 1937), 4-6; Causa, 191. 637 Moretti, 38. 638 A monogram signature was eventually found on the work. See: Salinger, 4-6. 639 Causa notes the argument that the painting may have been executed in Northern Italy, but resolves that the canvas itself is typical of those used in Naples. See: Causa, 191. 235

Roomer’s.640 In addition to the painting of the Samarian woman mentioned by Capaccio that eventually found its way into the Lumaga collection, Roomer’s inventory contained two other monumental paintings depicting a “Samaritana.”641

Carlo Saraceni

Like Battistello, Carlo Saraceni (Italian, c. 1579-1620) is also considered a Caravaggesque painter, though his works also convey a strong indebtedness to the style of Adam Elsheimer.642

Arriving in Rome from Venice in 1598, Saraceni at first took little interest in the art of

Caravaggio, who was only beginning to make his mark on the Eternal City. Soon, however,

Saraceni submitted to the Lombard’s influence, adding to it his own poetic interpretations, not unlike those of Orazio Gentileschi. For the rest of his career, Saraceni continued to look to

Caravaggio for inspiration in his own religious works and became one of the preeminent

Caravaggisti in Rome and received numerous commissions, including a contract to work at the

Palazzo del Quirinale.643

Despite his Roman success, Saraceni is under-represented in Neapolitan collections.

There are only three collectors catalogued in the Getty Provenance Index who owned works by the Venetian. Only one of these collectors - Ferrante Spinelli, Principe di Tarsia – owned a painting by Saraceni in the first half of the seventeenth century.644 The other two collectors noted in the database are Giovanna Battista d’Aquino, Principessa di Castiglione and Francesco

640 The Getty Provenance Index records the subject in 42 Neapolitan collections. See: Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb, accessed 24 October, 2012. 641 A.S.N. Notai dell ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, ff. 182v, 199v. 642 Rudolf Wittkower, Art and Architecture in Italy 1600-1750 . Early Baroque. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999), 43. See also: Anna Ottani Cavina, Carlo Saraceni, (Milan: Mario Spagnoli Editore, 1968). 643 Spear, 2002, 51-8; Spear, 1971, 58; Gudrun Swoboda, Caravaggio e l’Europa: il movimento caravaggesco internazionale da Caravaggio a Mattia Preti, exh. cat., (Milano: Skira Editore, 2005), 504. 644 That Spinelli owned a landscape by Saraceni meant that he did not possess one of the Venetian’s Caravaggesque works. Before falling under the influence of Caravaggio, Saraceni frequently painted landscapes inspired by Adam Elsheimer. See: Benedict Nicolson, Caravaggism in Europe, (Turin: U Allemandi, 1990), 86. 236

Carlo Spinelli, Principe di Tarsia, whose collections were inventoried in 1714 and 1732, respectively.645

Thus, that Roomer owned three of Saraceni’s religious paintings by 1630 was unusual in

Naples. Capaccio lists a Martha converting the Magdalen, a Madonna and the Flight into Egypt, and a Finding of Moses by “Carlo Venetiano”.646 Saraceni may have visited Naples around 1619 before returning to Venice, which is when Roomer could have acquired these works647; however, in the case that Saraceni did not venture to Naples, it would have still been fairly simple to facilitate the shipment of these works from Rome, due to Roomer’s numerous contacts in that city.

Saraceni’s rendering of Martha and Magdalen from Roomer’s collection appears in the inventory of the Lumaga brothers where it is better described as “Marta che sta convertendo

Madalena in una stanza piena di galanterie figure intiere più naturale.”648 There are two extant copies of Saraceni’s original Martha converting the Magdalen, one of which is in the Musée des

Beaux-Arts in Nantes (Fig. 53), and the other is in Rizzoli collection in Venice.649 Luigi Salerno speculates that these paintings are based on the Saraceni that was in Roomer’s collection.650 Like many of the other Caravaggisti, Saraceni clearly drew inspiration from Caravaggio’s rendition of the subject, which he would have seen in the Herrera or Costa collections in Rome.651

Caravaggio’s unique interpretation of the story, portraying it almost as a genre scene, is revisited

645 D’Aquino owned a Flight into Egypt, while Francesco Carlo Spinelli had two landscapes, one of which was likely inherited from Ferrante’s collection. See: Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed September 2, 2012. 646 Capaccio, 577. 647 Spear, 2002, 51. 648 Lumaga inventory published by Moretti, 38. 649 The original work by Saraceni is considered lost. The painting in Nantes is considered of higher quality than the one in Venice and is believed to more closely resemble the original by Saraceni, as it includes more Caravaggesque details. See: Cavina, 132. 650 Luigi Salerno, “The Art Historical Implications of the Detroit Magdalen,” Burlington Magazine 116, (October 1974), 590. 651 Cappelletti, 2007, 84; Luigi Spezzaferro, “The Documentary Findings: Ottavio Costa as a Patron of Caravaggio,” Burlington Magazine 116, (October 1974), 582. 237

by the Venetian artist. Saraceni’s figures are half-length, standing behind a table faced toward one another. Martha is leaning over, bathed in light, relaying Christ’s message to the Magdalen.

Unlike Caravaggio’s interpretation of the subject, however, the copies of Saraceni’s work do not include the convex mirror and thus present a greater sense of confinement. In its place is a vase of flowers, a perfume bottle and a box on which the Magdalen is resting her hand. Nonetheless, it is an important example of Caravaggio’s influence on Saraceni and its tenebrist qualities made it fit well into Roomer’s overall collection.

Saraceni’s Caravaggesque Martha converting the Magdalen must have been fairly novel in Naples. Though the subject certainly appears in Neapolitan collections – given that there was, as mentioned, a significant market for “conversion narratives” – Battistello is the only other follower of Caravaggio whose interpretation of this theme is found in Neapolitan documents in the Getty Provenance Index.652 Saraceni’s painting was the only one of this subject in Roomer's collection and as noted, it was eventually sold to Giovanni Andrea Lumaga in Venice.

The other two works by the Venetian artist mentioned by Capaccio were both subjects of which Roomer was fond. The Flight into Egypt appeared numerous times in the merchant’s inventory and his penchant for depictions of Moses is evident from the fresco decoration of his villa at Barra. Saraceni painted the subject of the flight into Egypt often, though there remains only one extant version today, which in the Church of San Romualdo in the Eremo dei

Camaldolsi (Fig. 54). While the version in Roomer’s collection has been lost, it may have been similar to this version.653 The San Romualdo Flight is quite different from Caravaggio’s illustration of the narrative (Fig. 55). Though Saraceni’s palette is in line with Caravaggio’s, here the Venetian demonstrates his indebtedness to Adam Elsheimer (German, 1578-1610;

652 Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 2 September, 2012. 653 Cavina, 101. 238

Fig. 56).654 Between its Caravaggesque contrast of light and shadow and its reliance on Northern aesthetics, it is clear why such a painting would have appealed to Roomer. Unlike the Martha converting Magdalene, Saraceni’s Flight into Egypt did not make its way into the Lumaga collection, but it is difficult to determine whether or not it remained in Roomer’s possession until his death in 1674. A sizeable picture of this subject is described in his inventory as “una fuga d’Eggitto della Madonna con cornice indorata negra et oro d’palmi sei e cinque”.655 The explicit mention of the “Madonna” in the inventorial description is interesting considering Capaccio also included the presence of the Virgin in his record of the work. This is unusual considering the

Madonna’s presence is usually implicit in the subject; every other mention of a depiction of the flight into Egypt recorded in Roomer`s inventory does not add the “Madonna” as an additional descriptor. However, the lack of further specific information prevents a definitive identification.

There is no record of a Finding of Moses by Saraceni in Roomer’s post-mortem inventory, so he may have sold the picture seen by Capaccio before his death. The only picture of this subject by Saraceni known today is found in the Fondazione Longhi in Florence (before

1608; Fig. 57). It is quite possible it was this painting that appeared in Roomer’s collection in

1630.656 The scene is divided dramatically with the use of light and shadow to depict the two episodes associated with this Old Testament story. In the background, Moses parents are shown releasing the infant into the river, the secrecy of the act underscored by Saraceni’s use of deep shadow. In the illuminated foreground the daughter of the Pharaoh, surrounded by her attendants, finds the baby Moses. As with the Rest on the Flight into Egypt, the influence of Elsheimer is evident in Saraceni’s painting. The depiction of the dark landscape, contrasted with a bright sky

654 Saraceni and Elsheimer likely met in Rome, as they were both in the city at the beginning of the seventeenth century. The German artist’s influence is particularly seen in Saraceni’s early works. See: Christian Tico Seifert, “Adam Elsheimer’s Artistic Circle in Rome,” in Adam Elsheimer, 1578-1610, ed. Rüdiger Klessmann, (London: Paul Holberton Publishing, 2006), 216. 655 A.S.N., Notai del Seicento, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 177v. 656 The painting in Roomer’s collection in 1630 may be the same as the one described in the 1808 collection of the Conte Ludovico Widmann in Venice. See: Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 23 June, 2014. 239

is reminiscent of the German artist’s style. However, the figures in the foreground reveal

Saraceni’s Venetian background in the attention to fabrics, expressions and light.

The story of Moses was one which evidently held some fascination for Roomer. As mentioned, his villa at Barra was decorated with scenes from the life of Moses. It is also possible that the merchant owned another Finding of Moses by Bernardo Cavallino, which is discussed later in this chapter.

David de Haen

Demonstrative of Roomer’s preferences for the works of Rome’s Caravaggisti is the presence of three works by David de Haen (Dutch, c. 1590-1622) in the merchant’s collection: Titio, Cain killing Abel and Christ and St. Thomas.657 Primarily known for his partnership with Dirck van

Baburen, De Haen executed his works with the realism typical of the Northern followers of

Caravaggio.658 Though he died prematurely in 1622, his talents as an artist did not go unnoticed.

Of De Haen’s work in San Pietro in Montorio, artist biographer Giulio Mancini wrote that: “È qui in Roma, giovane di 22 in 23 anni, che ha fatto ultimamente la cappella in S. Pietro in

Montoria che dà gran sodisfattione; che, vivendo si deve credere che sia per venire a grant ermine et eccesso nella professione...Compagnio di questo fu, qual operò in sua Compagnia la cappella sopradetta talchè di esso si deve dir quello che del compagnio.”659 While De Haen may not be the most prominent of the Northern Caravaggisti, he was certainly respected. In addition to the

657 Capaccio, 577. 658 Baburen’s and De Haen’s working relationship was so close, it is often difficult to distinguish their works from one another. See: Leonard J. Slatkes, Dirck van Baburen (c. 1595-1624): A Dutch Painter in Utrecht and Rome, (Utrecht: Haentjens Dekker & Gumbert, 1965), 39. For more on De Haen also see: Wayne Franits, The Paintings of Dirck van Baburen ca. 1592/93-1624: a Catalogue Raisonné, (Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2013), 7, 14-6. 659 Giulio Mancini, Considerazioni sulla pittura, vol. 1, ed. Adriana Marucchi, (Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1956), 256-60. See also: Slatkes, 1965, 3; Franits, 15. 240

acclaim he earned from Mancini, the artist also worked for the Giustiniani family. His

Entombment for the Giustiniani was once thought to be an original work by Caravaggio.660

Though no other works by De Haen are found in Neapolitan inventories throughout the seventeenth century, the artist’s Northern roots, his indebtedness to Caravaggism and his penchant for depicting rather gory subjects would have brought him to Roomer’s attention. The story of Tityus was particularly violent. As a punishment for the attempted rape of Leto, the giant

Tityus was restrained while two vultures feasted on his liver. While Capaccio’s description of the painting is lacking, the work resurfaces in the Lumaga collection, which notes that the figure of

Tityus is “tutta nuda più grande del naturale, con l’aquila o avoltore che li mangia li fegato.”661

Clearly, this was a subject that allowed De Haen to employ his unrelenting naturalism, which attracted patrons like Roomer. In fact, Roomer’s post-mortem inventory records another depiction of “Titio”.662

In 1997, Ceclia Grilli noted that a Prometheus by De Haen had surfaced on the art market.663 The stories of the punishment of Prometheus and Tityus were similar – both concerned a god who was punished by being tied to a rock while a bird feasted on his liver664 - and were thus similarly portrayed in painting. Grilli suggests that the rediscovered Prometheus by De Haen may in fact be the painting described as a Tityus by Capaccio in Roomer’s collection

– the two subjects were easily and often confused.665 Corroborating Grilli’s hypothesis is that her description of the painting matches that given in the Lumaga inventory.666

660 De Haen even lived in the Giustinani palace for a short time. See: Slatkes, 1965, 8, 40; Slatkes, 1966, 174; Franits, 14. 661 Inventory published in Moretti, 39. 662 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 187v. 663 Grilli, 35, 40, 46. 664 The difference is that Tityus’ liver was feasted on by vultures, while Prometheus’ liver was eaten by an eagle. 665 Grilli, 46. 666 When Grilli wrote her article in 1997, the Lumaga inventory had yet to be published by Moretti. 241

The subject of Tityus was fairly common in Neapolitan collections. A total of eight collectors in Naples owned a painting with this subject; some owned more than one version. The subject of Prometheus only appears in one collection, though some of those paintings described as “Titio” in Neapolitan inventories may have in fact been depicting the story of Prometheus.667

In addition, images of Tityus also appear in the collections of the Count of Monterrey, the Duke of Media and the Marchese del Carpio, all of whom held vice regal terms in Naples.668 The subject appealed to the Neapolitan and Spanish penchant for the dramatic and the dark, and for the theme of just punishment.

The whereabouts of De Haen’s Cain and Abel and his Christ with St. Thomas are unknown, but they too would have undoubtedly fit in well with Roomer’s collection, among other images of violence and gore. The Cain and Abel is also found in the Lumaga inventory, where the description fails to mention the presence of Cain, but describes Abel as a highly naturalistic nude figure, lying dead on the ground.669 Though Roomer evidently sold De Haen’s Cain and

Abel to Giovanni Andrea Lumaga, the merchant did own a smaller version of the subject at the time of his death.670 Depictions of the biblical story were quite popular in Naples – they are recorded in 26 collections in the city.671

Considering De Haen’s affinity to Caravaggio, it is plausible that his Christ with St.

Thomas would have reflected the influence of the older artist’s painting of the same subject.

Caravaggio’s Christ with St. Thomas (1601-2, Sanssouci, Potsdam; Fig. 58) causes the viewer to cringe at the naturalistic depiction of Christ’s open wound and the insertion of Thomas’ finger within it. Such a portrayal was in line with much of De Haen’s oeuvre. There are two paintings

667 Getty Provenance Index http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 14 September, 2013. 668 Getty Provenance Index http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 14 September, 2013. 669 Lumaga inventory published by Moretti, 40. 670 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 197r. 671 Getty Provenance Index http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 14 September, 2013. 242

of St. Thomas in Roomer’s inventory; one description states that Thomas is shown inserting his finger into Christ’s wound.672 As De Haen’s Christ with St. Thomas is not found in the Lumaga inventory, one of the paintings in Roomer’s post-mortem inventory is perhaps the one by the artist described by Capaccio in 1630. That Roomer was interested in this subject was typical of

Neapolitan collectors at the time. The Getty Provenance Index records one or more works depicting the incredulity of St. Thomas in 14 collections.673 It was a fairly popular subject within strongly Catholic cities, as it conveyed the importance of resounding faith in Christ. In addition, the physicality of the motif must have piqued the interest of many Neapolitan collectors.

Simon Vouet

Shortly after his arrival in Rome in 1613, Simon Vouet (French, 1590-1649) began to achieve success: commissions from Cassiano del Pozzo by 1617, his first public work for a church in

1620, and by 1624 he was involved in the decoration of St. Peter’s. The acclaim his paintings were met with in Rome inspired churches in Naples to seek out his work. In 1622, Vouet’s

Circumcision was executed for the Neapolitan church of Sant’Angelo a Segno; this was followed by a commission from the Certosa di San Martino for the Apparition of the Virgin to St. Bruno in

1624.674 Thus, Vouet’s paintings were well-known and admired in Naples by the time that

Roomer acquired one of his works in 1630. Among the paintings that Roomer purchased from the estate of Domenico della Vigna was a “Cristo in croce grande de mano de Monsueto”.675 It was this piece that was seen by Capaccio on his subsequent visit to Roomer’s palace. Capaccio’s

672 A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 171r, 188r. 673 Getty Provenance Index http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 14 September, 2013. 674 Cappelletti, 2007, 322-3. 675 Ruotolo, 1982, 19. 243

mention of the work is slightly more descriptive, adding that the scene included a depiction of the

Virgin and numerous saints.676

The Crucifixion by Vouet recorded in Roomer’s collection has unfortunately not been identified. However, the picture was likely similar in style to Vouet’s other Italian works. While in Rome he was taken under Caravaggio’s spell and his paintings from this period are darker and more dramatic in their lighting than his later French works. The Crucifixion the artist executed for the Jesuit Church of Sant’Ambrogio in Genoa (c. 1622; Fig. 59) may have been somewhat similar (though more monumental) to Roomer’s version of the subject. Here, the dramatic impact of the scene is highlighted by the three-quarter turn of the cross and diagonal composition.

Though indebted to Caravaggio, the figures are depicted in a more refined classical manner.

After 1622, the influence of Giovanni Lanfranco and Guido Reni in Vouet’s work is more evident. Unlike his compatriot, Valentin, Vouet’s figures are much more elegant and graceful.677

It is this combination of models that may have drawn Roomer to his works. In any case, in light of the prestigious commissions awarded to Vouet by Neapolitan religious institutions and the esteem with which the artist was held, Roomer would have certainly been eager to acquire a work by the French artist. It is therefore no surprise that he seized the opportunity to purchase the

Crucifixion from Della Vigna’s estate; his ownership of this work would have undoubtedly earned Roomer the respect of other Neapolitan collectors.

676 Capaccio. 577. 677 Dominique Jacquot, “Vouet en Italie, Vouet & l’Italie,” in Simon Vouet (les années italiennes 1613/1627), exh. cat., (Nantes: Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nantes, 2009), 33; William R. Crelly, The Painting of Simon Vouet, (New Haven and London : Yale University Press, 1962), 28-30, 163. 244

Aniello Falcone’s Religious Paintings

De Dominici describes a Martyrdom of San Gennaro that Aniello Falcone painted for Roomer, which he exclaims is worthy of “straordinaria lode”.678 Sandrart also noted the picture in

Roomer’s collection.679 De Dominici describes a scene full of a variety of figures, horses and soldiers at Solfatara, the area just outside of Naples where San Gennaro was beheaded. This description corresponds to the painting of this subject by Falcone today found in the Museo di

San Martino (c. 1630; Fig. 60). Solfatara is smoking in the background, while in the foreground

San Gennaro lies headless. His executor has moved on to the next martyr. However, this action is almost lost in a sea of figures that crowd the scene to witness the execution. In his catalogue raisonné of Falcone’s works, Achille della Ragione postulates that the Count of Monterrey – the city’s viceroy at the time the painting was completed – stands beside the Cardinal Buoncampagni on the left side of the picture, while the two figures in oriental dress may be Roomer and Jan

Vandeneynden.680 There is only one extant portrait of Roomer, an engraving depicting the merchant in old age that was included in Padre Mastelloni’s Life of Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi from 1675 (Fig. 1). There are no known portraits of Jan Vandeneynden. It is therefore impossible to securely identify the two figures in oriental costume on the left side of Falcone’s

Martyrdom of San Gennaro. It is perhaps because Roomer and Vandeneynden were merchants and often imported and exported goods from the East that Della Ragione suggested that these two figures may be the two Flemish ex-patriots. However, the appearance of the two figures as infidels and fairly disinterested in the assault on Christianity taking place before them would not have been an impression Roomer, being quite devout, would have wanted to cultivate.

678 De Dominici, vol. 3, 73, 79. 679 Sandrart, 290. 680 Della Ragione, published online at http://www.guidecampania.com/aniellofalcone/cap5.htm. Accessed 2 March, 2013. 245

Furthermore, it would have been unusual for such an important detail to have been missed by

Sandrart and De Dominici.

Depictions of San Gennaro, the patron saint of Naples, were popular among Seicento

Neapolitan collectors. However, considering the size of Roomer’s collection and his predilection for violent subject matter, it is surprising that there is only one painting depicting San Gennaro recorded in his inventory.681 Roomer also owned a print after Ribera’s famous San Gennaro

Emerging Unharmed from the Furnace, which is discussed in more detail later in this chapter.

Perhaps San Gennaro did not hold the same significance for Roomer as he did for native

Neapolitans.

The other religious work by Falcone that was documented in Roomer’s collection is the artist’s Rest on the Flight into Egypt from 1641, today in the collection of the Duomo in Naples

(Fig. 61). In 1708, the will of Olimpia Piccolomini, widow of Ferdinand Vandenenyen, bequeathed to Cardinal Francesco Pignatelli a Flight into Egypt. The document explicitly states it was given to Piccolomini by Roomer.682 The Rest on the Flight is an example of Falcone’s more classical manner.683 The figures are close to the picture plane, making the scene feel immediate and intimate. The interaction between the Madonna and the Christ child is tender and quiet – a far cry from the drama of Falcone’s battle scenes. That this painting was in Roomer’s collection is indicative of his deep appreciation for Falcone as more than simply a painter of battle pictures.

As mentioned above, the flight into Egypt appears frequently in Roomer’s inventory. In fact, in addition to the works by Falcone and Saraceni, Roomer quite possibly owned a Rest on the Flight into Egypt by Nicolas Poussin (c. 1627, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York; Fig.

681 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 189v. 682 “Lascio all’Em.mo sig. Cardinale Francesco Pignatelli il quadro de palmi 4, e 5 che esprime la Fuga di Nostro Signore in Egitto, e propria quello mi donò il qm. sig. Gaspare Roomer...” See: A.S.N., Notai del ’600, Gennaro Palomba, 648/51, f. 134. Published in Ruotolo, 1982, 25. 683 Ann Percy, “Introduction,” in Bernardo Cavallino in Naples, 1616-1656, exh. cat., eds. Ann Percy, Nicola Spinosa, Giuseppe Galasso, and Ann T. Lurie, (Cleveland and Texas: Cleveland Museum of Art and Kimbell Art Museum , 1984), 10. 246

62). The artist’s painting of this subject today in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York was in the collection of Giovanni Francesco Salernitano, Barone di Frosolone. After the Revolt of Masaniello in 1647, Salernitano encountered financial difficulties, which may have prompted him to inventory his collection and subsequently sell it to the art dealer Giacomo del Castro.684 In turn, Del Castro sold some of these works to Roomer – the most famous of which was Ribera’s

Drunken Silenus, discussed below. It is speculated that Poussin’s Rest on the Flight into Egypt was part of that deal, as the painting appears in the 1688 inventory of Ferdinand

Vandeneynden.685 Dated to around 1627, Poussin’s Rest on the Flight is more poetic than

Falcone’s. The inclusion of putti – borrowed from Titian’s Bacchanals686 - gives the work a playful, dream-like quality. Its emphasis on light, shade and movement makes it a suitable contrast to both the Saraceni and Falcone representations of the subject.

The History Paintings of Jusepe de Ribera

Roomer and Jusepe de Ribera arrived in Naples around the same year – 1616. The merchant took an immediate liking to the Spanish artist, already owning eight of his works by 1630.687 Roomer was certainly not alone in his appreciation of the painter. Ribera’s success in Naples was almost immediate upon his arrival in the city, and he quickly became a favourite of the viceroy, the Duke of Osuna.688 His reputation grew in the 1620s, as he became famous for his naturalistic, tenebristic depictions of saints, especially St. Jerome. His Caravaggesque lighting and often crude naturalism made him popular among Neapolitan collectors following the departure of

684 Aiden Weston-Lewis, “The Early Provenance of Ribera’s Drunken Silenus,” Burlington Magazine 149 (Nov. 2007): 784. For more on Salernitano’s collection see: Labrot, 1992, 79. 685 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, online catalogue entry for Poussin’s Rest on the Flight into Egypt http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/438025. Accessed 30 April, 2011. 686 Ibid., http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/438025. Accessed 30 April, 2011. 687 Capaccio, 577. 688 Regarding Ribera’s patrons see: Ruotolo, 1992, 73-77; Finaldi, 378-87; Pérez Sánchez, New York, 1992, 35-49; Brown, 1985, 140-50. 247

Caravaggio in 1610. The early account of Roomer’s collection by Capaccio demonstrates that the merchant was quite enamoured with Caravaggism and it is no wonder that Ribera’s name is given pride of place in the antiquarian’s account. The first three paintings listed by Capaccio – a St.

Lawrence, a St. Jerome and an Apollo and Marsyas – are all subjects that lend themselves to varying degrees of violence and depravity. In addition to these works mentioned by Capaccio,

Joachim von Sandrart recorded both the Drunken Silenus and a Cato by Ribera in Roomer’s collection around 1631-32.689 Clearly, while Ribera was certainly accomplished at creating eloquent and refined spiritual images, Roomer appeared to have particularly appreciated the

Spanish master’s ability to depict the crude and violent.

Ribera’s Religious Paintings: the St. Lawrence and the St. Jerome

Unfortunately, it is unknown to which images of St. Lawrence and St. Jerome by Ribera Capaccio was referring. Thus only assumptions based on other examples of the artist’s works can be made.

As Capaccio only gives a basic description of the two paintings, it is impossible to ascertain whether the St. Lawrence and St. Jerome were narrative depictions, or whether they were simply half-figures portrayed with their attributes. However, I am inclined to believe that they were perhaps narrative works, as Capaccio distinguishes between these two works and “cinque altri con figure di santi,” by Ribera in his description of Roomer’s collection at Monteoliveto.

Furthermore, while Ribera certainly depicted St. Jerome in the single-figure format, there are no extant paintings of St. Lawrence being portrayed in this way.

Early in his career, Ribera painted the St. Lawrence today housed at the National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne (1620-4; Fig. 63). The painting shows the saint kneeling before his executioners, his eyes and hand raised to the sky. It clearly shows an indebtedness to

689 Sandrart, 278. The presence of the Drunken Silenus in Roomer’s collection at this time is questionable, as will be discussed in detail in a further part of this section. 248

Caravaggio’s chiaroscuro, as well as to the works of Emilian artists.690 The naturalism of this work is less intense and in fact, Ribera did not even choose a moment of heightened drama (i.e.,

St. Lawrence on the grill), opting for a pose in which St. Lawrence seems as though he is solidifying his devotion to God and resigning himself to his earthly fate. The patron of this early work is unknown. The martyrdom of St. Lawrence was a fairly common theme, though its popularity paled in comparison to saints like Jerome or Mary Magdalen. Images of St. Lawrence are recorded in 22 of the inventories in Naples studied by Labrot, with all but two collectors only owning one picture of the saint. Interestingly, none of these collectors owned a St. Lawrence by

Ribera. It is plausible, then, that London St. Lawrence was the one recorded by Capaccio in

Roomer’s collection.

St. Jerome was among Ribera’s most popular subjects, with representations of the saint spanning the artist’s entire career.691 The story of St. Jerome found renewed popularity within the context of the Counter-Reformation. Being a Roman convert to Christianity, renouncing his hedonistic life in exchange for ascetism, a doctor of the Church (having translated the Hebrew

Bible into Latin), and a promoter of the early Papacy, St. Jerome had been a popular saint among the devout since the fifteenth century and his image was conducive to the anti-Protestant message of later sixteenth-century Catholicism.692 Thus, depictions of his hermetic life and scholarly pursuits were promoted by the Church from the later 1500s into the 1600s. Paintings of St.

Jerome also found popularity among collectors. In comparison to images of St. Lawrence, who was found in only 22 collections, Labrot notes pictures of St. Jerome in 55 Neapolitan collections.

Of those collections, nine contained a St. Jerome by Ribera.693

690 Pérez Sánchez and Spinosa, New York, 1992, 58-9. 691 Craig Felton and William B. Jordan, eds. Jusepe de Ribera, lo Spagnoletto, 1591-1652, exh. cat. (Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum, 1982), 113 692 Ibid., 114. 693 Labrot, 1992, 623-4. 249

The demand for images of St. Jerome in Naples was due in part to the fervour of the

Counter-Reformation in the Spanish-governed city and also in part to Ribera’s incredibly evocative portrayal of the saint. The artist’s first depiction of St. Jerome was for the Duke of

Osuna in 1618, followed by his monumental altarpiece for the church of Trinità del Monache in

1625 (Fig. 64) The relentless naturalism of this latter image, in combination with his dramatic lighting, conjured Jerome’s secluded lifestyle and his scholarly pursuits to create an intensely spiritual depiction that captured the essence of Counter-Reformation theology.

Though the particulars of Roomer’s St. Jerome are uncertain, it was likely in line with

Ribera’s other images of the saint from the 1620s. Indeed, the worn appearance of Jerome, with his wrinkled body as an indication of his age and self-deprivation, was a suitable fit for Roomer’s collection around 1630. There are no less than seven such works recorded in his inventory, although none can be traced today. The collection of Ferdinand Vandeneynden records a three by three palmi half-figure depiction of St. Jerome by Ribera, which may relate to a painting of the same size and description in Roomer’s inventory,694 but its smaller measurements and half-figure format indicate it was likely not the work described by Capaccio.

Apollo and Marsyas

One of the most horrific subjects recorded in Roomer’s collection was Ribera’s Apollo and

Marsyas. Unfortunately, the two extant works by Ribera of this subject are dated to 1637 – too late to be contenders for Roomer’s version, which was mentioned by Capaccio in 1630.

However, Roomer’s earlier rendition was likely similar to the two later works, one of which is now in the Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts in Brussels; the other is in the Museo di Capodimonte in Naples (Fig. 65,Fig. 66). They are a brilliant display of gore and refined beauty. Both depict

Apollo in the act of flaying Marsyas, who had dared to challenge him to a musical competition.

694 Ruotolo, 1982, 37; A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 193v. 250

Ribera engages the viewer in a dramatic depiction of both physical and mental suffering.

Marsyas is portrayed in the foreground, each one of his muscles contracted, writhing in pain. He looks towards the viewer and screams in agony. In the Naples picture, the horror of Marsyas’ punishment is further reflected by the expressions of a group of satyrs watching the flaying from behind a tree. The center figure clutches his face in despair, his ashen colouring further emphasizing the sick sensation one would experience upon witnessing such an act, despite its apparent “justice”.

Hauntingly, Ribera contrasts this horrific violence with a graceful and refined depiction of Apollo, who calmingly goes about executing Marsyas’ punishment. The flowing drapery of the god, evident in both extant pictures, is an indication of a renewed interest in Venetianism that would culminate in the second half of the seventeenth century in the work of Luca Giordano. The iridescence of Apollo’s cloak is contrasted to the sharp variations in light and dark, indicative of

Ribera’s indebtedness to Caravaggio. While such luminous drapery may not have been present in

Roomer’s version of the mythological narrative, executed earlier (likely in the 1620s), it may have been exposure to other works in Roomer’s collection that inspired Ribera to add a note of intense colour to his later versions of Apollo and Marsyas. The artist had visited Roomer’s collection with Sandrart in 1631-32. By 1630, paintings by Bassano and Van Dyck – two artists who relied on the use of vibrant colour – were already in Roomer’s possession. Indeed, the treatment of the drapery in Van Dyck’s Susanna and the Elders (Alte Pinakothek, Munich), discussed below, is similar to that of Apollo’s cloak in Ribera’s renditions of Apollo and

Marsyas.

Roomer’s version of Ribera’s Apollo and Marsyas was the artist’s first recorded attempt at the subject and it seems the painting made an impact on other Neapolitan collectors. While the patron of the later version in Brussels is unidentified, the Naples picture belonged to Andrea

251

d’Avalos, the Marchese del Vasto.695 Coming from a prominent aristocratic family, d’Avalos accumulated a substantial number of paintings at his villa on Via Chiaia, including many works by Ribera. D’Avalos knew Roomer well; he relied on both Roomer and Vandeneynden for financial assistance when he was released from prison and returned to Naples in 1656.696 In her study of d’Avalos’ collection of silver, Maria Sirago notes that the Marchese tended to collect paintings and subjects by artists who were particularly popular with Roomer and Vandeneynden, perhaps in an attempt to establish himself in the merchants’ good graces.697 Whether or not this was the case,698 at the very least, d’Avalos would surely have seen Ribera’s picture in Roomer’s collection, which may have prompted his purchase of his own Apollo and Marsyas.

In addition to the Brussels and Capodimonte pictures, documents record that Ribera painted a version of the Apollo and Marsyas for an unknown patron in 1645; the following year, he executed the same subject for the Marchese Serra.699 Therefore, there are a total of four documented versions of Apollo flaying Marsyas by Ribera that were commissioned after the first rendition made for Roomer in the 1620s. The story had gained popularity in Italy through Ovid’s

Metamorphosis, and pictures of the subject were particularly prevalent during the Counter-

Reformation; Marsyas was touted as an example of fair punishment for those who did not

695 This painting is found in the d’Avalos inventory of 1862. See: Pierluigi Leone de Castris, “I d’Avalos: committenza e collezionismo di una grande famiglia napoletana,” in I tesori dei d’Avalos, exh. cat., (Naples: Faust Fiorentino, 1994-5), 86. 696 D’Avalos was being held by the Spanish in connection to his actions during the Revolt of Masaniello. He was cleared of these charges in 1651, though did not return to Naples until 1656. It was at this time that he was charged with building a new armada for the Spanish military, for which he turned to Vandeneynden and Roomer for financial support. See: Maria Sirago, “La collezione di argenti di Andrea d’Avalos, principe di Montesarchio e generale dell’ ‘Armada del Mar Oceano,’” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2009): 149-51. 697 Ibid., 150, 152. 698 In conversation with Sebastian Schütze, he noted that d’Avalos was from a very well respected noble family and would not have needed to “imitate” Roomer’s collecting preferences. 699 Eduardo Nappi, ed. Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano: Catalogo delle pubblicazione editie dal 1883 al 1990, riguardanti le opere di architetti, pittori, scultori, marmorari, ed intagliatori per i secoli XVI e XVII, pagate tramite gli antichi banchi pubblici napoletani, (Milan: Ed L.T.. 1992), 76, 95. 252

adequately fear God.700 By the end of the sixteenth century, the appeal of the Apollo and

Marsyas story to painters and collectors had decreased,701 but interest in the subject in Naples noticeably increased after Roomer’s purchase (or commission) of the Ribera painting. In addition to the four subsequent versions by the Spanish artist, Luca Giordano also interpreted the myth on numerous occasions. The Getty Provenance Index records two paintings of Apollo and Marsyas by Giordano in Neapolitan collections, as well as another picture of the subject by an anonymous artist.702

There was also a sixteenth-century rendering of the myth by Palma il Giovane in the inventory of Ferdinand Vandeneynden. This work, recorded as measuring eight by six palmi in

Vandeneynden’s inventory, may have come from Roomer’s collection, which notes a painting of the same subject with a size of seven by six palmi.703 Though it may be tempting to speculate that the painting recorded in Roomer’s inventory was not by Palma il Giovane, but rather by

Ribera, the fact that an Apollo and Marsyas by the latter artist does not appear in Vandeneynden’s inventory makes this proposition unlikely. This means that Roomer must have sold or given away

Ribera’s early interpretation of the myth before his death in 1674.

Cato of Utica

Ribera’s Apollo and Marsyas was followed by a Cato of Utica, which was seen by Sandrart in

Roomer’s collection in 1631-2 but is currently untraced. The death of this Roman emperor was particularly violent: after his loss at the Battle of Thapsus, Cato committed suicide by pulling out

700 Edith Wyss, The Myth of Apollo and Marsyas in the Art of the Italian Renaissance, (London: Associated University Presses, 1996), 83, 121. 701 Ibid., 122. 702 Getty Provenance Index http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed July 13, 2013. One of the paintings by Giordano is actually recorded twice – once in the collection of Ferdinand Vandeneynden in 1688 and again in the collection of his daughter, inventoried in 1707. 703 Vandeneynden’s inventory records “un altro [painting] di pal. 8 e 6 con cornice nera con oro Martio scorticato d’Apollo mano del Palma. 200”. See: Ruotolo, 1982, 33; Roomer’s inventory states he owned “un altro quatro d’palmi sette e sei d’ marte e apollo con cornice d’oro.” See: A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 201r. 253

his entrails. It was this act of self-inflicted agony that Ribera chose to represent for Roomer.

Sandrart took special note of Ribera’s gory realism, saying that “Er mahlte auch einen Cato

Uticencis, der in seinem selbsteigenen Blut nach verrichtetem Selbstmord liget und di Därm mit beyden Händen in Stucken zerreist; mit andern dergleichen zwar widerwärtigen, jedoch

Kunstreich und natürlichen Dingen.” 704

The subject of Cato was not particularly popular among Neapolitan collectors, and

Sandrart’s mention of the Cato in Roomer’s collection is the only known reference to this subject in Ribera’s oeuvre. However, a depiction of Cato’s suicide by Luca Giordano that was long attributed to Ribera is currently housed in the Art Gallery of Hamilton, Ontario (Fig. 67). Dated around 1660, this painting may give some indication of how Ribera’s interpretation of the story appeared. Nineteenth-century observers who attributed it it to Ribera noted not only the gory nature of the subject, but also its psychological effects on the viewer. One observer wrote that it was a painting “of horror, too frightful to be remembered without a shudder,” while another described the depiction of Cato’s screams as not of the type “that a suffering person ordinarily emits; rather, these are screams ripped from the depths of his entrails, heartrending, which overwhelm the beholder’s soul and are unbearable.”705

Giordano’s ability to convincingly convey Cato’s agony as well as his use of an earth- toned palette and dramatic lighting certainly betray Ribera’s influence. Presuming Ribera’s picture would have been similarly gory – or even more so – it is no surprise that the painting caught Sandrart’s attention. Such a depiction of brutal naturalism would have fascinated many collectors in Naples and also in Spain, the refinement of its execution balancing its horrific subject matter.

704 Sandrart, 278. 705 Quoted in Gary Tinterow and Geneviève Lacambre, Manet/Velázquez: The French Taste for Spanish Painting, exh. cat., (New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003), 445. 254

The Drunken Silenus

During his visit to Roomer’s palace in 1631-3, Sandrart described a Drunken Silenus by Ribera in detail:

Auch mahlte er einen feißten, nackend ligenden Silenus, mit Weinreben gekrönt ohne Bart, der ihme wieder einschenken lässt da ein zierlicher Satyr aus einer auf seiner Achsel ligender Bockshaut ihme den rohten Wein in sein von Perlmutter gemachtes Geschirr lauffen lässt und ein anderer Satyr ziehet ihn vergesellschaft mit etlicher anderer Bursch aus seiner Zunft bey einem grossen gepressten Trauben-Geschirr, davon etliche junge Fauni so viel eingenommen dass sie trunken aufs Angesicht niderstürzen und anders dergleichen mehr alles mit grossem Fleiss Zierde und Gedult gemahlt welche Werke zu Neapel der fürnehme Kunstlieber allda Caspar de Romer mir gewiesen der vermutlich noch lebet und desser Wolstand und lange Jahre ich von Herzen wünsche.706

This painting matches the description of the Drunken Silenus by Ribera today in the Museo di

Capodimonte in Naples (1626; Fig. 68). However, Sandrart`s account has caused confusion about the picture’s provenance, as a bank document uncovered in 1990 recorded that Roomer purchased the painting in 1653. It was in this year that Roomer acquired a painting from the art dealer Giacomo del Castro, described as a “Bacco grande de nove et sette palmi fatto a mano dal quondam Gioseppe Rebeira spagnolo.” 707 This painting came from the collection of Francesco

Salernitano; it was recorded in his inventory of 1648, executed by Del Castro.708 The dimensions of this painting – nine by seven palmi – would measure 185 x 238 cm, which corresponds closely to the Capodimonte picture, which measures 185 x 229 cm.709

706 Sandrart, 278. 707 A.S.B.N., Banco di S. Eligio, g.m. 292. Published in Nappi, 2000, 83. That the document records a Bacchus, as opposed to a Silenus, was a common mistake, which was even made by Luca Giordano when he executed the post-mortem inventory of Ferdinand Vandeneynden in 1688, and thus causes little concern over whether or not this painting was the same as the Silenus in the Capodimonte. 708 Weston-Lewis, 782. For Salernitano’s inventory see: Labrot, 1992, 79-81. 709 Weston-Lewis, 783. He bases his measurements on 1 palmi equally 26.39 cm. 255

Adding further confusion to the matter is that the price of the Silenus appears to have greatly fluxuated between Salernitano’s inventory in 1648 and the 1688 inventory of Ferdinand

Vandeneynden, who had inherited the painting from Roomer. The work was valued at 150 ducats in 1648. Del Castro sold it to Roomer for 550 ducats five years later. In the Vandeneynden inventory, the Silenus was valued at 1000 ducats, second only to the Feast of Herod by Rubens, which was appraised at 2000 ducats. Yet, in the 1688 inventory of Giuliano Colonna – the husband of Ferdinand Vandeneynden’s daughter Giovanna – the picture was valued at only 600 ducats.710 This is particularly strange, as the Vandeneynden and Colonna inventories were both executed by Luca Giordano on 17 November 1688.

The discrepancy between the Silenus’ valuation in the Vandeneynden and Colonna inventories is difficult to understand. However, the difference in the picture’s worth between

Salernitano’s inventory in 1648 (where it was valued at 150 ducats) and the subsequent documents is likely linked to the economic instability that followed the Revolt of Masaniello in

1647. In general, the prices of paintings decreased during this time; that Del Castro was able to sell the work to Roomer for 550 ducats in 1653 may reflect Naples’ economic recovery. By

1688, when the Silenus was appraised once again, the city’s economy was even stronger, therefore accounting for the picture’s higher value.

Naples’ unstable economy may help to explain fluctuating prices, but it does not resolve the issue of Sandrart supposedly seeing Ribera’s Silenus in Roomer’s collection in 1631-2, when documentation suggests the merchant purchased the work over twenty years later. Until recently, what now reads in Sandrart’s account of the painting as “fauni” had been understood as

“frauen.”711 Because of this misunderstanding, it had been thought that the Silenus described in

710 Colonna di Stigliano, 30. 711 See the most recent transcription of Sandrart’s text at www.sandrart.net. I am grateful to my supervisor Stephanie Dickey for pointing out this new reading of the text to me. 256

Sandrart and that in the Capodimonte were in fact two separate works.712 With the most recent revision of Sandrart’s Teusche Academie, it is undoubtedly clear that the Silenus mentioned by

Sandrart and the picture in the Capodimonte are one and the same thing. Aiden Weston-Lewis suggests that because there were multiple decades between when Sandrart saw the picture and when he wrote his Academie (1675, around 35 years after his visit to Naples), the German biographer must have “mis-remembered” where he saw the Silenus.713 Yet, it seems odd that

Sandrart – whose notes on his Neapolitan experience are surprisingly accurate – would confuse in which collection he saw the Silenus. This has led some to maintain that Sandrart may have returned to Italy at a later date; however, there is no documentary evidence to support this conclusion. Another possible explanation is that Roomer did commission the painting from

Ribera – it is certainly in accordance with the merchant’s tastes – and that Sandrart did see it shortly after it was completed, but Roomer later sold the painting and then repurchased it when it returned to the market in 1653.714 The appeal and popularity of the picture at this point would have been enhanced due to Ribera’s death the year before as well as the circulation of the print the artist made after this painting in 1649.715 What is certain is that the painting was in Roomer’s collection in 1653 and in the collection of Ferdinand Vandeneynden in 1688.

Regardless of when it entered Roomer’s collection, the piece accorded well with the merchant’s penchant for unsightly subjects. Traditionally, the figure of Silenus represented both wisdom and hedonistic pleasure.716 Ribera evidently chose to focus on the latter aspect of Silenus’

712 The Spanish artist-biographer Antonio Palomino also mentions Ribera’s Silenus, though it does little to resolve the problem stating only that “[The Silenus] was owned in Naples by Caspar de Roomer, a great protector and lover of the arts.” See: Antonio Palomino, Lives of the Eminent Spanish Painters and Sculptors, trans. Nina Ayala Mallory, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 123. 713 Weston-Lewis, 782. 714 This idea was put forth to me by my supervisor, Dr. Sebastian Schütze. 715 For information on the print see: Jonathan Brown, Jusepe de Ribera: Prints and Drawings, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973), 75-6. 716 The idea that Silenus combined both wisdom and impropriety gained popularity with the the publication of Erasmus’ Silenos de Alcibiades in 1529. See: Pérez-Sánchez and Spinosa, New York, 1992, 77. 257

personality in a portrayal that emphasizes the comical nature of classical antiquity and depicts mythological gods as earthly and flawed characters, rather than ideal and erudite figures.717

Silenus is the central overpowering figure, whose protruding belly seems to defy the confines of the frame. The satyr on the right, identified as Pan – the father of the drunken mythological figure – holds Silenus’ head.718 The god’s companion, Apollo, is possibly represented by the figure in the background, standing beside Pan. Silenus’ adopted son, Dionysus (Bacchus) may be the figure on the left side of the canvas, looking conniving and all too willing to follow in his father’s footsteps. Behind Dionysus brays a donkey that would carry Silenus when he became too obese to walk. The only motif possibly alluding to Silenus’ wisdom is the serpent. 719

The composition, style and iconography of Ribera’s picture have confounded scholars.

The representation of Silenus in this manner – as a sprawling, overweight and drunken figure – was not particularly common. The most popular way to depict the mythological god was to show him as part of a procession riding his donkey. Some sources for the painting have been identified, though none completely elucidate the imagery of Ribera’s Silenus. Jeanne Chenault-Porter notes the Silenus is informed by a variety of print representations of the myth.720

Ribera could also have been looking to a design for a silver salver by Annibale Carracci that depicts Silenus in a similar manner, not to mention the many antique sources he could have seen while in Rome.721 However, the classical manner in which these examples are executed stands in opposition to Ribera's naturalistic, Caravaggesque style, which serves to better underline the flaws in Silenus’ character. The Silenus is a strong representative of Ribera’s tenebrism, seen in the greyish tonalities and the use of light to highlight and outline Silenus, while other figures

717 Elizabeth Du Gué Trapier, Ribera, (NY : Hispanic Society of America, 1952), 43. 718 In contrast to Pan, however, Silenus was entirely human. 719 Pérez Sánchez and Spinosa, 1992, 77. 720 Chenault-Porter, 44. 721 One antique sculpture of Silenus could actually be found on Via del Babuino, where Ribera lived during his time in Rome. Nicola Spinosa, Ribera l’opera completa, 2nd Edition, (Naples: Electa Napoli, 2006), 284; Du Gué Trapier, 43; Chenault-Porter, 50. 258

are cast in darker shadow. Though perhaps drawing inspiration from classical depictions of the

Silenus story, Ribera’s interpretation reflects his personal style and better suits the temperament of his patrons in Naples. The artist’s rendition of such an unattractive figure , epitomized by

Ribera’s hyper-naturalism, completely corresponds with Roomer’s preference for such subjects.

Despite some sources being identified for Ribera’s Silenus, the iconography of the work has never been adequately deciphered. Richard Spear posited that the main component of the scene is the crowning of Silenus by Pan (as opposed to the satyr simply holding his son’s head).

Identifying the figure in the upper right corner as Apollo supports this interpretation. The role of the young boy in the left foreground is to point the viewer in the direction of the crowning.722

This analysis differs from Wolfgang Prohaska’s 1985 hypothesis that the scene instead depicts a bacchanal. Ovid, in his Fasti, writes that every three years, Bacchus was crowned with ivy, an event which was accompanied by a celebration. Included in Ovid’s story are Pan, Silenus and various satyrs and nymphs – all of whom are depicted in the Ribera painting. The presence of the braying donkey in the Silenus refers to a later part of Ovid’s story when, after the conclusion of the bacchanal, the satyr Priapus attempted to violate the nymph Lotis while everyone was sleeping. Priapus’ actions were interrupted by Silenus’ donkey, which brayed to expose the misdeed. Ribera’s picture is thus a conflation of these various elements of the Ovidian tale, with a particular emphasis on Silenus and his donkey.723

Though neither of these interpretations seems completely satisfactory, Prohaska’s analysis of the painting as essentially a bacchanal scene fits better within the context of Roomer’s collection. The merchant’s inventory reveals an interest in jovial bacchanalia that presumably displayed their fair share of impropriety. Though the Silenus was transferred to Ferdinand

Vandeneynden before Roomer’s post-mortem inventory was executed (there is no painting

722Spear, 2002, 340. 723 Wolfgang Prohaska, Jusepe de Ribera (1591 Jativa/Valencia - 1652 Neapel), (Vienna : Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1985), 7-14; Pérez Sanchez and Spinosa, New York, 1992, 77. 259

described as a “Bacchus” or “Silenus” that corresponds to the measurements of the Capodimonte picture), the 1674 inventory does record eight pictures with either “bacchanal” or “Bacchus” as their subject. While he undoubtedly appreciated its mythological content and its satirical interpretation of the classical world, the jovial atmosphere of the Silenus, and its inclusion of odd- looking creatures like satyrs and debauched figures such as Silenus and Bacchus, appears to have appealed to Roomer. Though the details of bacchanals in his collection are unknown, one can imagine that they are depicted in a similar vein to the Silenus; that is, the parties are not gracefully depicted as a celebration of wine and pleasure, but rather as boisterous and indulgent gatherings. Thus, within Roomer’s gallery that prominently displayed hyper-naturalistic depictions of the gruesome, comical and indecorous, Ribera’s drunken Silenus, with his morbid obesity and indulgent disposition, was suitably at home.

Roomer’s Interest in Massimo Stanzione

Along with Jusepe de Ribera, Massimo Stanzione (Italian, ?1585-?1656) was one of Naples’ foremost up and coming artists in the first half of the Seicento. It is thus no surprise that Roomer also owned many of his paintings. Roomer’s high regard for the artist was recorded by De

Dominici, who claimed the merchant called Stanzione “il Guido napoletano” – the Neapolitan equivalent of Guido Reni.724 Capaccio records six of Stanzione’s paintings at Roomer’s palace by 1630; Sandrart, too, made note of how Stanzione was very well-represented in the merchant’s collection.725 Furthermore, Roomer seems to have collected paintings by Stanzione of an array of subjects – more so than any other artist. From religious to mythological, from allegorical to comical, the breadth of Stanzione’s work was represented in the merchant’s collection.

724 De Dominici, vol. 3, 58. Though Reni was in Naples in 1620, there is no documentation regarding whether or not he executed any paintings for Roomer. 725 Sandrart, 278; Capaccio, 577. 260

Paintings Mentioned by Capaccio

Stanzione’s early interest in Caravaggism was certainly in line with Roomer’s tastes and explains why the merchant had such an avid appreciation of the artist by 1630. Unfortunately, all the paintings by Stanzione mentioned by Capaccio have been lost.726 Capaccio begins his description of Stanzione’s works in Roomer’s gallery with two paintings he notes as quite large: a Marriage of St. Catherine and Adam Driven from Paradise. Both of these works turn up in the Lumaga inventory in 1676, which provides slightly more description than Capaccio, noting Stanzione’s naturalistic style. To Capaccio’s description of Adam Driven from Paradise, the Lumaga inventory adds the presence of Eve and an angel who chases them from the garden.727

These two religious subjects were quite prevalent in Seicento Neapolitan collections.

Depictions of St. Catherine were popular in the city, though the majority of works with her image illustrated (unsurprisingly) her martyrdom. Similarly, pictures of Adam and Eve being driven from the Garden of Eden were also highly appreciated by collectors in Naples. The scene was common in Italy in general, often being the subject of prints. From the limited descriptions available for Stanzione’s depictions of these two scenes, they seemed to be in keeping with iconographical tradition, though their size must have made them showpieces of Roomer’s collection.

Capaccio goes on to describe another large work – an Allegory of Poetry, Music, Painting and Sculpture.728 As with Stanzione’s Marriage of St. Catherine and Adam Driven from

Paradise, the painting is later found in the Lumaga inventory, with a slightly more elaborate description: “Uno con la pittura, musica, poesia et scoltura, tutte donne assai belle, figure al naturale del Cavalier Massimo.”729 Paintings depicting the personification of the arts were

726 Sebastian Schütze and Thomas Willette, Massimo Stanzione: l’opera completa, (Naples: Electa, 1992), 263. 727 Moretti, 38-9. 728 Capaccio, 577. 729 Moretti, 38. 261

common, especially among sophisticated connoisseurs of art. Though Roomer’s inventory noticeably lacks allegorical subjects, there is a depiction of Painting being crowned. There is also an allegorical depiction of Hope.730

Interestingly, though Roomer owned few allegories, he happened to own two by

Stanzione. In addition of the Allegory of Poetry, Music, Painting and Sculpture, Capaccio records a Seven Virtues, presumably (from the description) executed on a single canvas.731 This subject was especially rare, though a painting by Matteo Rosselli recorded in the Colonna collection in 1714 is a notable example.732 Moreover, the idea of presenting seven virtues within one painting could have come from Caravaggio’s Seven Acts of Mercy (Pio Monte della

Misericordia, Naples). This painting caused a sensation in Naples and at the beginning of his career Stanzione was quite influenced by Caravaggio. It is perhaps the rarity of such a subject and the reference to Caravaggio’s famous Neapolitan painting that attracted Roomer to this subject.

Mythological subject matter was represented by the artist’s Leandro and Hero. Like many of the other works in Roomer’s collection, this too finds itself in the collection of Giovanni

Andrea Lumaga in 1676.733 Again, the Lumaga inventory adds additional descriptive information, noting that in the painting Hero’s arms are wide open, ready to embrace Leandro. It also makes note of the naturalistic depiction of the figures.734 The poet Giambattista Marino popularized this story in Naples when his Adone was published in 1623.735 Despite the poem’s popularity, there are no paintings of Leandro and Hero in Naples recorded in the Getty

730 A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, ff. 177r, 182v. 731 This is the only painting by Stanzione recorded by Capaccio that is not listed in the Lumaga inventory. 732 Schütze and Willette, 263. 733 This painting by Stanzione also turns up in the collection of Francesco Querini in Venice in 1716. See: Getty Provenance Index: http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed July 13, 2013. 734 Moretti, 38. 735 Schütze and Willette, 63. 262

Provenance Index. However, there is one depiction of the story by Ribera executed for a Spanish patron.736

The last painting by Stanzione noted by Capaccio was of a buffoon, described as “assai naturale”.737 Among works like the Drunken Silenus, images of buffoons would have suited

Roomer’s gallery well. In fact, his post-mortem inventory records six paintings of buffoons, not to mention the sculptures found decorating his villa at Barra.738 Images of so-called “oddities” were, as mentioned, quite popular in Naples, especially among the aristocracy. The Marchese della Valle Siciliana, Geronimo Ferdinando Alarcón de Mendoza, whose family had settled in

Naples in the sixteenth century, owned four pictures of buffoons, while the Spinelli, Carafa,

Avalos and Fusco families all had at least one such image in their collection.739

Like the other paintings mentioned by Capaccio, Stanzione’s Buffoon is currently missing, but is recorded in the 1676 inventory of Giovanni Andrea Lumaga in Venice. There are two paintings in that inventory that could describe the buffoon mentioned by Capaccio. The first is described as a laughing buffoon holding a glass of wine; the other illustrates a buffoon holding a cat in his hand who looks to take a drink of the figure’s wine.740 The latter picture is presumed by Lino Moretti as the painting described by Capaccio in Roomer’s collection, though there is no indication given as to why it could not be the former. In any case, both pictures of buffoons recorded in the Lumaga inventory clearly indicate Stanzione’s Buffoon was comical in nature, intended to evoke laughter from those who viewed it.

736 Getty Provenance Index: http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed July 13, 2013. 737 Capaccio, 577. 738 Ruotolo, 1982, 12. 739 Getty Provenance Index: http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed July 13, 2013. 740 Published in Moretti, 41-2. 263

The Sacrifice of Moses

Stanzione’s Sacrifice of Moses (c. 1628-30; Fig. 69), today in the Museo di Capodimonte, has been identified with a painting in the Vandeneynden collection described as a “un Sacrificio con diverse figure al naturale.”741 The only extant work by Stanzione that fits this description, the painting depicts the monumental figure of Moses presiding over a sacrifice of a lamb, surrounded by his followers. The scene is crowded and full of activity. A woman in the bottom left corner has her back to the viewer, almost appearing to lean out of the painting itself, and talks animatedly to another woman pointing to the sacrifice. Beside these women in the bottom right corner is a young boy playing with fire. The scene is dark, characterized by brown and grey tonalities, though Stanzione does not hesitate to use splashes of bold yellows and reds.

The Sacrifice of Moses that was found in Ferdinand Vandeneynden’s collection likely originated in Roomer’s. There is no document that can definitively prove this was the case; however, a comparison of Roomer’s inventory to that of Ferdinand Vandeneynden reveals an interesting correlation. Roomer’s post-mortem inventory notes a “sacrificio con diverse figure al naturale.”742 While the description is fairly vague, it does match one in the Vandeneynden collection. Furthermore, though the measurements do not correspond exactly, they are certainly close. The Vandeneynden picture measures eleven by nine palmi, while the dimensions of

Roomer’s painting are twelve by eight palmi.743 Such a discrepancy could be explained by something as simple as a change of frame. Since the work is mentioned by Capaccio, Roomer must have acquired it sometime after 1630.

The subject and the style of the Sacrifice of Moses are in line with the type of paintings

Roomer admired. It was executed sometime in the 1620s and demonstrates knowledge of Simon

Vouet, whose works were present in Roomer’s collection. Like Vouet, Stanzione dedicates his

741 Schütze and Willette, 193. 742 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 189v. 743 These measurements are close to those of the Capodimonte picture, which measures 288 x 225 cm. 264

attention to the representation of drapery and colour, giving his work a decorative appeal.744 The painting conveys monumentality, but it also uses a darker palette, revealing the artist’s early interest in Caravaggism. In addition to owning many works executed in this style, as mentioned above, Roomer had a predilection for Old Testament subjects, especially those involving Moses.

Furthermore, the large scale of this work by Stanzione would be in keeping with the other monumental paintings by the artist owned by Roomer.

The Paintings of Andrea Vaccaro

As Anna Tuck-Scala and Ida Mauro note, twentieth-century art historical scholarship was fairly unkind to Andrea Vaccaro, dismissing much of his work as eclectic and stiff.745 However,

Vaccaro was in fact highly regarded among seventeenth-century collectors and patrons. His works seem to have found resonance with both bourgeois and aristocratic collectors alike, not to mention their popularity among religious institutions. Spanish officials particularly appreciated the work of the artist, whose paintings were represented in many Spanish collections including those of Diego de Ulloa, a high-ranking civil servant; the Reggente Stefano Carrillo;746 and the viceroy Marchese del Carpio.747 Neapolitan patrons also esteemed Vaccaro. His work is found in just under half of the collectors studied by Labrot.748 By the 1650s, he had completed a variety of public commissions, including his Penitent Magdalen for the Certosa di San Martino in 1636.749

While it has been argued that the height of Vaccaro’s career coincided with the golden years of

744 Schütze and Willette, 26. 745 Tuck-Scala and Mauro argue that this was the result of misattributions and the fact that many of Vaccaro’s best works ended up in Spain. This opinion of Vaccaro is starting to change in more recent scholarship. See: Anna K. Tuck-Scala and Ida Mauro, “Tracing the Success of Andrea Vaccaro’s Paintings in Spain,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2009), 157-8. For the older perspective of Vaccaro’s art, see: Maria Comodo Izzo, Andrea Vaccaro, (Naples: Conte Editore, 1951). 746 On Ulloa, see: Labrot, 1992, 570; On Carrillo, see Ruotolo, 1973, 147; see also Tuck-Scala and Mauro, 158. 747 Burke and Cherry, vol. 2, 1185. 748 Labrot, 1992, 569-72; Tuck-Scala and Mauro, 158. 749 Tuck-Scala and Mauro, 157. 265

Neapolitan painting - that is during the 1630s until the Revolt of Masaniello in 1647750 - the artist also had an illustrious later career, executing works for the churches of Santa Maria dei Miracoli,

Santa Maria del Pianto, Santa Maria Egiziaca a Forcella and Santa Marta.751

Considering the fame of Vaccaro, it is unsurprising to find that Roomer also patronized the artist. Vaccaro was primarily a painter of religious subjects, which he executed with indebtedness to the naturalism and chiaroscuro of Caravaggio and Ribera, the colouring of Van

Dyck, the eloquence of Guido Reni and later, the classical monumentality of Massimo

Stanzione.752 His works fit in well with the other paintings in Roomer’s collection. However, it appears that it was not until mid-century that Roomer demonstrated a genuine interest in the artist.

There is no mention of Vaccaro in Capaccio’s report; in fact, the first link between

Vaccaro and Roomer is a bank document from 1652. Further records from the Archivio Storico

Banco di Napoli reveal that between 1652 and 1654, Roomer frequently purchased paintings from

Vaccaro. During this time, the merchant made seven payments to Vaccaro totalling 750 ducats.753 Unfortunately, these records do not give specific details about Roomer’s purchases, so it is difficult to know to which paintings the documents refer. It has been noted that Vaccaro produced copies of paintings by Reni for Roomer and Vandeneynden, so it is possible these payments are for those reproductions.754

However, clues regarding the types of pictures Roomer bought from Vaccaro can also be found by comparing Roomer’s post-mortem inventory with the more detailed inventory of

750 Clovis Whitfield and Jane Martineau, eds. Painting in Naples from Caravaggio to Giordano, (Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1983), 261. 751 Tuck-Scala and Mauro, 157; For more on Vaccarro see: Anna Tuck-Scala, Andrea Vacarro, Naples, 1604- 1670: His Documented Life and Art, (Naples: Paparo Edizioni), 2012. 752 Tuck-Scala, 20-27. 753 Nappi, 2000, 83. 754 Riccardo Lattuada, “Biography of Andrea Vaccaro,” in The Dictionary of Art, vol. 31, ed. Jan Turner, (New York: Grove Dictionaries Inc., 1996), 790. Tuck-Scala also notes that Vaccaro could have been selling the paintings of other artists to Roomer. See: Tuck-Scala, 34. 266

Ferdinand Vandeneynden from 1688. Two paintings in particular find common descriptions and measurements in the two inventories. The first is recorded in the Vandeneynden collection as “Un altro di pal. 9 e 7 con cornice nero, et oro consistente la Decollatione di S. Gio Batta, mano di

Andrea Vaccaro. 100.”755 This corresponds to a painting in Roomer’s inventory described as “uno quatro grande della morte di Gio. di palmi nove e sette con cornice indorata grande.”756 There are two paintings depicting this subject by Vaccaro. One is in the church of Santa Fara in Bari, while the other is in the Collezione Corigliano Saluzzo (1650s?; Fig. 70). While the painting in Bari was likely commissioned for the space, the provenance of the work in the Collezione Corigliano

Saluzzo is unclear. The one in Roomer’s possession may have been similar in appearance to either of these two artworks. Vaccaro’s interpretation of the decollation of John the Baptist in his picture in Bari is heavily based on Caravaggio’s chiaroscuro, while also displaying some of the grace and poise typical of Guido Reni. The sword of the executioner is raised and St. John the

Baptist is seen kneeling in the foreground, hands in prayer, awaiting the mortal blow. The painting, however, is less focused on the violence of the act; rather, the piety of St. John is highlighted through a glowing light that encircles him. This depiction of the death of the Baptist is in contrast to the picture in the Collezione Corigliano Saluzzo, which, while also

Caravaggesque in nature, conveys a greater sense of monumentality. The executioner holds the head of the Baptist in the air with Salome and her mother as his witness. Roomer’s version of the painting could have reflected aspects of both of these works, but considering his predilection for gory subject matter, the work in Roomer’s collection may have had more in common with the painting in the Collezione Corigliano Saluzzo.

In addition, Ferdinand Vandeneynden’s inventory describes the painting as “un altro di pal. 4 e 5 consistente la Vergine, Giusù e S. Gio e S. Anna mano d’Andrea Vaccaro. 60.”757

755 Published by Ruotolo, 1982, 28. 756 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovanni Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 173r 757 Published by Ruotolo, 1982, 28. 267

Corresponding to this picture is one in Roomer’s collection recorded as “un altro quatro di quattro e cinque di S.a Anna con la Madonna et bambino con cornice d’oro.”758 Vaccaro painted numerous versions of the Madonna and Child, mainly for churches, but also for private collectors

(Fig. 71). Though the second description fails to mention St. John, it is still possible that these two paintings are one and the same. It is worth mentioning that this artwork and the Decollation of St. John the Baptist discussed above were displayed side by side in what was perhaps a drawing room of Roomer's home. Although they were unlikely to be considered pendants (as indicated by the discrepancy of their sizes), they were possibly linked through the fact that they were by the same artist. That the two works were displayed together may also support the idea that St. John the Baptist was indeed included in the depiction of the Madonna and Child with St.

Anne [and St. John the Baptist]. Notably, the two paintings are listed in close proximity in the

Vandeneynden inventory.759

Giacinto Brandi’s Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi

Giacinto Brandi’s painting of Santa Maria Maddalena de'Pazzi, located in Roomer’s private chapel in the Palazzo della Stella, is the only picture specifically named in the merchant’s last will and testament. Noted as “fatto di mano di Giacinto Brandi,” Roomer’s will mentions that the

Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi found in his chapel was retrieved from the saint’s gravesite in

Florence and in fact had been touched by her relics.760 Unfortunately, Brandi’s painting is lost, but it was almost certainly grand. It was a side panel in Roomer’s personal chapel and was accompanied by paintings of Mary Magdalen, San Pietro Alcantesa and St. Anthony of Padua.

758 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 173r. 759 Published by Ruotolo, 1982, 28. 760 “Il mio quadro grande venuto da Fiorenza, nel questa sta si tratta Santa Maria Maddalena de Pazzi mia devota cons.e si ritrova nella sua sepoltura Firenze, dove è stato per molte volte posto, e toccata quella S.ta reliquia...” A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino 298/39, f. 412r. The painting is also referred to in Roomer’s inventory as “Uno quatro a mano destra di S.ta M.a Maddalena de Pazzi con cornice intagliata et proprio quella descitta nul Testamento di d.o q.m Gaspero con due putti dormiti recanato con suoi lazzi”, A.S.N. Giovan Battista dell’Aversana 295/34, f. 171v. 268

Trained in Rome, Brandi visited Naples in 1638; he may have stayed until as late as

1646, at which time he was recorded in Rome in the workshop of Giovanni Lanfranco.761

Roomer perhaps became acquainted with Brandi while he was in Naples and grew to appreciate his talent. However, Brandi reached his full potential as an artist after his trip to Naples. During the 1650s, he was commissioned to paint scenes from the life of the Virgin in Santa Maria in Via

Lata in Rome and executed a series of mythological paintings for the Palazzo Pamphili in Piazza

Navona.762 In addition, during the 1660s, Abraham Brueghel was actively dealing in Brandi’s paintings, sending the artist’s works and praises to Antonio Ruffo in Sicily.763 As mentioned in

Chapter Three, Brueghel was an agent for Roomer. Thus, it could have been Brueghel who shipped him Brandi’s altarpiece. Brueghel claimed to Ruffo that Brandi’s reputation was akin to that of Carlo Maratta and that he was a more accomplished artist than Ciro Ferri and Guglielmo

Cortese.764 While Roomer would have appreciated the accomplishment of Brandi, the primary purpose of Roomer’s purchase of the painting of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was that it had been close to the saint’s body in Florence; it was of spiritual significance.

Roomer’s particular note in his will about Brandi’s painting is indicative of the merchant’s reverence for Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi. As is thoroughly discussed in

Chapter Eight, Roomer was devoted to this saint above all others. He credited her with sparing him the wrath of the people during Masaniello’s revolt (though credit for his safety during the uprising should have been given to the bribes he offered the revolt’s leaders) and also with curing him from the horrendous plague that swept through Naples in 1656. In addition to the significant patronage of the monastery of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, Roomer expressed his devotion

761 Concetta Restaino, “Giacinto Brandi,” in Grove Dictionary of Art, vol. 4, (MacMillan Publishers Inc., 1996), 666-7. 762 Restaino, 666-7. 763 Francis H. Dowley, “Giacinto Brandi’s Paintings at the Palazzo Taverna,” in Hortus Imaginum: Essays in Western Art, University of Kansas Publications, Humanistic Studies 45, eds. Robert Enggass and Marilyn Stokstad, (Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1974), 165; Ruffo, 175-7. 764 Ruffo, 175-7; see also: Dowley, 165. 269

by collecting pictures of the saint. While the Brandi piece was undoubtedly the most spectacular painting of Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi in the merchant’s possession, his post-mortem inventory records four additional pictures of the saint.

Roomer’s devotion to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was atypical for both a

Neapolitan and a Fleming; Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was a Florentine saint. Her image is rare in Neapolitan collections. Only two other Neapolitan inventories – those of Carlo de Cardenas,

Conte di Acerra and Marchese di Laino765 and Isabella Coppola, Duchessa di Canzano – record a picture of Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi .766 Another painting of the saint is also found in the 1689 inventory of the Spaniard, Gregorio Genaro de Bracamonte y Guzmán, Conde de Peñaranda, who served as viceroy of Naples from 1658 to 1664.767 However, it is unknown whether this painting was purchased by the Conde in Naples or Madrid. The most notable collection where images of the saint are found is that of Lorenzo Onofrio Colonna, who was tied to Naples (though he did not live there) as Gran Contestabile del Regno. His 1689 inventory includes one half-figure representation of the saint and another 14 canvases that depict her miracles.768

While paintings of Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi are quite prominent in Florence and Rome,

Roomer’s adoration for the saint was fairly unique for his time and place and he certainly owned more images of the saint than any other collector in Naples. Interestingly, the majority of the paintings depicting this saint in Rome are found in the collections of the Barberini family, indicating their early devotion of the saint (it was during Maffeo Barberini’s tenure as Pope

Urban VIII that the Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was beatified). Maffeo, Francesco and Taddeo

765 The Cardenas family was of Spanish descent, though they had been settled in Naples since the role of the Argonese. See: Labrot, 1992, 202. 766 The inventories are dated 1699 and 1724 to Cardenas and Coppola, respectively. Both pictures are unattributed. Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 31 July, 2012. 767 His inventory was not executed in Naples, but in Madrid. See: Burke and Cherry, 888. 768 Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 31 July, 2012. 270

Barberini all owned images of Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi before her canonization in 1668.769 In

Florence, her image is not as ubiquitous in private collections as it is in some of the churches, the most important being, of course, the church dedicated to her in Borgo Pinti, where Giordano was commissioned to paint two altarpieces in 1685.

Anthony van Dyck’s Susanna and St. Sebastian

As discussed in Chapter Three, in 1630, Capaccio recorded a Susanna and a St. Sebastian by

Anthony van Dyck in Roomer’s collection. These two works may have been the first paintings by the Flemish artist in Naples, bringing with them the dynamic and colourful style of Rubens and his followers. According to the Getty Provenance Index, there were only five Neapolitan collectors before 1700 who owned works by Van Dyck.770 In fact, Capaccio’s account is the only reference to paintings by Van Dyck in Naples before 1650.

Van Dyck was still young when he arrived in Genoa is 1621, though the sojourn proved immensely beneficial to his career. His artworks were met with praise, receiving commissions from Genoa’s most prestigious elites, such as the Durazzo and Balbi families. As mentioned previously, Van Dyck settled in with Cornelis and Lucas de Wael upon his arrival in the city.

Their bottega would serve as his home base throughout his time in Italy, though he did venture to

Rome, Venice and Palermo.771

There is no evidence that van Dyck visited Naples during his Italian sojourn. It is possible the artist stopped by Naples on his way to Palermo, thus providing Roomer with the opportunity to purchase his paintings; however, there is no documentation to support this claim.

769 Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 31 July, 2012. 770 Those collectors are Gaspare San Giovanni Toffetti (1651), Ferrante Spinelli (1654), Ettore Capecelatro (1655, 1659), Davide Imperiale (1672) and Ferdinand Vandeneynden (1688). See: Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. 771 Bailey, 116-21. 271

As discussed in Chapter Three, it is unknown how Roomer received the Susanna and St.

Sebastian, though they plausibly could have been shipped from Genoa by Cornelis de Wael.

The Susanna and the Elders located today in the Pinakothek in Munich was thought by

Erik Larsen to have been the painting in Roomer’s collection around 1630 (Fig. 8).772 It is the only known work by Van Dyck that represents this subject. The style is indicative of the artist’s

Italian period, a time when he was still relatively unknown and developing his artistic sensibility.773 The porcelain quality of the skin stands out amongst the murkier brown background from which the two old men emerge. The red cloth draped around Susanna is dramatically being grabbed by one of the elders, while Susanna, in an attempt to counteract the action of the old man, pulls it toward herself. This drapery is the only vibrant colour in the whole picture, thereby highlighting the dramatic movement.

Susanna and the Elders is a well-known Old Testament story in which two older men spy on Susanna, who is taking a bath. Representations of this painting were fairly common in seventeenth-century Italy, and also in the North.774 Within the context of the dictates of the

Council of Trent, which chastised those who owned lascivious works of art, the story of Susanna and the Elders became a suitable way to depict a female nude. However, there is nothing in

Roomer’s collection to suggest that this was his reason for acquiring the painting – he did not own many nudes. More plausibly, Roomer liked the dramatic expression of surprise that was typical of the subject’s portrayal. Though Van Dyck’s Susanna was not recorded in Roomer’s post-mortem inventory, two other paintings depicting Susanna and the Elders are noted.775

772 Larsen, 201. Susan J. Barnes, however, is not willing to definitively accept this assertion. She hesitatingly includes Roomer in the picture’s provenance. See: Barnes, 151. 773 Barnes et al., 151. 774 See Eric Jan Sluitjer, Rembrandt and the Female Nude, (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006). 775 The Flemish writer, Cornelis de Bie, recorded a Susanna in Antwerp in 1662, so Roomer may have sold the painting at some point between 1634 and 1662, though De Bie could have been referring to another, now lost, painting. See: De Bie, 78. See also: Barnes, 151. For the depictions of Susanna and the Elders in Roomer’s inventory see: A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, ff. 179r, 196v. 272

Another attraction for Roomer must have been that Van Dyck's Susanna was executed by a fellow Fleming, whose popularity was steadily growing in Italy. Stylistically, the painting would have stood out in Roomer’s collection, and its novelty would not have been lost on

Neapolitan collectors and artists. Though in its tonality, it is one of Van Dyck’s darker works, the vibrant and dramatic drapery represented in the Susanna was undoubtedly noteworthy in Naples.

Indeed, as suggested above, the palette of the Susanna may have influenced Ribera, who employed a more vibrant approach to colour in both of his paintings of Apollo and Marsyas in

1637.

While Susanna and the Elders was a rare subject for Van Dyck, he repeatedly depicted the narrative of St. Sebastian’s martyrdom. It is therefore more difficult to identify which of the known versions may have belonged to Roomer. Interestingly, one version is displayed in Munich alongside the Susanna (Fig. 9). As discussed in Chapter Three, these paintings are roughly the same size and have been referred to as pendants since the eighteenth century. Therefore, though the early provenance of the Munich St. Sebastian is uncertain, there is a possibility that it may have been the one seen by Capaccio in Roomer’s collection in 1630.776 Like the Susanna, it was executed during the first years of Van Dyck’s Italian sojourn.

St. Sebastian had always been a popular saint in Italy, but his image was especially employed in the second half of the sixteenth century and into the seventeenth century as a response to the threat of the Reformation. The saint was representative of Catholicism’s long history and stood as an example of a faithful Christian who maintained his beliefs despite the influence of paganism.777 Moreover, the story of St. Sebastian gave artists an opportunity to

These two paintings, measuring at five by five palmi and two by one and a half palmi, respectively, do not correspond to the measurements of the Susanna in Munich. 776 Barnes suggests the Munich picture may have belonged to Abraham Matthys in Antwerp, as his post- mortem inventory of 1649 records a St. Sebastian. Even if this is the case, it does not preclude that the picture was in Roomer’s possession in 1630. See: Barne., 163. 777 St. Sebastian is known for attempting to convert those in Ancient Rome from Paganism to Christianity. Predictably, his preaching did not bode well with Rome’s governors and he was sentenced to death. His 273

depict a youthful male nude with dramatic and painful expressions. His image was thus popular among religious institutions and private collectors alike. There were numerous depictions of St.

Sebastian in Neapolitan collections, and Roomer himself owned six at the time of his death.778

The picture in Munich is a strong representation of the kind of baroque dynamism Van Dyck would have learned from Rubens. St. Sebastian stands, bound to a tree, prior to the Roman guards’ first attempt at his execution. St. Irene is pictured in the background, alluding to his survival of the ordeal. Behind her are soldiers and horses, painted with brilliant vitality reminiscent of Rubens. St. Sebastian himself, his pearlescent skin standing out against the dark background, looks out to the viewer evocatively. The drapery behind him, where unfortunately the canvas has been damaged, would have been the deep luminescent red seen in the Susanna.

The dramatic scene, emphasizing the tense moments prior to martyrdom, would have fit well with the other works in Roomer’s collection, while at the same time it provided a stylistic contrast with the Neapolitan paintings. The presence of both the Susanna and the St. Sebastian in Roomer’s collection by 1630 laid the groundwork for the Neo-Venetianism that would occupy Neapolitan painters later in the century.

Rubens’ Feast of Herod

While Roomer owned many notable works of art, the prize of his collection – the piece that would unequivocally make him the envy of Neapolitan collectors – was Peter Paul Rubens’ Feast

punishment was to stand in front of an arrow firing squad; however, this first execution attempt did not succeed. According to the legend, St. Irene found Sebastian, removed the arrows and nursed him back to health. Of course, this infuriated Sebastian’s detractors further, so after beating him to death, they threw him into the Tiber. 778 There are two paintings of St. Sebastian measuring eight by six palmi recorded in Roomer’s inventory, which could correlate to the picture in Munich. The Munich painting measures 199 x 159 cm; 8 x 6 palmi would convert into 208 x 156 cm (at 1 palmo = 26 cm). However, because the description of the two St. Sebastians in Roomer’s inventory is generic and vague, it is impossible to identify the paintings with certainty. Roomer may have very well resold his St. Sebastian by Van Dyck before his death. For the paintings of St. Sebastian in Roomer’s inventory see: A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, ff. 177v, 186r, 186v, 188r, 188v, and 199v. 274

of Herod, today found in the National Museum in Edinburgh (Fig. 7). Seeing the Feast in the collection of the Prince of Belvedere Carafa, De Dominici writes that the painting arrived in

Roomer’s collection around 1640.779 The Prince of Belvedere Carafa was the son-in-law of

Ferdinand Vandeneynden, who had married his daughter Elisabetta. The Feast had been one of the 90 paintings bequeathed to Ferdinand by Roomer. The picture must have been transferred to

Ferdinand before Roomer’s death, as no work matching the size and description of the Feast is found in the latter’s 1674 inventory. The Feast of Herod was the initial item on Ferdinand’s post-mortem inventory of 1688 – “Un quadro di palmi 11 e 9 in circa con cornice indorata la

Decollatione di S. Gio Battista, mano di Pietro Paulo Rubens. 2000”.780 Ruotolo points out that this subject, recorded by Luca Giordano, the author of the inventory, does not accurately describe the work in Edinburgh, which does not illustrate the act of beheading the Baptist.781 However, it appears that this was simply an error of description. The same painting listed as a Decollation of the Baptist in Ferdinand’s inventory is recorded by Carlo Celano in 1692 as a “pranzo di Herode con molti commensali, ed Herodiade, che presenta la testa del santissmo precursore Battista, opera del famoso pennello di Puetro Paolo Ruben” when he saw the painting in the palace of

Ferdinand Vandeneynden.782 De Dominici’s record of the painting corroborates Celano’s description. In the life of Bernardo Cavallino, the biographer writes that the Rubens painting in the Casa Belvedere represented “la Storia della testa del S. Precursore portata avanti Erode.”783

Later, in Mattia Preti’s biography, De Dominici again describes the work as “di mano di Pietro

Paolo Rubens, ove è rappresentato il soggetto medesimo della mensa di Erode con la figliuola di

779 De Dominici, vol. 3, 35. 780 Published in Ruotolo, 1982, 27. 781 Ruotolo, 1982, 13. 782 Celano, vol. 3, 128. Ferdinand was already dead four years when Celano’s work was published in 1692 and the author mentions that the Marchese’s collection was divided among his three daughters. Either Celano saw the painting in Ferdinand’s palace before he died, and later added that the collection was split among his children, or the paintings were still hanging in the palace in 1692, not having yet moved into their respective new homes. 783 De Dominici, vol. 3, 35. 275

Erodiade, che porta la testa di S. Gio: Battista, opera certamente non mai abbstanza lodatà, essendo dipinta col più vivo colore, che mai adoperesse quell’ammirabil Pittore.”784 These primary source descriptions leave little doubt the painting in Edinburgh is indeed the same one

Roomer had in his possession.

Roomer must have known that acquiring a Rubens would solidify his status as one of the most distinguished collectors in the city. Rubens was famous in Italy and had been a favourite of

Philip IV of Spain. Owning such a painting would have caught the interest of Spanish government officials in Naples. That De Dominici specifically mentions the arrival of the painting signifies that it was an event that warranted public attention.

It is easy to understand why the arrival of the Feast of Herod created such a stir within the city. The painting is monumental, measuring at 208 x 264 cm, and is mainly the product of

Rubens’ own hand.785 The Feast is one of Rubens’ late works and is a brilliant example of his vivacious style, the energy of figures surrounding Herodias and the head of John the Baptist creating a sweeping movement from left to right.786 Unlike the other version of the Feast of

Herod by Rubens, now known only through the copy which was in the collection of Mrs. William van Horne in Montreal around 1950,787 the figures in the Edinburgh painting are pressed up against the picture plane, creating a much more intense and immediate visual experience. This flurry of movement is matched by the use of saturated colour, such as the deep red of Salome’s glistening dress contrasted with the porcelain appearance of her skin. Light is used to highlight

784 Ibid., 344. 785 Ruotolo notes that the painting in the National Museum of Edinburgh, measuring at 208x264 cm, must have been cut, as it does not correspond to the 9x11 palmi measurement given in Ferdinand Vandeneynden’s inventory. Ruotolo, 1982, 13. 786 The earliest date of 1630 for the painting was posited in: L. Burchard, “Rubens’ ‘Feast of Herod’ at Port Sunlight,” Burlington Magazine 95, (Dec. 1953), 387. More recent publications, however, date the painting closer to 1640. See: Elizabeth McGrath, Rubens, subjects from history, vol. 2, (London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 1997), 38. 787 Julius S. Held, “Rubens’ ‘Feast of Herod’”, Burlington Magazine 96, (Apr. 1954), 122. I am unsure about the current whereabouts of this picture. The former Van Horne Mansion in Montreal was demolished in 1973. 276

the perpetrators of the crime – Salome and Herodias – while the disgust of Herod’s reaction is hidden in shadow. The Feast’s dynamic and colourful execution was appreciated throughout the artistic community in Naples, inspiring the likes of Bernardo Cavallino, Mattia Preti and Luca

Giordano and contributed to Naples’ artistic transition from Caravaggesque tenebrism to the era of neo-Venetianism.788

The issue of whether or not Roomer commissioned the picture from Rubens remains open. For the most part, it has been assumed that Roomer was the patron of the Feast.789 Rubens would not have painted such a large work without a commission and two works by Ribera in the

Flemish artist’s collection – a Balthazar’s Feast and Imprisonment of Christ - could have been the “payment” for the Feast. As noted in Chapter Three, Roomer’s brother Lodewijk, who was married to Rubens’ friend Catharina Haecx, could have facilitated the deal.

That the Feast fits well into Roomer’s collection, contributing to the theme of the gory and violent, also lends itself to the notion that the merchant was in fact the painting’s original patron. Pictures of beheadings were common in Roomer’s collection. Capaccio notes a

Decollation of the Baptist by Giovan Battista Rustici in 1630, while Roomer’s inventory includes two paintings of the Sacrifice of Isaac, one of David with the head of Goliath, one of the death of

John the Baptist, and two works simply depicting the head of the Baptist.

Elizabeth McGrath furthers this notion that the violent subject matter of the Feast of

Herod is the key to understanding Roomer’s motivation for the commission. She argues that

Rubens may have intended to paint a ‘Tomyris and Cyrus’, as there is a drawing of Salome from the Feast on the opposite side to one of Tomyris watching Cyrus’ head being dipped into a pot of

788 Of course, indications of the neo-Venetian style were evident before the arrival of Rubens’ Feast of Herod, especially in some of Ribera’s work of the 1630s. 789 This opinion has been posited by Michael Jaffé and Elizabeth McGrath. See: Jaffé, 102; McGrath, 53. Also, Aidan Weston-Lewis, through personal correspondence (email, 10 May, 2010), said he was inclined to believe that Roomer was the picture’s original patron, though thought it important to keep an open mind about the matter, as it was once thought that Roomer was the first patron of Ribera’s Drunken Silenus in 1626 (a bank document later revealed the merchant bought the Silenus in 1653). 277

blood.790 After having lost a military conflict to her son, Cyrus, Queen Tomyris challenged him to another battle. After she won this second battle, the Queen beheaded Cyrus and then submerged his decapitated head into a bag of human blood. McGrath argues that Roomer may have preferred the story of Salome presenting the head of John the Baptist because it involved “a more shocking illustration of female involvement in beheading, combining as it does outrage on a saint with a notorious erotic element.”791 This interpretation is highly speculative, given there is no evidence of Roomer being interested specifically in female violence with erotic undertones.792

In fact, the story of Tomyris and Cyrus seems much more terrifying. Furthermore, Rubens’ portrayal of the subject is not overly horrific, focusing on shimmering fabrics and a busy dinner party rather than the goriness of St. John’s decapitated head. A greater motivation may derive from St. John the Baptist’s significant place within Neapolitan culture. The Neapolitan cult of the

Baptist was quite strong. Many churches owned relics of the saint and the Confraternity of St.

John the Baptist was Naples’ oldest. Significantly, the vile of his blood located at S. Maria

Donnarómita was said to liquefy, a phenomenon that linked St. John to the highly venerated patron saint of Naples, San Gennaro. Furthermore, the Feast of S. Giovanni was the third most important festival in Naples for most of the seventeenth century. As John Marino explains, the feast of the Baptist was an event that combined religious and secular activities and was an opportunity for the viceroy to demonstrate the loyalty between the Spanish government and the populace by marching together in the customary procession. Scenes from the life of the Baptist were placed along the parade route, which ended graphically with the image of the saint’s

790 This drawing was first published by Henry S. Francis in 1954. See: Henry S. Francis, “The Preliminary Pen and Ink Drawing for the ‘Feast of Herod’ by Peter Paul Rubens,” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 41, (June 1954), 124-7. 791 McGrath, 53. 792 Not to mention, there was a painting by Rubens of Queen Tomyris with the head of Cyrus, meaning Rubens could have simply been using the same sheet of paper for a drawing of the Feast as he did for the Tomyris. There is no reason to necessarily connect the two drawings. Reference to the Tomyris with the Head of Cyrus appeared in a 1643 letter to Matthijs Musson; the work was in Musson’s possession by 1645. See: R. Berger, 4-35. 278

decollation. This scene was not only the logical end to the series of depictions of St. John’s life, but it also underlined the importance of the Baptist’s blood.793

In accordance with such a culture, images of the Baptist were ubiquitous in Seicento

Neapolitan collections. A search on the Getty Provenance Index for images of St. John the

Baptist in Naples produces over 500 results.794 St. John the Baptist is the third-most depicted biblical figure in Roomer’s collection, following the Virgin Mary and Christ. There is one large painting of the Death of John the Baptist (which may have been executed by Andrea Vaccaro), two others of the Head of John the Baptist, one of St. John the Baptist in the Desert, another of the Baptism of St. John and three single-figure depictions of the saint. Adding the Rubens to his collection, Roomer ensured that he owned one of the most notable – if not the most notable – depiction of St. John in Naples. The Feast was both aesthetically interesting to collectors and significantly tied to Neapolitan culture. It was thus advantageous to Roomer on a number of levels: it fit well with his preferences and would be a showpiece of his collection; that it was a brilliant example of Rubens’ talent reassured his position as Naples foremost collector; and it further emphasized his integration into Neapolitan society, signifying his place as one of the city’s most influential and powerful individuals.

Influenced by the Feast: Bernardo Cavallino and Mattia Preti

Bernardo Cavallino

The Feast of Herod was the first work by Rubens to reach Neapolitan soil and its impact was felt throughout the second half of the seventeenth century. In the Life of Bernardo Cavallino, De

Dominici comments that Cavallino “per veder cosa di cui erasi sparsa così gran fama, e tanto bella gli parve, che quasi incantato dalla magia di que’ vivi e sanguigni colori con maravigliosa

793 Marino, 198-221. 794 Getty Provenance Index, http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb. Accessed 12 April, 2013. 279

adoperati, si propose imitarla.”795 When the Feast arrived in Naples, Cavallino was still young and impressionable. Roomer may have seen in the young artist an opportunity to shape and nurture a successful career. Allowing Cavallino to view his gallery supported this goal. Indeed, though Cavallino’s style is essentially not Rubenesque, there is a shift in his tonality between the

1630s and the 1640s that points to Flemish influence.796 Roomer took advantage of Cavallino’s talent by exporting his paintings northward, sometimes passing them off as the works of other artists, if De Dominici is to be believed.

Undoubtedly, Roomer also collected Cavallino’s works for himself, though documentation is scarce as to which paintings the merchant might have owned. Two works by

Cavallino in the Herzog Anton-Ulrich-Museum in Braunschweig may have originated in

Roomer’s collection. The first is a Finding of Moses and the other is an Abigail and David

(1650-6 and 1640s, respectively; Fig. 72, Fig. 73) In 1675, the Duke of Braunschweig was in

Naples and according to Andrea Andreini – the Florentine agent of Leopoldo de’Medici – he acquired some paintings from Roomer’s estate.797 The two abovementioned works are both found in the 1710 inventory of the Prince’s collection.798 Unfortunately, there is nothing in

Roomer’s post-mortem inventory with a description that resembles these works. However, as noted, the descriptions in the inventory are vague and it is plausible that the two pictures could have been included in the inventory with inadequate descriptions. Roomer’s collection is the most probable place from which the Duke could have acquired these pictures. Also of note is a bank record published by Nappi that documents that Roomer purchased four paintings by

Cavallino from one Giuseppe Labruto in 1652.799

795 De Dominici, vol. 3, 35. 796 Percy, 17. 797 A.S.F., Carteggio d’artisti, vol. XXI, f. 144. Published in Ruotolo, 1982, 21. Antonio Bulifon also notes the Prince of Braunschweig’s presence in Naples at this time. See: Bulifon, 202. 798 Sabine Jacob and Susanne König-Lein, Die italienischen Gemälde des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts, Collection of the Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum, (Braunschweig: Hirmer Verlag München, 2004), 36-9. 799 A.S.B.N., Banco dello Spirito Santo, g.m. 383. Published in Nappi, 2000, 83. 280

Mattia Preti

When Mattia Preti arrived in Naples in 1653, he found his initial support from the merchant

Bernardino Corrado. According to De Dominici, Corrado showed some of Preti’s work to

Roomer, who then decided to commission a painting from the artist.800 Roomer apparently asked

Preti to choose his own subject, and the artist delivered to his patron a Wedding at Cana. De

Dominici describes the work as having “accidenti di lumi” and “tante varie azioni di coloro” that help to glorify Christ’s miracle of changing water into wine. He also notes its affinities to the style of Paolo Veronese.801 The description given by De Dominici more or less conforms to the painting of Preti’s Wedding at Cana today found in the National Gallery in London (Fig. 14). Its subject matter and neo-Venetian tendencies have led scholars to date the work around 1655.802

Corroborating the stylistic evidence are two payments made by Roomer to Mattia Preti dated 17

December, 1655.803 The payments are for 100 and 200 ducats, respectively, and correspond to the appraisal of a Wedding at Cana by Preti in the 1688 inventory of Ferdinand Vandeneynden, which reappears exactly in the 1688 partial inventory of Giuliano Colonna di Galeto, the husband of Ferdinand’s daughter, Giovanna.804

800 De Dominici, vol. 3, 343. 801 Ibid., 343. 802 John Spike, Mattia Preti: Catalogo Ragionato dei dipinti, (Taverna: Comune di Taverna Museo Civico, 1999), 159-60. 803 A.S.B.N, Banco dello Santo Spirito, g.m. 415. “Partita di 100 ducati del 17 dicembre 1655. A Gaspare de Roomer D. 100. E per lui a Mattia Preti.” And then: “Partita di 200 ducati del 17 dicembre 1655. A Gaspare de Roomer D. 200. E per lui a Mattia Preti.” Published in Nappi, 2000, 83-4. 804 Both inventories were written by Luca Giordano at the time of the Vandenyenden daughters’ marriages. See Ferdinand’s inventory published by Ruotolo, 1982, 33 and the Colonna inventory published by Ferdinando Colonna di Stigliano, 31. In terms of measurements, De Dominici’s do not quite match those recorded in the Vandeneynden and Colonna inventories. De Dominici measured the Wedding at Cana at 16 x 12 palmi, whereas the inventories record the work at 14 x 10 palmi. However, De Dominici’s may have seen the work in a larger frame or have been estimating. In any case, the measurements are sufficiently close to identify the painting described by the artist-biographer with that noted in the 1688 inventories. 281

De Dominici slightly confuses the dating of the work, stating that in addition to enjoying

Preti’s works in Corrado’s collection, Roomer also mentioned his appreciation of Preti’s frescoes adorning the city gates of Naples before he commissioned the Wedding at Cana. These frescoes were commissioned in response to the devastating plague of 1656. Three were completed by

1657, while the other four were not finished until 1658 and early 1659.805 Because of the stylistic evidence and the existence of bank documents, De Dominici likely confused his dates. Roomer may have expressed his appreciation of the city gates, but he must have commissioned the

Wedding before he made those comments.

Though De Dominici never explicitly states that Roomer showed Preti his collection, the connection between Preti’s and Rubens’ work is unmistakeable, as observed by De Dominici himself. During a visit to Casa Belvedere Carafa, De Dominici cites a series of paintings depicting the life of John the Baptist that Preti executed for Ferdinand Vandeneynden, who became one of the artist’s greatest patrons. Immediately following his description of the series,

De Dominici launches into the aforementioned description of Rubens’ Feast, thereby provoking stylistic comparisons between the two artists.806 In addition, numerous paintings of biblical feasts

– feasts of Herod, feasts of Absalom and weddings at Cana – emerged from Preti’s oeuvre following his arrival in Naples.

Both in its style and subject matter, Preti’s Wedding at Cana clearly indicates knowledge of Rubens’ Feast of Herod. Preti must have been well aware of Roomer’s potential as a patron and it seems that the artist, by referencing the merchant’s most famous painting, intended on making a positive first impression. Drawing inspiration from the work of the Flemish painter,

Preti created a monumental and dynamic piece based on the theme of a lively dinner party, with hints of Rubens’ use of Venetian colour and light.

805 James Clifton, “Mattia Preti’s Frescoes for the City Gates of Naples,” The Art Bulletin 76, no. 3, (Sept. 1994): 480. 806 De Dominici, vol. 3., 344-5. 282

The painting was evidently a success.807 There was at least one more painting by Preti in

Roomer’s collection. It is described in the 1689 Del Rosso inventory from Florence as “Nostro

Signore con li vecchi che le danno la moneta, comprato in Napoli, per me dall’eredità di Gaspare

Romer Giordano, lungo braccia 3, largo braccia 2 ½, stimato piastre 380.”808 Unfortunately, there is no painting matching this description in Roomer’s inventory or in Preti’s known works, making it difficult to speculate about the painting’s appearance. Yet, it is highly likely Roomer owned more of Preti’s paintings. His respect for the artist is evidenced by the fact that he actively promoted Preti’s career. De Dominici notes that Roomer purchased many paintings from the artist for resale on the Antwerp art market, as discussed in Chapter Three. Furthermore, many of

Roomer’s friends in Naples became interested in Preti as a result of his association with Roomer.

The Wedding at Cana was very well-received by other collectors, including Ferdinand

Vandeneynden, who then commissioned many paintings from Preti, among them the Beheading of St. Paul, the Martyrdom of St. Bartholomew, and the previously mentioned series of works based on the life of John the Baptist.809 The merchants Vincenzo Samuele, Carlo Arici and Carlo della Torre also became patrons of Preti.810 The chain reaction of patronage after the completion of the Wedding at Cana is evidence of Roomer’s influence within bourgeois circles and reflects the degree to which he was a arbiter of taste.

807 Francis Haskell has suggested that Preti’s attempt to impress Roomer was a failure, as the Wedding at Cana is the only commission from the merchant mentioned by De Dominici. However, Haskell fails to note the Preti painting in the inventory of the Del Rosso brothers in Florence that came from Roomer’s collection estate. Despite the fact that this painting is lost, its mention in the del Rosso inventory signifies Roomer did own more works by Preti than De Dominici records. What appears as Roomer’s dissatistfaction with Preti’s work may in fact be the result of lacking documentation. See: Haskell, 207. 808 Gualandi, 118. 809 De Dominici, vol. 3, 344. 810 Ibid., 345. 283

Roomer’s Appreciation of Luca Giordano

A bank document from 1652 records Roomer purchasing “per altritanti” from Antonio Giordano, the father of the painter Luca Giordano.811 While “altritanti” is ambiguous, Luca’s father often dealt in his son’s paintings. A story in De Dominici seems to substantiate this idea. The biographer recounts the time in which Antonio Giordano sold paintings to Roomer that were purportedly by the great sixteenth-century Venetian painters Bassano, Titian and Tintoretto.812

Apparently, Roomer paid dearly for these works, only to realize later that there were in fact copies executed by the young Luca Giordano. Upon this realization, the merchant was infuriated; however, he could not deny the admirable talent of the young artist. Thus, though their first encounter had been negative, Roomer soon became an ardent supporter of Giordano. In fact, it has been stated that it is unfortunate Roomer did not live to see Luca Giordano reach his peak, as he would have certainly been one of the artist’s best patrons.813 Nonetheless, Giordano certainly benefited from Roomer’s direct patronage and from access to his collection.

A document from 12 August, 1661 records that Roomer purchased 60 ducats worth of paintings from the artist.814 While it is uncertain if Roomer kept these paintings for himself or bought them for resale, a letter from Giacomo del Castro to the Sicilian collector Antonio Ruffo confirms that Roomer was indeed a prominent patron of Giordano. Del Castro reveals that

Roomer owned “una tinta anticha che non fanno mala” by Giordano and that many other merchants owned the artist’s paintings as well.815 Roomer also used Giordano's paintings as diplomatic gifts, to be discussed in Chapter Seven.

811 “Partita di 100 ducati del 14 ottobre. A Gaspare Roomer D.100. E per lui ad Antonio Giordano per altritanti.” A.S.B.N, Banca della Pietà, g. 1652, m. 414. Published in Nappi, 1991, 169. 812 De Dominici, vol. 3, 398. 813 C. Marshall, 2006, 375. 814 Nappi, 1992, 76. 815 Ruffo, 288. 284

The Samson and Delilah

Unfortunately, only two of Giordano’s works in Roomer’s collection can be identified. The first is a Samson and Delilah, mentioned by De Dominici, measuring seven palmi.816 This work may correspond to the Sansone that appears in Roomer’s post-mortem inventory with a measurement of eight by six palmi.817 The painting was thought to be lost until 1997 when it was identified in a

Sotheby’s auction catalogue (Fig. 74).818 According to De Dominici, Giordano derived his inspiration for the Samson and Delilah from Bassano, Titian and Tintoretto. Roomer, satisfied with the work, paid Giordano “sei zecchini d’oro”.819

Despite the fact that Roomer appreciated the Samson and Delilah, De Dominici continues to say that after having seen this picture, the merchant told Giordano to “lasciar la nuova maniera”, meaning the artist’s recent experiments with neo-Venetianism.820 The story has often been used by scholars to argue that Roomer disliked this new trend in Naples, preferring the tenebrist works of the Caravaggisti. However, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that the merchant also appreciated paintings influenced by sixteenth-century Venetian artists. As early as

1630, Roomer owned eight works by the Venetian Cinquecento artist Jacopo Bassano. As we have seen, his paintings by Anthony van Dyck also exhibited the impact of colour techniques for which the Venetians were reputed. It is significant to note that these works were in Roomer’s collection at a time when tenebrism was at the fore in Neapolitan painting. Furthermore, the monumental Rubens that arrived in the merchant’s collection around 1640 was, as discussed above, a prominent example of neo-Venetianism. Far from disliking the style, it appears Roomer encouraged it by allowing artists into his gallery to study this painting. The veritable slew of feast scenes depicted with vibrant yet soft colouring and white highlights produced in Naples

816 De Dominici, vol. 3, 397. 817 A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Giovanni Battista dell’Aversana 295/34, f. 189v. 818 Oreste Ferrari and Giuseppe Scavizzi, Luca Giordano : nuove ricerche e inediti, (Naples: Electa Napoli, 2003), 27. 819 De Dominici, vol. 3, 397. 820 Ibid., 397-8. 285

after 1640 are a testament to this. Finally, Roomer had always been considered an avant-garde collector. He owned still lifes and landscapes in Naples before they were popular; he encouraged contemporary artists to take up these newer genres; and he introduced the lively, dynamic and colourful work of Rubens to the city long before Giordano visited Venice and returned to Naples as a proponent of neo-Venetianism. A rejection of the new style would therefore be contrary to what is known about Roomer as a collector. It would have tainted his reputation as a forerunner of taste, considering many of his friends – such as Carlo Arici and Guglielmo Samuelli – were among neo-Venetianism’s strongest supporters.

Giordano’s Pilate Washing his Hands

The second known painting by Giordano that originated from Roomer’s collection was of Pilate

Washing His Hands. In 1591, the Florentine writer Francesco Bocchi wrote his Le Bellezze della città di Firenze, which described the holdings of various collectors in the city. In 1677, Giovanni

Cinelli added to Bocchi’s original publication, contributing descriptions of seventeenth-century collections in Florence. While visiting the collection of Senator Ascanio Sanminiati, Cincelli writes, “vi è un Pilato che si lava le mani di mano del Giordano, e questo è uno de’quadri che era nella Galleria di Gasparo Romer in Napoli.”821 This may relate to a work in Roomer’s inventory described as “quando Christo andò innanzi a pilato,” measured at five by five palmi.822 There are three paintings by Giordano that may correspond to this work.823 The first is in the Museo del

Prado (1650s; Fig. 75). The second is in the Philadelphia Museum of Art (1650-55; Fig. 76).

These two works both demonstrate Giordano’s ability to imitate other artists; they are both done in the style of Dürer. They clearly exhibit a Northern aesthetic, which may have been particularly

821 Francesco Bocchi and Giovanni Cinelli, Le bellezze della città di Firenze, (Bologna: Forni Editore, 1973), 402. 822 A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Giovanni Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 192r. 823 Giordano painted this subject a total of five times, but two of these works were executed after Roomer’s death in 1674. 286

appealing to Roomer. In fact, the provenance information for these works does not extend back to the seventeenth century, so there is a possibility Roomer could have owned one of them.824

The third painting of Pilate washing his hands is now in a private collection in Rome (c. 1660;

Fig. 77). As with the other two works, the provenance of the painting is incomplete.825 This version of the subject, however, is not executed in the style of Dürer, but rather draws from the influence of Mattia Preti. The larger figures, situated close to the picture plane, the use of prominent architectural features and Giordano’s colouring are all reminiscent of Preti’s works in the 1650s and 1660s. Considering Roomer also appreciated Preti’s paintings, it is plausible that this Christ before Pilate may be the version owned by Roomer.

The Impact of Roomer’s Collection on Giordano

It appears that Giordano knew Roomer’s collection quite well. After the merchant’s death, the governors of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi asked Giordano to appraise some of Roomer’s paintings for resale.826 Moreover, the Del Rosso inventory (which was also executed by

Giordano), specifies that it was Giordano who bought the Del Rosso brothers some of Roomer’s paintings. While it is uncertain how Senator Sanminiati acquired the Pilate from Roomer’s collection, it may well be the case that Giordano purchased it as well.

824 The Pilate in the Prado came from the eighteenth-century collection of Isabel Farnese a la Granja and the painting in Philadelphia was from the nineteenth-century collection of the Earl of Dudley. See: Oreste Ferrari and Giuseppe Scavizzi, Luca Giordano: l’opera completa, vol. 1,(Naples: Electa, 1992), 256, 262. 825 Ferrari and Scavizzi only mention that it was acquired on the art market in Madrid. See: Ferrari and Scavizzi, vol. 1, 263. 826 “Partita di D.3 e grana 20 del 24 febbraio. A Domenico de Martino D.3,20. E per lui al monastero d. S. Maria Maddalena del SS.mo Sacramento a compimento di D.70, che gli altri D.66 e quattro tari si contrapponino con simile summa che lui haveva pagato fra maggior summa per lo Banco del SS.mo Salvatore per due quadri del n.927 et 845, quali l’ha restituto a detto monastero et restava creditore di detti D. 66,80 et detti D. 70 sono per il prezzo di tre quadri a lui venduti e consignati et sono del N.34,35 et N....apprezzati da Luca Giordano per tale prezzo.” A.S.B.N, Banca di Spirito Santo, g. 1676, m. 573. Published in Edoardo Nappi, “Momenti della vita di Luca Giordano nei documenti dell’Archivio Storico del Banco di Napoli,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (1991), 177. 287

It is also clear that Roomer’s collection had a significant impact on Giordano's own work.

His altarpiece of St. Nicolas at Bari in the church of Santa Brigida in Naples has been said to reflect the baroque dynamism and exuberance of Pietro da Cortona in Rome. However, the painting is signed and dated 1655 and there is no record of Giordano having been in Rome before this time. Ferrari and Scavizzi suggest that Giordano’s interest in Cortona stemmed from the latter artist’s painting of Sant’Alessio, which had been in the church of the Gerolamini in Naples since 1638 and also from the replica of Cortona’s Madonna and Child with Saints Giacomo,

Francesco, Giovanni and Stefano that was in Roomer’s collection.827 This painting, the original of which was housed at Sant’Agostino a Cortona, appears in the 1689 inventory of the Andrea and Lorenzo del Rosso described as: “Pietro da Cortona. Madonna con il bambino in braccio et li

4 santi capi di relig.e comp.la a Napoli dal Giordano p. me et pag.a dall’eredita di Gaspar

Romere.”828

Furthermore, aside from Titian’s Annunciation in San Domenico, Roomer’s collection would have been one of the best places for Giordano to acquaint himself with Venetian painting and neo-Venetianism. Some of Giordano’s paintings before 1668 (the year of his trip to Venice) reflect knowledge of the works of Titian, Tintoretto, Bassano and Veronese, and thus it was been posited that the artist visited the lagoon city much earlier than originally believed. Yet, there is no documentary evidence that this was the case.829 Giordano would have had access to works by

Bassano in Roomer’s collection, in addition to the colourful paintings of Van Dyck and Rubens.

As noted, the artist’s numerous feast scenes reflect intimate knowledge of Rubens’ Feast of

Herod. Evidently, Giordano’s development as an artist was partially due to the influence of

Roomer’s collection, which gave him access to styles that were not yet prominent in Naples.

827 Ferrari and Scavizzi, 1992, 27. 828 Inventory published in Gualani, 122. 829 Ferrari and Scavizzi, 1992, 26. 288

Roomer’s Collection of Prints and Drawings

Collecting works on paper – in particular collecting drawings – was not common in Seicento

Naples, which made Roomer’s acquisition of such artworks all the more avant-garde.830

Roomer’s will notes his collection of “stampe antiche, e moderne,” while his inventory contained

“un libro francese di disegni,” one volume of single figure engravings and eleven more books of engravings.831 Though little is known of the prints and drawings the merchant collected, it is clear that his collection was highly esteemed. In one of the letters sent by Andreini to Leopoldo de’Medici, the agent exclaims that “So benissimo che il sud. S.r Gaspero teneva superbissimi disegni et una quantità prodigiosa di stampe, e ritrattini.” Andreini goes on to say that Roomer’s collection of prints and drawings had an estimated value of 15,000 ducats.832 This was clearly not a small and insignificant collection.

Unfortunately for Andreini and his patron Leopoldo, Roomer had bequeathed his works on paper to Domenico Sorrentino, the nephew of Onofrio Sorrentino, his spiritual advisor. While the merchant’s will only states that Domenico should receive “le stampe”, this evidently also included Roomer’s drawings.833 In Andreini’s letter, the agent laments that Roomer’s collection of prints and drawings is not available for sale, stating that “lo testò [Roomer] a favore del fratello del suo confessore.”834 A document of 12 April, 1674 further confirms the transfer of the drawings to Domenico.835

830 Ruotolo, 1982, 10. See also: Viviana Farina, “La collezione del Viceré: il marchese del Carpio, padre Seabstiano Resta e la prima raccolta ragionata di disegnai napoletani,” in Le dessin napolitain, eds. Francesco Solinas and Sebastian Schütze, (Rome: De Luca Editore d’Arte, 2010), 183-4; Rossana Muzii, “Il culto del disegno presso i pittori napoletani del Seicento e del Settecento con la guida di Bernardo de Dominici,” in Le dessin napolitain, eds. Francesco Solinas and Sebastian Schütze, (Rome: De Luca Editore d’Arte, 2010), 16-21. 831 A.S.N., Notai del Seicento, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 414v; A.S.N. Notai del Seicento, Giovan Battista dell’Aversana, 295/34, f. 181r, 185r. 832 A.S.F., Carteggio d’artisti, XXI, f. 147. Reproduced in Ruotolo, 1982, 22. 833 A.S.N., Notai del Seicento, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 414v. 834 A.S.F., Carteggio d’artisti, XXI, f. 147. Reproduced in Ruotolo, 1982, 22. Though Andreini refers to Domenico as Onofrio Sorrentino’s brother, in Roomer’s will, he is referred to as Onofrio’s “nipote”. 835 A.S.N., Monasteri soppressi, 4600, ff. 226r-226v. Reproduced in Delfino, 1989, 37. 289

Of the drawings collected by Roomer, none are known, though it is reasonable to speculate that he owned works by the most prominent Neapolitan artists. In particular, Falcone comes to mind, as he was an avid draughtsman and had an especially close relationship with

Roomer (Fig. 47). It is equally plausible to assume he owned drawings by Ribera, Stanzione,

Preti, Vaccaro and Giordano, in addition to some by Northern artists as well.

In terms of the prints in Roomer’s collection, at least a few can be identified because of their explicit dedications to the merchant. The most well-known were a series of prints by Jan-

Baptiste del Wael (Flemish, 1632-after 1669), the nephew of Cornelis de Wael. Like his uncle,

Jan-Baptiste began his Italian career in Genoa, arriving in 1657, and ended it in Rome, where he joined Cornelis in 1663.836 As an artist, he is sometimes categorized as a bambocciante, though he arrived in Rome long after the death of Pieter van Laer.837 The series of prints he dedicated to

Roomer are typical of a bambocciante style. Entitled Figures with Animals, it is a set of 14 prints that are essentially scenes of everyday peasant life. The title page of the series includes fragments of Roman architecture, on which Jan-Baptiste’s dedication to Roomer is inscribed:

“Ill.mo ac Orn.mo D ño/ Gasparo de Roomer/ bonarum Artium/ Maecenati dign.mo/ D.D.D./

Joannes Bab.ta de/ wael”838 (Fig. 78). Also included in this scene are a woman, a hunter and two dogs, one of which drinks from a fountain. The remainder of the prints are mainly set in landscapes devoid of any Roman remnants, though there are a few staged within an interior setting. However, few of the prints convey a sense of calm; rather, many represent boisterous and active scenes. The second plate of the series, A Fisherman, a Woman and a Herd of Animals

(Fig. 79), is quite dynamic, illustrating a stern looking woman sending her animals across a stream. A hunter, his back to the viewer, raises his hand as though he is urgently signally something to the old woman, who is focused on her task at hand. A more frantic scene is found

836 Bodart, 68. 837 Catherine Levesque, ed. The Illustrated Bartsch (commentary), vol. 6, (New York: Abaris Books, 1986), 9. 838 Transcription found in Levesque, 11. 290

in the fourth plate (Fig. 80) of the series, where a cart full of goods has toppled over. The man leading the cart with his horse turns around to look at the disaster, a look of panic on his face.

Juxtaposed between these two plates is a serene image of falcon hunters, calmly riding their horses to the hunt (Fig. 81). This engraving is an oddity in the series in that it is the only one that does not represent peasant life, but rather illustrates an activity of the nobility. Its tranquility stands in stark contrast to the following scene with the cart. There are a few representations of donkeys carrying passengers, seemingly with religious undertones and also two tavern scenes.

The first (plate seven), entitled Peasants in a Tavern (Fig. 82) is busy, but rather calm, with figures sitting around a table playing cards while others work in the background. The second

(plate ten) is more lively – it depicts a raucous fight within the tavern (Fig. 83). Finally, there are two plates illustrating scenes within a village. Plate twelve (Fig. 84) shows an unappetizing image of a woman grooming her child (probably for fleas), whereas the last plate in the series depicts a surgeon performing an operation (Fig. 85). Both of these scenes are enlivened by a variety of poses and expressions.

These prints were produced for Roomer after the death of Jan-Baptiste’s uncle, Cornelis de Wael. Their dedication to Roomer may be linked to the merchant’s close working relationship with Cornelis as an art dealer; it could have been a gesture of appreciation. Jan-Baptiste engraved precisely the kinds of subjects Roomer found interesting, not to mention that numerous collectors and artists would have seen the dedication glorifying Roomer.

Not noted in the current scholarship are two prints with dedications to Roomer of which impressions are held in the British Museum. The first is a print dated 1665 by Sebastiano

Marcotti (Italian, active 1665) of Ribera’s San Gennaro Emerging Unharmed from the Furnace

(Fig. 86) that was one of the most famous paintings in the city, being on public display in the

291

Tesoro of Naples’ Duomo.839 Considering the fame of this painting, it is no surprise Roomer wanted a print of it. The second print is by Lucas Vorsterman I (Flemish, 1595-1675) after Orazio

Gentileschi’s Lot and His Daughters now in the Bilbao Museo de Bellas Artes (Fig. 87). The painting is dated around 1628 and was executed for King Charles I of England, during

Gentileschi’s British period. Sandrart’s laudatory comments, exclaiming the painting was

“incapable of improvement”, confirm that the work was met with great success.840 Evidently,

Vorsterman believed there would be a market for a print, which was produced circa 1629. The second state of the print was dedicated to Ferdinand II, the Holy Roman Emperor and included

Roomer as a “familiaris” of the emperor.841 Unfortunately, this is the only known reference to

Roomer’s association with the Holy Roman Emperor.

Though it appears Roomer used collecting as a means to advance and cultivate his social status, his collection of prints and drawings reveals that the merchant’s motivations were not solely superficial. Less conspicuous than collecting paintings, acquiring graphic works indicates a deeper appreciation for the various media and processes of art in general. At the same time, prints allowed him collect works of art where the original was out of reach. Dedications enhanced his renown as a collector and gentleman, while the act of collecting drawings also contributed to his status. As Genevieve Warwick notes, this practice “became a sign of cultivation, reflecting the economic power and educational ability to engage in intellectual

839 The catalogue information for this work can be found in the collection database of the British Museum at http://www.britishmuseum.org/research/collection_online/collection_object_details.aspx?objectId=1552 339&partId=1&searchText=Romer&page=1. Accessed 12 September, 2013. 840 R. Ward Bissell, Orazio Gentileschi and the Poetic Tradition of Caravaggesque Painting, (University Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1981), 51, 188. 841 The inscription reads: “Nobili, Spectatissimo et illistribus Virtutis ac Fortunae muneribus florenti uiro, D. CASP. DE. ROOMER, Antuerpiano, IMP. CAES.FERDINANDI II. AVG. familiari Aulico omnium bonarum Artium et elegantiarum fautori ac Patrono, hanc tabellam ab eximio artifice, Horatio Gentilescio, ciue Romano, graphicè expressam, inter cimelia Sermi Magnae Britanniae Regis non infimam à se aeri incisam, obseruantiae ergò dedicabat Luc AEmil. Vostermann sucptor Antuerpianus. Amersterdam, Brussels, Coburg, Copenhagen, Leiden, London, Paris, Rotterdam, Vienna.” See: Christiaan Schuckman, compiled by, and D. De Hoop Scheffer, ed. Hollstein’s Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450- 1700, vol. 53, (Roosendaal: Koninklijke van Poll, 1993), 9. 292

leisure.”842 Perusing his collection of prints and drawings also offered opportunities for cultured interaction with fellow connoisseurs and collectors who visited his palace. The motivations to collect works on paper were thus multifaceted, as they were for other collecting activities.

* * * * *

The merchant’s collection of history paintings was one of the finest in Naples and exerted a profound influence on Neapolitan painters. Though they comprised a smaller percentage of his collection than the “modern” genres, it is clear that Roomer selected many of the works for his collection carefully, with specific motives in mind. Whereas many of his landscapes and still lifes must have been understood as simply decoration, Roomer’s history paintings were clearly his showpieces. His collection of history paintings and his interest in prints and drawings particularly reveal Roomer’s intellectual appreciation of the arts. Simultaneously, it was also these types of pictures that brought the prestige of Roomer’s collection to new heights.

842 Genevieve Warwick, The Arts of Collecting: Padre Sebastiano Resta and the Market for Drawings in Early Modern Europe, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 58. 293

Fig. 51. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Seven Acts of Mercy, PioMonte della Misercordia, Naples, c. 1607

Fig. 52. Battistello Caracciolo, Christ and the Samarian Woman at the Well, Pinacoteca di Brera, Milano, c. 1622-3

294

Fig. 53. Copy (or variant) after Carlo Saraceni, Martha Converting the Magdalen, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Nantes, 17th Century

Fig. 54. Carlo Saraceni, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, San Romualdo in Eremo dei Camaldolsi, Frascati, c. 1606

295

Fig. 55. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Galleria Doria Pamphili, Rome, 1596-7

Fig. 56. Adam Elsheimer, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Staaliche Museen, Berline, c. 1599

296

Fig. 57. Carlo Saraceni, Finding of Moses, Fondazione Longhi, Florence, before 1608

Fig. 58. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio, Incredulity of St. Thomas, Sanssouci, Potsdam, 1601-2

297

Fig. 59. Simon Vouet, Crucifixion, Gesù, Genoa, 1622

Fig. 60. Aniello Falcone, Martyrdom of San Gennaro, Museo di San Martino, c. 1630

298

Fig. 61. Aniello Falcone, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Museo del Duomo, Naples, 1641

Fig. 62. Nicolas Poussin, Rest on the Flight into Egypt, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, c. 1627

299

Fig. 63. Jusepe de Ribera, Martyrdom of St. Lawrence, National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, 1620-4

Fig. 64. Jusepe de Ribera, St. Jerome and the Angel, Museo di Capodimonte, Naples, 1626

300

Fig. 65. Jusepe de Ribera, Apollo and Marsyas, Musées Royaux des Beaux-Arts, Brussels, 1637

Fig. 66. Jusepe de Ribera, Apollo and Marsyas, Museo di Capodimonte, Naples, 1637

301

Fig. 67. Luca Giordano, Cato Tearing out his Entrails, Art Gallery of Hamilton, c. 1660s

Fig. 68. Jusepe de Ribera, Drunken Silenus, Museo di Capodimonte, 1626

302

Fig. 69. Massimo Stanzione, Sacrifice of Moses, Museo di Capodimonte, Naples, c. 1628-30

Fig. 70. Andrea Vaccaro, Beheading of St. John the Baptist, Collection Corigliano Saluzzo, 1650s?

303

Fig. 71. Andrea Vaccaro, Holy Family with St. John the Baptist, Collezione Cappelli, Aquila, undated

Fig. 72. Bernardo Cavallino, Finding of Moses, Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig, c. 1650-6

304

Fig. 73. Bernardo Cavallino, Abigail and David, Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig, late 1640s

Fig. 74. Luca Giordano, Samson and Delilah, Private Collection, 1650s?

305

Fig. 75. Luca Giordano, Christ Before Pilate, Museo del Prado, 1650s

Fig. 76. Luca Giordano, Christ Before Pilate, Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1650-55

306

Fig. 77. Luca Giordano, Christ Before Pilate, Private Collection, Rome, c. 1660

Fig. 78. Jan Baptist de Wael, Title page, Figures with Animals, plate 1, 1660s

307

Fig. 79. Jan Baptist de Wael, A Fisherman, a Woman and a Herd of Animals from Figures with Animals, plate 2, 1660s

Fig. 80. Jan Baptist de Wael, Landscape with Loaded Cart, from Figures with Animals, plate 4, 1660s

308

Fig. 81. Jan Baptist de Wael, Falcon Hunters from Figures with Animals, plate 4, 1660s

Fig. 82. Jan Baptist de Wael, Peasants in a Tavern from Figures with Animals, plate 7, 1660s

309

Fig. 83. Jan Baptist de Wael, Fight in a Tavern from Figures with Animals, plate 10, 1660s

Fig. 84. Jan Baptist de Wael, Woman Grooming her Child from Figures with Animals, plate 12, 1660s

310

Fig. 85. Jan Baptist de Wael, Surgeon Performing an Operation from Figures with Animals, plate 14, 1660s

Fig. 86. Sebastian Marcotti, after Jusepe de Ribera, San Gennaro Emerging Unharmed from the Furnace, 1665

311

Fig. 87. Lucas Vosterman I, after Orazio Gentileschi, Lot and His Daughters, c. 1628

312

Chapter 7

Gaspare Roomer and the Spanish Viceroys of Naples

The dramatic economic and political circumstances of Naples in the seventeenth-century necessitated that Gaspare Roomer establish a working relationship with the viceroys. Often,

Roomer’s business depended on leniencies from the government, as well as on contracts for credit, ships and arms. In the seventeenth century, such negotiations were delicate matters that were not always discussed explicitly. Roomer, therefore, frequently used his wealth and art collection to his advantage, lending money for viceregal projects and giving expensive, high quality paintings to the viceroys to enhance their collections. Through these means, Roomer was able to maintain his wealth in difficult economic conditions and continue to trade internationally despite the political tensions and military action that rocked all of Europe.

Financing War: Roomer and the Kingdom’s Finances

Spain at War

Gaspare Roomer lived in Naples during a time of economic uncertainty, under the rule of a declining Spanish Crown that was continuously at war. The Twelve Years’ Truce (1609-1621) between Spain and the Netherlands had been disadvantageous to the former and its terms would not be renewed.843 With Philip IV’s accession to the Spanish throne in 1621, militaristic action in the Low Countries recommenced.844 The Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) had recently ignited and Gaspar de Guzmán, the Count-Duke of Olivares, was soon to rise to power. His surging ambition for Spanish hegemony in Europe held Spain in a constant state of war. In 1627, sensing

843 R.A. Stradling, Philip IV and the Government of Spain 1621-1665, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 6. 844 In fact, his father, Philip III, died 31 March, 1621, the day the peace with the Dutch Republic expired. Stradling, 1988, 6. 313

weakness from its Dutch enemies, Spain launched various attacks against the army of the United

Provinces on both land and sea.845 In addition to these offensives, Spain initiated an economic war with the Northern Netherlands. Spain’s primary strategy was to prohibit any Dutch vessels or goods within the borders of any of its territories and to demolish access to their trade routes in the Baltic.846

The conflict with the Dutch Republic was not the only war in which Spain was heavily engaged during the first half of the seventeenth-century. The War of Mantuan Succession broke out in 1627 when Spain’s ally in Northern Italy, Vincenzo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua, died. The territories that surrounded the Spanish Duchy of Milan were inherited by the French Duke of

Nevers. French control of this area would jeopardize Spanish dominance in Northern Italy, and thus Spain initiated aggressive action in order to maintain control of the region.847

In addition to these two consuming wars, disagreements with the English and fear of

Portuguese secession also occupied Spanish attention. Though, in general, the English had had fairly amiable relations with Spain since 1604, in 1625 a short war broke out between the two countries after the British expedition to Cádiz, where England collaborated with the Dutch to organize an attack on the Spanish.848 By 1640, Portuguese rebel forces had secured their borders and armed themselves for conflict with Spain.849 The historian R.A. Stradling concludes that

Spain had allowed foreign affairs to take priority over all other matters and that by 1635, the country had entered “an epoch of total war.”850

845 Ibid., 66. 846 Jonathan I. Israel, The Dutch Republic and the Hispanic World, 1606-1661, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982), 93; Stradling, 1988, 66. 847 Stradling, 1988, 72-4. 848 H. Koenigsberger, “English Merchants in Naples and Sicily in the Seventeenth Century,” The English Historical Review, 62, (July 1947): 311. 849 Stradling, 1988, 82. 850 Ibid., 129. I have presented here only a brief synopsis of Spain’s place in seventeenth-century world affairs. For a more thorough exploration of the subject see Stradling, op.cit. note 843 ; Israel, op.cit. note 846; Geoffrey Parker, Spain and the Netherlands 1559-1659, (Short Hills, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1979); Trevor R. Davies, Spain in Decline, 1621-1700, (London: MacMillan and Co. Ltd., 1957); and J.H. 314

The Economic Strain on Naples

As expected, the costs of continuous war weighed heavily on Spanish society. The residents of

Castile in particular were rigorously taxed in order to fund these ongoing conflicts. The Kingdom of Naples also bore a disproportionate amount of financial responsibility for these wars. Though there were instances throughout the century where the Kingdom itself was under threat of attack from the French, it was essentially removed from the action, unlike its Spanish counterparts in

Northern Italy. Thus, the Spanish Crown decided the Kingdom of Naples would supply the military with the necessary troops, arms, supplies and, most importantly, monetary funds.851

The rising taxes and increasing poverty that were the results of consistent pressure from Madrid would have disastrous consequences for the Kingdom of Naples.

Rosario Villari’s extensive study of the events that preceded the Revolt of Masaniello

(1647) details the financial crisis that struck Naples as an inevitable result of Spain’s persistent need for funds.852 To support Spain’s militaristic endeavours, Olivares transformed Naples into a

“financial reserve and source of provisions”.853 The Kingdom’s debt by 1636 had accumulated to

40,000,000 ducats and the Spanish Crown did not intervene to alleviate the situation.854

Considering Spain’s military needs and the resulting financial hardship in Naples,

Roomer’s immense wealth and influence in the city rendered a working relationship with the ruling viceroy inevitable. As noted, Roomer had made much of his wealth as a dealer in ships and, in fact, he and Jan Vandeneynden were extremely successful at selling and leasing their boats to the Spanish government. As early as 1627, documents show these merchants selling

Elliott, Spain, Europe and the Wider World, 1500-1800. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009.) 851 Calabria, 4. 852 Rosario Villari, The Revolt of Naples, trans. James Newell and John A. Marino, (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993); See also Villari, 1990, 237-74. 853 Villari, 1993, 75. 854 Ibid., 75. 315

ships to the Spanish Crown for military purposes.855 He also continued to provide soldiers and ships for provisions on a grand scale well into the 1640s.856 Moreover, as will be seen, Roomer was involved in an extensive and complicated loan agreement with the viceroy Duke of Medina de las Torres to fund the Spanish monarchy’s wars. The financial demands of the Spanish

Crown, the viceroy’s attempt to satisfy those demands, and the greed of a handful of mainly foreign merchants, including Roomer and Vandeneynden, would contribute to the outbreak of the

Revolt of Masaniello in 1647.

The Duke of Medina de las Torres

The Financial Fiasco of the 1630s and 1640s

Don Ramiro Felípez Núñez de Guzmán, the Duke of Medina de las Torres, arrived in Naples in

November 1637 to take over the viceregency from the Duke of Monterrey. Medina, who had recently married Anna Carafa, thereby aligning the Spanish with one of the great noble

Neapolitan families, inherited a city that was on the brink of a serious financial crisis.857 In the years preceding Medina’s viceregal term, the Duke of Monterrey had informed the Spanish

855 “Partita di 50.000 ducati del 12 maggio 1627. A Gasparo de Roomer e Gio Vandenejnden D. 50.000. E per loro a Gio de Zevaglios, ch li gira alla Cassa Militare per servitio dell’Armata de Geleoni che Sua Eccellenza vole mandare a soccorrere l’isole di S. Margherita e Santo Honorato assediate dai francesi.” Archivio Storico del Banco di Napoli, Banco dello Santo Spirito, published in Nappi, 2000, 77. 856 “Partita di 300.000 ducati del 6 maggio 1643. I due soci [Roomer and Vandenynden) ricevono dall Cassa Militare D. 300.000 per il fitto di vascelli, come per confuttura di cavalli in Spagna, soldo dei serventi di essi vascelli, rationi e spese necessarie per servitio di queele et intende di vascelli noleggiati et venduti alla Regia Core in diversi tempi.” Archivio Storico del Banco di Napoli, Banco dello Spirito Santo, g.m. 327; and also: “Partita 260.000 ducati dell’11maggio 1644. La Regia Cassa militare paga ai due soci [Roomer and Vandeneynden] D. 260.000 per il prezzo e nolo di vascelli venduti e noleggiati per servtio della Regia Corte, quantità di rationi date ai soldati che andarno imbarcati nelli vascelli in Spagna.” Archvio Storico del Banco di Napoli, Banco dello Spirito Santo, g.m. 335: Published in Nappi, 2000: 77-8. 857 Medina’s marriage to Anna Carafa was particularly important because, historically, the family had been at odds with Habsburg rule in Naples and often tried to interfere with its policy. See: R. Stradling. “A Spanish Statesman of Appeasement: Medina de las Torres and Spanish Policy, 1639-1670,” in The Historical Journal, 19, no. 1, (March 1976): 5. 316

government of the impending disaster if Naples continued to be used as a financial reserve.858 At that point in time, commercial activity had been reduced due to the wars, and successful merchant-financiers, such as Roomer and Vandeneynden, who had previously loaned the government money, were refusing to do so, seeing that the Crown had no means of repaying them.859 It was not until 1636, when the government negotiated a lending agreement with the

Genoese merchant Bartolomeo d’Aquino, that other members of the bourgeois elite recommenced financing the viceroyalty.860 This arrangement, which will be detailed below, was particularly followed during Medina’s reign, as the viceroy was intent on fulfilling requests from the Spanish

Crown for financial aid and troops in order to maintain his favour at Court.861

D’Aquino developed a system of loans that would ensure his and his associates’ wealth, while concurrently allowing Medina to meet Philip IV’s demands. It allowed these financiers to

858 In fact, the Spanish government knew in the 1620s that their plundering of Naples’ resources was negatively affecting the city. An account from the Venetian ambassador to Madrid in 1627 said that “the kingdom of Naples [was] previously the richest and most opulent, but [is] now the most bankrupt and chaotic one can think of...and this is the news that daily reaches the court of Spain.” Quoted in Villari, 1993, 233. 859 Ibid., 76. Villari notes that the silk and grain trade had significantly decreased in these years and that, as a result, many merchants were inclined to become financiers. 860 Apparently, D’Aquino was reluctant to make the deal. Only after being threatened by Medina that he would “not ratify any of the payments ordered by his predecessor for previous contracts”, did D’Aquino acquiesce. Quoted from Villari (1993) who cites a rare document published in 1650, entitled Sommario nel quale si racconta brevemente l’introduzione di Bartolomeo d’Aquino a server la Regia Corte in assienti nell’anno 1636: continuazione dei questo esercizio per lo spazio di sette anni fino alla suma di sedici milioni, comodo e utile apportato al Real patrimonio, travagli passati, stato nel quale al presente si ritrova, e ultima sua risoluzione per liberarsene. Villari, 1993, 86, 236. 861 Medina had been the son-in-law of Philip IV’s favourite, the Count-Duke of Olivares. Olivares’ daughter died young, but Medina and his father-in-law remained close. However, Medina’s marriage to Anna Carafa caused a rift in their relationship, as Olivares was not completely informed of the arrangement. It also meant Medina no longer needed the financial support of Olivares. Though Medina’s marriage into the Carafa dynasty basically ensured that Philip IV would forever be grateful to him, Olivares subsequent attempts to revoke Medina’s viceregal appointment could have compelled Medina to work harder for Philip IV’s approval. Furthermore, Medina’s good performance as viceroy would be significant when Olivares fell from power in 1643. Although the father and son-in-law relationship had previously been tested, they had managed to reconcile, and Medina’s affiliation with Olivares could have negative repercussions for his career. Luckily for Medina, he maintained the favour of Philip IV in spite of such incidents. Stradling, 1988, 111-7; Stradling, 1976, 5-7. 317

exercise considerable influence in political affairs and helped to elevate their social rank.862 The scheme was complicated, but it essentially entailed that this financial elite consisting of Naples’ foremost merchants and bankers, including Roomer and Vandeneynden, would lease or purchase from the government various duties, excises and indirect state taxes. For example, Roomer owned various taxes applied to flour; in fact, one such tax was termed the farina di Roomer.863 In

1639, a new indirect tax was applied to oil, which was bought by Roomer and Vandeneynden864 and in 1643, they owned the duty on imports and exports.865 Though this system was initiated during the Duke of Monterrey’s viceregal term, it was during Medina’s tenure that the state debt to these creditors reached epic proportions; while he was in office, this small group of financiers had loaned 36,000,000 ducats to the government.866

Despite the significant loans Medina accepted, he evidently knew this situation was not sustainable. A pleading letter from Medina to Philip IV, written in the first year of his term, related that

“The kingdoms and states of our lord the king are extremely weary; those which do not suffer from the internal travail of war and from the burden of their enemies’ presence bear the brunt of taxes, the weight of the draft, the extortion of billeting, the depopulation of their lands and the extinction of their wealth. This burden is not evenly shared by His Majesty’s kingdoms, as is the case with his enemies, since only the crown of Castile, the kingdom of Naples and Sicily have to counterbalance all the expenses undertaken by the crown of France, the States of Holland and their followers.”867

862 Raffaele Colapietra, Vita pubblica e classi politiche del viceregno napoletano (1656-1734), (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1961), 10. 863 Bartolommeo Capasso, Catalogo Ragionato dei libri registry e scritture esistenti nella sezione antica dell’Archivio Municipale di Napoli (1387-1806), (Naples: Francesco Giannini, 1876), 72-4. 864 Luigi De Rosa, Studi sugli arrendamenti del Regno di Napoli: Aspetti della distribuzione della ricchezza mobiliare nel mezzogiorno continentale (1649-1806), (Naples: Arte Tipografica, 1958), 31. 865 Villari, 1990, 259. 866 Villari, 1993, 87. 867 Letter published in Villari, 1993, 79. 318

Medina was correct to be concerned. His government, as well as those under the two subsequent viceroys, needed to create more and more taxes to sell to these financiers. For his part, Medina tried to limit the amount of taxes imposed and actively urged Philip IV to initiate peace talks with his enemies.868 However, some degree of peace would not be achieved until 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia,869 and by then the extreme taxation had taken its toll on the Kingdom’s populace, resulting in the 1647 Revolt of Masaniello.870

Roomer’s Assistance with the Palazzo Donn’Anna

While Naples was sinking into deeper debt and its citizens were descending into greater poverty, the Duke of Medina de las Torres’ wife, Anna Carafa, decided to rebuild Palazzo Donn’Anna

(Fig. 88).871 Palazzo Donn’Anna was the most notable palace on the coast of Posilipo, just west of the city centre. It was originally constructed in the sixteenth-century, and bought in 1563 by the Carafa family.872 After the viceroy Medina had married Anna Carafa in 1637, the palace, called at the time the Palazzo Serena, became their summer residence. In 1642, Anna Carafa decided to have the palace reconstructed and commissioned Naples’ foremost architect and sculptor, Cosimo Fanzago, to undertake the project.873 Fanzago’s theatrical sensibility was well- suited to this assignment; the Palazzo Donn’Anna was a place of entertainment. The building was intended to be approached by water, and so its elaborate facade faces out into the Bay of

868 Stradling, 1976, 6. 869 The Peace of Westphalia, however, did not include a resolution for Spain’s conflict with France. 870 Silvana d’Alessio, Masaniello: la sua vita e il mito in Europa, (Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2007), 32. Roomer was intimately caught up in this financial fiasco. A document published by Giuseppe Coniglio found in the Archivo General de Simancas stated that “Gli arrendatori Gaspare Romur [Roomer], Giovanni Bandahinden [Vandeneynden], Fabrizio del Vaso e Gennaro Rizo, avevano commesso eccessi nella riscossione dei diritti d’arrendamento...” Coniglio, 188. 871 Despite such ostentation shown by the court of Medina de las Torres, the duke was actually one of the most respected viceroys. As mentioned, he did attempt to ease the tax burden on the Kingdom’s citizens, appease the demands of the Neapolitan aristocracy, and satisfy the Habsburg court in Madrid. Stradling has called this feat the “equivalent to squaring the circle.” Stradling, 1976, 6. 872 Nappi, 2000, 66. 873 Ibid., 66. For Fanzago see: Gaetana Cantone, Napoli barocca e Cosimo Fanzago, (Banco di Napoli: Naples, 1984), 310-7. 319

Naples. There was a loggia looking out to sea, where guests would witness elaborate displays of fireworks.874 Unsurprisingly, as a symbol of government excess, it was attacked during the 1647 revolt.875 It was also affected by the 1688 earthquake and today stands as a dignified ruin on the coast of Posilipo.876

Though immensely wealthy, Anna Carafa still approached Roomer to lend her money so that she could realize this project. Nappi mentions that Roomer was grateful to Carafa for allowing him certain benefits and therefore granted her the loan.877 Though the specifics of these benefits are unknown, it is accepted that such “larghi prestiti” were made in exchange for “larghi favori e privilegi.”878 This loan may have been related to the special financial arrangement financiers like Roomer had with the viceregal government. Roomer certainly would have been pleased that Medina had encouraged a loan system that, though risky, was clearly lucrative. The escalation of the wars in Europe had put a damper on commercial trade, and Roomer must have been thankful that he was able to, at the very least, maintain his wealth by providing Spain with substantial amounts of credit.

Furthermore, though mercantile activity had decreased due to Europe’s state of war, it had not all together ceased. Even though Roomer was occupied in his role as financier to the government, he still maintained some engagement in trade. As mentioned, Spain prohibited

Dutch ships from entering into Spanish waters in an attempt to weaken the economic well-being of the United Provinces. However, Amsterdam was at the time considered the economic powerhouse of Europe and it was undoubtedly beneficial for Roomer to conduct business with the

874 Tommaso Astarita, Between Salt Water and Holy Water: A History of Southern Italy, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company Inc., 2005), 177; Gaetana Cantone, “The City’s Architecture,” in A Companion to Early Modern Naples, ed. Tommasso Astarita, (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013), 349. 875 Seventeenth-century writer Domenico Parrino mentions how tremendously expensive the rebuilding of Palazzo Donn’Anna was and that it required the labour of 400 workers. Parrino, vol. 2, 293. 876 Astarita., 177. 877 Nappi, 2000, 66. 878 Nino Leone, La vita quotidiana a Napoli ai tempi di Masaniello, (Milan: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 1994), 63. 320

Dutch. Even before the rule of Medina, Roomer had managed to negotiate agreements with the viceregal government to allow Dutch ships into the Neapolitan harbour.879 During Medina’s viceregency, Roomer was apparently permitted to bring two Dutch ships (and also one from

Sweden) into the port of Naples. The particulars of the agreement that allowed this action are unspecified; however, it is known that these vessels were sanctioned under the pretext that they served the Republic of Venice.880 In another arrangement, Anna Carafa and Medina granted

Roomer’s ships entry into Torre del Greco (near the city of Naples), as the merchant waived a loan of 31,000 ducats that he had given to the princess.881 It is unlikely that these recorded incidents were the only ones of their kind. Such instances constituted the types of “benefits”

Roomer received from the viceroy and his wife.

Roomer’s loan to Carafa does not appear to have come in one lump sum, but rather bank documents indicate that he paid various pipernieri, artists, woodworkers, and Cosimo Fanzago himself. This means Carafa was allotting to Roomer certain expenses that she could not pay herself. In some instances, he was required to pay the cost of some quite specific projects, for instance when he paid Cosimo Fanzago 334 ducats, “cioè D. 134 per balaustre n. 134 e D. 200 per quattro colonne consegnate per servisio della fabrica del palazzo di S.E. a Posilipo.”882 It can perhaps be suggested that there were constant negotiations regarding how much Roomer would lend the princess of Stigliano, and that maybe Carafa afforded more favours to the merchant in exchange for further loans (or forgiveness for these loans). Though Roomer seems to have directly paid some of the artisans involved in the project, there should be no confusion that Carafa was the patroness of the rebuilding of the Palazzo Donn’Anna and that she, along with her head architect, Cosimo Fanzago, was directing the construction and function of the palace. It does not

879 In 1630, he asked permission from the viceroy to allow two Dutch ships carrying salami to enter Neapolitan waters; the viceroy granted his request. See Coniglio, 1955, 120. 880 Coniglio, 1955, 93. As is discussed in Chapter Two, shipments of Dutch products through the Republic of Venice were common. 881 Nappi, 2000, 80. See also: A.S.N., Monasteri Soppressi, 4603, ff. 79r-81r. 882 Document published in Nappi, 2000, 88. 321

appear that Roomer was involved in such decisions. Rather, he was merely financing the project.

However, his involvement in the reconstruction of the building is an example of how Roomer indirectly affected the architectural appearance of Naples and how he was able to support major artistic undertakings. In general, there is little record of Roomer having any great interest in architectural projects. He did commission some minor work on his palaces at Monteoliveto and

Santa Maria della Stella and his villa at Barra, but his efforts were certainly more concentrated on his collection of paintings. He did use his immense wealth, however, to contribute to architectural endeavours in Naples, as was seen in his contribution to the Palazzo Donn’Anna.

Additionally, as will be evident in the next chapter, Roomer also bequeathed large sums of money to various religious institutions with specific instructions that the money be used to better the physical building of the church. Therefore, although he was rarely involved in architectural commissions, Roomer clearly understood the value of such projects to glorify the church, the government and his city, and their potential to serve his own business interests.

Roomer’s Use of Art and Charitable Donations as “Diplomacy”

As has been discussed, the success of Roomer’s commercial activities during times of upheaval relied on sophisticated political manoeuvring in which the merchant often used his wealth to maintain positive relations with Naples’ viceregal government. In addition to providing the court with credit and funding architectural projects, Roomer also engaged in strategic gift giving.

Specifically, Roomer offered works from his art collection to the viceroys in order to curry favour. Generously donating to projects and causes initiated by the viceroys was also a method through which Roomer could gain political influence.

Such practices were widespread in the Early Modern era. Gift giving in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries became an elaborate custom imbued with a range of implicit meanings for both the giver and the receiver. The giver, in offering a gift to an important political figure,

322

sought to obtain privilege and power, whereas the receiver, in accepting the gift, was silently consenting to returning the favour.883

The unspoken inferences embedded in the practice of gift giving made it a particularly useful tool in diplomatic contexts, where the political relationships among European countries were often tenuous and in constant need of reinforcement. Gifts of animals and of decorative objects were frequently presented in discussions to maintain peace or to form alliances between nations. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the gift of a work of art became a popular choice among diplomats negotiating on behalf of their native country. Because the practice of collecting was common among those in power, works of art provided enticing gifts. The tastes of the recipient of the artwork would be taken into account by the giver, so that the gift could resonate more strongly with the receiver, and thus perhaps be more persuasive as a diplomatic tactic.884 Gifts also served to enhance the prestige of the donor, in that they could display distinguished tastes, and that of the receiver, who would gain recognition for the quality of his collection. Furthermore, the actual subject matter of a particular work of art could hold specific meanings relating to the receiver or the situation at hand. Such was the case with, for example,

Guido Reni’s Immaculate Conception, which was commissioned in Rome by the Duke of Oñate, who was there as Spanish ambassador in 1627. This subject was chosen because the Spanish monarchy was continuously campaigning to have the pope establish the doctrine regarding the

Virgin’s purity. Though the painting was intended for the Spanish Infanta, Oñate selected Reni

883 Recent publications analysing the complexities of gift-giving are: Gadi Algazi et al., eds. Negotiating the Gift: Premodern Figurations of Exchange, (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2003); and Irma Theon, Strategic Affection? Gift Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Holland, (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007). 884 Cassiano del Pozzo’s meticulous record of the paintings in the Alcázar in Madrid on Cardinal Francesco Barberini’s diplomatic visit to Spain is one such example of this practice. See: Anthony Colantuono, “The Mute Diplomat: Theorizing the Role of Images in Seventeenth-Century Political Negotiations,” in The Diplomacy of Art: Artistic Creation and Politics in Seicento Italy, ed. Elizabeth Cropper, (Milan: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 2000), 54. 323

for the commission because he was a favourite of Francesco Barberini. The painting thus became a means through which Oñate could communicate his views to the papal court.885

In addition to gift giving in diplomatic settings between countries, the concepts of gift giving as a particular mode of negotiation and as a vehicle through which favour could be obtained can be applied to individual relationships at a more local level. Much remains to be learned about the use of diplomatic tactics by prosperous merchants whose livelihood was partially dependent on ruling political bodies and therefore, on the state of world affairs.886 It is well known that political turmoil could affect commercial patterns – the case of Antwerp in the sixteenth century being the most notable example.

In addition to profiting from his role as government financier, Roomer became something of a diplomat in his relations with the viceregal government, representing his own interests rather than those of a state. Presenting the Spanish court with “diplomatic” gifts, such as paintings from his collection, Roomer behaved in a similar fashion to a foreign ambassador on a diplomatic mission. In this way, the merchant was successful in maintaining positive relationships with the viceroys that undoubtedly assured him various favours.

In the discussion that follows, I have assumed that Roomer gave, rather than sold, paintings to some Neapolitan viceroys. This is supported by the numerous favours the merchant required of -- and received from -- the government. However, even selling works to a viceroy could be considered a so-called “diplomatic” gesture as the prices of paintings were often significantly reduced. In a letter from Sebastian van Dale and Cornelis Weckewoort in Naples to

Margareta de Groote in Antwerp (mentioned also in Chapter Three), the former merchants remark that “it is impossible to sell them [the paintings] here, paintings as valuable as these are not bought here, except by the viceroy and other important gentlemen, and they do not pay the money

885 Ibid., 69-71. 886 Diana Carrió-Invernizzi mentions briefly some Neapolitan administrators who presented the viceroy Pedro Antonio de Aragón with gifts; however, merchants are not included in this list, nor is the matter thoroughly analysed. See: Carrió-Invernizzi, 2008, 898-9. 324

the paintings are worth, but they pay the money they like to pay for them, and when they have them in their hands, you will have to do what they want, to prevent falling into their disfavour and the worst is that they do not pay their bills and you have to chase them constantly to get your money.”887 Clearly, if one were to sell paintings to a viceroy, he did so with the knowledge that he would not receive a fair price; to request such a price would risk ruining one’s relationship with the viceroy.

The Conde de Castrillo

García de Avellaneda y Haro, Conde de Castrillo arrived as viceroy of Naples in 1653. While the rule of his predecessor, the Duke of Oñate, had been marked with a return to annual and special occasion festivities in order to restore normalcy to the city after the 1647 revolt, Castrillo’s term was notable for its paring down of such activities.888 Above all, his viceregency was defined by the devastating plague of 1656, which killed around two-thirds of the Neapolitan population.889

He was not particularly known for undertaking cultural projects during his time in Naples; rather, his main mission on the artistic front was to collect works of art for King Philip IV.890

887 S.A.A. IB 29, Letter from Sebastian van Dale and Cornelis Weckewoort to Margareta de Groote, 29 December, 1654. 888 Festivals and processions were often used by the viceregency to solidify and showcase their power. However, the number of public celebrations in Naples increased to such an extent during the seventeenth century, that it was significantly affecting the city’s productivity. Including Sundays and the months of July and August (in which workers were only obliged to work on Thursdays), 230 days of the year were considered holidays in Naples. See: Gabriel Guarino, “Public Rituals and Festivals in Naples, 1503-1799,” in A Companion to Early Modern Naples, ed. Tommaso Astarita, (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013), 268. 889 John Marino, Becoming Neapolitan: Citizen Culture in Baroque Naples, (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2011), 83-4. In fact, the populace blamed Castrillo’s removal of feast days for the ravage of the plague. Thus, once the plague had come to an end, he reinstated many of the festivities he had once cut. 890 Though not a defining feature of his tenure as viceroy, Castrillo did engage in some cultural patronage while he was in Naples. He was responsible for commissioning portraits for the newly built portrait gallery in the Palazzo Reale, as well as some sculptural works and fountains. See: Carriò-Invernizzi, 2013, 395. 325

Castrillo: Collecting for the King

The paintings given by Roomer to Castrillo can be understood within the context of strategic gift giving. Castrillo was a member of the Haro clan in Spain who had played a significant role in overthrowing Olivares in 1643, an event which had assured Castrillo’s rise within the Spanish court.891 While in Italy, he was charged with the task of acquiring paintings on behalf of King

Philip IV, who at that time was focusing on the decoration of the Buen Retiro Palace. Archival documents retrieved by Belén Bartolomé reveal large sums of money being funnelled from the

King to Castrillo for certain “gastos secretos,” that is, the purchase of artworks for the Crown.892

To avoid conflict, it appears that Castrillo rarely purchased paintings for his own consumption; it was important not to acquire for oneself what was desired by the King. However, his diplomatic missions in Rome, Venice and Genoa, as well as his viceregency in Naples, immersed him into the artistic cultures of these cities, and he became quite a knowledgeable connoisseur.893

An inventory of Castrillo’s possessions from 1657 lists a number of Italian paintings that

Bartolomé hypothesizes were intended for the Spanish King.894 Among these paintings are five listed as from Gaspare Roomer: a Martyrdom of the Magdalen from the school of Titian, a

Madonna and Child and a St. John of Patmos by Titian, a Portrait of Andrea Doria by Tintoretto, and a Martyrdom of St. Martina by Nicolas Poussin.895 Interestingly, four of these five paintings are from the sixteenth-century Venetian school. As discussed in Chapter Four, Roomer’s appreciation of contemporary Neapolitan and Flemish painters defined his habits as a collector.

Capaccio’s visit to Roomer’s palace in 1630 noted eight works by Bassano and one by Giorgione, but aside from these instances, there are no other documented accounts of Roomer acquiring

891 Stradling, 1988, 251. 892 Belén Bartolomé, “El conde de Castrillo y sus intereses artísticos,” in Boletín del Museo del Prado, 15, (1994): 15-16. 893 Ibid., 15-16. 894 Ibid., 17. Bartolomé notes that Castrillo routinely sent shiploads of paintings from Naples to Spain. That this inventory was made in the middle of Castrillo’s viceregal term indicates that it was likely a pre- shipment record of goods. 895 See inventory published in Bartolomé, 26. 326

Venetian painting for his personal consumption. However, those artists were favourites of the

Spanish Crown; in the Alcázar, Venetian paintings constituted 29 percent of all original works.896

Roomer certainly would have been aware of this appreciation and therefore chose his gifts accordingly.

Considering Philip IV's high regard for Venetian painting, it would have been advantageous for Roomer to keep a few such works on hand to use as gifts when seeking favour from the viceregal government. It is therefore plausible that Roomer sometimes collected works not out of personal interest or for resale value, but to use as “diplomatic” tools in his dealings with Spanish officials. In the case of the Conde de Castrillo, Roomer probably chose his gifts with Philip IV’s artistic preferences in mind. Therefore, Roomer did not present these paintings to Castrillo in hopes of appealing to the viceroy’s aesthetic tastes. Rather, in giving Castrillo

Venetian works, Roomer was providing for the Count opportunities to impress the king. And in turn, Castrillo would look favourably upon the merchant.

The favours that Roomer likely received for presenting paintings to the Conde de

Castrillo are not documented,897 and it is unknown whether Roomer gave the artworks to the viceroy all together or on different occasions. Roomer may have given one or all of them to the

Count when he arrived in Naples as a quiet reminder that he had yet to be repaid by the Court for some of the services he provided during the war with the Dutch. A payment to Roomer and

Vandeneynden from the Cassa Militare dated the day Castrillo took power (20 November, 1653) indicates that the partners were partially repaid for “il fitto di vascelli noleggiati per servitio della

896 Burke and Cherry, 126. 897 Though the benefits Roomer received in exchange for his gifts is unknown, it was certainly “understood by both parties” that the purpose of a gift was to “procure a return.” Genevieve Warwick, “Gift Exchange and Art Collecting: Padre Sebastiano Resta’s Drawing Albums,” in The Art Bulletin, 79, no. 4, (Dec. 1997): 632. 327

Regia Corte nel 1646.”898 Evidently, the Court was still significantly in debt to the two merchant- financiers.

Alternatively, some of the paintings may have been used as a subtle request for the safe passage of foreign trade ships associated with Roomer entering Neapolitan seas. The Spanish-

Dutch conflict had subsided since the signing of the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which put an official end to the Thirty Years’ War. Though the peace between Spain and Holland was quite fragile, the former had lifted the long time trade embargo against the Dutch. However, in 1655,

England launched an attack on the Spanish territory of Santo Domingo.899 This would have certainly impacted any Neapolitan trade with Britain. Documents in the Archivio di Stato di

Firenze reveal that Roomer did do business with British merchants, so this conflict could have directly affected his mercantile trade.900 Though the disagreement was short-lived, it is conceivable that Roomer was anticipating the worst and decided to woo the viceroy with paintings in the likely event that trade relations with England would cease.

Though the war with the Dutch had somewhat dissipated, Spain remained at odds with

France until the Peace of the Pyrenees in 1659. In fact, during Castrillo’s term, the French directly threatened the Kingdom of Naples and the viceroy prepared the military for war.901

Another possible explanation for Roomer’s gift of paintings may be linked to the fact that the

Royal Court continued to need his money to fund this ongoing conflict. The end of the war with the United Provinces had alleviated some of the financial pressure on the government, but certainly not all of it. And now, in light of the recent Neapolitan rebellion, the government was careful to not overtax its citizens. After the revolt, the mastermind behind the financing scheme that provoked the riot, Bartolomeo d’Aquino, was disgraced and thrown in jail. Following this

898 Document published in Nappi, 2000, 79. 899 Koenigsberger, 314. 900 A documented dated 22 June, 1632 notes that Roomer was conducting trade with an Abram Bex in London, England. It is conceivable that Roomer continued to trade with merchants in the United Kingdom. See: A.S.F., Società mercantile olandese, 21, f. 30v. 901 Giuseppe Galasso, “Napoli nel viceregno Spagnolo dal 1648 al 1696,” Storia di Napoli, 3 (1976): 301. 328

event, the roles of Roomer and Vandeneynden as financiers to the court intensified. Roomer had maintained a positive business relationship with Castrillo’s predecessor, the Duke of Oñate,902 and was likely looking to ensure his position as a creditor to the Royal Court under the Conde de

Castrillo. In this view, the paintings could be a seen as a friendly but also strategic gesture, cementing the importance of Roomer for the viceregal government.

The Portrait of Andrea Doria by Tintoretto is of particular interest within the context of

Spain’s ongoing war with France. It is clear that Roomer consciously chose works by Venetian artists in order to appeal to Spanish taste, and it may also be the case that some of the subjects of the paintings were purposely selected as well. The famous admiral Andrea Doria was the head of a venerable aristocratic family and a central figure of Genoa’s political system in the sixteenth century. His dominating feature was that he owned and led fleets of galleys into various battles.

In the early Cinquecento, Genoa had financial relationships with both the French and the Spanish.

Until 1528, Doria had been working for the King of France, Francis I, and in fact had assisted

France in laying siege to Genoa in 1527. However French influence in the Ligurian city would be short-lived; Doria, once his contract with the French Crown expired, quickly switched sides, deciding to politically align himself with the Spanish. In 1528, he overtook Genoa on behalf of

Charles V, the King of Spain. Until his death in 1570, Andrea Doria would play a key role in

Genoese political life, managing to maintain his and the city’s relationship to the Spanish and foster the public’s loyalty to Charles V, while simultaneously ensuring Genoa’s autonomy.903

Andrea Doria was a symbol of Genoese support of Spanish causes, but also of Spain’s reliance on Genoa’s assistance. In 1654, soon after Castrillo arrived in Naples, the relationship between Genoa and Spain encountered some tension. Spanish ships were positioned in the

Ligurian Sea because of France’s advancements on Spanish territory in Northern Italy. Outside

902 Ibid., 295. 903 Thomas Allison Kirk, Genoa and the Sea: Policy and Power in an Early Modern Maritime Republic, 1559- 1684, (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 2005), 19-20. 329

Finale, Spain spotted and detained some French vessels. Genoa demanded restitution, asserting that the seizure had taken place in their sovereign waters. Angered by this breach of their sovereignty, Genoa confiscated goods on Spanish ships destined for Finale.904 To retaliate, Spain ordered its Italian colonies, including the Kingdom of Naples, to sequester the possessions and seize the credit of the Genoese within Spanish territory.905 Many businessmen in Naples believed the Spanish reaction was excessive,906 and the Genoese began preparing for armed conflict with

Spain and ceased trade with the Duchy of Milan and the Kingdom of Naples.907 Much of the

Neapolitan economy depended on loans from the Genoese bankers residing in Naples and this development would certainly complicate matters.

In this context, Roomer may have presented the Portrait of Andrea Doria to Castrillo in a subtle attempt to remind the viceroy that amiable relations with Genoa were integral to

Neapolitan economic stability.908 Not only was the strength of the economy important for

Roomer’s own business ventures, but he conducted regular trade with Genoa.909 The trade embargo placed on Naples by Genoa would have likely affected Roomer’s bottom line. Though

Castrillo himself was incapable of restoring the relationship between Spain and Genoa, he was in a position to put pressure on the Spanish Crown and Roomer’s gift may have been made with this in mind. By the time the portrait would have been received in Spain (after 1657), the conflict

904 Kirk, 141. 905 Galasso, 1976, 302. 906 Ibid., 302. 907 Kirk, 141-2. 908 Maintaining the Spanish empire and funding its militaristic endeavours required a substantial amount of regular income. The inconsistency of Spain’s revenues required that Genoese bankers provide the Crown with lines of credit. See: Kirk, 20, 30. 909 In addition to his possible dealings with Cornelis de Wael, Roomer had other business ventures in Genoa. A letter in the Stadtsarchief in Antwerp notes that the merchant sent some silk to Antwerp via Genoa. In another exchange between Sebastian van Dale and Cornelis Weckewoort and Margareta de Groote the two former merchants note that Roomer does not have the money to pay back De Groote, as “he had expected to receive some money from the nation of Genoa, but had not yet received it, because all the funds from that nation were yet to arrive.” See: S.A.A., IB 128, Letter from Gaspare Roomer to Adriaen Haecke, 13 September 1633; and S.A.A. IB 29, Letter from Sebastian van Dale and Cornelis Weckewoort to Margareta de Groote, 18 August, 1654. 330

with Genoa had long passed, but it could serve as a continuous reminder of the necessity of this

Italian ally for the Spanish government.

The Count of Peñaranda de Bracamonte

Succeeding Castrillo, Gaspar de Bracamonte, the Count of Peñaranda de Bracamonte arrived in

Naples a year and a half after the devastating plague of 1656. The epidemic had left Naples only a shade of its former self. Having lost two thirds of its population, it was no longer the populous metropolis it had once been.910 Peñaranda came in with a mandate to emotionally, politically and socially heal the devastation the plague had left in its wake.

It appears that Roomer immediately attempted to ingratiate himself to this viceroy. The relationship between Peñaranda and the outgoing viceroy Castrillo was mutually hostile.

Peñaranda had been responsible for requesting a ship for Castrillo’s departure from Naples, which he failed to do. This angered Castrillo, who subsequently complained to the Spanish Crown.911

The tension between the two counts increased in the following years when Peñaranda accused

Castrillo of downplaying the destruction caused by the plague.912 Considering that Roomer had maintained amiable relations with Castrillo, the merchant may have wanted to prove to himself as a dedicated citizen to Peñaranda. As discussed earlier, Roomer may have invited the incoming viceroy to stay at his villa at Barra while awaiting Castrillo’s departure from the city.913

910 Marino, 84. 911 Coniglio, 275-6. 912 For more on this dispute see: Ehlert, 73. David Gentilcore writes that Castrillo did indeed react slowly to the plague’s outbreak in 1656, and that historians have been unsympathetic to Castrillo’s actions during this time. However, as Gentilcore explains, the situation was not black and white; formally declaring the arrival of the plague in Naples would have had harsh economic consequences for the city. See: David Gentilcore, “ ‘Tempi sì calamitosi’: Epidemic Disease and Public Health,” in A Companion to Early Modern Naples, ed. Tommaso Astarita, (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013), 291. 913 As discussed in Chapter Five, whether or not this visit actually occurred is uncertain, as Roomer had transferred the legal ownership of his villa to the Marchese del Vasto in 1656, while Peñaranda arrived in 1658. However, as noted, Roomer could have still been renting the villa from the Marchese at this latter date. 331

There is no evidence that suggests Roomer gave paintings as gifts to Peñaranda as he had to Castrillo; his patronage of the viceroy took another form. After the plague, the construction of a church to memorialize the victims was initiated. When Peñaranda assumed office, he took over the project, becoming its most significant patron. As Rebecca Ehlert makes clear, it was common for viceroys to donate to religious projects; however, Peñaranda’s involvement in the construction of the plague church of Santa Maria del Pianto was above and beyond the usually practice of the viceroys.914 Not only was he the most generous donor to the church’s construction, the Count was also responsible for organizing an artistic competition for the church’s altarpieces between

Luca Giordano and Andrea Vaccaro.915

The church of Santa Maria del Pianto (Fig. 89) was promoted as a place that was necessary for the emotional restoration of the Neapolitan public. The site of the church was the burial ground for many of the plague’s victims. Many of the deceased had not had the chance to receive communion before their death and their loved ones feared their souls were destined for a lengthy stay in Purgatory.916 The construction of Santa Maria del Pianto offered Neapolitans some solace; it was a public acknowledgement of the despair engendered by the plague and a sign of hope that the souls of the deceased would find their way to heaven.

Considering the social importance of Santa Maria del Pianto, it is unsurprising that

Peñaranda championed its cause. In contrast to his predecessor, Castrillo, whose response to the plague was criticized, Peñaranda was perceived as active and sensitive. The success of the church fell on his shoulders and he began to solicit donations from Naples’ most wealthy individuals and organizations. The Corporazioni of Art, Silk and Organists all made substantial

914 Ehlert, 58-9. Carriò-Invernizzi also mentions that Peñaranda’s support of Santa Maria del Pianto marks the beginning of viceregal patronage of Neapolitan monasteries and convents. See: Carriò-Invernizzi, 2013, 396. 915 Ehlert, Chapter 5; and Wethey, 678-87. 916 Wethey, 678. 332

donations. Roomer and Jan Vandeneynden also gave generously to the viceroy’s project.917

Furthermore, Ehlert states that Roomer could have also advised the viceroy on artistic matters, suggesting commissioning works from Giordano and Vaccaro, both of whom were well- acquainted with the merchant.918

Though Ehlert notes it is unknown whether or not Roomer gave his donation before or after Peñaranda’s involvement with the church,919 it seems likely that the merchant’s contribution was motivated by his desire to curry favour with the viceroy. The arrendamento system was still very much in place and Roomer and Vandeneynden, after the disgrace of D’Aquino, were the city’s lead financiers.920 A satisfactory and mutually beneficial relationship between Roomer and

Peñaranda would have been necessary. By donating to a cause so close to the heart of the viceroy, Roomer was promoting his public image and ensuring his comfortable position among

Naples’ most financially and politically influential citizens.921

Pedro Antonio de Aragón

Pedro Antonio de Aragón arrived in Naples on 3 April, 1666. His term, following that of his brother Cardinal Pascual de Aragón, fostered good relations with Neapolitan citizens, aristocrats and ecclesiastics, a marked change from the climate of the city in the 1640s.922 His rule signalled

917 F. Strazzullo, “Documenti per la chiesa di S. Mara del Piano,” Napoli Nobilissima 4, (1965), 222. 918 Ehlert, 1. 919 Ibid., 60. 920 Colapietra, 10; and Giuseppe Galasso, Napoli Spagnola dopo Masaniello, (Florence: Sansoni, 1982), 212. 921 It should also be noted, as Ehlert makes clear, that Santa Maria del Pianto was a Carmelite church, a religious order to which Roomer was particularly devoted. This may have also provided the impetus for his donation. Roomer credited Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi – a Carmelite nun who died in the early seventeenth century – with his escaping death from the plague in 1656. See: Ehlert, 60-2. However, Roomer was never one to donate solely on religious grounds. His contributions to charities were calculated, aimed at procuring favour with politicians and the Neapolitan public, in addition to securing his reputation for posterity. 922 Diana Carrió-Invernizzi, “Mecenazgo coleccionismo en Nápoles en la época de los virreyes Aragón,” in 14th Congreso nacional de Historia del arte. Correspondencia e integración de las Artes Ministerio de 333

a period of intense monarchical propaganda where, in the midst of Spain’s decline, Aragón sought to maintain the authority of viceregal rule in Naples.923 Aragón achieved this goal by initiating a cultural revival in Naples. He ordered the rebuilding of the antique baths at Pozzuoli and constructed a second dock at the Arsenale. He embellished Palazzo Reale, restored all the city’s fountains, and erected a statue of Carlos II at Monteoliveto. Aragón owned an extensive art collection and sizable library and made his image ubiquitous in Naples by placing portraits of himself in public spaces. He also encouraged the construction of the Ospizio di San Gennaro dei

Poveri and of the convent dedicated to S. Pietro di Alcantara, who had recently been canonized.

Amidst these projects and often to celebrate their completion, Aragón staged magnificent ceremonies glorifying himself and Spanish rule.924

Charitable Donations

It was easy for Roomer to earn favour with a viceroy so prone to ostentation and with an agenda to use culture as a manifestation of power. Roomer had more than enough wealth to donate to

Aragón’s causes, such as the Ospizio di San Gennaro dei Poveri (Fig. 90). The hospice was renovated in 1667 and organized by Benedictine monks, whose aim was to rid Neapolitan streets of poverty. Aragón was integral in its construction from the beginning. As a form of “caritas pubblica”, the building of the Ospizio was an opportunity to display the political authority of the

Spanish monarchy. The viceroy ordered an image of Charles II be placed on the facade, asked

Pope Clement IX to protect the institution and had Giuseppe Pandolfi write a publication

Educación, Cultura y Deportes, vol. I, eds. Isidoro Coloma Martín and Juan Antonio Sánchez López. (Màlaga, 2003), 112. 923 Aragón’s commission of his portrait bust for the façade of the Ospizio di San Gennaro dei Poveri, along with the life-size statue of Charles II of Spain, was the first time a viceroy had erected permanent portraits of himself and the Spanish monarch in Neapolitan public spaces. See: Carrió-Invernizzi, 2008, 217-8; Carriò-Invernizzi, 2013, 396. 924 Carrió-Invernizzi, 2008, 233, 286-7, 392; Galasso, 1975, 402-6; Leticia De Frutos and Salvador Salort Pons, “La coleccíon artística de don Pedro Antonio de Aragón, virrey de Nápoles (1666-1672),” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2002): 49. 334

dedicated to the Ospizio that extolled the rule of Charles II and Pedro Antonio de Aragón.925

Many of the city’s most prestigious individuals – including Roomer – donated to the viceroy’s project in hopes of obtaining favour. In fact, it appears Roomer’s monetary donations to the hospice were second only to those of the viceroy himself. A document published by Roberto

Pane cites that Aragón had given 600 ducats to the Ospizio, followed by Roomer with 200 ducats.

After Roomer, the next most generous donor was the Prince of Belmonte with only 60 ducats.926

The promotion of St. Peter of Alcántara was also a cause championed by Aragón. St.

Peter of Alcántara was born in Spain and had resided as a hermit outside of Lisbon. He eventually built a friary and devoted his life to penance and prayer. In 1560, he met St. Theresa of Avila and she recorded many details of his life in her autobiography. He was beatified in 1622 and in the 1660s, Philip IV lobbied the papacy to make him a saint; he was canonized in 1669.

During his time in Naples, Pedro Antonio d’Aragona encouraged devotion to this saint; Peter of

Alcántara was connected to Aragón through both his nationality and his name. Upon his canonization, the viceroy encouraged the opening of a convent dedicated to the saint, and also helped form the Custodia de San Pedro de Alcántara.927

Aragón spared no expense in the festivities to celebrate the saint’s canonization. The procession and celebrations in Naples were organized by Stefano Carillo under Aragón’s direction. Roomer also donated generously to this project, as a document from the Banco di San

Giacomo records that on 2 October 1669 he paid Stefano Carillo 100 ducats “per servitio della festa et processione da farsi per la Canonizzazione de Santo Pietro d’Alcantara.”928 Roomer’s

925 Galasso, 1975, 403; Carrió-Invernizzi, 2008, 269-73; Roberto Pane, “Il viceré Pedro de Aragon e l’Ospizio di San Gennaro dei Poveri,” in Seicento napoletano: arte, costume e ambiente, ed. Roberto Pane, (Milan: Edizioni di Comunità, 1984), 139. 926 Pane, 528. There is a bank record published by Nappi that corresponds with this payment: “Partita di 200 ducati del 14 gennaio 1669. A Gasparo de Roomer D. 200. E per esso alli governatori dell’Ospizio di S. Pietro e Gennaro di Napoli per un’annata anticipate finienda a dicembre 1669 da esso promessali sua vita durante.” ASBN, Banco di San Giacomo, g.m. 332. Published in Nappi, 2000, 85. 927 Carrió-Invernizzi, 2008, 408-10; Galasso, 1975, 404. 928 ASBN, Banco di San Giacomo, g.m. 337. Published in Nappi, 2000, 85. 335

contribution to the festivities was likely made under the implicit assumption that Pedro Antonio de Aragón would give a munificent donation to the concurrent celebrations for Santa Maria

Maddalena de’Pazzi. As will be discussed in further detail in the following chapter, Roomer was strongly devoted to this saint. She was canonized in 1668, though the festivities surrounding her promotion to sainthood were not held until 1669, at the same time as those of Peter of Alcántara.

Roomer not only gave large sums of money to celebrate her canonization; he also supported the building of the church of S. Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi in Naples. Aragón was responsible for allowing the construction of this church.929 Roomer’s donation of 100 ducats for the celebrations for St. Peter of Alcántara undoubtedly provided Aragón with the encouragement to permit the building of the church of S. Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi. Moreover, exchanging favours in this way publically demonstrated social, religious and political alliances.

The Art Collection of Pedro Antonio de Aragón

In the context of this relationship, it is Roomer’s contributions to Aragón’s extensive art collection that are the most notable. Forty-three paintings found in the viceroy's inventory are mentioned as gifts from Gaspare Roomer. Carrío-Invernizzi and De Frutos and Pons note that many of the paintings given to Aragón by Roomer mirror the merchant’s taste as it was outlined by Capaccio in 1630.930 This is true in some respects, though careful study of Aragón’s inventory reveals that Roomer considered the viceroy’s personal preferences as well. Certainly, it was convenient for Roomer to present Aragón with paintings he would have had readily on hand, i.e. the paintings he would have already collected for his own enjoyment. Of particular note are the works by Caravaggio and his followers that are identified as gifts from Roomer. As discussed earlier, the merchant had a preference for tenebrism. It appears he gave some works to the viceroy that could have been considered among his most significant, including a Descent from the Cross

929 Andrea Mastelloni, La prima chiesa dedicate a Santa Maria de’Pazzi. Naples, 1675. 930 Carrío-Invernizzi, 2008, 360; De Frutos and Pons, 57. 336

and a St. John by Caravaggio. Considering Roomer’s tastes and the rarity of paintings by

Caravaggio in Neapolitan private collections, these were certainly prized possessions. Giving

Aragón these paintings would have demonstrated great respect, and in turn, win him favour with the viceroy.

Aragón, too, admired Caravaggio, as is indicated from his inventory, which lists numerous paintings by Caravaggio or his school. Roomer was certainly aware of the viceroy’s fondness for such painting in selecting gifts from his stock. It would have been more important to please Aragón by appealing to the viceroy’s artistic tastes than to assert his own stylistic preferences. Yet, as Roomer was always a strong supporter of the Neapolitan school, it is unsurprising to find works by Ribera, Stanzione and Vaccaro listed as gifts from him in Aragón’s inventory. A St. James by Ribera was paired with the St. John by Caravaggio, and a St. Sebastian and St. Jerome by Ribera were given as pendants. The only paintings by Stanzione in Aragón’s collection were given to him by Roomer – an Immaculate Conception and a St. Agatha.

Additionally, Roomer presented to the viceroy a painting of St. Francis of Paola by Andrea

Vaccaro. The merchant likely had these works in his possession, since he owned a considerable number of paintings by each of these artists.

Aragón was not different from many of the viceroys who appreciated Ribera’s style, owning at least three works by the artist in addition to those given to him by Roomer. While the only Stanziones in the collection were listed as presented by Roomer, there are many works listed as from the Roman school, in particular the works of Guido Reni and his followers. If Roomer considered Stanzione as the “Neapolitan Guido Reni”, he perhaps thought that Stanzione would appeal to the viceroy. Furthermore, the subject of of the Immaculate Conception was a favourite among Spanish collectors: as noted above, the Spanish Habsburgs strongly supported and continuously lobbied for the dogma of the Immaculate Conception at the papal court. In addition,

Aragón appears to have had an interest in St. Agatha, as he owned a few paintings with this

337

subject, including one by a follower of Reni which was also given to him by Roomer. As for

Vaccaro, judging from the inventory, it seems that Aragón had a particular predilection for the work of this artist, as he owed nineteen of his paintings.931 In fact, Vaccaro was immensely popular among the Spanish nobility in the latter half of the seventeenth century. Clearly, though these paintings do match Roomer’s particular stylistic leanings, the merchant did not present them to the viceroy for this reason alone. In order for the gifts to work effectively as “diplomatic” tools, they needed to be in concert with Aragón’s own tastes.

Roomer owned numerous still lifes and gifted quite a number to the viceroy. In doing so, he must have been aware that such artworks were gaining popularity among the upper echelons of

Spanish nobility.932 In fact, there are many examples of the “avant-garde” genres in Aragón’s collection – battle scenes, landscapes and seascapes, and still-lifes – indicating that his collecting patterns were very much part of a wider trend initiated in part by Roomer himself..

Furthermore, as he had with Castrillo, Roomer used the Spanish interest in Venetian painting to his advantage, presenting many such works to Aragón. The viceroy's interest in

Venetian painters was likely fuelled by the royal preference and collecting trends in Spain, but he was also an astute collector who recognized artistic talent and genuinely appreciated the works of such artists. The inventory published by De Frutos and Pons notes many copies of works by

Titian and Bassano, paintings from the school of Palma and even a work by Giorgione.933

Therefore it comes as no surprise that the merchant gave some sixteenth-century Venetian works to Aragón. These included a Crucifixion by an unnamed Venetian painter, a St. Jerome Praying

931 De Frutos and Pons, 58. 932 For example, still-lifes were well-represented in the collection of the Duke of Medina de las Torres. Later in the century, the collection of the Marchese del Carpio recorded many still-lifes as well. In fact, Burke and Cherry note that the values of still-life paintings increased in Spanish inventories taken in the later Seicento, though inflation would have partially contributed to these increases. Burke and Cherry, 619, 726-8. 933 De Frutos and Pons, 69-89. 338

from the School of Palma, a copy of Bassano’s Crowning with Thorns, and a History of Jacob by

Bassano himself.934

By the later seventeenth-century, works by Cinquecento artists were scarce; most of the paintings already in prominent collections were generationally inherited, rarely surfacing on the open market.935 Perhaps this is the reason why Roomer did not give Aragón any works by Titian or Tintoretto, as he did to the Conde de Castrillo approximately ten years before. Still, it is interesting to find an Ecce Homo by Luca Giordano in imitation of Titian in Aragón’s inventory listed as gifts from Roomer.936

Roomer gave the viceroy both the Ecce Homo and a Christ at the Column by Giordano, allowing him to appeal to the viceroy’s taste for Venetian painting while at the same time presenting him with an artwork by a Neapolitan artist of significant repute. Giordano was becoming increasingly popular at the Spanish court. During Castrillo’s Neapolitan viceregency, at least eleven of his works were sent to Spain, and Aragón’s brother Pascual also demonstrated interest in his paintings.937 Aragón’s appreciation of Giordano is evident through his collection and it seems that the two were on friendly terms. The viceroy’s inventory notes a “Nuestra

Señora, San Juan, el Niño y San José” by Giordano given to him by the artist himself.938 De

Frutos and Pons remark that this gift was likely an attempt by Giordano to secure future commissions from the viceroy.939 Evidently, Giordano was successful in this respect. Aragón’s inventory contains a Prodigal Son and a History of Job by the artist as well.940

934 Ibid., 69,70, 73, 76, 104-7. 935 There are enough copies of Titian and Bassano in Aragón’s inventory to indicate that he did have a preference for these artists. Yet, there are no actual works by Titian in his collection and only a few originals by Bassano, which perhaps gives credence to the view that sixteenth-century Venetian paintings were not readily available on the market. 936 De Frutos and Pons, 74, 106 937 Ibid., 55. 938 Ibid., 106. 939 Ibid., 55. 940 Ibid., 55. 339

Of even greater interest are the two paintings by Rubens given to Aragón by Roomer.

These two works – a Venus and Adonis and a Moses Giving Water to the Jews- were the only two by Rubens in the viceroy’s collection and would have been particularly esteemed in Spanish circles. Rubens had been second only to Titian in the eyes of King Philip IV of Spain. In fact, the artist came to be viewed as “el Nuevo Ticiano”, this comparison being made obvious when his

Equestrian Portrait of Philip IV was hung across from Titian’s portrait of Charles V at the Battle of Mühlberg at the Alcazár palace.941 At the post-mortem sale of Rubens’ collection in 1640,

Philip IV purchased several paintings, and he continued to collect Rubens' works as they appeared on the market.942 Even after Philip’s death in 1665, Spanish interest in Rubens persisted. Though not as avid a collector as Philip IV, his son and successor Charles II also appreciated Rubens; seventeen more paintings by the artist entered the royal collections during

Charles’ reign.943

The royal regard for Rubens influenced the collecting choices of the Spanish nobility.

Don Diego Mexía, Marquis of Leganés, was one of Rubens’ most important private patrons in

Spain. It was he who commissioned Rubens’ Immaculate Conception, today in the Museo del

Prado in Madrid; he continued to purchase works by Rubens even after the artist’s death. The

Marquis of Belmonte de Campos, Jaime de Cárdenas, also purchased a life-size St. John the

Evangelist from Rubens.944 The 1691 inventory of the tenth Admiral of Castile, Juan Gaspar

Enríquez de Cabrera, notes a “Rubens Room” in his palace that contained twenty-one of the artist’s works.945 The collection of Gaspar de Haro, seventh Marquis of Carpio, also

941Alexander Vergara, Rubens and His Spanish Patrons, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999):72- 3. 942 Ibid., 144-9. Vergaga notes that Philip was the main purchaser of works by Rubens from the artist’s collection. 943 Ibid., 169. 944 Ibid., 93, 170. 945 Though the paintings in this room are unattributed in the inventory, it is very likely that they were by Rubens, as indicated by the name of the room. Ibid., 176. 340

demonstrates an interest in Rubens; his inventory of 1687 notes sixteen works by the Flemish master.946

The Moses given by Roomer to Aragon is untraced; however, De Frutos and Pons suggest that the Venus and Adonis may be the painting of the same subject now in the

Metropolitan Museum of Art (Fig. 91).947 The painting’s emulation of Titian’s work of the same subject, now in the Museo del Prado, has been frequently noted. The Titian painting hung in the

Alcázar in Madrid during the reign of Philip IV. While Rubens may have seen it on his first trip to Spain in 1603-1604, it was during his second sojourn that he studied it carefully. It was at this time that Rubens painted numerous copies of Titian’s works, including the Venus and Adonis, for his own collection.948 As Alexander Vergara has asserted, Rubens’ understanding of himself as the heir to the Venetian artist fuelled his concentrated study of Titian’s works in Madrid and his frequent “quoting” of the master’s paintings in his own art.949 That Roomer chose a work where

Rubens so obviously drew from Titian was relevant. It reinforced the parallel between Rubens and Titian, commenting on the Spanish monarchy’s admiration of both artists and their privileged positions at court.

Choosing to present Aragón with works by Rubens was certainly a strategic decision by

Roomer. They demonstrated Roomer’s sophistication as a collector and would also reflect positively on Aragón among the Spanish nobility. The specific reasons why Roomer gave numerous paintings of high quality and value to Aragón are not explicitly documented, though

946 Ibid., 179-80 947 De Frutos and Pons, 66. The provenance for the MET’s Venus and Adonis by Rubens can only be traced from the early eighteenth century. See: Harry B. Wehle, “Venus and Adonis by Rubens,” in The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin, 33, no. 9, (Sept. 1938): 194-6. 948 Francsico Pacheco wrote twenty years after Rubens’ visit to Spain that the artist “copio todos las cosas de Ticiano que tiene el Rei...” Francisco Pacheco, Arte de la pintura su antiguidad y grandeza, Seville, 1649. Vergara mentions the reason why it is believed Rubens made these copies for himself is that in Rubens’ post-mortem inventory there is a section called “paintings made by Rubens in Spain, Italy and other places, after Titian and other famous masters.” Vergara, 98. For Rubens’ inventory see: Muller, 95- 146. 949 Vergara., 72-3. 341

Roomer’s past acts of gift giving and the implicit rules that surrounded the practice suggest that his intentions were not altruistic. De Frutos and Pons note that it can be stated with confidence that Roomer did receive favours from the viceroy in exchange for the numerous paintings the merchant added to Aragón’s collection.950 In all likelihood, the government was still relying on

Roomer’s loans. Though by this time Europe’s state of war had lessened, Spain was still at war with Portugal until 1667 and engaged in another short war with France from 1667 to 1668, not to mention the fact that the accumulated debt from the 1640s continued to burden Spain’s finances.

Perhaps Roomer wanted to ensure the government’s use of his ships and arms, or was trying to secure the repayment of his loans. Whatever Roomer’s motivation, it is clear that maintaining a positive relationship with the viceroy Aragón was of significant importance for him.

* * * * *

Political relationships between the governing body and a city’s wealthiest individual require maintenance in the form of a continuous exchange of favours. Though there may not be documentary evidence of Roomer’s associations with all of the viceroys during his lifetime, it is quite likely he established relationships with most of them. A business relationship between

Roomer and the viceroys was advantageous to both parties; the possibility of financial gains for the merchant and the dismal economic condition of the state made reciprocal agreements between

Roomer and the government appealing. In addition, his ability to donate generously to the

“caritas pubblica” practiced by the viceroys presented them all in a favourable light to the

Neapolitan public.

Of particular interest was Roomer’s use of his collecting and dealing practices to provide some of the viceroys with gifts of art. Though only the inventories of the Conde de Castrillo and

950 De Frutos and Pons, 57. 342

Pedro Antonio de Aragón have revealed specific paintings presented to these viceroys by

Roomer, it is also conceivable that he offered works of art to other viceroys as well. For example, in the 1653 inventory of the Count of Monterrey, there are described “Quatro laminas

Grandes de los quatro tiempos del bruculo Con moldura dorada y labrada.”951 It may be the case that this is the same series of paintings referred to by Capaccio as in the Roomer collection in

1630.952 The descriptions are similar: both are described as on copper (“laminas” being translated as “on copper” in this case953) and painted by Jan Brueghel. Though Brueghel did paint more than one series of the four seasons, it is plausible that Monterrey’s set did originate from

Roomer’s collection. In any case, it is plausible that Roomer’s acts of “diplomacy” were more extensive than the extant documents reveal.

951 Getty Provenance Index - http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb, accessed 17 May, 2011. Also found in: Marcus Burke and Peter Cherry, Documents for the History of Collecting: Spanish Inventories 1, Collections of Paintings in Madrid 1601-1755 (Los Angeles: Getty, 1997), 510-520. 952 Capaccio, 578. 953 Getty Provenance Index - http://piprod.getty.edu/starweb/pi/servlet.starweb, accessed 17 May, 2011. 343

Fig. 88. Cosimo Fanzago, Palazzo Donn’Anna, Posilipo, Naples

Fig. 89. Santa Maria del Piano, Naples, 17th Century

344

Fig. 90. Ospizio di San Gennaro dei Poveri, Naples, 17th Century

Fig. 91. Peter Paul Rubens, Venus and Adonis, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, mid-late 1630s

345

Chapter 8

Gaspare Roomer’s Religious Patronage and Contributions to Charity

Charitable acts benefitting the poor and sick, as well as religious institutions, were an ingrained component of Early Modern Catholic society. The Church had long tied individual and familial charitable contributions to the salvation of one’s soul.954 Within the context of the threat of the

Reformation, the Church further stressed the importance of charitable acts in opposition to

Protestant teachings that dictated heavenly rewards came not from good acts but from grace.955

The religious fervour created by Counter-Reformation efforts – which, not coincidentally, stressed the discomfort and agony of purgatory and eternal damnation – augmented donations to the needy during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.956 A plethora of charitable organizations were established during this time in addition to the numerous construction and renovation projects for religious institutions that were initiated to re-assert the supremacy of the

Church and inspire the masses. There were thus many opportunities and establishments to which individuals could give..

Especially among the wealthy elite, acts of charity were rarely performed quietly, outside of the public spotlight. Devotion to God and dedication to the betterment of society was normally

954 Christopher Black, Church, Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy, (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004), 138. 955 Ibid., 130; Leslie McGranahan, “Charity and Bequest Motive: Evidence from Seventeenth-Century Wills,” Journal of Political Economy, 108, no. 6 (December 2000), 1283. 956 Samuel K. Cohn Jr., Death and Property in Siena, 1205-1800: Strategies for the Afterlife (Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1988), 165-6. Even before the Protestant attack on Catholicism, the Church was more strongly emphasizing the religious role and obligations of the individual. However, it was only after the Council of Trent that the notion of charitable acts leading to salvation was formally included in the statutes of confraternities. Caring for the infirm was also more strongly encouraged after the Council of Trent, as the Church felt it was necessary to “win the struggle” for dying souls. See: Christopher Black, Italian Confraternities in the Sixteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 5; David Gentilcore, “ ‘Cradle of Saints and Useful Institutions’: Health Care and Poor Relief in the Kingdom of Naples,” in Health Care and Poor Relief in Counter-Reformation Europe, ed. Ole Peter Grell, et al., (London and New York: Routledge, 1999), 137; and Ole Peter Grell and Andrew Cunningham, “The Counter-Reformation and Welfare Provision in Southern Europe,” in Health Care and Poor Relief in Counter-Reformation Europe, eds. Ole Peter Grell et al. (London and NY: Routledge, 1999), 6. 346

enacted conspicuously, to the point where “civic identity, patronage, and Christian piety were inextricably linked.”957 The influx of new charitable institutions established in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries provided the rich with a very public outlet to showcase their status along with their faith.958 Like the acquisition of artworks or the embellishment of private palaces, overt displays of generosity created yet another avenue through which the wealthy could assert their prominence, promote themselves politically and ensure enduring respect and praise for their family name.

Charity in Seventeenth Century Naples

As a stronghold of the Counter-Reformation, Naples was particularly eager to build new religious and charitable institutions. The Church’s appeal to those in positions to give was well-timed not only as a strategy in assailing Reformist influence; the actual plight of the needy in Early Modern

Europe was dire. Charitable institutions that could attend to the needs of the poor were desperately required from a political standpoint; an uncontrolled poor could ignite social unrest and charitable establishments were a means of social control.959

Though the wars enacted on Italian soil in the sixteenth century – which had been a recipe for poverty, resulting in destruction, higher taxes and disease – had mostly dissipated by the following century, the residual effects of the greater European turmoil were particularly acute

957 David d’Andrea, “Charity and the Reformation in Italy: the Case of Treviso, in The Reformation of Charity: the Secular and the Religious in Early Modern Poor Relief, ed. Thomas Max Safely, (Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2003), 46. 958 That one could display their wealth and generosity so publicly in turn stimulated charitable donations. See: Sandra Cavallo, Charity and Power in Early Modern Italy: Benefactors and their Motives in Turin, 1541-1789, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 91-2. 959 On the flip side, charitable organizations also ensured that those with financial means continued their respectable comportment. See: Brian Pullman, Poverty and Charity: Europe, Italy, Venice, 1400-1700, (Aldershot: Variorum, 1994), 181. On the fear of social unrest due to poverty see: Maria Gabriella Rienzo, “Nobili e attività caritativa a Napoli nell’età moderna. L’esempio dell’Oratorio del SS. Crocifisso dei Cavalieri in S. Paolo Maggiore,” in Per la storia sociale e religiosa del mezzogiorno d’Italia, eds. Giuseppe Galasso and Carla Russo, (Naples: Guida Editori, 1982), 277-8; and Black, 2004, 141-2. 347

in Naples.960 As a principality of Spain, the Kingdom of Naples bore the brunt of the tax increases imposed by the Spanish Crown in order to finance their ongoing war in the Netherlands.

As outlined in the previous chapter, the financial state of the Kingdom was bleak, causing the government to inflict higher taxes on the populace while simultaneously sinking further and further into debt. Aggravating the economic conditions was the fact that the region was particularly threatened by natural disasters and plagues.961 Geographically, Naples was prone to earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Being a port city as well as an international hub also increased the likelihood of the plague. The overcrowding of the city further exacerbated the situation; the damage from natural calamities affected great numbers of people and the spread of disease was all the more rampant within these congested conditions.962

Such circumstances created a large population of the destitute and poor, prompting the formation of numerous charitable organizations.963 While some institutions were founded during the Middle Ages, the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries witnessed the development of numerous confraternities, hospitals, hospices and conservatories organized by lay individuals.964 Within this period Naples saw the foundation of the Ospedale degli Incurabili, the Pio Monte della

Misericordia, the Confraternity of SS. Crocifisso dei Cavalieri, the Compagnia dei Bianchi dello

Spirito Santo, the Bianchi di Giustizia, and the Conservatorio at Santa Maria al Largo del Rosario delle Pigne. Despite establishing these institutions, Naples lacked a centralized and organized plan for dealing with the city’s less fortunate until well into the seventeenth century.965 It was

960 Black, 1989, 7-9. 961 Silvana Musella, “Il Pio Monte della Misericordia e l’assistenza ai “poveri vergognosi” (1665-1724),” in Per la storia sociale e religiosa del mezzogiorno d’Italia, Giuseppe Galasso and Carlo Russo, eds, (Naples: Guida editori, 1982), 292. 962 Ibid., 192-3. See also: Black, 1989, 152-3. 963 The charitable mission of these organizations was primarily based on a chapter in Matthew 25: 35-50 that dictated one should care for the hungry and thirsty and for the naked, sick and imprisoned. These “Seven Acts of Mercy” were the subject of the painting by Caravaggio for the Pio Monte della Misericordia in 1606. See: Black, 1989, 3. 964 Ibid., 8. 965 Gentilcore, 1999, 133. 348

only when the viceroy Pedro Antonio de Aragón came to power in the 1660s that Naples saw its first government-run hospice for the poor (The Ospizio dei Poveri).

Since there were plenty of charitable institutions and building projects through which the wealthy could exact influence, charity in Naples became a practice that was inextricably linked to the denotation of one’s societal status and power. Through public donations by the living (which ensured the prestige of the donor in the present) and the public bequests of one’s will (which ensured the positive remembrance of the deceased for posterity), Naples’ elite used charitable acts not only to save their souls in the afterlife, but also to promote themselves and their families and engender reverence from other members of the upper class, politicians, the clergy and even the populace.966

The Charitable Acts of Gaspare Roomer

Roomer knew very well the benefits of charitable activity. He had been raised in Antwerp in the intense period of Catholic revival that followed the Spanish reclamation of the Southern

Netherlands in 1585.967 The iconoclasm and disdain for artistic representations of God inherent in Protestant belief were now countered with a renewed energy to patronize and donate to the

Catholic Church. Religious institutions embarked on campaigns to procure donations for costly building and decoration projects from the city’s wealthiest families. Categorizing such contributions as almsgiving, the Church promised such acts would ensure protection on earth and the salvation of one’s soul.968

966 As McGranahan states in his study of charity in England, “Perhaps it is not that individuals derive utility from the act of giving, but rather that they derive utility from being perceived as a generous, compassionate, and philanthropic individual.” See: McGranahan, 1289. 967 Bert Timmermans, “Family Agency and Networks of Patronage: Towards a Mapping of the Revival of the Family Chapel in Seventeenth-Century Antwerp,” in Family Ties: Art Production and Kinshop Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries, eds . Koenraad Brosens, et al., (Turnhout: Brepols, 2012), 195. 968 In exchange for large donations, patrons would receive something called a Lösegeld für die Sünden, ensuring God’s protection. For example, Lodewijk de Roomer received one for his contributions to the Chapel of St. Joseph (discussed in this chapter) for the Falcontinnens. It read: “[...]Think, ROOMER, how 349

The Roomer family – whose devotion to Catholicism had deepened during the years of

Protestant occupation – was eager to contribute to this revival and became strong supporters of the Falcontinnen convent.969 In particular, Roomer’ mother, Maria de Loway, was active in

Antwerp’s religious life and imbued her offspring with a similar devotional and generous spirit.

As mentioned in Chapter Two, three of Roomer’s sisters – Jacoba, Maria and Anna – became nuns at the convent of the Falcontinnen, while his fourth sister, Christina, was a gheestelycke dochter, who was dedicated to religious works and celibacy without ever formally entering a nunnery.970 Though Roomer and his brother Lodewijk were employed in the family’s commercial business, documents record that the two brothers had “imbibed virtue and devoutness under their mother’s care.”971 Maria de Loway had certainly set an ambitious example for her children to follow. In addition to the numerous material goods she donated to the Falcontinnen – which included decorative silver objects and luxurious textiles – she left the convent f. 6,000 for an annual memorial service.972

The Chapel of St. Joseph at the Falcontinnen in Antwerp

Taking their mother’s example even further, the Roomer children decided to erect a family chapel in Antwerp. While the majority of Roomer’s charity was centred on Neapolitan religious institutions, this was the one cause outside of Naples to which the merchant donated generously.

In 1633, his brother Lodewijk founded the Chapel of St. Joseph near the church of the

Falcontinnen (Fig. 92). The practical purpose of the chapel was to serve as a crypt for Lodewijk

you have won JOSEPH’s heart;/ He notices your service and accepts your present [...]/ All the more as he deigns to stand guard/ On your tomb; what does that mean but a promise/ To give you his help whenever you need it,/ His assistance when you are threatened by death? [...]. Quoted in Timermans, 2012, 202. 969 Ibid., 195. 970 Ibid., 195. 971 Quoted in Timmermans, 2012, 196. 972 Ibid., 195. 350

and his late wife Catharina Haecx, as well as for Gaspare and the four Roomer sisters.973 The act of patronizing a chapel in seventeenth-century Antwerp was imbued with meaning relating to a family’s particular social status and their desire to permanently mark their place for posterity. As

Bert Timmermans makes clear in his examination of family chapels in Antwerp, “the fact that, by showing his [the patron’s] (orthodox) belief, religious engagement and sense of community, he also created his (new) social front, must have been an attractive perspective for many a chapel founder.”974

Lodewijk’s dedication of the chapel to St. Joseph was in line with the region’s devotion to that saint. In 1679 due to the strength of the cult of St. Joseph, Flanders adopted him as the region’s patron saint. It was his “vie humble, cachée, commune en apparence, de ce grand maître de la vie intérieure” that made him a subject of veneration. In the seventeenth century, two religious orders in Flanders distinguished themselves by their strong devotion to St. Joseph: the

Discalced Carmelites and the Jesuits.975 In fact, Lodewijk’s uncles, Gaspare and Melchior de

Loway dedicated a chapel to St. Joseph in the Jesuit church. This chapel was apparently designed and decorated by Rubens.976

The founding of a family chapel had been Lodewijk’s, not Gaspare’s, idea and as such the former was responsible for all costs relating to its building, decoration and maintenance until his death in 1649. Under his supervision, the chapel celebrated its first mass on Christmas Eve of

1636. At this time, the decoration consisted mainly of works by the prominent Flemish artist

Gerard Seghers (Flemish, 1591-1651).977 Seghers had been commissioned to execute the altarpiece, which depicted the Return of the Holy Family from Egypt. In addition to this work,

973 Ibid., 189. 974 Ibid., 206. 975 V. Baesten, “1679-1879: Saint Joseph, Patron de la Belgique,“ Précis historiques. Mélanges religieux, littéraires et scientifiques 28, (1879): 129-35. 976 Ibid., 140. Melchior’s donation of f. 6,400 to the Antwerp Society of Jesus in 1620 may have been related to his patronage of this chapel. See: Timmermans, 2012, 195. 977 Among Seghers’ other notable patrons were the Jesuits in Antwerp as well as the Houtappel family, whose family chapel was considered the finest in the city. See: Timmermans, 2012, 213. 351

Seghers had painted a Dream of St. Joseph and an Adoration of the Shepherds. The choice of

Seghers reflects Lodewijk’s position within the city of Antwerp since the artist was very well known, receiving commissions from numerous religious institutions and private patrons.978

Seghers was also an interesting choice because of his Caravaggesque tendencies, a style he adopted while visiting Rome.979 The influence of the Caravaggisti is so apparent in his works that Sandrart referred to him as an artist who worked in the “Methodus Manfrediana”.980

Unfortunately, there are no extant depictions of the Holy Family returning from Egypt, but

Timmermans has identified the Adoration of the Shepherds and the Joseph’s Dream that must have been in the Roomer family chapel (Fig. 93, Fig. 94).981 These two paintings, with their dramatic chiaroscuro and graceful action would have certainly been approved of by Roomer.

There is no information on whether or not Lodewijk de Roomer owned an art collection and if so, which paintings it contained.982 Considering Gaspare and, to a lesser extent, his sister

Christina both collected works of art, it is presumable that Lodewijk did as well. He was certainly involved with Antwerp’s cultural elite, playing host to the city’s Republic of Letters.983

However, it is tempting to speculate that Gaspare was at least consulted in the selection of

Seghers as an artist for the chapel. Considering Gaspare’s involvement and knowledge of the art scene in Rome, he was probably familiar with Seghers’ works in Italy; he may have even suggested the choice of Seghers to his brother.

Under these two side paintings were landscapes by Jan Wildens (Flemish, 1585-6 – 1653) with figures by Jan Boeckhorst (German, 1605-68). Wildens was a prominent landscape artist in

978 Anne Delvingt, Gérard Seghers (1591-1651): Un peintre flamand entre Maniérisme e Caravagisme, exh. cat., (Valenciennes: Musée des Beaux-arts de Valenciennes, 2011), 20. 979 Seghers spent time in both Spain and Italy between roughly 1611 and 1620, where he was acquainted with many of Caravaggio’s followers. See: Delvingt, 33-45. 980 Sandrart, 170. 981 Both paintings are dated to c. 1636 and are in the Church of st. Vincent in Soignies. See: Timmermans, 2012, 213-4. 982 Timmermans, 2012, 213. 983 Timmermans, 2006, 349. 352

Antwerp who had worked in the studio of Rubens. His landscapes were considered rather free in their execution, peaceful in their mood and characterized by lush vegetation.984 Boeckhorst was of German descent; he arrived in Antwerp in 1633 and worked under the tutelage of Jacob

Jordaens. At some point in his career, he also appears to have worked in Rubens’ studio.985

Boeckhorst was also responsible for three images of unidentified saints found in the St. Joseph chapel. A fourth saint was said to have been sent by Gaspare from Naples, though, unfortunately, no further information is known about this work.986

Upon his death, Lodewijk bequeathed all his belongings to his sister Christina, including the family’s chapel. Her contributions to its decoration were minimal, though when she died in

1653, she willed many decorative objects, including her collection of silver, to the chapel.

Importantly, she also bequeathed to the chapel a picture of St. Joseph by Jan Brueghel, as well as portraits of her two brothers and sister-in-law, Catharina.987

After Christina’s death, the chapel fell into the hands of the Falcontinnen, who managed its activities with the funds that had been willed by Lodewijk and Christina.988 The legacy was sufficient to maintain the basic functions of the chapel in the years following their deaths, but it was not enough for further decoration. In order to continue its embellishment, the Falcontinnen solicited donations from Gaspare Roomer in Naples. Understanding the importance of this chapel for his family’s name, Roomer gave f. 14,180 between 1657 and 1671 towards its decoration.989

Some of this was used on the chapel after a fire of 1668 destroyed many of its artworks. Roomer was responsible for funding the repairs, which included new marble communion and altar rails

984 Larsen, 282. See also W. Adler, Jan Wildens: Der Landschaftsmitarbeiter des Rubens (Fridingen, 1980); Peter C. Sutton, et al., The Age of Rubens, exh. cat., (Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, and Toledo, Toledo Museum of Art, 1993-94), 559-566. 985 Larsen, 240. See also Jan Boeckhorst 1604-1668: Maler der Rubenszeit, exh. cat., Antwerp, Rubenshuis, 1990. 986 Timmermans, 2012, 213-5. 987 Ibid., 215. 988 Ibid., 211. 989 Between 1654 and 1670, f. 15,670 was spent by the Falcontinnens on the Chapel of St. Joseph. Of that, f. 9,332 was allotted for decoration. See: Timmermans, 2012, 211. 353

and a new sacristy.990 Due to Roomer’s involvement with the chapel, in 1667 Jacob Mesens dedicated to Roomer his Devote aendachtighe meditatie, which honoured St. Joseph.991

The extent to which Roomer was involved in the design of the decorative program for the

Chapel of St Joseph is unknown. The patronage undertaken by the Falcontinnen in the years succeeding the deaths of Lodewijk and Christina may have been informed by the deceased

Roomers’ prior wishes.992 However, any new ideas for decoration must have been approved by

Gaspare. Furthermore, Timmermans notes greater sophistication in the chapel’s decoration post-

1653 and mentions that Gaspare had commissioned a perspective drawing of the chapel from

Philip Fruytiers (Flemish, 1610-66) in 1660.993 Fruytiers, along with Justus van Egmont

(Flemish, 1601-74), Erasmus Quellinus (Flemish, 1607-78) and Pieter Thys (Flemish, 1624-77), was also commissioned to paint scenes from the life of St. Joseph. Additionally, twenty epitaphs were commissioned that detailed the Roomer family history. The chapel was also decorated with ornate sculpture, the commission for which was given to the Vanden Eynde family. Found in the chapel were statues of the patron saints of Lodewijk de Roomer and Catharina Haeckx, as well as eighteen busts of other saints. These latter sculptures were each labelled with the coats of arms and the names of Roomer family members.994

The Roomer chapel in Antwerp must have been an impressive statement of the family’s wealth, status and religious devotion. Whether or not Gaspare Roomer was directly involved with the decorative programme of the chapel, the merchant’s contributions to the project were

990 Ibid., 215. 991 “Aen den seer edel, achtbaren, wysen ende voor-sinnighen heere, H. Gaspare de Roomer, wenst den Autheur, met dit Boecxken van het contemplatief leven vanden Heylighen Ioseph Het becommen, van U.E. eeu wighe Salicheyt.” See: Jacob Hesens, Devote aendachtighe meditatie ende: Speculatie op het Heyligh Leven ende ghedurigh lijden vanden H. Ioseph, Bruydegom van de Alder-Heylichste Maghet Maria,” (Antwerp, 1667), dedication page. 992 TImmermans notes Lodewijk’s activities as a patron were somewhat elusive, so it is difficult to know whether or not he stipulated which artists to employ to decorate the chapel after his death. See: Timmermans, 2012, 213. 993 Ibid., 215. 994 Ibid., 213-5. 354

certainly fuelled by a desire to glorify his family. Significantly, people in Naples were also aware of Roomer’s donations to his family’s chapel in Antwerp, so that the prestige of the project could be felt among the elite in his adopted city.995 Unfortunately, the Roomer family chapel in

Antwerp is no longer in existence. The convent of the Falcontinnen to which it was attached closed down in 1784; the following year, it was ravaged by a fire which irreparably destroyed the

Roomer chapel.996 The Roomer family line had died out long before and thus, there was no one committed to repairing the chapel after the fire. Nonetheless, even in the nineteenth century, people still spoke of the beauty of the Roomer chapel of St. Joseph. As Romualdo Gentilucci wrote in 1860, “from Spain this treasure passed to Belgium, where St. Joseph chose, as the theatre of his patronage and wonder the famous city of Antwerp, in which the pious family of Roomer erected in his honour two such magnificent chapels that they are regarded as miracles of beauty.”997

The Religious Institutions in and around the Borgo dei Vergini

In Naples, Roomer became a benefactor to numerous Neapolitan churches and charities. His charitable activities were not only aimed at saving his soul – a soul which many undoubtedly believed needed saving considering his position as an arrendatore. They also had the additional benefits of ingratiating him with the Neapolitan public (who bore much of the brunt of the taxes), endearing him to politicians, denoting his social rank, and solidifying his fame for posterity.

Some of his donations were made during his lifetime – especially those designated for particular building projects. However, much of his generosity came in the form of bequests. Roomer had

995 Mastelloni writes that “che tale può dirsi quello delle Rocchettine di Anversa, quando da un incendio violuto spianto, fù rimesso in piedi buona parte per una limosina di venticinque mila scudi.” See: Mastelloni, 207. 996 TImmermans, 2012, 217. 997 I am not aware of the second chapel of which Gentilucci speaks. He may, however, be referring to the chapels’ first and second decoration. See: Romualdo Gentilucci, Life of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, (NY: Edward Dunigan, 1860), 303. 355

no heirs in Naples – his only daughter had already passed away – nor did he have any remaining family of significance in Antwerp (Lodewijk and Catharina had been childless).998 As a result, the majority of his wealth at the time of his death was given to churches and charitable causes.

Many of Roomer’s charitable contributions were directed toward the ecclesiastical establishments surrounding his Palazzo della Stella, located in the Borgo dei Vergini.999 In particular, his efforts concentrated on the Ospedale degli Incurabili and the Conservatorio of the

Rosario al Largo delle Pigne. The desire to donate to religious institutions in one’s own neighbourhood was common. Connecting oneself to a specific area through patronage was a method through which patrons could establish themselves as leaders of their communities. It forever tied them to their neighbourhoods, perpetuating their importance for posterity.

The majority of Roomer’s donations to institutions in the Borgo dei Vergini came in the form of bequests from his last will and testament.1000 Much of the money he donated was used to enhance the physical structure and appearance of a particular institution, thereby giving Roomer’s contributions an evident and enduring materiality. That Roomer’s residency and patronage in the

Borgo dei Vergini was integral to the understanding of the neighbourhood is evinced by the many

Neapolitan guidebooks that include the merchant’s name in the history of the area. Celano in

1692 comments on Roomer’s donation to the Rosario al Largo delle Pigne and then notes his nearby palace with its “1500 quadri”.1001 Authors of subsequent guidebooks also make the link

998 In general, the fewer heirs one had, the more money he or she could expend on charitable causes. See: Kathryn Norberg, Rich and Poor in Grenoble, 1600-1814, (L.A.: University of California Press, 1985), 120. 999 As mentioned in Chapter Two, Roomer acquired his Palazzo della Stella in a complicated real estate arrangement involving both Diomede Carafa, the Duke of Maddaloni and Ferrante Francesco d’Avalos, the Marchese del Vasto sometime after the Revolt of Masaniello in 1647. 1000 The church of the Rosario al Largo delle Pigne is the only exception. Roomer’s charitable contributions to this church began in 1630 with the foundation of the Conservatorio. This example is discussed in further detail later in this chapter. 1001Celano, vol. 5, 446-8. 356

between the merchant and the Borgo dei Vergini, including Giuseppe Sigismondo, Francesco

Ceva Grimaldi and Gennaro Aspero Galante.1002

La Chiesa del Rosario al Largo delle Pigne The conservatory of the Rosario al Largo delle Pigne (Fig. 95), located in the Borgo dei Vergini, was founded in 1625 by the Dominican Michele Torres; in 1630, Padre Torres purchased the nearby palaces of the Sicola and Mascambrone families in order to construct a church.1003 It was at this time that Roomer contributed 40,000 ducats to refurbish the conservatory and build the new church. Specifically, according to later sources, Roomer’s donation was used to lay the church’s foundations, to construct part of the monastery and to build the “capo la chiesa”.1004

These 40,000 ducats are the first major donation made by Roomer to a religious institution. By

1630, as proven by the bank records published by Nappi and by the merchant’s inclusion in

Capaccio’s Il Forastiero, Roomer had accumulated great wealth and was financially in a position to start engaging in religious patronage. His choice to donate to the Rosario is of interest as, by this time, Roomer had not yet moved to the Borgo dei Vergini; furthermore, the Rosario was a

Dominican church and, as his later donations would demonstrate, Roomer tended to prefer the

Carmelites. The primary impetus behind his decision to contribute 40,000 ducats to the Rosario was likely that the merchant wished to be involved with a major building project of a local religious institution. Contributing to the Rosario at its foundational stage marked the merchant as one of Naples’ most powerful and influential individuals; it was a quite a statement for his first major donation to a religious institution in his adopted city.

1002 Sigismondo, vol. 3, 84; Ceva Grimaldi, 291, 296. 1003 Giosi Amirante, Architettura napoletana tra Seicento e Settecento: L’opera di Arcangelo Guglielmelli, (Naples and Rome: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1990), 134-5; Giosi Amirante, “La Chiesa del Rosario al Largo delle Pigne,” Napoli Nobilissima, 17, (1978), 139; G.A. Galante, Guida Sacra della città di Napoli e suo contorno, (Naples: Società Editrice Napoletana, 1985), 291, 296; Celano, vol. 5, 446; Francesco Strazzullo, Edilizia e Urbanistica a Napoli dal ‘500 al ‘700, (Naples: Arturo Berisio Editore, 1968), 194; Sigismondo, vol. 3, 84; Ceva Grimaldi, 442. 1004 Sigismondo, vol. 3, 84; Celano, vol. 5, 446. 357

Roomer’s generosity towards the Rosario did not end with those 40,000 ducats in 1630; the merchant’s will also bequested 10,000 ducats to the Rosario, specifically to “spendere in servitio della fabrica di detto Conservatorio.”1005 At the time of his death, the Rosario was not yet complete, though the artist Arcangelo Guglielmelli had already drawn plans for the church’s further additions and renovations, of which Roomer was likely aware.1006 Guglielmelli executed his designs for the Rosario in the 1690s.1007 Though it is in rather derelict condition today, the

Rosario al Largo alle Pigne is a notable example of late baroque architecture, its theatricality enhanced by the statue of the Virgin and Christ Child surmounting the front portal. The “cut out” in which the Madonna and Child stand make the façade all the more dramatic and visually stimulating (Fig. 96). The figures are encased within their own portico, topped by a pediment, broken to fit the window above, and supported by the highly decorative front entrance below.

Beginning with the pilasters at the top of the portal, Guglielmelli has further created a sense of monumentality and has directed viewers to the vision of the Virgin and Child, which seemingly appears from the heavens.

Roomer’s specific request that his bequest be used toward the construction of the building is in line with his initial gift of 40,000 ducats toward physically establishing the new church. That Roomer stipulated his money be used in this way speaks to the merchant’s general interest in the architecture of the city. Though his collection was publicly recognized, it was personal. Churches were by nature public and provided an opportunity for the affluent to publically assert their wealth, while simultaneously contributing to the betterment of the community as a whole. By specifying his donation be used for church construction, Roomer was forever tying his name to the splendour of that particular institution.

1005 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/31, 408v, 421v. 1006 Sigismondo claims that Roomer left the 10,000 ducats because Guglielmelli had already prepared designs for the new church. See: Sigismondo, vol. 3, 84. 1007 A bank record records that Guglielmelli was directing work at the Rosario in 1691 and 1692. See: Nappi, 1992, 17. 358

L’Ospedale degli Incurabili

In his will of 1673, Roomer named the Ospedale degli Incurabili his universal heir, bequeathing

“miei beni, mobile, e stabili, presenti, e futuri,” as well as the revenue from some of Roomer’s arrendamenti.1008 Founded in 1519 by Maria Francesco Longo, the Ospedale degli Incurabili was established as a response to a plague called the “French pox” – that is, syphilis.1009 While its principal concern was tending to the sick, the Ospedale, like many Early Modern hospitals, had a multitude of other responsibilities, including providing poor girls with dowries and distributing food and medicine to the needy.1010 Hospitals were considered integral in housing and controlling a city’s poor.1011

Considered pious institutions, hospitals were suitable recipients for donations from wealthy private donors as well as confraternities.1012 Many of these donations came in the form of bequests.1013 Since Roomer was without heirs, his large gift to the Ospedale degli Incurabili was in line with prevailing attitudes toward charity. The exact monetary value cannot be calculated, and the Ospedale did not receive all of Roomer’s goods, since some were left to other individuals and institutions, but it appears that even after his estate was divided, the Ospedale still received a significant sum. As a sign of their gratitude, those of the Ospedale engraved an inscription in the church of Santa Maria del Popolo degli Incurabili in his honour that read:

D.O.M Gaspari Roomer Natione Belgico; Qui adeò in pauperum adjuvamen

1008 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 407r. 1009 Gentilcore, 1999, 133. 1010 Brigitte Marin, “Poverty Relief and Hospitals in Naples in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries,” in Health Care and Poor Relief in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Southern Europe, eds. Ole Peter Grell, Andrew Cunningham and Bernd Roeck, (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005), 221-2. 1011 Black, 1989, 185. 1012 Gentilcore, 1999, 137. 1013 Norberg, 4; Musella, 296. 359

Ferventi chariate exarsit. Vt illis perpetuam eleemosynam Fuit elargitus. Sacram hanc adem in asse Haredem instituens, Ejusdem sacra domus Prafecti Gratitudinis ergo, Et in tante pietatis testimonium Exiguum hoc monumentum Posuere Anno Domini MDCLXXVI.1014

This inscription was part of a memorial to Roomer sculpted for Santa Maria del Popolo degli

Incurabili by Pietro Pelliccia and Nicola Giavona in 1680.1015 Such glorification in honour of his donation would have been in line with Roomer’s expectations, as it aimed to preserve the memory of Roomer as a generous and pious individual, whose residency in Naples was beneficial to the city as a whole. Furthermore, the merchant gave fifteen grana to the church to say three masses per day in his honour.1016 The custom of leaving money to a religious institution to say masses for the soul acknowledged the Catholic Church as an intercessor and sought to affirm one’s place in heaven after death.1017 However, it also allowed the church’s congregation to be frequently reminded of one’s generosity and religious devotion.

1014 Although original building and its associated church were bombed during World War II, the inscription was recorded in the eighteenth century by Vincenzo Magnati. See: Vincenzo Magnati, Teatro della Carità, (Venice: Tivani, 1727), 69. 1015 “A 19 dicembre 1680. Nicola Fiorentino paga D.ti 20 a Pietro Pelliccia e Nicola Giavona a comp.to di D.ti 40, et in conto del prezzo del Epitaffio et altro che stanno facendo pel tumulo di Gaspare Romer per servitio della S.ta Casa Incurabili.” Published in: D’Addioso, 267. 1016 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 423r. 1017 Norberg, 125. 360

Santa Maria della Stella

A short walk from the Rosario and the Ospedale stands Santa Maria della Stella (Fig. 97), the church from which Roomer’s Palazzo della Stella derived its name. This church is much larger and more monumental than the Rosario and is home to the Immaculate Conception by Battistello

Caracciolo. Though the church was established in 1587, it continued to be renovated and embellished throughout the seventeenth century, which accounts for its appearance today.

Santa Maria della Stella was largely established by the time Roomer arrived in Naples.

This perhaps explains why Roomer was less involved with this church than he was with the

Rosario al Largo delle Pigne. However, after Roomer moved to the Borgo dei Vergini around

1656, he must have taken an interest in the operations of Santa Maria della Stella and likely formed connections with the Minim order. Thus the church of Santa Maria della Stella was included in the merchant’s will with a bequest of 500 ducats.1018 Roomer did not stipulate how the church should use this money, though it is noteworthy that Santa Maria della Stella was being renovated in the 1670s, a project in which Arcangelo Guglielmelli was also involved. In 1670,

Guglielmelli was paid by one Domenicantonio Crispino for “l’opera della Peltura et stucco et ogni altro di fabbrica nella Cappella di S. Biase dentro la Chiesa di S.a Maria la Stella in conformità delli designi.”1019 Roomer may have made his bequest with this renovation project in mind. 500 ducats was a modest amount, yet it created a further connection between Roomer and the Borgo dei Vergini.

1018 “Item lascio al d.o Vente. mon.rio di S.ta Maria della Stella dell’ord.e de Minimi di San Fran.co de Paula docati cinque centro pro una vice tantum.” A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 414v. 1019 Document published in D’Addioso, 65. The renovations that were carried out during this time may account for why Blunt believes the construction of the church began in the seventeenth, rather than in the sixteenth century. 361

Santa Maria della Vita

When Roomer died in 1674, his will stipulated that he be buried in the Carmelite church of Santa

Maria della Vita in the chapel of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi.1020 Santa Maria della Vita was a rather modest church, but it was Roomer's parish church in the Borgo dei Vergini, and most likely the one he frequented most often.

Roomer bequeathed to Santa Maria della Vita a total of 9,000 ducats.1021 Two-thirds of this donation was intended to glorify and celebrate Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi. The merchant specified that 3,000 ducats should be used to embellish her chapel (which housed his gravesite) and that another 3,000 be used to celebrate her feast day. With these donations,

Roomer ensured his place in heaven, while at the same time further established the association of his name with the veneration of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi.

The last 3,000 ducats were to be directed toward Roomer’s burial site. Santa Maria della

Vita carried out Roomer’s wishes when, in November 1674, they paid Antonio Ragozzino and

Giovanni Battista Scala to execute the merchant’s tomb.1022 In 1680, the church commissioned

Pietro Pelliccia to complete the epitaph.1023 Unfortunately, the church of Santa Maria della Vita was vacated by the Carmelites during the French occupation of Naples in the early nineteenth century. It was at this time that Roomer’s tomb had likely been dismantled, as the church had turned into a candle and porcelain factory.1024 Though the church was eventually restored in

1836, it is currently abandoned and inaccessible to the public.

It is unfortunate that no semblance of Roomer’s tomb remains, as it would have been an indication of how the merchant hoped to be remembered for posterity. In any case, Roomer’s

1020 A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 409v. 1021 Ibid., ff. 409v, 416r, 417r. 1022 “A 16 novembre 1674. Fra Giuseppe Scotto paga D.ti 20 a comp.to di D.ti 50 ad Antonio Raunzino o Ragonzino e Gio. Battista Scalè per l’opera del tumolo fatto nella chiesa di S. Maria della Vita et proprie nella cappella di S. Maria Maddalen de’Pazzi del quondam Gaspare Romer, giusta istr.to 19 settembre 1674 per n.r. Filippo Mezzacapo.” Published in D’Addosio, 275-6. See also: Nappi, 1992, 159. 1023 Nappi, 1992, 158. 1024 Galante, 309, 326. 362

bequests to Santa Maria della Vita again reinforced his importance and dedication to the community of the Borgo dei Vergini.

Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi

By far the most fortunate recipient of Roomer’s donations was the monastery of Santa Maria

Maddalena de’Pazzi (Fig. 98). The church was founded under the name Santa Teresa del SS.

Sacramento in 1632 by Camilla Antinori.1025 In 1600, Antinori had visited Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, who was then residing at Santa Maria degli Angeli in Florence, and received her approval to found a Carmelite monastery in Naples. In 1642, after the death of Antinori, Giulia

Nave, a Sicilian resident in Naples, purchased some of the real estate around the original church and donated funds to build a monastery. The monastery of Santa Teresa del SS. Sacramento was inaugurated in 1644. It was not until 1673 that its name was changed to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi del SS. Sacramento.1026

Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was born in Florence in 1566. Her saint-like qualities were apparently evident while she was still young, often offering food to the poor or incarcerated and teaching prayers to other children. She was also especially devoted to St. Catherine of Siena, which was suitable as her name was originally Caterina. At age sixteen she joined the Carmelite

Order, entering into the monastery of Santa Maria degli Angeli.1027 It was as a nun that she underwent her mystical experiences, claiming to engage in conversation with God in a state of ecstasy. Unlike the more prominent mystic, St. Teresa d’Avila, Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi did not wish to publicly reveal her encounters with God. She herself did not write of these

1025 Strazzullo, 1968, 194. 1026 Giocchino Fornaro, Brevi cenni storici intorno alla chiesa di S. Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi del SS.mo Sacramento in Napoli., (Naples, 1934), 11. 1027 Vincenzo Puccini, The Life of the Holy Venerable Mother Suor Maria Maddalena de Patsi. A Florentine Lady and Religious of the Order of the Carmelites, trans. Tobie Matthew, 1619. Puccini was Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi’s confessor. His biography contributed to her beatification in 1626. 363

experiences; rather, her fellow sisters recorded what she said during her mystical states.1028 In addition to these visions, Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was also believed to have healing powers and to have prayed to God, upon the death of a fellow sister, to punish her for the sins of the deceased. It was from these actions that she was considered an individual of charitable selflessness.1029

What initiated Roomer’s particular devotion to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi is somewhat a mystery. In his publication on the Neapolitan church of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, Mastelloni recounts that Roomer attributed his escape from imminent death on two occasions to the intercessory powers of this particular saint. The first occurred during the Revolt of Masaniello, when Roomer sought refuge from the furious masses on one of his ships in the harbour. The weather was tumultuous – a serious storm threatened his life on the boat -- and the safe passing of the storm without harming the men on the ship was credited to the intercessory powers of Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi. The second instance was during the plague of 1656.

Retiring to his villa in Posilipo, Roomer fell dangerously ill. Praying to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi and holding a figurine of the saint that had actually touched her body, Roomer miraculously regained his strength.1030 These stories demonstrate Roomer’s resounding faith in the saint, but they do not explain what initiated this devotion in the first place.

The earliest documented indication of Roomer’s interest in the saint was his 1646 donation to the Carmelites of SS. Sacramento, upon which he expressed his desire to change the

1028 Armando Maggi notes that Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi in fact ordered the sisters to burn their records of her mystical experiences. The saint’s desire to maintain her privacy was in keeping with the new Counter-Reformation attitude toward female mystics that dictated that “total humility and moral integrity” be valued, rather than “stigmata and prophecy.” See: Armando Maggi, Uttering the Word: The Mystical Performances of Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, a Renaissance Visionary, (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998), 9-10. In another publication, Maggi states that Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi did help to edit the records of her experiences taken by other nuns under pressure from her confessor, Puccini. See: Armando Maggi, Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, Selected Revelations, (New York: Paulist Press, 2000), 11. 1029 Molly G. Morrison, “Strange Miracles: A Study of the Peculiar Healings of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi,” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, 8, no. 1, (Winter 2005), 130-8. 1030 Mastelloni, 268-9. 364

name of the church from Santa Teresa del SS. Sacramento to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi. It was also at this time that his daughter entered the Carmelite order, taking the name of Sister

Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi.1031 It therefore appears that the Roomer family’s reverence for this yet-to-be-canonized saint predates 1646. It seems likely that the merchant would have been interested in Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi at least since she was beatified by Urban VIII in 1626.

The very fact that Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was in the process of canonization may have been appealing to Roomer. During the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries numerous individuals were awarded sainthood. This was a result of many Counter-Reformation efforts, including saints like Ignatius Loyola, Francis Xavier and Carlo Borromeo. While Maria

Maddalena de’Pazzi was not an activist of Catholicism’s response to the Reformist threat, her identification as a mystic contributed to a significant trend in Counter-Reformation Catholicism.

Perhaps most significantly, Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was tied through her mysticism and as a Carmelite to the Spanish saint, Teresa of Avila, canonized in 1622. Teresa of Avila’s writings had brought international attention to the Order of the Discalced Carmelites in the sixteenth century, influencing the establishment of various convents dedicated to the Order.1032

She was a symbol of Spanish religious devotion and was in fact the co-patron saint of Spain.1033

As a method of asserting and reinforcing their influence, the Spanish promoted the cult of St.

Teresa of Avila and the Discalced Carmelites in Italy. In Naples in particular, not only was the convent of Santa Teresa del SS. Sacramento founded under the Carmelite Order, but so too were the convents of Santa Teresa a Chiaia and San Giuseppe delle Scalze a Pontecorvo. Two

1031 Emilio Ricciardi, “Chiese Seicentesche tra Vomero e Arenella,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano, (2001), 120. 1032 James S. Amelang, “Exchanged between Italy and Spain: Culture and Religion,” in Spain in Italy: Politics, Society and Religion 1500-1700, eds. Thomas James Dandelet and John A. Marino, (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 450. 1033 Alison Weber, Teresa of Avila and the Rhetoric of Femininity, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990), 17. 365

viceroys, the Count of Oñate and the Count of Peñaranda, served as patrons to Santa Teresa a

Chiaia; the Count of Peñaranda also patronized San Giuseppe delle Scalze.1034

Championing a new Carmelite saint so closely connected to St. Teresa of Avila could have therefore also been a political choice for Roomer. In line with his cultivation of good business relations with viceroys, his patronage of the convent of Santa Teresa del SS. Sacramento and his promotion of Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi would have been viewed favorably by the

Spanish viceregal government, as it was in concert with their own efforts to promote Neapolitan devotion to the Carmelites. Indeed, King Charles II himself took an interest in the festivities for the canonization of Maria Maddalena de'Pazzi, which took place in 1669.1035

Celebrating the Canonization of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi

Devotion to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi would have provided Roomer with opportunities to contribute to canonization celebrations. Such festivals were very public events and Roomer’s monetary participation in such a celebration allowed him to publicize his devotion to Santa Maria

Maddalena de’Pazzi in other Italian cities, while at the same time he became recognized as a figure of substantial wealth and power.

Naturally, the largest celebration took place in the saint's native city, Florence.

Celebrations were planned for Easter of 1669. Carmelite churches and monasteries – in particular

Santa Maria degli Angeli – organized lavish festivities that continued into the summer months.1036

Her canonization offered the opportunity to decorate Florence’s church of Santa Maria

1034 Sebastian Schütze, “The Politics of Counter-Reformation Iconography and a Quest for the Spanishness of Neapolitan Art,” in Spain in Italy: Politics, Society and Religion 1500-1700, eds. Thomas James Dandelet and John A. Marino, (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007), 566-7. 1035 Piero Pacini, “Firenze 1669: un ‘teatro sacro” per Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi,” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz, 36, (1992), 129. Though the celebrations occured in 1669, Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was officially canonized in 1668. 1036 Ibid., 130. 366

Maddalena de’Pazzi. Expense was not sparred; the Florentine Carmelites had put aside 33,104 scudi in 1668 for this express purpose.1037

Archival documentation published by Pietro Pacini indicates that the majority of the canonization expenses were funded through donations from the Florentine public. However,

Roomer seized the opportunity to contribute to the events; he is the only “napoletano” mentioned in the records published by Pacini. The amount of his first donation is unspecified. Rather, it is lumped together with other individual donations totalling 238 lire. The document records

Roomer paid for five masses during the festivities.1038 Perhaps more significant is the second donation he made, described as one of two remarkable donations (the other being given by an anonymous individual who was “devote alla Santa”): Roomer contributed 1225 lire to the celebrations.1039 The specific purpose of this donation is unspecified, but it was evidently significant enough to consider it “rimarchevoli.” The merchant’s name is mentioned a third time, among members from the prestigious Corsini and Riccardi families, for a donation of 576 lire.

Again, the specific purpose is not recorded.

In his laudatory eulogy of the merchant, Father Andrea Mastelloni recounts many of

Roomer’s charitable donations, including those he gave to Santa Maria degli Angeli in Florence.

Mastelloni notes that Roomer gave 1700 scudi to adorn the chapel of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi in the Florentine church, along with another 1500 scudi for the festivities relating to the saint's canonization. In addition to these funds, Mastelloni reports that Roomer gave a further

500 scudi toward a lamp with detailed silverwork to decorate the sanctuary in Florence where her body was put on display for the public, and another 6600 scudi to venerate her tomb.1040 These donations recounted by Mastelloni are clearly more substantial than those in the archival

1037 Ibid., 129. 1038 “Rev. Domenico Magni per 5 messe orginate dal benefattore napoltano Gaspar de Roomer.” Published in Pacini, 1992, 191. 1039 “Due elemosine rimarchevoli: L. 1225.-.-.- da parte del Signore Gaspare de’Roomer Napoltano, e L. 1000 un signore ‘devoto alla Santa’.” Published in Pacini, 1992, 191. 1040 Mastelloni, 208. 367

documents found by Pacini and signify the full extent of Roomer’s contributions to Florence’s canonization events. Clearly, Roomer used the festivities in Florence as a means to conspicuously demonstrate his devotion to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi. Being the only individual from Naples to donate to Florence’s celebrations, Roomer was signalling himself as one of the former city’s most prominent patrons.

It appears that Roomer also contributed financially to the celebrations for the saint's canonization in Rome. The Biblioteca Nazionale in Rome houses a manuscript that was dedicated to Roomer by an unidentified author in 1670. The manuscript – Breve relatione delle feste fatte per la canonizatione di S. Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi e di alcuni miracoli operati per intercessione, e invocatione della medesima – specifically mentions Roomer as its recipient:

“Scritta al Signore Gaspare Roomer, dimorante in Napoli.”1041 The author explains in his dedication that Roomer’s “constante divotione” to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi warranted a brief recount of the festivities in Rome held in honour of her canonization.1042 While not explicitly mentioning any donation from Roomer, the very existence of the manuscript suggests that the merchant did indeed contribute to the Roman celebrations.

The manuscript describes in detail the events that took place in the Carmelite institutions in Rome, as well as those within the Florentine national church of San Giovanni di Fiorentini.

The processions, the music, the decoration – all was elaborate. The author notes that a particular celebration that occurred in October cost over 3000 scudi.1043 Special note was made of some of the more important attendants at the event: Cardinals Francesco and Carlo Barberini and

Cardinal Giacomo Rospigliosi. A donation from Roomer may have intended to expedite his appeal to the papal court that the Neapolitan church of Santa Teresa del SS. Sacramento should officially change its name to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi. That the manuscript mentions the

1041 Breve relatione delle feste fatte per la canonizatione di S. Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi e di alcuni miracoli operati per intercessione, e invocatione della medesima, (Rome, 1670), title page. 1042 Ibid., A2. 1043 Ibid., 45. 368

presence of Cardinal Rospigliosi at the canonization ceremony is especially significant. The reigning pope at the time of Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi’s canonization was Giulio Rospigliosi –

Clement IX – whose approval was necessary for the church’s name change. Roomer’s conspicuous gift to the saint’s canonization celebrations in Rome was thus somewhat politically motivated. Nevertheless, Roomer’s request to change the church's name would not be granted until 1673, under pope Clement X (Emilio Altieri).

Most important for Roomer’s reputation were the celebrations for the saint undertaken in

Naples where Roomer’s influence was paramount. However, the celebrations in the southern city were less extravagant than those organized in Florence and Rome; the saint was not particularly popular in Naples. Mastelloni records in his eulogy that Roomer gave 600 scudi to the canonization festivities of the Church of Santa Maria della Vita, with an additional 6000 scudi to celebrate Santa Maria Maddalena de’ Pazzi’s feast day in the following years.1044

Roomer’s Donations to the Church of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi in Naples

Recent beatifications and canonizations also entailed the building or embellishing of religious institutions. Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi provided Roomer with a cause: to give the saint a presence within Neapolitan society. After his donation in 1646, Roomer’s next large contribution to the church was in 1665, when he donated 75,000 ducats.1045 The intention of this donation was to further aggrandize the church of Santa Teresa del SS. Sacramento in the name of Santa Maria

Maddalena de’Pazzi. At this time, Roomer was actively lobbying for the church to change its name and was also promoting the canonization of the future saint. Such a large donation could strengthen his cause.

1044 Mastelloni, 208. 1045 A.S.N., Monasteri Soppressi, 4600, ff. 131r-140r; A.S.N., Monasteri Soppressi, 4603, ff. 13r-v. See also Fornaro, 11 (however, he confuses ducats for scudi, saying Roomer gave Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi 75,000 scudi, though the archival documents indicate the currency used was the ducat). 369

As mentioned, the monastery of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi in Naples received the bulk of Roomer’s estate in 1674. He bequeathed an annuity of 5,250 ducats to the monastery as part of the 75,000 ducats he had promised in 1665 (evidently, he did not pay the enormous sum all at one time).1046 Except for his palace at Monteoliveto, all of Roomer’s residences were given to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi.1047 This included his primary residence –Palazzo della

Stella. With this palace he bequeathed “tutti questi beni mobili, e suppelleti di casa ch’à tempo della mia morte si ritroveranno nelle mie case tanto nelle case che furono del Sig.r Duca di

Mataloni” which included “sorte de mobili e suppelettili, et adobamenti tanto di seta, quanto di lana, lino, panni di razza, trabacche, scrittorÿ, specchi, quadri grandi e piccoli, matarazzi, coperte, lenzola, carozze, mule, cavalli, et altri quals.mo animali, e tutt’altri mobili e suppellettili.”1048 In addition, specific mention was made that the church receive all of his silverwork as well.1049

Roomer’s will instructed Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi to sell his paintings, with the exception of the paintings from his private chapel, including the one of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi and the altarpiece by Giacinto Brandi.1050 While the monastery was to receive the majority of the profits, the merchant stipulated some of the money be given to his numerous servants. The remaining funds were then supposed to be directed toward embellishing and preserving the monastery of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi.1051

1046 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Pietro Colacino, 298/39, f. 408v. 1047 “Item lascio al d.o Vente Mo.rio di S.a Maria Madalena de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to tutte l’altre mie case ch’a presente possedo in qualo.no luoghi, che siano et anco quelle ch’a tempo della mia morte forsi possederó...” See: A.S.N. Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 409v. 1048 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Pietro Colacino, 298/39, f. 410v. 1049 Ibid., ff. 409r-409v. 1050Ibid., ff. 411r, 412v; in 1676, Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi paid Giordano to appraise the works sold by the monastery. See: Nappi, 1992, 77. The painting by Brandi was transferred to the monastery as per Roomer’s request shortly after his death, but it later appears in the inventory of Ferdinand Vandeneynden. Vandeneynden must have either convinced Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi to give him the painting or the church may have eventually gone against Roomer’s wishes and sold the work. For the transfer of the Brandi painting to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, see: A.S.N., Monasteri Soppressi, 4600, ff.224r-225r; for Vandeneynden’s inventory see: Ruotolo, 1982, 34. 1051 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Pietro Colacino, 298/39, ff. 411r, 412r. 370

Roomer’s donation allowed the monastery to re-stucco the building, improve the cupola and commission fresco decoration.1052 The frescoes were executed by Giovanni Battista

Beinaschi, one of the foremost Neapolitan painters of the day. Luca Giordano painted the main altarpiece, as well as some additional works for the side chapels.1053 In 1679, Domenico de

Marino was commissioned to execute some paintings for the monastery and almost twenty years later in 1697 the architect Giuseppe Lucchese executed designs for a new cloister.1054 Later architectural alterations were designed by Giuseppe Astarita and Pompeo Schiantarelli.1055

Roomer’s generosity toward the church of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi was rewarded with a highly public and grandiose funeral. The event is memorialized in 1675 by Padre

Andrea Mastelloni, who dedicated an entire section of his publication, La prima chiesa dedicata a

S. Maria Maddalena de Pazzi, to Roomer and his role in establishing the church. To mourn the loss of Roomer’s life and to celebrate his dedication to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, the facade of the church was draped in black, so that “[la] Chiesa era apparata di lutto da terra fino al tetto.”1056 Hanging between the columns outside of the church were allegorical representations of the virtues of Charity and Religion, as it was these traits that Roomer best exhibited during his life by donating both to fight poverty and to glorify the church through architectural embellishment. The interior of the church was decorated with the Roomer family coats of arms and more black draperies.1057 All of Naples would have been aware that one of the city’s most charitable individuals had been lost.

Despite its illustrious history and the active involvement of such a notable patron as

Roomer, the church of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi is a modest parish church today. From the street, it is easy to miss, its facade more or less blending into the surrounding buildings. Its

1052 Fornaro, 12. 1053 Galante, 1872, 407; Sigimondo, vol. 3, 96 1054 Nappi, 1992, 17, 57. 1055 Galante, 279; Blunt, 1975, 161. 1056 Mastelloni, 186. 1057 Ibid., 187, 189. 371

interior has been whitewashed; most traces of the consequences of Roomer’s donations have disappeared, leaving only remnants of the seventeenth and eighteenth century architectural renovations. Its dome, hidden from public view, and its facade reveal the effects of time and neglect. What was once the convent is now modernized apartments. Though Santa Maria

Maddalena de’Pazzi was never a grandiose church, it is now only a shade of its former self.

Nonetheless, well into the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, writers still acknowledged

Roomer’s contributions to this church.1058

* * * * *

Roomer’s charitable contributions extended beyond those instances explored in this chapter. He made other donations to religious institutions including those to the Pietà dei Turchini (discussed in Chapter 4), to Santa Maria del Pianto and the Ospizio dei Poveri (both examined in Chapter 5).

And not all of his charity was so resolutely conspicuous, that is politically and socially motivated.

In his will, Roomer bequeathed small sums to particular nuns at Santa Maria del Soccorso and at the Rosario al Largo delle Pigne, many of his servants and even his barber.1059 He also bequeathed his palace at Monteoliveto to various poor labourers in the nearby parish of San

Giuseppe. The money was to be used to pay for their daughters’ dowries.1060 There is even mention of a poor woman who lived in a room above the grand entrance to his Palazzo della

Stella.1061 Roomer was clearly not entirely motivated by prestige. However, in general, he

1058Aside from the Neapolitan guidebooks in which his name appears in regards to Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi (Sigimondo,etc..), it also appears in: Acta Sanctorum, vol. VI, (Paris and Rome: APVD Victorem Palme, 1866), 176, 319-20. 1059 A.S.N, Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 408v; A.S.N., Montessori Soppressi, 4600, ff. 274r- 275r. 1060 A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39, f. 407v. 1061 Ibid., f. 409v. 372

strategically used his financial ability to make significant donations to various charitable and religious organizations to his benefit – to denote his influence and to establish his legacy.

373

Fig. 92. Engraving of the interior of the St. Joseph’s Chapel, title page, Magno Patri Iosepho

Fig. 93. Gerard Seghers, Adoration of the Shepherds, Church of St. Vincent, Soignies, c. 1636

374

Fig. 94. Gerard Seghers, Dream of Joseph, Church of St. Vincent, Soignies, c. 1636

Fig. 95. Rosario al Largo delle Pigne, Naples

375

Fig. 96. Rosario al Largo delle Pigne, detail, Naples

Fig. 97. Santa Maria della Stella, Naples

376

Fig. 98. Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, Naples

377

Chapter 9

Conclusion

“E che mi hai preso Gasparo Romolo?”1062

So countered Neapolitan collectors when an artist requested a high purchase price for a work of art. Gaspare Roomer’s activities as a collector, patron and art dealer had risen to proverbial heights in Seicento Naples. While collectors would use the expression – “Do you take me for a

Roomer” – as a negotiating tool to elicit cheaper prices from the seller, the phrase itself stands as an indication of Roomer’s influence within Naples’ cultural sphere. It succinctly encapsulates his effect on the art market and collecting practices, hinting at a rise in prices due to the immense means of the formidable Flemish collector, and acknowledges his centrality within Naples’ collecting milieu. De Dominici, who records this proverb, then goes on to praise Roomer as a discerning connoisseur, a collector who sought only the best artworks, a “veracissimo esempio del vero ed intelligente dilettante.”1063 He was an example for all other collectors in Naples to follow.

In turn, identifying and understanding how Roomer achieved such proverbial fame was my goal with this thesis. My study aimed to illuminate Roomer’s place within Naples’ art market and collecting and artistic community, for although the merchant is revered by early writers such as De Dominici, he had been given relatively little scholarly attention. To achieve this aim, I collated and analyzed previously unknown archival documents, published records, artist biographies, guidebooks, and the most relevant secondary sources. Unlike previous studies of

Roomer, my research brought together both Italian and Northern sources to provide a more complete picture of the merchant’s art dealing, collecting and patronage activities. Roomer was a

1062 De Dominici, vol. 3, 72. 1063 Ibid., 72. 378

Flemish foreigner living in the capital of the Kingdom of Naples. It was my goal to reflect both of these cultural identities, as they were both integral to an understanding of his practices.

As a consequence of this case study, the multifaceted and complex ways patronage and collecting and dealing paintings were understood in seventeenth-century Neapolitan society were elucidated and examined. Seicento Naples was teeming with artistic activity and interested collectors. It was home to a bustling art market that welcomed artworks from all over Italy and

Northern Europe. The emergence of prosperous merchants like Roomer as important political players, charitable donors, collectors and art dealers altered the nature of all of these cultural activities. One’s financial means, and how one publicly presented and utilized those means, was a ticket to noble status and political influence. Exploring this new cultural reality was another goal of this thesis.

Each chapter of the text explores a particular aspects of Roomer’s life, business endeavours, collecting, patronage and charitable practices. Chapter Two examines the background of how Roomer achieved his wealth. The nature of mercantile activity in seventeenth-century Europe brought Roomer from Antwerp to Naples and political circumstances required he adapt his business interests accordingly. Evidently, Roomer had great acumen in this regard. Though remaining involved in mercantile commerce until almost the end of his life, shifting his priorities to include financing the viceregal government allowed Roomer to expand his wealth and increase his political influence. I also sought to stress the importance of commercial networks and the role of familial and regional bonds. These were integral to

Roomer’s overall success and connected to his art dealing practices. It was his immense wealth that permitted (or even required) Roomer to collect paintings and patronize political officials and religious institutions.

The particulars of Roomer’s art dealing activities occupied the bulk of Chapter Three.

Beginning with an historical overview of the development of the open art market in Early Modern

379

Europe, I examined the differences between the art markets in Antwerp, Rome, Venice and

Naples. A fairly open market for art developed in the Southern Netherlands in the sixteenth century, but evolved according to political and religious circumstances. Italian cities were at first less accepting of an open art market than their Northern counterparts; however, an influx of foreigners, including artists, merchants and collectors, precipitated a change in attitudes and practice, while also broadening the market for 'modern' pictorial types such as still life and landscape.

I then delved into Roomer’s place within these market conditions. In Chapter Three

Roomer emerges as a crucial figure within the Neapolitan art market and in the cultural exchange between Naples and Rome, Naples and Venice, and Naples and Antwerp. His art dealing endeavours reflected his relationship with many Neapolitan artists and his deep interest and appreciation of their work. At the same time, these activities illuminate how paintings were used as a kind of “currency” within general mercantile trade. Art dealers and merchants like Roomer found no contradiction in their reverence for art and their ability to treat it as a commercial product. He represents a change in the Early Modern Italian attitude toward art dealing that was reflected and made possible by Naples’ relatively relaxed regulations in this regard.

The fourth chapter situated Roomer within his Neapolitan and Flemish contexts, while simultaneously emphasizing his particularities as a collector. To begin, I examined the most important groups of collectors in Naples – viceroys, aristocrats and the bourgeois – hoping to demonstrate how someone like Roomer was able to thrive in such an environment. For an ambitious individual in his position, as a wealthy foreign merchant, collecting paintings was an important means of constructing his image.

Much of Chapters Four and Five and Six centred on how Roomer’s collection shaped and was shaped by the Neapolitan artistic scene. Rooted in his Flemish upbringing, Roomer’s avant- guarde approach to collecting – accumulating the “modern” genres and works by Northern

380

European artists much earlier than most other Neapolitan collectors – inspired the city’s artists to experiment with new genres and styles. It was partially due to his influence that Naples became a centre for still life, battle scene and prospettive paintings. His possession of Rubens’ Feast of

Herod alone brought about a profound change in the way Neapolitan painters approached subject matter and style. And yet, at the same time, the works of Neapolitan artists also influenced

Roomer’s tastes. Depictions of violence and the saintly abounded in Naples and as such are well- represented in Roomer’s collection, not only by Neapolitan artists, but by other Italian and

Northern painters as well. In addition to importing works by Northern artists, Roomer exported

Italian paintings abroad and supported the careers of important local artists such as Falcone and

Giordano.

Another theme that I sought to highlight was Roomer’s use of his collection as a means to convey social distinction. Collecting as a vehicle to demonstrate status was firmly rooted in both

Flemish and Neapolitan cultures. This motivation for his collecting informed many of Roomer’s decisions in this regard, though he never appears to stray from his personal tastes to satisfy this motive. Works by Cinquecento artists were highly prized among elite collectors, yet Roomer acquired very few of them.1064 Rather, he chose to demonstrate his sophistication as a collector and his elite position by acquiring the works of the most talented and reputed artists of the genres he appreciated. That is, he owned landscape works by Claude and Bril; still life pictures by the

Ruoppolo and Recco families; battle scenes by Falcone; and religious and profane history paintings by Ribera, Van Dyck, Rubens, Stanzione, Preti and Giordano. The boundless creativity showcased by talented seventeenth-century artists offered many nouveau riche patrons like

Roomer the opportunity to accumulate a distinguished collection. Indeed, the growth and significance of his collection is a product of the cultural climate of seventeenth-century Naples, which was rich enough to nourish a personality such as Roomer’s.

1064 Though sixteenth-century pictures were certainly less accessible during Roomer’s time, he proved he could obtain them, as demonstrated by his gifts to the Conde de Castrillo. 381

Chapter Seven aimed to move beyond Roomer’s dealing and collecting activities to elucidate how Roomer nurtured his relationship with many of Naples’ viceroys using a variety of cultural means. His activities exemplify the Early Modern understanding of “diplomacy” exercised through the exchange of gifts and favours. Reciprocity of favours was an implicitly understood practice that Roomer exploited to his benefit. By donating to architectural and social projects championed by particular viceroys, Roomer ensured his mercantile business could operate smoothly and that his loans to the government would be repaid. Perhaps more interesting were his gifts of paintings to two viceroys, the Conde de Castrillo and Pedro Antonio Aragón, who presumably “thanked” Roomer by granting him particular favours and using their influence on his behalf. Understanding the taste and motivations for viceregal collecting, Roomer was able to maintain mutually beneficial relationships with these Spanish envoys. These gifts demonstrate

Roomer's insight into the machinations and inner-workings of Naples’ political sphere within the larger context of the Spanish Empire.

The eighth chapter articulated another aspect of Roomer’s patronage: his charitable donations. The intention of this chapter was to demonstrate yet another way in which Roomer’s influence permeated Neapolitan society. It also explored how some of Roomer’s donations and bequests were to intended to improve the city’s churches and other religious institutions, which were often in desperate need of financial attention. Central to this chapter was the inextricability of piety, influence and charitable contributions. Roomer masterfully organized his charitable donations in order to fulfill his personal devotional goals, engender public respect and further cement his societal position in the present and for posterity. Many of these donations contributed indirectly to his impact as a patron of the arts by providing funds for artistic activities ranging from ephemeral celebrations to architectural construction.

The organization of this thesis into chapters addressing Roomer’s varied accomplishments was necessary to provide a framework through which the merchant’s diverse

382

cultural activities could be understood. However, such categorization by definition isolates these activities from each other, when in reality, they were very much interconnected. Thus, I have attempted to demonstrate that Roomer’s collecting, dealing, patronage and financial and mercantile practices were intricately intertwined and often impossible to separate. Some of the paintings Roomer imported or acquired could be intended for sale or as a gifts, but found their way into his permanent collection, or vice versa. The works of the artists who appear most frequently in his permanent collection were also those he regularly exported to elsewhere in

Europe. Donations to charities were not given for altruism or faith alone, but also to gain political and public favour. Debts incurred from his mercantile practices could be satisfied through artworks, and gifts of art could secure political and cultural influence. Roomer viewed paintings as objects of veneration and as commodities, as a means to inspire young artists and to curry political favour. Above all, Roomer’s art dealing, collecting, patronage and financial and mercantile activities were utilized by the merchant as tools of self-promotion. Indeed, the efficacy of his decisions in these respects within this “società in continua esibizione” effectively elevated the foreign bourgeois merchant to the status of an aristocrat. He established himself as the most respected and knowledgeable connoisseur and collector in Naples, which translated directly into his place within the social hierarchy. Literary references indicate that he remained a legendary figure in Neapolitan society for centuries. Indeed, few seventeenth-century collectors can claim such proverbial fame.

383

Bibliography

Archival Sources

Archivio di Stato di Firenze (A.S.F.)

Carteggi d’artisti, 21.

Società mercantile olandese, 11-23; 33-34

Archivio di Stato di Genova (A.S.G.)

Notai Antichi, Bartolomeo Boretto, no. 6144, 6225, 6226.

Notai Antichi, Gio. Batta. Banchero, 6338, 6339.

Archivio di Stato di Napoli (A.S.N)

Notai del ‘600, Giovanni Battista dell’Aversana, scheda 295, protocollo 34.

Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, scheda 29, protocollo 31 & protocollo 39.

Monasteri Soppressi, 4600, 4601, 4603

Archivio di San Giuliano dei Fiamminghi

Héritage de Johanne Mueseur, VI

Archivio Capitolino, Roma

Apoche, vol. 2 (1625-1627), no. 173

Rijksarchief Antwerpen (R.A.A.)

Falcontinnen, 15, 29 I & II, 81, 91, 94

Stadtsarchief Antwerpen (S.A.A.)

I.B., 22, 24, 29, 33, 35, 42, 69, 87, 128, 196

K.K., 741, 767, 906, 907

P.K., 733, 734

384

Published Works

Acton, Harold. “Preface to the London Edition.” In Painting in Naples 1606-1705: From Caravaggio to Giordano, edited by Clovis Whitfield and Jane Martineau. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1983, 15-8.

Adler, W. W. Jan Wildens: Der Landschaftsmitarbeiter des Rubens. Fridingen, 1980.

Ago, Renata. “Five Industrious Cities.” In Painting for Profit, edited by Richard Spear and Philip Sohm, 255-274. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010.

Aikema, Bernard. Jacopo Bassano and His Public: Moralizing Pictures in an Age of Reform, ca. 15351600, translated by Andrew P. McCormick. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996.

Alabiso, Annachiara. “Aniello Falcone’s Frescoes in the Villa of Gaspar Roomer at Barra.” Burlington Magazine 131 (Jan. 1989): 31-6.

Algazi, et al., eds. Negotiating the Gift: Premodern Figurations of Exchange. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 2003.

Allerston, Patricia. “The Second-Hand Trade in the Arts in Early Modern Italy.” In The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII, edited by Marcello Fantoni, Louisa C. Matthew and Sara F. Matthews-Grieco, 301-12. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003.

Amelang, James S. “Exchanges between Italy and Spain: Culture and Religion.” In Spain in Italy: Politics, Society and Religion 1500-1700, edited by Thomas James Dandelet and John A. Marino, 434-55. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007.

Amirante, Giosi. “Architettura neoclassica a Napoli: La chiesa del Rosario al Largo delle Pigne,” Napoli Nobilissima 17 (1978): 139-50.

. Architettura napoletana tra Seicento e Settecento: L’opera di Arcangelo Guglielmelli. Naples and Rome: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1990.

Aristotle. Poetics, edited and translated by Stephen Halliwell. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1995.

Astarita, Tommaso. Between Salt Water and Holy Water: A History of Southern Italy. New York: W.W.Norton and Company Inc., 2005.

______, ed. A Companion to Early Modern Naples. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013.

385

Baesten, V. “1679-1879: Saint Joseph, Patron de la Belgique,“ Précis historiques. Mélanges religieux, littéraires et scientifiques 28, (1879) : 129-35.

Baetens, Roland. De Nazomer van Antwerpens Welcaart: De diaspora en het handelhuis De Grootetijdens de eerste helft der 17de eeuw, vol. 1. Gemeentekrediet van Belgie, Historische Uitgaven Pro Civitate, 1976.

Bailey, Gauvin. “Van Dyck in Sicily.” Apollo 175, (March 2012): 116-21

Baldinucci, Filippo. Notizie dei Professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua, vol. IV, ed. F. Ranalli, Florence: V. Batelli e Compagni, 1846.

Baldinucci, Francesco. “Notizie de’Pittori, Scultori e Architetti che dall’anno 1640 sino al presente giorno hanno operato lodevolmente nella citta e Regno di Napoli.” In Notizie dei professori del disegno da Cimabue in qua, edited by F. Ranalli. Florence: Studio per Edizioni Scelte, 1975.

Barnes, Susan J., ed. Van Dyck a Genova, exh. cat. Milan: Electa, 1997.

______. Van Dyck: A Complete Catalogue of the Paintings. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2004.

Bartolomé, Belén. “El conde de Castrillo y sus intereses artísticos.” Boletín del Museo del Prado 15 (1994): 15-27.

Bedoni, Stefania. Jan Brueghel in Italia e il collezionismo del Seicento. Florence: Selbstuerlag, 1983.

Belkin, Kristin Lohse and Fiona Healy. A House of Art: Rubens as Collector, exh. cat. Antwerp: Rubenshuis and Rubenianum, 2004.

Bellori, G.P. The Lives of the Modern Painters, Sculptors and Architect. Translated by Alice Sedgwick Whol. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Berger, Robert W., “Rubens’s ‘Queen Tomyris with the Head of Cyrus’”. MFA Bulletin 77 (1979): 4-35.

Berger Hochstrasser, Julie. Still Life and Trade in the Dutch Golden Age. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007.

Bertolotti, A. Giunte agli artisti Belgi ed Olandesi a Roma nei secoli XVI e XVII: notizie e documentinraccolti negli archivi romani. Florence: Tipografia della scienze, matematiche e fisiche, 1885.

Bevers, Tom, ed. Artists-Dealers-Consumers: On the Social World of Art. Hilversum: Verloren, 1994.

Bianchini, Ludovico. Storia delle finanze del Regno delle due Sicilie, ed. Luigi de Rosa. Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1971 [1834].

386

Biow, Douglas. In Your Face: Professional Improprieties and the Art of Being Conspicuous in Sixteenth Century Italy. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2010.

Bissell, R. Ward. Orazio Gentileschi and the Poetic Tradition of Caravaggesque Painting. University Park and London: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1981.

Black, Christopher. Italian Confraternities in the Sixteenth Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.

. Early Modern Italy: A Social History. London: Routledge, 2001.

. Church, Religion and Society in Early Modern Italy. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.

Blessich, Aldo.“La carta topografia di Napoli di Gio. Carafa duca di Noja.” Napoli Nobilissima 4 (1895): 183-5.

Blondé, Bruno. “Art and Economy in Seventeenth-and-Eighteenth Century Antwerp: a View from the Demand Side. In Economia e arte, secc. XIII-XVIII, edited by Simonetta Cavaciocchi, 379-91. Florence: Le Monnier, 2002.

Blunt, Anthony. “A Frescoed Ceiling by Aniello Falcone.” The Burlington Magazine 111 (Apr. 1969): 215.

. Neapolitan Baroque and Rococo architecture. London: A. Zwemmer, 1975.

Bocchi, Francesco and Giovanni Cinelli. Le bellezze della città di Firenze. Bologna: Forni Editore, 1973.

Bodart, Didier. Les peintres des Pays-Bas méridionaux et de la principauté de Liège à Rome au XVIIème siècle. Rome : Academia Belgica, 1970.

. Louis Finson. Brussels: Palais des Académies, 1970.

Bok, Marten Jan. “The Rise of Amsterdam as a Cultural Centre: the Market for Paintings, 1580 1680.” In Urban achievement in early modern Europe : golden ages in Antwerp, Amsterdam and London, edited by Patrick O’Brian, 186-209. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Bonfait, Olivier, Michel Hochman, Luigi Spezzaferro and Bruno Toscano, ed. Geografia del collezionismo Italia e Francia tra el XVI e XVIII secolo. Rome: École française de Rome, 2001.

Bonnefait, Régine. Johann Wilhelm Baur 1608-1642): Ein Wegbereiter der barocken Kunst in Deutschland. Berlin: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag Tübingen, 1997.

Borean, Linda and Isabella Cecchini. “Microstorie d’affari e di quadri. I Lumaga tra Venezia e Napoli.” In Figure di collezionisti a Venezia tra Cinque e Seicento, edited by Linda Borean and Stefania Mason, 159-231. Udine: Forum, 2002.

387

and Stefania Mason, eds. Figure di collezionisti a Venezia tra Cinque e Seicento. Udine: Forum, 2002.

Borrelli, Gennaro. “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 5 (1986): 77-101.

. “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 6 (1987): 35-58.

. “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 7 (1988): 7-49.

. “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 8 (1989): 7-27.

. “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 9 (1990): 43-59.

. “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 10 (1991): 7-18.

. “La borghesia napoletana della seconda meta del Seicento e la sua influenza sull’evoluzione del gusto da barocco a rococo,” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano 12 (1993): 7-19.

Breve relatione delle feste fatte per la canonizatione di S. Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi e di alcuni miracoli operati per intercessione, e invocatione della medesima. Rome, 1670.

Brewer, John and Roy Porter, ed. Consumption and the World of Goods. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.

Briganti, Giuliano, Ludovica Trezzani and Laura Laureati. The Bamboccianti: The Painters of Everyday Life in Seventeenth-Century Rome, translated by Robert Erich Wolf. Rome: Ugo Bozzi Editore, 1983.

Brosens, Koenraad, Leen Kelchtermans and Katlijne van der Stighelen, ed. Family Ties: Art Production and Kinship Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012.

Brown, Beverly Louise and Paola Marini, eds. Jacopo Bassano, c. 1510-1593. Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum, 1993.

Brown, Jonathan. Jusepe de Ribera: Prints and Drawings. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1973.

388

. “Mecenas y coleccionistas españoles de Jusepe de Ribera.” Goya, 181/186 (1985): 140-50.

. Painting in Spain, 1500-1700. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1998.

Buchard, L. “Rubens’ ‘Feast of Herod’ at Port Sunlight.” Burlington Magazine 95 (Dec. 1953): 383-7.

Bulifon, Antonio. Giornali di Napoli dal MDXLVII al MDCCVI, edited by Nino Cortese. Naples: Società Napoletana di Storia Patria, 1932.

Burke, Marcus and Peter Cherry. Collections of Paintings in Madrid, 1601-1755. L.A.: J. Paul Getty Trust, 1997.

Burke, Peter. “Conspicuous Consumption in Seventeenth-Century Italy.” Kwartalnik Historii Kultury Materialinej 30 (1982): 43-56.

. “ ‘Res et verba’: Conspicuous Consumption in the Early Modern World.” In Consumption and the World of Goods, edited by John Brewer and Roy Porter, 148-61. London and New York: Routledge, 1993.

Calabria, Antonio. The Cost of Empire: the Finances of the Kingdom of Naples in the time of Spanish Rule. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

and John A. Marino, ed. Good Government in Spanish Naples. New York: Peter Lang,1990.

Cantone, Gaetana. Il Palazzo Maddaloni allo Spirito Santo. Naples: Regina, 1979.

______. Napoli barocca e Cosimo Fanzago. Banco di Napoli: Naples, 1984.

______. “The City’s Architecture.” In A Companion to Early Modern Naples, edited by Tommaso Astartia, 331-58. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013.

Capaccio, Giulio Cesare, Il Forastiero. Naples: Roncagliolo, 1634.

Capasso, Bartolomeo. Catalogo ragionato dei libri registri e scritture esistenti nella sezione antica o prima serie dell’Archivio Municipale Napoli (1387-1806). Naples: Giannini, 1 876.

Cappelletti, Francesca. Paul Bril e la pittura di paessaggio a Roma 1580-1630. Rome: Ugo Bozzi Editore, 2005-2006.

______. Caravaggio e i caravaggeschi. Florence: Il Sole 24 ORE S.p.A, 2007.

Carletti, Niccolò. Topografia universale della città di Napoli. Naples: Stamperia Raimondiana, 1776.

389

Carrió-Invernizzi, Diana. “Mecenazgo coleccionismo en Nápoles en la época de los virreyes Aragón.” In 14th Congreso nacional de Historia del arte. Correspondencia e integración de las Artes Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deportes, vol. I, edited Isidoro Coloma Martín and Juan Antonio Sánchez López, 107-18. Màlaga, 2003.

. El gobierno de las imágenes: Ceremonial y mecenazgo en la Italia española de la segunda mitad del siglo XVII. Frankfurt: Vervuert, 2008.

______. “Royal and Viceregal Art Patronage in Naples (1500-1800).” In A Companion to Early Modern Naples, edited by Tommaso Astarita, 383-404. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013.

Catalani, L and F.S. di Cangiano. Chiese, palazzi e castelli di Napoli dal centro antico al centro storico. Napoli: Luca Torre, 1994.

Causa, Stefano. Battistello Caracciolo: l’opera completa. Naples: Electa Napoli, 2000.

Cavaciocchi, Simonetta, ed. Gli aspetti economici del mecantismo in Europa, secc. XIV-XVIII, Madrid: Prato, 1999.

------ed. Economia e arte, secc. XIII-XVIII. Florence: Le Monnier, 2002.

Cavallo, Sandra. Charity and Power in Early Modern Italy: Benefactors and their Motives in Turin, 1541-1789. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Patrizia Cavazzini. “Agostino Tassi and the Organization of his Workhop: Filippo Franchini, Angelo Caroselli, Claude Lorrain and the others.” Storia dell’arte, 91, (1997): 400-26.

______. “Claude’s Apprenticeship in Rome: the Market for Copies and the Invention of the Liber Veritatis.” Konsthistorisk tidskrift 72 (2004): 133-46.

. “La diffusion della pittura nella Roma di primo Seicento: collezionisti ordinari e mercanti.” Quaderni Storici 39 (2004): 353-74.

. Painting as Business in Early Seventeenth-Century Rome. University Park: Pennsylvania University Press, 2008.

, ed. Agostino Tassi (1578-1644): un paesaggista tra immaginario e realtà. Rome: Iride, 2008.

Cavina, Anna Ottani. Carlo Saraceni. Milan: Mario Spagnoli Editore, 1968.

Cecchini, Isabella. Quadri e commercio a Venezia durante il Seicento: Uno studio sul mercato dell’arte. Venezia: Marsilio, 2000.

. “Le figure del commercio: cenni sul mercato pittorico veneziano nel XVII secolo.” In The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII, edited by Marcello Fantoni, Louisa C. Matthew and Sara F. Matthews-Grieco, 389-99. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003.

390

Cecchini, Isabella, “Troublesome Business: Dealing in Venice, 1600-1750.” In Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe, 1450-1750, edited by Neil De Marchi and Hans J. Van Miergroet, 125-34. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers, 2006.

Ceci, Giuseppe. “Un mercante mecenate del Secolo XVII.” Napoli Nobilissma 16 (1920): 160-4.

. “La corporazione dei pittori.” Napoli Nobilissima 7 (1898): 8-13.

Celano, Carlo. Notizie del Bello dell’Antico e del Curioso della città di Napoli, edited by Giovanni Battista Chiarini. Naples: Stamperia di Agostino de Pascale, 1856-60.

Ceva Grimaldi, Francesco. Memorie storiche della città di Napoli dal tempo della sua fondazione sino al presente. Naples: Stamperia e Calcografia, 1857.

Chenault-Porter, Jeanne. “Ribera’s Assimilation of a Silenus.” Paragone Arte 30 (Sept. 1979): 41-54.

Chiarini, Marco. “Ipostesi sugli inizi di Cornelis van Poelenburgh.” Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 23 (1972): 203-12.

______. “Filippo Napoletano, Poelenburgh, Breenbergh e la nascita del paessaggio realistica in Italia.” Paragone Arte, no. 269, (July 1972): 18-34

Chong, Alan. “The Drawings of Cornelis van Poelenburch.” Master Drawings 25 (Spring 1987): 3-62, 85-116

______and Wouter Kloek, eds. Still-Life Paintings from the Netherlands, 1550-1720. Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 1999.

Cifani Arabella and Franco Monetti.“Two Unpublished Paintings by Pietro da Cortona and Giovanni Francesco Romanelli from the Collection of Amadeo dal Pozzo.” Burlington Magazine 137 (1995): 612-6.

______. “Poussin dans les collections piemontaises au XVIIe, XVIIIe, et XIXe siècles. In Nicolas Poussin (1594-65), Actes du colloque organise au Musée du Louvre, (Paris, 1996), 747-807.

______. “The Dating of Amadeo dal Pozzo’s Paintings by Poussin, Pietro da Cortona and Romanelli.” Burlington Magazine 142 (Sept. 2000): 561-4.

Clifton, James. “Mattia Preti’s Frescoes for the City Gates of Naples,” The Art Bulletin 76 (Sept. 1994): 479-501.

Cohn, Samuel K. Jr. Death and Property in SIence, 1205-1800: Strategies for the Afterlife. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 1988.

Colantuono, Anthony. “The Mute Diplomat: Theorizing the Role of Images in Seventeenth Century Political Negotiations.” In The Diplomacy of Art: Artistic Creation and Politics in Seicento Italy, edited by Elizabeth Cropper, 51-76. Milan: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 2000.

391

Colapietra, Raffaele. Vita pubblica e classi politiche del viceregno napoletano (1656-1734). Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1961.

Colletta, Teresa. “La villa Sanserverino di Bisignano e il casale napoletano della Barra.” Napoli Nobilissima 13 (July/Aug. 1974): 121-40.

Colomer, José Luis, ed. Arte y diplimacia de la monarquía hispaníca en el siglo XVII. Villaverde: Madrid, 2003.

Colonna di Stigliano, F. “Inventario dei quadri di casa Colonna fatto da Luca Giordano,” Napoli Nobilissima 4(1895): 29-32.

Columbo, Antonio. “La strada di Toledo.” Napoli Nobilissima 4 (1895): 105-9, 125.

Confuorto, Domenico. Giornale di Napoli dal MDCLXXIX al MDCIC, vol. 1, edited b y Nicola Nicolini. Naples: Presso Luigi Lubrano, 1930.

Coniglio, Giuseppe. Il viceregno di Napoli nel sec. XVII: Notizie sulla vita commerciale e finanziaria secondo nuove ricerche negli archivi italiani e spagnoli. Rome: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 1955.

Cools, Hans, Marika Keblusek and Badeloch Noldus, eds. Your Humble Servant: Agents in Early Modern Europe. Hilversum: Uitgeverij Verloren, 2006.

Cortese, Nino. Cultura e politica a Napoli dal Cinque al Settecento. Naples: Edizioni scientifiche italiane, 1965.

Courtright, Nicola. The Papacy and the Art of Reform in Sixteenth-Century Rome: Gregory XIII’s Tower of the Winds in the Vatican. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Cowan, Alexander. “Foreigners and the City: The Case of the Immigrant Merchant.” In Mediterranean Urban Culture 1400-1700, edited by A. Cowan, 45-55. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 2000.

Cox-Rearick, Janet. “Bronzino’s Crossing of the Red Sea and Moses Appointing Joshua: Prolegomena to the Chapel of Eleonora di Toledo.” Art Bulletin 69 (March 1987): 45-67.

Crelly, William R. The Painting of Simon Vouet. New Haven and London : Yale University Press, 1962.

Crivelli, Giovanni. Giovanni Brueghel, pittore fiammingo o sue lettere e quadretti esistenti presso l’Ambrosiana. Milan: Tipografia e Libreria Arcivescovile, 1868.

Cropper, Elizabeth, ed. The Diplomacy of Art: Artistic Creation and Politics in Seicento Italy. Milan: Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 2000.

Cuneo, Pia, ed. Artful Armies, Beautiful Battles: Art and Warfare in Early Modern Europe. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

392

D’Addioso, G.B. Documenti inediti di Artisti Napoletani dei secoli XVI e XVII. Naples: Arnaldo Forni Editore, 1991 [1920].

D’Alessio, Silvana. Masaniello: la sua vita e il mito in Europa. Rome: Salerno Editrice, 2007.

D’Andrea, David. “Charity and the Reformation in Italy: the Case of Treviso.” In The Reformation of Charity: the Secular and the Religious in Early Modern Poor Relief, edited by Thomas Max Safely, 30-46. Boston and Leiden: Brill, 2003.

Damianaki, Chrysa, ed. Il Rinascimento italiano di fronte all Riforma: Letturatura e arte. Rome: Vecciarelli Editore, 2005.

Dandelet, Thomas James and John A. Marino, eds. Spain in Italy: Politics, Society and Religion: 1500-1700. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007.

Davids, K. and J. Lucassen, eds. A Mirror Mirrored: The Dutch Republic in European Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge Universiy Press, 1995.

Davies, R. Trevor. Spain in Decline, 1621-1700. London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd., 1957.

De Anna, Gloria Chiarini. “Nove lettere di Paolo del Sera a Leopoldo de’Medici.” Paragone Arte 26 (1976): 87-8.

De Bie, Cornelis. Het Gulden Cabinet can de Edel Vry Schilderconst. Soest: Davaco Publishers, 1971 [1662].

De Castris, Pierluigi Leone. “I d’Avalos: committenza e collezionismo di una grande famiglia Napoletana.” in I tesori dei d’Avalos, exh. cat., 17-32. Naples: Faust Fiorentino, 1994-5.

De Dominici, Bernardo. Vite de’pittori, scultori ed architteti napoletani. Bologna: Forni Editore, 1971.

De Frutos, Leticia and Salvador Salort Pons. « La coleccíon artística de don Pedro Antonio de Aragón, virrey de Nápoles (1666-1672).” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2002): 47-110.

De La Ville Sur-Yllon, Ludovico. “Il palazzo dei duchi di Maddaloni alla Stella.” Napoli Nobilissima 13 (1904): 144-7.

Delfino, Antonio. “Documenti inediti per alcuni pittori napoletani del ‘600 e l’inventario dei beni lasciata da Lanfranco Massa, con una breve biografia (tratti dall’Archivio Storico del Banco di Napoli e dall’Archivio di Stato di Napoli).” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (1985): 89-105.

. “Documenti inediti su artisti del ‘600 tratti dall’ Archivio di Stato di Napoli e dall’Archivio Storico del Banco di Napoli.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (1989): 29-40.

Della Ragione, Achille. Aniello Falcone: opera complete. Naples: Napoli Arte, 2008.

Dell’Arco, Marco Fagiolo. Pietra da Cortona e i “cortoneschi”: Gimignani, Romanelli, Baldi, il Borgognone, Ferri. Milan: Skira, 2001.

393

Delvingt, Anne. Gérard Seghers (1591-1651): Un peintre flamand entre Maniérisme e Caravagisme, exh. cat. Valenciennes: Musée des Beaux-arts de Valenciennes, 2011.

De Maio, Romeo. “The Counter-Reformation and Painting in Naples.” In Painting in Naples 1606-1705: From Caravaggio to Giordano, edited by Clovis Whitfield and Jane Martineau, 31-5. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1983.

De Marchi, Neil. “Size and Taste: Taking the Measure of the History of the Art Markets.” In Economia e Arte, Secc. XIII – XVIII, edited by Simonetta Cavaciocchi, 79-91. Florence: Le Monnier, 2002.

and Hans J. van Miegroet. “Art, Value, and Market Practices in the Netherlands in the Seventeenth Century.” Art Bulletin 76 (1994): 451-464.

______. “Exploring Markets for Netherlandish Paintings in Spain and Nueva Spain.” Arts for the Market, 1500-1700, Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 50 (1999): 80-111.

, ed. Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe 1450-1750. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2006.

Denucé, Jan. De Konstkamers van Antwerpen in de 16o en 17o Eeuwen: Inventarissen van Kunstverzamelingen. S’Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1932.

. Na Peter Pauwel Rubens: Documenten uit den Kunsthandel te Antwerpen in de XVII eeuw van Matthijs Musson. Antwerp: Uitgave de Sikkel, 1949.

De Rosa, Luigi. Studi sugli arrendamenti del Regno di Napoli: aspetti della distribuzione della ricchezza mobiliare nel mezzogiorno continentale (1649-1806). Naples: Arte Tipografica, 1958.

. “The De-Industrialization of the Kingdom of Naples in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” in The Rise and Decline of Urban Industries in Italy and in the Low Countries, edited by Herman Van der Wee, 121-38. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1988.

De Seta, Cesare. Storia della città di Napoli dalle origini al Settecento. Rome and Bari: Editori Laterza, 1973.

, Leonardo di Mauro and Maria Perone. Ville Vesuviane. Milan: Rusconi Immagini, 1980.

Devos, Greta and Wilfrid Brulez. Marchands flamandes à Venise, vols. 1-2. Brussels, 1986.

Di Castiglione, Ruggiero. La massoneria delle Due Sicilie e i “fratelli” meriodionali del ‘700. Rome: Gangemi Editrice, 2008.

Dickey, Stephanie. “Rethinking Rembrandt’s Renaissance.” Canadian Journal of Netherlandic Studies 28 (2007): 1-22.

394

Di Fabio, Claro. “Due generazioni di pittori Fiamminghi a Genova (1602-1657) e la bottega di Cornelis de Wael.” In Van Dyck a Genova, edited by Susan J. Barnes, 82-104. Milan: Electa, 1997.

Divenuto, Francesco. Pompeo Schiantarelli: ricerca ed architettura nel second Settecento napoletano. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1984.

Donnet, Fernand. Het Jonstich Versaem der Violieren: Geschiedenis der Rederikkamer de Olijtak sedert 1480. Antwerp: J.E. Buschmann, 1907.

Doria, G. Le strade di Napoli. Naples: Ricciardi, 1943.

Dowley, Francis H. “Giacinto Brandi’s Paintings at the Palazzo Taverna.” In Hortus Imaginum: Essays in Western Art, University of Kansas Publications, Humanistic Studies 45, edited by Robert Enggass and Marilyn Stokstad, 165-73. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1974.

Du Gué Trapier, Elizabeth. Ribera. NY : Hispanic Society of America, 1952.

Duverger, Erik. “Le commerce d’art entre la Flandre et l’Europe central au XXIIo siècle. Notes et remarques.” In Évolution générale et développments régionaux en histoire de l’art. Actes du XXIIo congrès internationale d’histoire de l’art, 157-82. Budapest: Akadémia Kiadó, 1972.

. Antwerpse Kunstinventarissen uit de Zeventiende eeuw, vols. 1-12. Brussels: Paleis de Academien, 1984-2002.

Ebert-Schifferer, Sybille . Still-Life: A History. Harry N. Abrams, Inc.: New York, 1999.

Ehlert, Rebecca. S. Maria del Pianto: Loss, Remembrance and Legacy in Seventeenth-Century Naples. M.A Thesis, Queen’s University, 2007.

Elliott, J.H. Spain, Europe and the Wider World, 1500-1800. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2009.

Enggass, Robert and Marilyn Stokstad, eds. Hortus Imaginum: Essays in Western Art, University of Kansas Publications, Humanistic Studies 45. Lawrence: University of Kansas, 1974.

Engels, Marie-Christine. Merchants, Interlopers, Seamen and Corsairs: The ‘Flemish’ Community in Livorno and Genoa (1615-1635). Hilversum: Verloren, 1997.

Fabris, D. Music in Seventeenth Century Naples: Francesco Provenzale (1624-1704). Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2007.

Falkenburgh, Reindert, Jan de Jong, Bart Remakers, and Mariet Westermann, eds. Arts for the Market 1500-1700, Nederlands Kunsthistorische Jaarboek 50, 1999.

395

Fantoni, Marcello, Louisa C. Matthew and Sara F. Matthews-Grieco, ed. The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003.

Farina, Viviana. “La collezione del Viceré: il marchese del Carpio, padre Seabstiano Resta e la prima raccolta ragionata di disegnai napoletani.” In Le dessin napolitain, edited by Francesco Solinas and Sebastian Schütze, 183-98. Rome: De Luca Editore d’Arte, 2010.

Felton, Craig and William B. Jordan, eds. Jusepe de Ribera, lo Spagnoletto, 1591-1652, exh. cat. Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum, 1982.

Ferrari, Oreste and Giuseppe Scavizzi. Luca Giordano: l’opera completa. Naples: Electa Napoli, 1992.

. Luca Giordano : nuove ricerche e inediti. Naples: Electa Napoli, 2003.

Ferretti, Roberto. “A Preparatory Drawing for one of the Dal Pozzo Paintings of Scenes from the Life of Moses.” Burlington Magazine 127 (Sept. 1985): 617-21.

Fileti Mazza, Miriam. Eredità del Cardinale Leopoldo de’Medici, 1675-1676. Pisa: Scuolo Normale Superiore, 1997.

Finaldi, Gabriele. “Ribera, the Viceroys of Naples and the King.” In Arte y diplomacia de la monarquía hispánica en el siglo XVII, edited by José Luis Colomer, 379-87. Villa Verde: Madrid, 2003.

Florike, Egmond and Robert Zwijnenberg, eds. Bodily Extremities: Preoccupations with the Human Body in Early Modern European Culture. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.

Fornaro, Giocchino. Brevi cenni storici intorno alla chiesa di S. Maria Maddalena dei Pazzi del SS.mo Sacramento in Napoli. Naples, 1934.

Francis, Henry S. “The Preliminary Pen and Ink Drawing for the ‘Feast of Herod’ by Peter Paul Rubens.” Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 41 (June 1954), 124-7.

Franits, Wayne. The Paintings of Dirck van Baburen 1592/93-1624: Catalogue Raisonné. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 2013.

Franklin, David. “The Public Caravaggio.” In Caravaggio and his Followers in Rome, edited by David Franklin and Sebastian Schütze, 2-25. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011.

and Sebastian Schütze, eds. Caravaggio and his Followers in Rome. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011.

Fuidoro, Innocenzo. Giornali di Napoli, edited by Vittorio Omodeo. Naples: R. Deputazione Napoletana di Storia Patria, 1943.

396

. Successi historici raccolti dalla sollevatione di Napoli dell’anno 1647, edited by Anna Maria Giraldi and Marina Raffaeli. Milano: F. Angeli, 1994 [1647-8].

Galante, G.A. Guida Sacra della città di Napoli, edited by Nicola Spinosa. Napoli: Società Editrice Napoletana, 1985. Galasso, Giuseppe. “Napoli nel viceregno Spagnolo dal 1648 al 1696.” Storia di Napoli 3 (1975): 273-662.

. Napoli Spagnola dopo Masaniello. Politica, cultura, società. Florence: Sansoni, 1982.

Gentilcore, David. “ ‘Cradle of Saints and Useful Institutions’: Health Care and Poor Relief in the Kingdom of Naples.” In Health Care and Poor Relief in Counter-Reformation Europe, edited by Ole Peter Grell, Jon Arrizaballga and Andrew Cunningham, 131-50. London and New York: Routledge, 1999.

______. " 'Tempi sì calamitosi': Epidemic Disease and Public Health.” In A Companion to Early Modern Naples, edited by Tommaso Astarita, 281-306. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013.

Gentilucci, Romualdo. Life of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. NY: Edward Dunigan, 1860.

Giustiniani, Lorenzo. Dizionario Geografico ragionato del regno di Napoli. Naples: Vin. Manfredi, 1797-1805.

Goldberg, Edward. Patterns in Late Medici Patronage. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1983.

Goldthwaite, Richard A. Wealth and the Demand for Art in Italy, 1300-1600. Baltimore and London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1993.

. “Economic Parameters of the Italian Art Market (15th to 17th Centuries).” In The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII, edited by Marcello Fantoni, Louisa C. Matthew and Sara F. Matthews-Grieco, 423-44. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003.

. “The Painting Industry in Early Modern Italy.” In Painting for Profit, edited by Richard Spear and Philip Sohm, 275-301. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010.

Gottwald, Franziska. Das Tronie - Muster, Studie und Meisterwerk: die Genese einer Gattung der Malerei vom 15. Jahrhundert bis zu Rembrandt. Berlin: Dt. Kunstverl, 2011.

Grell, Ole Peter and Andrew Cunningham. “The Counter-Reformation and Welfare Provision in Southern Europe.” In Health Care and Poor Relief in Counter-Reformation Europe, edited by Ole Peter Grell, Jon Arrizabalaga and Andrew Cunningham, 1-16. London and NY: Routledge, 1999.

397

and Bernd Roeck, ed. Health Care and Poor Relief in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Southern Europe. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.

Grell, Ole Peter, Jon Arrizabalga and Andrew Cunningham,ed. Health Care and Poor Relief in Counter-Reformation Europe. London and NY: Routledge, 1999.

Grilli, Cecilia. “David de Haen, pittore olandese a Roma.” Paragone Arte 48 (1997): 33-50.

Guaita, Ovidio. Italian Villas. New York and London: Abbeville Press Publishers, 2003.

Gualandi, Michelangelo. Memorie originali italiane risguardanti le belle arti. Bologna,1840-5.

Guarino, Gabriel. Representing the King’s Splendour : Communication and Reception of Symbolic Forms of Power in Viceregal Naples. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2010.

______. “Public Rituals and Festivals in Naples, 1503-1799.” In A Companion to Early Modern Naples, edited by Tommaso Astarita, 249-56. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013.

Haskell, Francis. Patrons and Painters: Art and Society in Baroque Italy. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980.

Held, Julius S. “Rubens’ ‘Feast of Herod’.”Burlington Magazine 96 (Apr. 1954): 122.

Hendriks, Carla. Northern Landscapes on Roman Walls: The Frescoes of Matthijs and Paul Bril. Florence: Centro Di, 2003.

Hendrix, Harold. “The Repulsive Body: Images of Torture in Seventeenth-Century Naples.” In Bodily Extremities: Preoccupations with the Human Body in Early Modern European Culture, edited by Egmond Florike and Robert Zwijnenberg, 68-91. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2003.

______. “Pietro Aretino’s Humanità di Christo and the Rhetoric of Horror.” In Il Rinasciemento Italiano di fronte alla Riforma: Letteratura e arte, edited by Chrysa Damianaki, 89-114. Rome: Vecchiarelli Editore, 2005.

Henschenio, Godfried and Daniel Papebrochio. Acta Sanctorum Maii. Paris and Rome: Victorum Palme, 1866.

Hesens, Jacob. Devote aendachtighe meditatie ende: Speculatie op het Heyligh Leven ende ghedurigh lijden vanden H. Ioseph, Bruydegom van de Alder-Heylichste Maghet Maria.” Antwerp, 1667.

Hirschfelder, Dagmar and León Krempel, eds., Tronies: das Gesicht in der frühen Neuzeit. Berlin: Mann, 2014.

Honig, Elizabeth. Painting and the Market in Early Modern Antwerp. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. 398

Hoogewerff, G.J. Bescheiden in Italië omtrent Nederlandsche Kunstnaars en geleerden. ‘SGravenhage: Martinus Nijoff, 1913.

. Nederlandsche Kunstenaars te Rome (1600-1725): Uittreksels uit de Parochiale Archieven. S’Gravenhage: Gedrukt ter Algemeene Landsdrukkerij, 1942.

______. De Bentvueghels. ‘S-Gravenhage: Martinus Nijhoff, 1952.

Huiskame, Marloes. “De Uittocht uit Egypte en der Verovering van het Land.” In Het OudeTestament in de Schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw, edited by Christian Tümpel, 54-65. Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 1991.

Israel, Jonathan I. The Dutch Republic and the Hispanic World, 1606-1661. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1982.

Italianisanten en bamboccianten: Het italianiserend landschap en genre door Nederlandse kunstenaars uit de zeventiende eeuw. Rotterdam: Museum Boymans-van Beuningen, 1988.

Izzo, Maria Comodo . Andrea Vaccaro. Naples: Conte Editore, 1951.

Jacob, Sabine and Susanne König-Lein. Die italienischen Gemälde des 16. bis 18. Jahrhunderts, collection of the Herzog Anton-Ulrich Museum. Braunschweig: Hirmer Verlag München, 2004.

Jacquot, Dominique. “Vouet en Italie, Vouet & l’Italie.” In Simon Vouet (les années italiennes 1613/1627), exh. cat., 30-8. Nantes: Musée des Beaux-Arts de Nantes, 2009.

Jaffé, Michael. Rubens and Italy. Oxford: Phaidon, 1977.

Jan Boeckhorst 1604-1668: Maler der Rubenszeit, exh. cat. Antwerp, Rubenshuis, 1990.

Janeck, A. “Naturalismus und Realismus: Untersuchungen zur Darstellung der Natur bei Pieter van Laer und Claude Lorrain.” Storia dell’Arte 28 (1976): 285–307.

Jansen, Guido M.C. “’On the Lowest Level:’ The Status of Still Life in Netherlandish Art Literature of the Seventeenth Century.” In Still-Life Paintings from the Netherlands, 1550-1720, edited by Alan Chong and Wouter Kloek, 9-15. Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 1999.

Jones, P.M. “Italian Devotional Paintings and Flemish Landscapes in the Quadrerie of Cardinals Giustiniani, Borromeo, and Del Monte.” Storia dell’Arte 107 (2007): 81-104.

Keblusek, Marika. “Introduction: Profiling the Early Modern Agent.” Iin Your Humble Servant: Agents in Early Modern Europe, edited by Hans Cools, Marika Keblusek and Badeloch Noldus, 9-16. Hilversum: Verloren, 2006.

Kinkead, Duncan. “The Picture Collection of Don Nicolas Omazaur.” Burlington Magazine 128, (Feb. 1986): 132-44.

399

Kirk, Thomas Allison. Genoa and the Sea: Policy and Power in an Early Modern Maritime Republic, 1559-1684. Baltimore and London: John Hopkins University Press, 2005.

Klessmann, Rüdiger. Die flämischen Gemälde des 17. und 18. Jahrhunderts, collection of the Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum. Braunschweig: Hirmer Verlag München, 2003.

, ed. Adam Elsheimer, 1578-1610. London: Paul Holberton Publishing, 2006

Koenigsberger, H. “English merchants in Naples and Sicily in the Seventeenth Century.” English Historical Review 62 (July 1947): 304-26.

Kolb, Arianne Faber Jan Brueghel the Elder: The Entry of the Animals into Noah’s Ark. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, 2005.

Labrot, Gérard. “Deux collectionneurs étrangers à Naples.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (1984) : 135-42.

______. Collections of Paintings in Naples: 1600-1780. L.A: Getty Provenance Index, 1992.

. Palazzi Napoletani: storie di nobili e cortigiani, 1520-1750. Naples: Electa, 1993.

______. “Trend économique et mécént dans le royaume de Naples (1530-1750).” In Gli aspetti economici del mecantismo in Europa, secc. XIV-XVIII, edited by Simonetta Cavacciochi, Madrid: Prato, 1999.

. “Un marché dynamique. La peinture de série à Naples. 1606-1775.” In Economia e arte, XIII-XVIII, edited by Simonetta Cavacciochi, 261-79. Florence: Le Monnier, 2002.

______. Peinture et société à Naples: XVIIe-XVIIIe siècle: Commandes, collections marchés. Seyssel : Champ Vallon, 2010.

Lammertse, Friso and Jaap van der Veen. Uylenburgh and Son: art and commerce from Rembrandt to De Lairesse, 1625-1675. Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2006.

Larsen, Erik. The Paintings of Anthony Van Dyck. Düsseldorf: Luca Verlag Freren, 1988.

Lattuada, Riccardo. “Biography of Andrea Vaccaro,” in The Dictionary of Art, vol. 31, edited by Jan Turner, 790. New York: Grove Dictionaries Inc., 1996.

Leone, Nino. La vita quotidiana a Napoli ai tempi di Masaniello. Milan: Biblioteca Universale Rizzoli, 1994.

Levesque,Catherine, ed. The Illustrated Bartsch (commentary), vol. 6. New York: Abaris Books, 1986.

400

Levine, David. “Schildersbent,” Oxford Art Online.

______. “The Bentvueghels: ‘Bande Académique.’” In IL 60: Essays Honoring Irving Lavin on his Sixtieth Birthday, edited by Marilyn Aronberg Lavin, 207-25. New York: Ithaca Press, 1990, 207-25.

Liedtke, Walter. Flemish Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1984.

______. “Anthony Van Dyck.” Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 42 (1984-85): 4-48.

Liggeren en andere Historische Archieven de Antwerpsche Sint Lucasgilde, vol. 1. Antwerp, 1872.

Lingo, Estelle Cecile. François Duquesnoy and the Greek Ideal. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2007.

Logan, Anne-Marie. The Cabinet of Gerard and Jan Reynst. Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1979.

Longhi, Roberto. “Un collezionista di pittura napoletano nella Firenze del ‘600.” Paragone Arte 7 (1982): 61-4.

Lorizzo, Loredana. Il mercato dell’arte in Italia nel XVII secolo: Artisti, collezionisti, intermediari e mercanti . Tesi di Diploma dell Scuola di Specialzzazione in Storia dell’Arte, Università degli Studi di Roma, “La Sapienza”, 1996-7.

Lorizzo, Loredana. La collezione del cardinale Ascanio Filomarino : pittura, scultura e mercato dell'arte tra Roma e Napoli nel Seicento; con una nota sulla vendita dei beni del cardinal Del Monte. Napoli: Electa Napoli, 2006.

. “Documenti inediti sul mercato dell'arte : i testamenti e l'inventario della bottega del genovese Pellegrino Peri "rivenditore di quadri" a Roma nella seconda metà del Seicento.” In Decorazione e collezionismo a Roma nel Seicento : vicende di artisti, committenti, mercanti, edited by Francesca Cappelletti, 159-74. Rome: Gangemi, 2003.

. “Il Mercato dell’arte a Roma nel XVII secolo: “pittori bottegari” e “rivenditori di quadri” nei documenti dell’Archivo Storico dell’Accademia di San Luca.” In The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII, edited by Marcello Fantoni, Louisa C. Matthew and Sara F. Matthews-Grieco, 325-36. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003.

. “Simon Vouet, Valentin e i Filomarino: nuove date e qualche ipotesi sugli scambi artistici tra Roma e Napoli nelle prima meta del Seicento.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2003/2004): 123-36.

. “People and Practices in the Paintings Trade of Seventeenth-Century Rome.” In Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe 1450-1750, edited by Neil De Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, 343-62. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2006.

401

Macioce, Stefania. Michelangelo Merisi da Caravaggio: Documenti, fonti e inventari, 1513 1875. Rome: Ugo Bozzi Editore, 2010.

Madruga Real, Angela. “Cosimo Fanzago en las Agustinas de Salamanca.” Goya (Mar.-Apr. 1975): 291-7.

. “Ribera, Monterrey e le Agostinas de Salamanca.” In Ribera exh. cat., edited by Alfonso Pérez Sánchez and Nicola Spinosa, 277-89. Naples: Electa Napoli, 1992.

Mafrici, M., ed. Rapporti diplomatici e scambi commerciali nel Mediterraneo moderno. Salerno: Rubbettino, 2004.

Maggi, Armando. Uttering the Word: The Mystical Performances of Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, a Renaissance Visionary. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998.

______. Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi, Selected Revelations. New York: Paulist Press, 2000.

Magnati, Vincenzo. Teatro della Carità. Venice: Tivani, 1727.

Mancini, Giulio. Considerazioni sulla pittura, edited by Adriana Marucchi. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei, 1956.

Marigliani, Clemente. La Campagna Romana: dai Bamboccianti alla Scuola Romana. Rome: De Luca Editori d’Arte, 2010.

Marin, Brigitte. “Poverty Relief and Hospitals in Naples in the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries.” In Health Care and Poor Relief in Eighteenth and Nineteenth Century Southern Europe, edited by Ole Peter Grell, Andrew Cunningham and Bernd Roeck, 208- 28. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2005.

Marini, Paola. “Jacopo Bassano seen anew,” Jacopo Bassano, c. 1510-1593, edited by Beverly Louise Brown and Paola Marini, 13-44. Fort Worth: Kimbell Art Museum, 1993.

Marino, John A. Becoming Neapolitan: Citizen Culture in Baroque Naples. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2011.

Marshall, Christopher. “Senza il minimo scrupolo: Artists as Dealers in Seventeenth-Century Naples.” Journal of the History of Collections 12 (2000): 15-33.

. “Appagare il Pubblico: The Marketing Strategies of Luca Giordano, 1678-1684.” In The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII, edited by Marcello Fantoni, Louisa C. Matthew and Sara F. Matthews-Grieco, 263-72. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003.

. “Markets, Money and Artistic Manoeuvres: Bernardo Cavallino and the Grand Manner.” Melbourne Art Journal 7 (2004): 41-8.

402

. “Dispelling Negative Perceptions: Dealers Promoting Artists in Seventeenth Century Naples.” In Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe 1450-1750, edited by Neil De Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, 363-82. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2006.

______. “Naples.” In Painting for Profit, edited by Richard Spear and Philip Sohm, 115-44. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010.

Marshall, David Ryley. Viviano and Niccolò Codazzi and the Baroque Architectural Fantasy. Milan: Jandi Sapi, 1993.

Marx, Axel. “Why Social Network Analysis Might be Relevant for Art Historians: A Sociological Perspective.” In Family Ties: Art Production and Kinship Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries, edited by Koenraad Brosens, Leen Kelchtermans and Katlijne Van der Stighelen, 25-42. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012.

Mastelloni, Andrea. La prima chiesa dedicate a Santa Maria de’Pazzi. Naples, 1675.

Matthew, Louis C. “Focus on the Artist and the Middleman: Materials, Workshop Production and Marketing.” In The Art Markets in Italy: 15th to 17th Centuries; Il Mercato dell’Arte in Italia: Secc. XV-XVII, edited by. Marcello Fantoni, Louisa C. Matthew and Sara F. Matthews-Grieco, 13-6. Modena: Franco Cosimo Panini, 2003.

McGranahan, Leslie . “Charity and Bequest Motive: Evidence from Seventeenth-Century Wills.” Journal of Political Economy 108 (December 2000): 1270-91.

McGrath, Elizabeth. Rubens, subjects from history. London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 1997.

Mesens, Jacob. Devote aendachtighe meditatie ende: Speculatie op het Heyligh Leven ende ghedurigh lijden vanden H. Ioseph, Bruydedom van de Alder-Heylichste Maghet Maria. Antwerp, 1667.

Michaud, Cécile. Johann Heinrich Schönfeld: un peintre allemand du XVIIe siècle en Italie. Munich: Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2006.

Middione, Roberto, Nicola Spinosa, and Angela Tecce. “La natura morta a Napoli.” In La natura morta in Italia, vol. 2, edited by Francesco Porzio, 852-963. Milan: Electa, 1989.

Montias, John Michael. “Socio-Economic Aspects of Netherlandish Art from the Fifteenth to the Seventeenth Century: A Survey.” Art Bulletin 72 (1987): 358-73.

. “Art Dealers in the Seventeenth Century Netherlands.” Simiolus 18 (1989): 244-66. . “Cost and Value in Seventeenth Century Dutch Art.” Art History 10 (1990): 455-66.

. “The Sovereign Consumer: The Adaptation of Works of Art to Demand in the Netherlands in the Early Modern Period.” In Artists-Dealers-Consumers: On the Social World of Art, edited by Tom Bevers, 57-75. Hilversum: Verloren, 1994.

403

. “Art Dealers in Holland.” In Economics of Art and Culture, edited by Victor Ginsburgh, 75-96. Amsterdam, etc.: Elsevier, 2004.

Mormone, Raffaele. “Documenti estratti dall’archivio storico del Banco di Napoli.” Rassegna economica, X-XI, 1940-1.

Moretti, Lino. “La raccolta Lumaga. Giovanni Andrea Lumaga.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2005): 27-61.

Morrison, Molly G. “Strange Miracles: A Study of the Peculiar Healings of Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture, 8, no. 1, (Winter 2005): 129-44.

Muller, Jeffrey M. Rubens: The Artist as Collector. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989.

Musella, Silvana. “Il Pio Monte della Misericordia e l’assistenza ai “poveri vergognosi” (1665 1724).” In Per la storia sociale e religiosa del mezzogiorno d’Italia, vol. 2, edited by Giuseppe Galasso and Carlo Russo, 291-348. Naples: Guida editori, 1982.

Muzii, Rossana. “Il culto del disegno presso i pittori napoletani del Seicento e del Settecento con la guida di Bernardo de Dominici.” In Le dessin napolitain, edited by Francesco Solinas and Sebastian Schütze, 15-30. Rome: De Luca Editore d’Arte, 2010.

Nappi, Edoardo. “Momenti della vita di Luca Giordano nei documenti dell’Archivio Storico del Banco di Napoli.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (1991): 157-82.

, ed. Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano: Catalogo delle pubblicazione editie dal 1883 al 1990 ,riguardanti le opere di architetti, pittori, scultori, marmorari, ed intagliatori per i secoli XVI e XVII, pagate tramite gli antichi banchi pubblici napoletani. Milan: Ed L.T.. 1992.

. “Il Conservatorio e la Chiesa della Pietà dei Turchini.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano, (1993): 83-107.

. “Le attività finanziarie e sociali di Gasparo de Rommer. Nuovi documenti inediti su Cosimo Fanzago.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2000): 61-92.

Nicolson, Benedict. Caravaggism in Europe. Turin: U. Allemandi, 1990.

Norberg, Kathryn . Rich and Poor in Grenoble, 1600-1814. L.A.: University of California Press, 1985.

North, Michael. “Art and Commerce in the Dutch Republic.” In A Miracle Mirrored: The Dutch Republic in European Perspective, edited by K. Davids and J. Lucassen, 284-301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

______, ed. Economic History and the Arts. Cologne: Böhlau, 1996.

404

and David Ormrod, eds. Art Markets in Europe, 1400-1800. Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 1998.

Novelli Radice, Magda. “Contribuiti alla conoscenza di Andrea e Onofrio de Lione.” Napoli Nobilissima 15 (1976): 162-9.

O’Brien, Patrick. “Reflections and Mediations on Antwerp, Amsterdam and London in their Golden Ages.” In Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe, edited by Patrick O’Brien and Derek Keene, 3-38. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

and Derek Keene, ed. Urban Achievement in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Osnabrugge, Marije. “New Documents for Matthias Stom in Naples,” Burlington Magazine 156 (2014): 107-8.

Pacheco, Francisco. Arte de la pintura su antiguidad y grandeza, Seville, 1649.

Pacichelli, Giovanni Battista. Il Regno di Napoli in prospettiva, edited by Rosario Jurlaro. Bologna: Forni, 2008 [1703].

Pacini, Piero. “Firenze 1669: un ‘teatro sacro” per Santa Maria Maddalena de’Pazzi.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 36 (1992): 129-202.

Palomino, Antonio. Lives of the Eminent Spanish Painters and Sculptors. Translated by Nina Ayala Mallory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

Pane, Roberto. “La ville e la strada costiera.” In Ville Vesuviane del Settecento, edited by Roberto Pane, 139-41. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1959.

, ed. Ville Vesuviane del Settecento. Naples: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1959.

. “Il viceré Pedro de Aragon e l’ospizio di San Gennaro dei Poveri.” In Seicento napoletano: arte, costume e ambiente, edited by Roberto Pane, 1-18. Milan: Edizioni di Comunità, 1984.

, ed. Seicento napoletano: arte, costume e ambiente. Milan: Edizioni di Communità, 1984.

Parker, Geoffrey. Spain and the Netherlands 1559-1659. Short Hills, New Jersey: Enslow Publishers, 1979.

Parrino, Domenico Antonio. Teatro eroico e politico dei governi de’viceré del Regno di Napoli dal tempo Ferdinando il Cattolico fino all’anno 1675. Naples: Mariano Lombardi Editore, 1875 [1692].

Percy, Ann. “Introduction.” In Bernardo Cavallino od Naples, 1616-1656, exh. cat., edited by Ann Percy, Nicola Spinosa, Giuseppe Galasso, and Ann T. Lurie, 1-32. Cleveland and Texas: Cleveland Museum of Art and Kimbell Art Museum , 1984.

405

, Nicola Spinosa, Giuseppe Galasso, and Ann T. Lurie, eds. Bernardo Cavallino od Naples, 1616-1656, exh. cat. Cleveland and Texas: Cleveland Museum of Art and Kimbell Art Museum , 1984.

Pérez Sánchez. Pintura italiana del s. XVII en España. Madrid : Universidad de Madrid, 1965.

. “Ribera and Spain: His Spanish Patrons in Italy and Spain; The Influence of His Work on Spanish Artists.” In Jusepe de Ribera, 1591-1652, exh. cat.,edited by Alfonso Pérez Sánchez and Nicola Spinosa, 35-49. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992.

and Nicola Spinosa, ed. Jusepe de Ribera, 1591-1652, exh. cat. NY: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1992.

, ed. Jusepe de Ribera, 1591-1652, exh. cat. Naples: Electa, 1992.

, ed. Jusepe de Ribera, 1591-1652, exh. cat. Madrid: Museo del Prado, 1992.

Perlove Shelley and Larry Silver. Rembrandt’s Faith: Church and Temple in the Dutch Golden Age. University Park, Penn: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009.

Plax, Julie Anne. “Sevententh-Century French Images of Warfare.” In Artful Armies, Beautiful Battles: Art and Warfare in Early Modern Europe, edited by Pia Cuneo, 131-55. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Plomp, Michiel. “Een merkwaardige verzameling teekeningen” door Leonaert Bramer,” Oud Holland, (1986): 81–153.

______. “Leonaert Bramer the Draughtsman.” In Leonaert Bramer, 1596-1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Rome and Delft, edited by Jane Ten Brink Goldsmith and Michiel Plomp, 209-76. Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 1994.

______and Jane Ten Brink Goldsmith. “Leonart Bramer the Painter.” in Leonaert Bramer, 1596-1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Rome and Delft, edited by Jane Ten Brink Goldsmith et al., 47-74. Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 1994.

Porzio, Francesco, ed. La natura morta in Italia. Milan: Electa, 1989.

Prak, Maarten “Guilds and the Development of the Art Market during the Dutch Golden Age.” Simiolus 30 (2004), 236-51.

Prohaska, Wolfgang. Jusepe de Ribera (1591 Jativa/Valencia - 1652 Neapel). Vienna : Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1985.

______. Caravaggio e l’Europa: il movimento caravaggesco internazionale da Caravaggio a Mattia Preti, exh. cat. Milano: Skira Editore, 2005.

406

Puccini, Vincenzo. The Life of the Holy Venerable Mother Suor Maria Maddalena de Patsi. A Florentine Lady and Religious of the Order of the Carmelites, trans. Tobie Matthew, 1619.

Pullman, Brian. Poverty and Charity: Europe, Italy, Venice, 1400-1700. Aldershot: Variorum, 1994.

Reinhardt, Volker. “The Roman Art Market in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” in Art Markets in Europe, 1400-1800, edited by Michael North and David Ormrod, 81-92. Brookfield: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 1998.

Repp, Anke. Goffredo Wals: Zur Landschaftsmalerei zwischen Adam Elsheimer und Claude Lorrain. Cologne: Walter König, 1986.

Restaino, Concetta. “Giacinto Brandi.” In Grove Dictionary of Art, vol. 4, 666-7. MacMillan Publishers Inc., 1996.

Reumont, Alfred von. The Carafas of Maddaloni: Naples under Spanish Dominion. London: H.G. Bohn, 1854.

Ricciardi, Emilio. “Chiese Secentesche tra Vomero e Arenella.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2001): 111-34.

Rienzo, Maria Gabriella. “Nobili e attività caritativa a Napoli nell’età moderna. L’esempio dell’Oratorio del SS. Crocifisso dei Cavalieri in S. Paolo Maggiore.” In Per la storia sociale e religiosa del mezzogiorno d’Italia, vol. 2, edited by Giuseppe Galasso and Carla Russo, 251-90. Naples: Guida Editori, 1982.

Rittersma, Rengenier C. Luxury in the Low Countries. Brussels: Pharo Publishers, 2010.

Rizzo, Vincenzo. “ Altre notizi su pittori, scultori ed architetti napoletani del Seicento (dai documenti dell’Archivio Storico del Banco di Napoli).” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (1987): 153-75.

Roethlisberger, Marcel. Bartholomãus Breenberg: Handzeichnungen. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1969.

______. “Da Bril a Swanevelt: Tondi olandesi di paesaggio, 1600–1650.” Palatino, xii/4 (1968): 386–93.

______. “From Goffredo Wals to the Beginnings of Claude Lorrain.” Artibus et Historiae 16 (1995): 9-37.

Romein Ed and Gerbrand Korevaar. “ Dutch Guilds and the Threat of Public Sales.” In Mapping Markets for Paintings, 1450-1750, edited by Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, 165-87. Turnhout : Brepols, 2006.

Ruffo, Vincenzo. “Galleria Ruffo nel sec. XVII in Messina.” Bollettino d’Arte 10 (1916): 21-64; 95-128; 165-92; 237-56; 284-320; 369-88.

407

Ruotolo, Renato. “Collezioni e mecenati napoletani dell XVII secolo.” Napoli Nobilissima 12 (July/Aug, 1973): 118-9; 145-53.

. “Aspetti del collezionismo napoletano: il Cardinale Filomarino,” Antologia di Belli Arte 1 (1977): 71-82.

. “Brevi note sul collezionismo aristocratico napoletano tra Sei e Settecento.” Storia dell’Arte 35 (1979): 29-38.

. Mecanti-collezionisti fiamminghi a Napoli: Gaspare Roomer e i VandenEynden. Meta di Sorrento, 1982.

. “Aspetti del collezionismo napoletano del Seicento,” Civiltà del Seicento a Napoli, Ermanno Bellucci , ed. (Napoli : Electa Napoli, 1984): 41-8.”

______. “Artisti, dottori e mercanti napoletani del secondo Seicento. Sulle tracce della committenza “borghese”. Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano, (1987): 177-89.

. “La clientele napolitana de Ribera.” In Jusepe de Ribera, 1591-1652, exh. cat., edited by Alfonso Pérez Sánchez and Nicola Spinosa, 73-8. Madrid: Museo del Prado, 1992.

______. “Collezioni e collezionisti napoletani del Sei e Settcento l’abitare nobile e borghese: due modi di vivere e intendere l’arte.” Gazzetta antiquaria 20/21 (1994): 30- 7.

Sabatini, Gaetano. “Economy and Finance in Early Modern Naples.” In A Companion to Early Modern Naples, edited by Tommaso Astarita, 89-107. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013.

Salerno, Luigi. “The Art Historical Implications of the Detroit Magdalen.” Burlington Magazine 116, (October 1974): 586-93.

. Landscape Painters of the Seventeenth Century. Rome and Milan: Ugo Bozzi Editore, 1977.

Salinger, Margaretta M. “Christ and the Woman of Samaria by Caracciolo.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 32 (Jan. 1937): 4-6.

Salvadori, Fabia Borroni . “Le esposizioni dell’arte a Firenze dal 1674 al 1767.” Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz 18 (1974): 1-166.

Salvagni, Isabella. Da Universitas ad Academia. Rome: Campisano Editore, 2014.

Sandrart, Joachim von. Academie de Bau-, Bild-und Mahlerey-Künste, ed. A. R. Peltzer. Munich: G. Hirth’s Verlag, 1925.

Sarnelli, Pompeo. Guida de' forestieri curiosi di vedere et d'intendere le cose piœ notabili della Regal Città di Napoli e del suo amenissimo distretto, ritrovata. Naples, 1697.

408

Saunders Magurn, Ruth, ed. and trans., The Letters of Peter Paul Rubens. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955.

Saxl, F. “The Battle Scene without a Hero.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 3 (1939-40): 70-87.

Schuckman, Christiaan, compiled by, and D. De Hoop Scheffer, ed. Hollstein’s Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts, 1450-1700, vol. 53. Roosendaal: Koninklijke van Poll, 1993.

Schütze, Sebastian. “The Politics of Counter-Reformation Iconography and a Quest for the Spanishness of Neapolitan Art.” In Spain in Italy: Politics, Society and Religion 1500- 1700, edited by Thomas James Dandelet and John A. Marino, 555-68. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2007.

______and Thomas Willette. Massimo Stanzione: l’opera complete. Naples: Electa, 1992.

Seifert, Christian Tico. “Adam Elsheimer’s Artistic Circle in Rome.” In Adam Elsheimer, 1578 1610, edited by Rüdiger Klessmann, 208-225. London: Paul Holberton Publishing, 2006.

Sestieri, Giancarlo. I pittori di battaglie: maestri italiani e stranieri di XVII e XVIII secolo. Antiche Lacche, 1999.

Shaw, James W. “Institutional Controls and the Retail of Paintings: The Painters’ Guild of Early Modern Venice.” In Mapping Markets for Paintings, 1450-1750, edited by Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, 107-24. Turnhout : Brepols, 2006.

Sigismondo, Giuseppe. Descrizione della città di Napoli e suoi borghi. Naples: Arnaldo forni Editore, 1989 [1788-9].

Silver, Larry. Peasant Scenes and Landscapes: The Rise of Pictorial Genres in the Antwerp Art Market. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Simal López, Mercedes. “Don Juan Alfonso Pimentel, VIII Conde-Duque de Benevente, y el coleccionismo de antigüedades inquietudes de un Virrey de Nápoles (1603-1610).” Reales Sitios 42 (2005): 30-49.

Sirago, Maria. “Dalla galera al vascello. L’apporto economico di genovesi, ragusei, fiamminghi, napoletani nella constituzione della flotta napoletana tra Cinquecento e Seicento.” In Rapporti diplomatici e scambi commerciale nel Mediterraneo moderno, edited by M. Mafrici, 461-88. Salerno: Rubbettino, 2004.

. “La collezione di argenti di Andrea d’Avalos, principe di Montesarchio e generale dell’ ‘Armada del Mar Oceano.’” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2009): 149-56.

Slatkes, Leonard, J. Dirck van Baburen (c. 1595-1624): A Dutch Painter in Utrecht and Rome. Utrecht: Haentjens Dekker & Gumbert, 1965.

. “David de Haen and Dirck van Baburen in Rome.” Oud Holland 81 (1966): 173-86.

409

Sluitjer, Eric Jan. Rembrandt and the Female Nude. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006. Sluijter-Seigffert, Nicolette Cathérine. Cornelis van Poelenburch. PhD Dissertation, Rijksuniversiteit te Leiden, 1984.

Société des Expositions du Palais des Beaux-Arts de Bruxelles, ed. Fiamminghi a Roma 1508 1608, exh. cat. Brussels: Snoeck-Ducaju & Du, 1995.

Sohm, Philip. “Venice.” In Painting for Profit, edited by Richard Spear and Philip Sohm, 205 53. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010.

Solinas, Francesco and Sebastian Schütze, eds. Le dessin napolitain. Rome: De Luca Editore d’Arte, 2010.

Soprani, Raffaele. Vite de’pittori, scultori e architetti genovese, edited by Carlo Giuseppe Ratti. Genoa: Gravier, 1768-9.

Spear, Richard. Caravaggio and His Followers. New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1971.

. From Caravaggio to Artemisia: Essays on Painting in Seventeenth-Century Italy andFrance. London: The Pindar Press, 2002.

and Philip Sohm, ed. Painting for Profit. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010.

Spezzaferro, Luigi. “The Documentary Findings: Ottavio Costa as a Patron of Caravaggio.” Burlington Magazine 116 (October 1974): 579-86.

Spike, John. Italian Still Life Painting from Three Centuries. Florence: Centro Di, 1982.

. Mattia Preti: Catalogo Ragionato dei dipinti. Taverna: Comune di Taverna Museo Civico, 1999.

Spinosa, Nicola. Bernardo Cavallino of Naples, 1616-1656, exh. cat. Cleveland Art Museum and the Kimbell Museum of Art, Fort Worth, 1984-5.

. Ribera l’opera completa, 2nd Edition. Naples: Electa Napoli, 2006.

Stoesser, Allison. “Lucas and Cornelis de Wael: the Family Network in Antwerp and Beyond.” In Family Ties: Art Production and Kinshop Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries, edited by Koenraad Brosens, Leen Kelchtermans and Katlijne Van der Stighelen, 225-39. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012.

Storia di Napoli. Naples: Società editrice Storia di Napoli, 1975-1981.

Stoughton, Michael William. The Paintings of Giovanni Battista Caracciolo. Ph.D dissertation, University of Michigan, 1974.

410

Stradling, R.A. Philip IV and the Government of Spain 1621-1665. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Stradling, R. “A Spanish Statesman of Appeasement: Medina de las Torres and Spanish Policy, 1639-1670.” The Historical Journal, 19 (March 1976): 1-31.

Strazzullo, Francesco. La corporazione dei pittori napoletani. Naples: D’Agostino, 1962.

. “Documenti per la chiesa di S. Maria del Pianto,” Napoli Nobilissima 4 (1965): 222-5.

. Documenti per la storia dell’edilizia e dell’urbanistica nel Regno di Napoli dal ‘500 al ‘700, Naples: Arturo Berisio Editore, 1968.

Sullivan, Scott A. The Dutch Gamepiece. Totowa, New Jersey: Allanheld and Schram, 1984.

Surius, Bernardin. Le Pieux Pelerin ou Voyage de Ierusalem. Brussels, 1666.

Sutherland Harris, Anne. Landscape Painting in Rome, 1595-1675. New York: Richard L. Feigen & Co., 1985.

Sutton, Peter C. Masters of 17th-Century Dutch Landscape Painting, exh. cat. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1987.

______. The Age of Rubens, exh. cat. Boston, Museum of Fine Arts, and Toledo, Toledo Museum of Art, 1993-94.

Swoboda, Gudrun. Caravaggio e l’Europa: il movimento caravaggesco internazionale da Caravaggio a Mattia Preti, exh. cat. Milano: Skira Editore, 2005.

Taylor, Paul. Dutch Flower Painting, 1600-1720. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995.

Ten Brink Goldsmith, Jane and Michiel Plomp, eds. Leonaert Bramer, 1596-1674: Ingenious Painter and Draughtsman in Rome and Delft. Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 1994.

Theon, Irma. Strategic Affection? Gift Exchange in Seventeenth-Century Holland. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2007.

Thijs, Alfonse, K.L. “Antwerp’s Luxury Industries: the Pursuit of Profit and the Artistic Sensitivity.” In Antwerp: Story of a Metropolis edited by Jan van der Stock, 105-14. Antwerp: Martian and Snoeck, 1993.

Timmermans, Bert. “The elite as collectors and middlemen in the Antwerp art world of the seventeenth century.” In Munuscula amicorum: contributions on Rubens and his context in honour of Hans Vlieghe, edited by Katlijne van der Stighelen, 343-62. Turnhout: Brepols, 2006.

411

. Patronen van Patronage in het zeventiende-eeuwse Antwerpen. Amsterdam: Aksant, 2008.

______. “Family Agency and Networks of Patronage: Towards a Mapping of the Revival of the Family Chapel in Seventeenth-Century Antwerp.” In Family Ties: Art Production and Kinshop Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries, edited by Koenraad Brosens, Leen Kelchtermans and Katlijne Van der Stighelen, 189-224. Turnhout: Brepols, 2012.

Tinterow, Gary and Geneviève Lacambre. Manet/Velázquez: The French Taste for Spanish Painting, exh. cat. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2003.

Tres siglos de oro de la pintura napolitana: de Battistello Caracciolo a Giacinto Gigante, exh. cat. Sala de Exposiciones San Eloy, Salamanca, 2003.

Tuck-Scala, Anna K. Andrea Vacarro, Naples, 1604-1670: His Documented Life and Art. Naples: Paparo Edizioni, 2012.

______and Ida Mauro. “Tracing the Success of Andrea Vaccaro’s Paintings in Spain.” Ricerche sul ‘600 napoletano (2009): 157-79.

Tümpel, Christian, ed. Het OudeTestament in de Schilderkunst van de Gouden Eeuw. Zwolle: Waanders Uitgevers, 1991.

Vaes, Maurice. “Le Séjour de Van Dyck en Italie.” Bulletin de l'Institut belge de Rome 5 (1924): 163-234.

______. “Corneille de Wael (1592-1667).” Bulletin de l'Institut belge de Rome 5 (1925): 136-223.

Valuta, Tommaso. L’Onofrio drama di D. Tomaso Valuta, o il ritorno d’Onofrio in Padria. Naples: Il Roncagliolo, 1671.

Van der Coelen, Peter. Patriarchs, Angels and Prophets: The Old Testament in Netherlandish Printmaking from Lucas van Leyden to Rembrandt, exh. cat. Amsterdam: Museum Het Rembrandthuis, 1996.

Van der Stichelen, Katlijne and Filip Vermeylen. “The Antwerp Guild of Saint Luke and the Marketing of Paintings, 1400-1700.” In Mapping Markets for Paintings, 1450-1750, edited by Neil de Marchi and Hans J. van Miegroet, 189-208. Turnhout : Brepols, 2006.

Van der Stock, Jan, ed. Antwerp: Story of a Metropolis, 16th-17th Century. Antwerp: Martian and Snoeck, 1993.

Van der Wee, Herman, ed. The Rise and Decline of Urban Industries in Italy and in the Low Countries (Late Middle Ages-Early Modern Times). Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1988.

and Jan Materné. “Antwerp as a World Market in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries.” In Antwerp: Story of a Metropolis, 16th-17th Century, edited by Jan van der Stock, 19-32. Antwerp: Martian and Snoeck, 1993. 412

Van Gelder, Maartje. Trading Places: The Netherlandish Merchants in Early Modern Venice. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2009.

Van Helsdingen, H.W. “Poussin’s Drawings for the Crossing of the Red Sea.” Simiolus 5 (1971), 64-74.

Van Puyvelde, Leo. “Guillaume van Herp, bon peintre et copiste de Rubens.” Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte 22, (1959): 46-8.

Vasari, Giorgio. Lives of the Artists, vol. 1, translated by George Bull. London: Penguin Books, 1987.

Venditti, Arnaldo. “La costa vesuviana da Napoli a Torre del Greco e la mappa del Duca di Noja.” In Ville Vesuviane del Settecento, edited by Robert Pane, 19-51. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1959.

Venditti, Annaldo. “Le ville di Barra e di S. Gregorio a Cremano.” In Ville Vesuviane del Settecento, edited by Robert Pane, 53-126. Napoli: Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 1959. Vergara, Alexander. Rubens and His Spanish Patrons. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Vermeylen, Filip. Painting for the Market: Commercialization of Art in Antwerp’s Golden Age. Turnhout, Brepols, 2003.

. “The Art of the Dealer: Marketing Paintings in Early Modern Antwerp.” In Your Humble Servant: Agents in Early Modern Europe, edited by Hans Cools, Marika Keldusek and Badeloch Noldus, 109-19. Hilversum: Verloren, 2006.

Villari, Rosario. “The Neapolitan Financial Crisis of the 1630s and 1640s.” In Good Government in Spanish Naples, edited by Antonio Calabria and John A. Marino, 237-74. Naples and New York: Peter Lang, 1990.

______. The Revolt of Naples, translated by James Newell and John A. Marino. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1993.

Voet, Leon. “History of Antwerp.” In Antwerp’s Golden Age, exh. cat., City of Art, 1973-5.

Volpe, Carlo.“Still Life Painting in Seventeenth-Century Naples.” In Painting in Naples from Caravaggio to Giordano, edited by Clovis Whitfield and Jane Martineau, 57-9. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1983.

Waddington, Malcom. “Notes on Agostino Tassi and the Northerners.” Paragone Arte, no. 147, (1962): 13-23.

Warwick, Genevieve. “Gift Exchange and Art Collecting: Padre Sebastiano Resta’s Drawing Albums.” The Art Bulletin, 79, no. 4, (Dec. 1997): 630-46.

413

Warwick, Genevieve. The Arts of Collecting: Padre Sebastiano Resta and the Market for Drawings in Early Modern Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Weber, Alison . Teresa of Avila and the Rhetoric of Femininity. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990.

Wehle, Harry B. “Venus and Adonis by Rubens.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 33 (Sept. 1938): 194-6

Weston-Lewis, Aidan. “The Early Provenance of Ribera’s Drunken Silenus.” Burlington Magazine 149 (Nov. 2007): 781-4.

Wethey, Harold. “The Spanish Viceroy, Luca Giordano, and Andrea Vaccaro.” Burlington Magazine 109 (Dec. 1967): 678-87.

Whitfield, Clovis and Jane Martineau, eds. Painting in Naples from Caravaggio to Giordano. Washington D.C.: National Gallery of Art, 1983.

Wilson, Guy. “Military Science History and Art.” In Artful Armies, Beautiful Battles: Art and Warfare in Early Modern Europe, edited by Pia Cuneo, 13-33. Leiden: Brill, 2002.

Wittkower, Rudolf. Art and Architecture in Italy 1600-1750. Early Baroque. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999.

Wright, Christopher. Poussin: Paintings A Catalogue Raisonné. London: Chaucer Press, 2007.

Woollett, Anne T. and Ariane van Suchtelen, Rubens and Brueghel: A Working Friendship. Zwolle: Waanders Publishers, 2006.

Wyss, Edith. The Myth of Apollo and Marsyas in the Art of the Italian Renaissance. London: Associated University Presses, 1996.

Online Resources

British Museum Collections Database www.britishmuseum.org/collection

Getty Provenance Index http://www.getty.edu/research/conducting_research/provenance_index

Oxford Art Online www.oxfordartonline.com

Sandrart.net www.sandrart.net

Conference Papers

Baadj, Nadia Sera. Object Networks: Luxury, Empire and Virtuosity in Early Modern Antwerp, Renaissance Society of America, 2014.

414

______. Enterprising Craftsmanship and Exotic Encounters in Seventeenth-Century Kunskasten, Historians of Netherlandish Art, 2014.

Göttler, Christine. Vulcan’s Forge: The Sphere of Art in Early Modern Antwerp, Renaissance Society of America, 2014.

Rijks, Marlise. Unusual Excesses of Nature: Coral on Display in Antwerp: Materiality and Petrification, Renaissance Society of America, 2014.

415

Appendix A Giulio Cesare Capaccio’s Il Forastiero

Excerpt from Giulio Cesare Capaccio, Il Forastiero, Naples: Roncagliolo, 1634, pp. 577-8. C.: Non devo lasciar quella casa dove si conservano i più bei tesori che potreste imaginarvi di putture, che realmente honorano questa cità. La vecrete un giorno con vostra commodità che restarete maravigliato delle cose, e vi compiacerete dell’habitãte che volse abbellir Napoli. Questo è un gentil’homo Fiamengo, c’hà nome Gaspare di Roomer, nato in quella famosa cità di Anversa con tutti i suoi de i primi gentil’homini di quella, e de i più ricchi col trafico che ne i loro negotij tengono per tutta Europa; famiglia di grand’essere, e d’infinito valore. E questo di chi vi parlo aggiunse splendore con le virtù, e con la gentilezza, con tante nobili maniere, che gli restarete obligato in ragionando seco. Hor vedrete in questa casa, e forse in dodici camare che vanno attorno, quanto potrete imaginarvi di vago, e di magnificenza, oltre a gli addobamenti di vero Signore, ciò che potreste imaginarvi di bello, l’opra di Gioseppe di Ribera Spagnolo, con quadri di S. Lorenzo, S. Geronimo, Apolli che scortica Martia, e cinque altri con figure di Santi. Col pennello del Cavalier Massimo tre quadri assai grandi, le sponsalitie di S. Caterina, Adamo scacciato dal Paradiso, e quattro Virtù unite insieme, Poesia, Muscia, Pittura, e Scoltura; Leandro che nuota ad Ero; sette virtù; un Boffone assai naturale. Di Carlo Venetiano, Marta che converte Maddalena, Maddona che fugge in Egitto; Mosè ritrovato bambino nel fiume. Di Monsvitto Francese, CRISTO in Croce con la Madonna & altri Santi. Di Pietro Condito di Baviera, nostro Signor che disputa nel tempio. Dal Bassano, otto quadri di animaili & altro, bellissimi. De Caraccioli Ecce homo di mezza figura; Rebecca che si bagna, Lot con le figlie. Di Antonio Van Dyck Fiamengo, Susanna, S. Sebastiano. Di Antino del Campo gli Angeli che dopò il digiuno portano il mangiare al Signore. Di Giovan Battista di Rustici Senese, la decollatione di S. Giovan Battista. Di David di Haero Fiamengo, Titio, e Caino che uccide Abele, nostro Signore che si presenta a S. Tomas. Di Pierino Reniero nominato il Brallone Fiamengo, sei quadri di diverse historie. Di Giovan Battistello, la Samaritana e due puttini. Di Giovann’Antonio Spadarico Fiorentino, un Bacco meza figura. Del Innamorato Valentini, cinque quadri meze figure significanti di cinque canti. Di Steen Roinchel Fiamengo, altre figure. Di Cornelio Brusco, borasca di mare, altre figure picciole. Di Gerardo Vanden Bos Fiamengo, sei quadri di frutti & animali. Di Castel Franco un ritratto del Giorgin. Del Zingaro, un Giuditta. Paesi poi e figurine picciole, dieve quadri di Paolo Bril, quattro sopra rame de i quattro elementi di Estruengel, e quattro altre con molte figurine. Sessanta paesi del Goffredo Todesco, cento sessantotto trà grandi e piccoli di Iacobo Sibraut. Quaranta del Leonardo. Altri di Cornelio sopranominato il Satiro del Baccarelli, di Dinat, di Agostin Tasso. Battaglie di Anello Faleone, del Provireur del Giordano, oltre a quattordici quadri fatti a guazzo del Todesco, e altri del Stopper; tutte cose rare, tutti valentissimi homini, e tutti originali che non si tratta di copia, lascio gli addobamenti che venuti infin dalla China sono maravigliosi. F.: Rimango attonito di tanto numero, di tanta esquisitezza, di tanta nobiltà di pitture, come di tanti puttori e di stima, e di tanta nobiltà d’animo, che tiene questo Signore ch’essendo Giamengo hà pensiero di abbellir Napoli. Hor questi sono tesori da dovero. Bisogna ch’io li vegga.

416

Appendix B

Inventory of Gaspare Roomer, 1674

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Notai del ‘600, Giovanni Battista dell’Aversana 295/34

(171r) Die Aprlis 1674 neap Giovedi... Bona Inventario dono q.m Gaspare de Roomer ord.e...

Nella sala piccola Antica  Una boffetta di noce con suo picole laverato grande circonallso de fiandra  Nella finestra una vetriata

Nella una Camera mandritta  Una altra Interra  Due boffette di pietra serpentina mischia con suoi piedi  Tres cabelli indorati  Due portieri di damasca carmosino con li controtaglio a torno con suoi ferri  Uno aparam.to di damasco carmosino di ferrze trent’otto con due sopra parte con friso a torno con controtaglio  Due quatri di sop.a parte uno di sei e cinque di S.o Tomaso che mette il deto dentro il costati di christo con cinque teste con cornice d’oro et un altro sop.a dell’altra parte del sammaritano sim.e con cinque teste sim.e con cornice d’oro  Un altro quatro di otto e sei con cornice d’oro con puttino et fiori  Una vetriata

Dentro Car.a nié una cappella et vi sono le seg:te robbe  Un quatro grande sopra l’altare della pieta di palmi dici e otto con cornice indorata di due ordini  (171v) Uno quatro a mano destra di S.ta M.a Maddalena de Pazzi con cornice intagliata et proprio quella descitta nul Testamento di d.o q.m Gaspero con due putti dormiti recanato con suoi lazzi  Un quatro d’un palmo e mezzo di S.to pietro Aleantesa con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro dell istessa misura di S.ta M.a Maddalena in estali con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro dell istessa misura di S.to Ano di padua con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro di S.to Giro di palmi due e tre e mezo con cornice indorata liscia  Un altro quatro della Madonna della solita inhabito vidovile del istessa misura con cornice indorata  Un paliotto di lama con francione d’oro in mezzo et due galloni in mezzo et con gallone attorno  Due credenzole all altare di d.a cappella con li ante altarini di lame con francie d’oro  Una corcino di lama d’oro con galloni attorno et fiocchi  Una corcino fi damasco carmosino con fiocchi 417

 Un ingionichiaturo meniato alla chinese  Uno siccheitto per accqua anta di lama cipro  Due tovaglia di taffetta lavorata es seta vecchie per coprire l’altare verde  Una tovaglia bianca coprire l’altare  Otta candelieri di ligname indorati  (172r) Quattro giarre di ligname indorata  Due altre di chistallo con fiori  Uno onestale et uno carmide con cingolo et altre adorna m.i d’orletta  Una catice d’arg.to con patena et sue vesti sacerdotali  Una boffetta di noce di due e mezzo e cinque lunga  Una tovaglia d’Armeni gialla con rezza atorno  Uno pavam.to di tomasco carmosino con fascie di catalaffa apparata in d.a cappella  Un altra coscino vecchio di Velluto  Uno vol. Grande di stampa di divera figure  Una scatola con callavi  Due libri grandi d’Istoria del Ramulio  Due baulli di vacchetta rossa con chiodi quali hanno da Inventariare

Nella 2.a Camera  Una boffetta d’ebano  Trenta ferze quindici di domasco et quindici di centro taglio con il friso sop:a di controtaglio  Una trabbacca d’Inbroccatello di venetia con cielo et torni aletto di controtaglio con copertulo del istessa inbroccatello con il giro di controtaglio con tre matarazzi coscinera con l’armaggio di legno indorato  Tre quatri di sop.a parte con cornice indorate uno dell’adorat.o  (172v) Uno dell adorat.o delli magi di sei e cinque due altri di paesi simile con figurine  Un altro quatro di due e mezzo et tre di S.ta Maddalena de pazzi con cornice indorata  Tres cabbelli di noce indorata con stola interna

Nella 3.a Cam.a  Una stola interna  Uno baullo musiato alla chinese cristente ind.a 3 Cam.a si sono trovate delle q.e robbe:  Uno pavam.o di tomasco carmosino ed.o ferze settant’otto incluse le sop.a parte e criso  In un altro bauglio musiato alla chinese cristente ind.a 3 Cam.a si sono trovate de seq.e robbe:  Una cortinaggio di tomasca carmosino con balzancé cornia letto con francese di seta carmosina  Sette portieri di Damasco Carmozino con francia carmozine  Una tovaglia Armeni abranzino con poco di ricame a torno  Una Cam.a di panni di razza n.a conque panni con figure sette seggi di Velluto carmozino con chiodi d’ottone quatro coscini di velluto carmozino et domasco con fincchi  Due altri coscini piccoli di Damasco Carmozino  (173r) Due scrittori d’ebano negro sop.a due boffette d’ebano con li estremi d’ottone indorati in uno delli si sono due quatretti sop.a rame con cornicetta d’ebano dentro uno

418

teraturo nell altro scrittorio in uno fodero delli si sono li trovati sette quatrillini di figure diverse con cornicette d’ebano  Un altro boffettino d’ebano negro  Uno boffettone di noce grande all uso di fiandra con converta di tomasco carmozino con coverta di mentone  Un scrittorio lavorato alla chinese con nove teratori  Una coverta di cataluffa con ci appetelle di seta et oro  Una crocifisto d’Avolio con piede d’ebano  Un altro scritorietto d’ebano lavorato di rame indorato con quatro teratori  Un altro boffettone di noce grande all uso di fiandra con coverta di tomasco caromzino et coverta di mentone  Uno trappito interra usato  Uno quatro grande della morte di Gioseppe di palmi nove e sette con cornice indorata grande  Un altro quatro di quattro e cinque di S.a Anna con la Madonna et bambino con cornice d’oro  Tre para di pianelli negri

(173v) Nell’archuous dentre detta Cam.a  Quattro panni di razza d’paesi con figurine di fiandra  Sei seggie ricamata sop.a cannavellio  Una boffetta di perfido cem.to  Una boffetta d’ebano negro di tre e cinque  Uno scrittorio di noce grande con puttini intagliati con gli foderi usanti et in uno delli novanta sette ciappe d’oro et seta vecchia  Due portieri di tomasco giallo controtagliati con suoi ferri  Una boffetta di noce con tre teratori  Uno quatro di sacrificio di due figure con angelo di sette e cinque con cornice d’oro  Un altro quatro di sette e cinque con paese con quattro figurine con cornice indorata  Due carcette una con coverta di daomasco bianco et l’altra di Comasco carmosino  Un altro quatro del crocifino di cinque e due e mezzo con cornice indorata inestremo  Due baugli della china grande con fogliama d’oro grandi  Una vetriata et ingerata

Nella 4.a Cam.a  Una stola nell pavimento  (174r) Uno apavam.o di broccato di venetia di cerzo trent’uno con friso di contro taglio et un portiero dell’istesso di contro taglio  Uno specchio grande di due e mezzo e tre con cornice d’ebano  Seggie di broccato di venetiano sette  Una boffetta di nere con il panno di tornasco carmosino et uno panno d’oro pella sop.a  Un altro boffettino di noce con panno di tomasco carmosino et panno d’oro pella sop.a  Una boffetta di palmi tre e cinque di pietra misca con il panno di broccati di venetia con il terno di contro taglio con franci di seta et oro sop.a panno d’oro pella  Due trappeti vecchi  Uno quatro grande sop.a porta di lotto di palmi cinque e sette 419

 Un quatro di caccia senza cornice di palmi quattro e cinque  Due altri quatri senza cornice di caccia e uccelame di palmi due e quattro  Un altro quatro grande di caccia senza cornice  Un S.to Ano Abbate in ottangolo di palmi tre  Un quatro della Maddonna con diversi santi sop.a rame con cornice d’ebano con pannetto di tafeta verde d’palmi due e uno e mezzo  (174v) Un quatro dell martirio di S.ta Catarina con cornice indorata di palmi due e l‘uno e mezzo  Uno quatro di S.to Mattia con cornice indorata  Un altro di S. Pietro con cornice d’oro vecchi d’due e tre  Un altro quatro d’apostoli d’palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice d’oro  Un quatro d’un filosofo del istessa misura con cornice d’oro  Sei quatri tonni di frutti e paesi con cornice d’oro

Nella 5.a Cam.a che volta  Una stola nel pavim.to  Uno pavam.to di tomasco con ferze di cataluffa tertute insieme parate tutte nella Cam.a  Un portiero di tomasco carmosino con francie verde et saoferro  Una boffetta alla milanese di palmi sette e tre e mezzo con il panno di tomasco carmosino et coverta di mentone  Uno quatro grande di palmi sette e cinque di pesce con cornice d’oro posto sop.a la perta  Un altro quatro con cornice indorata di palmi sette e cinque di fratti  Due altri quatri di palmi sei e quattro di pesci con cornice indorata  (175r) Uno ritratto con cornice indorata li suo di palmi quattro e tre  Un altro quatro d’una vergine di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Due quatri grandi di paesi con cornice indorata di palmi quattro e cinque  Un Angelo Custode con cornice indorata di palmi quattro e cinque  Uno filosofo con cornice Indorata di palmi quattro e cinque  Un altro quatro di S. Gio al deserto di palmi tre e quattro con cornice indorata  Una Madonna di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata con puttino  Uno quatro d’paesi d’due e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata con figurine  Due altri quatri simili di fiori di palmi due e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Un quatro di palmi quatro e cinq con due figure senza cornice  Due quatri di prospettiva di palmi quattro e cinq senza cornice  Uno quatro della Madonna puttine e S. Gioseppe d’palmi due e uno e mezzo senza cornice  (175v) Due quatri di cocina di palmi quattro e cinque senza cornice  Uno quatro di pesce di palmi quattro e cinque senza cornice  Cinque quatri di fiori senza figure et senza cornice  Un Ritratto antico d’un figliolo Reale de palmi quattro e tre senza cornice  Due quatri di girlande de fiori di palmi due e tre senza cornice  Due altri di giarre di fiori di palmi due e uno e mezzo senza cornice  Due quatri uno di conigli et altro d’uccelli di palmi due e mezzo senza cornice  Un altro di figure diverse d’ palmi uno et uno et mezzo senza cornice  Un altro quatro di battaglia d’palmi cinq e mezzo e tre senza cornice  Uno quatro di paese senza cornice

420

 Due baulli di vacchetta con suoi piedi serrati con quatretti piccoli dentro diversi quali se hanno da vedere doppo visti si sono ritrovati in uno d’ochi quatri (176r) piccoli sop.a rame et tavolette ... con q.ta nove con cornice d’ebano et parte indorate et null’altro n.o quatrodici sei d’esti senza cornice  Tre seggi velluto carmosino  Uno boffettino d’ebano  Uno trappito vecchio

Nella 6.a Cam.a  Una stola nel pavam.o  Cinque seggi di velluto carmosino tre d’essi con sopra siette sei altre di velluto verde usate  Due boffette di pietra misca con sup piede negro di palmi tre e due  Un altra grande di palmi cinque e tre  Un altra d’ebano di palmi cinque e tre  Un altro boffettino di perfido mischio quatrato due e mezzo e due e mezzo  Uno quatro di frutti di palmi sei e cinque con cornice indorata  Un altro di christo della caninea dell’istessa misura con cornice indorata  Tre matarazzi di lana  (176v) Una cammera di paesi di razza con figure

Nella Prima Cam.a del quarto amanodestra  Dicisette seggi di velluto carmosino vecchie  Una seggia di vacchetta una boffetta alla fiamenga addobata  Uno scrittorio indorato lavorato al Indiana con suo chiave di palmi quattro e due sopra quattro colomne con suoi piede musiato d’oro varante li suoi foderi n.o nove  Due scrittorÿ d’ebano negro con suoi piedi con dieci foceri per uno Vacanti guarnito d’ottone indorato di palmi sei e tre  Una boffetta pietra diferato di palmi tre e due e mezzo  Uno antiporta di tomasco falso d’otto ale  Due matarazzi di lana con sue cositrigni et una coscinua con due mante di lana bianche  Due coscini con sop.a faccia di tela con lezze atorno  Una boffetta d’ebano di palmi cinque e mezzo e due e mezzo

Nella 2.a Cam.a amandritta  Uno quatro grande d’palmi oto e sei con cornice indorata d’frutti con bascio relevo e una mezza figura  (177r) Un altro quatro d’armi con trofeo di palmi otto e sei con mezza figura  Due quatri con cestoni di fiori di palmi quattro e tre con cornice indorata di bascio relevo inmezzo  Un altro quatro di S.o Pietro con Angelo di palmi quattro e tre con cornice indorata liscia  Due altri quatri di tre e due uni coroni di pittura di cocina con cornice indorata liscia  Un altro quatro di cacciatori di palmi quattro e tre con diverse cani con cornice d’oro liscia

421

 Un altro quatro di palmi quattro e cinque con frutti et animali e papere con cornice indorata liscia  Uno altro quatro di palmi quattro e quattro con istrom.o di musica et argento finto con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro dell istessa misura con pappamondo et instrom.i d’sonare con cornice d’oro  Due quatri di Cocina con simile con cornice d’oro di palmi quattro e cinque  Un altro quatro d’frutti e Istrom.ti di musica di palmi quattro e cinque con diversi animalucci con cornice indorata

(177v) Nella 3.a Cam.a d’mandritta  Una trabasca con capezzera con due matarazzi con un parodi lenzola sottile d’olanda  Uno specchio grande di palmi quattro e cinque con cornice d’ebano  Due altri specchi di palmi quattro e tre e mezzo con cornice d’ebano  Un altro specchio di palmi tre e mezzo e tre con cornice d’ebano  Uno crocifisto grande d’Aurlio con piede d’ebano  Una boffetta d’ebano di palmi quattro e due e mezzo  Una seggia di Velluta carmosino usata  Quattro Vergini di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice d’noce musicata d’oro  Due altre Verdini d’palmi due e uno con cornice d’ebano  Un altro quatro di S.o Sebastiano con cornice d’ebano di palmi uno e uno e mezzo  Due quatri di caccia d’palmi due e mezzo e due con cornice indorata  Una fuga d’Eggitto della Maddonna con cornice indorata negra et oro d’palmi sei e cinque  (178r) Un altro quatro d’Abramo di palmi quattro e Cinque con cornice d’oro  Un altro quatro di palmi quattro e conque della Maddonna, S: Gio e Giesuchristo con cornice indorata mernita negra nel mezzo  Un altro quatro di sop.a parte d’una fuga di palmi cinque e tre con cornice indorata grande  Un altro quatro di mezza figurea di palmi tre e due con cornice oro e negra  Una nativita di tre e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro della Madonna con giusechristo di palmi due e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata  Un quatro d’uno alzata di croce con diverse figurine di palmi due e uno con cornice indorata  Un sansev.mo d’un palmo e mezzo e uno con cornice d’ebano  Un paese d’palmi due e mezzo con cornice d’oro  Una marinella con diverse fiurine con cornice d’ebano d’palmi uno e mezzo e due  Una prospettiva d’palmi due e uno e mezzo con figurine con cornice indorata  Una marinella di palmi due et uno con cornice d’ebano  (178v) Una mezza figura di sisto quinto con cornice d’ebano di palmi due e due e mezzo  Due marinelli di diversa figure con cornice d’ebano  Una battagliala con cornice d’ebano di palmi tre e mezzo e uno e mezzo  Una prospettiva d’palmu uno e due e mezzo con figurine  Uno paesino di palmi due e mezzo e uno e mezzo con cornice d’ebano con diverse figurine

422

 Un altro paesino di palmi due e mezzo e uno e mezzo con diverse figurine con cornice d’ebano  Un altro quatro d’Istorie di due e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata dell Istorie di Remulo e Romolo  Due marine di palmi tre e due con cornice d’ebano  Una Madonina d’uno e mezzo e uno con giesu christo, la Maddalena e S. Gio con cornice d’ebano  Un altro quatro d’palmi uno e mezzo e uno di una Maddonina con diverse figure con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmo uno e uno e mezzo dell adoratione all Idolo con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi due e mezzo e due della navicella di (179r) S. Pietro con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro di palmi tre e due di paesi con diverse figure con cornice indorata  Un bambino giesu con cornice indorata di palmi tre e due  Una pieta di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Una Madonna con paese di palmi tre e due con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro di palmi tre e due e mezzo con Cristo dormente con diversi puttini con cornice indorata  Due battaglie di palmi sei e quattro con cornice di noce pezziata d’oro  Una prospettiva di palmi quattr e tre con due figurine con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro di mezza figura di. S.ta M.A Maddalena di palmi quattr e cinque con cornice indorata  Una Susanna di palmi cinque e cinque con cornice indorata  Una marinella di palmi due e uno e mezzo con cornice d’ebano  Due quatri baccanarÿ di palmi due e uno con cornice d’ebano

Nel Cammarino dell 4.a Cam.a amansinistra  (179v) Un paese con cornice d’ebano di palmi uno e mezzo e uno con figurine dentro  Due quatretti di palmi due et un scarzo ed sturzo et puttini et d’altro con un cignale et puttini  Uno quatro tonno con satiro et puttino con cornice indorata  Tre paesini di misure grecha con cornice d’ebano  Un altro quatro tonno di due palmi con puttino e frutti  Un altro dell Ann:a di palmi due e mezzo et uno e mezzo con cornice indorata  Una nascita della Madonna di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Uno tonno di una Madonnina con putto di palmi due e mezzo con cornice d’oro  Tre paesini alla greca con cornice d’ebano  Una fuga d’eggitto di palmi uno et un palmo scarzo con cornice indorata intaglata  Un altra Madonnina d’un palmo scarzo e un palmo con cornice indorata  Un altro d’un palmo e mezzo et un palmo con figurine con cornice indorata  (180r) Una assunta della Madonna d’un palmo e mezzo et un palmo con diverse figure con cornice indorata  Un altro della morete della Madonna con divera figurre dell’istessa misura con cornice indorata  Un quatretto d’uno palmo con cornice indorata con alucune figurine dentro  Un altro con paesino d’un palmo scarzo et un palmo d’altezza con cornice d’ebano  Un altro dell istessa misura con cornice d’ebano 423

 Un altro quatro d’palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice d’ebano con diversi pezzenti  Una nascita della Maddonna d’palmi uno d’altezza et mezzo di largezza con cornice d’ebano  Un altro dell istessa misura con Madonna san gioseppe dormente et puttino con cornice d’ebano  Un altro dell istessa misura d’una Maddalena al deserto con cornice d’ebano  Uno paesino di palmi due e uno e mezzo con Diverse Vaccarelle dentro con cornice d’ebano  Un altro dell istessa misura con Battesino di S.o Gio Batto con cornice d’ebano  Una nascita di christo d’uno palmo e un palmo e mezzo con cornice d’ebano  (180v) Una pieta di palmi due e uno e mezzo con cornice d’ebano  Una battaglia con cornice d’ebano di palmi tre e uno e mezzo  Un altra battaglia di palmi due e mezzo e uno e mezzo con cornice d’ebano  Due tonni con ottono dentro con cornice d’ebano et pannetto  Un altro quadretto del Istoria di Giacob d’palmi uno e mezzo et uno cornice con d’ebano  Un altra Madonnina di palmi uno e mezzo et uno con putto con cornice d’ebano  Due quatretti d’un palmo di largezza et mezza d’altezza di figurine con cornice d’ebano  Due quattretti d’anticaglie con cornice d’ebano di un palmo e mezzo d’altezza  Due quatri d’fiorei d’palmi due e mezzo et uno e mezzo con cornice d’ebano  Un altro tonno d’un palmo scarzo con paesino con cornice indorata  Un paesino con anticaglie e figurine di palmi due scarzoe e uno e mezzo d’altezza con cornice d’ebano  Un tonno d’un palmo sop.a rame di bambocci con cornice indorata  Un boffettino di perfido laverato infogliame con piedi di ligname negro d’palmi due e mezzo e due  Tres cabelli di noce uniformi  (181r) Un oriloggio con cane indorata et piede d’ebano  Un presepio di corelli e figurine dentro una cascetta

Nel cammarino della 4.a Cam.a altre delli quatri e mobili inventariati visti e trovato uno bauglio piesco di lettore d’aviti e Cerimonie svolte et alcune scrittore legate in mazzetti et anco trenta quattro fedi di credito antiche di dicuri banchi et altre tre fedi restituite dal Patre maestro  Tre libri di negoti et libri tre di squarico

Nel med.ma Cammarino si sono li trovati l’infratti libri.  Al peccatore Augustiato dall vicina morte  Croistoria universale del mondo creata del padre ti morteo di ter:ze  le vite de pittori scoltori et architettori di Gio Batta Baglione  Vita di S.o Ignatio Loiola  Libro uno delle due del Padre Castro Reale  Un altro libro delli pittori...di Cavaliere Carlo Ridolfi  Un altro libro uno vol. Delli 3.a parte delle Vita delli pittori scoltori de Giorgio Vaccari  Descritt.ni universale e part.li del mondo e le publiche  Un libro francece a disegni  Summario istorico di Michele Zappoullo 424

 (181v) L’Impero moderno dell alemagna d’ Giacomo d’Ischia  Leggendario del flos santos D’timoteo d’Alagno monoco Cama dulete  Croniche di S.o Dom.o Sariano di fra Ant.o Pembo  Vita di fra Do.o di Greta m.o Carmeltano scalzo  Istoria di Ludovico de Dominici de diversi fatti di prencipi  Le vite de Re di napoli di sciquine Mazzella  Conturia di lettere di S: Fran.o di Paula di fra Fran.o Longobardi  Si travagli delle vespere siciline e filadelfo manzzo  Un altro libro secondo e ultimo delle Vite de pittori del Vasari  Istoria del Regno di nap.i del Costanzo  Relat.e della grande monarchia della China del P. Alvares Rimenes  Un libro di lettere di S. Cat.a di Siena  Speranza dell anima delle piaghe del Giesu del P. Auriemma della Compania del Gesu  Vita di S.a Rosa peruana del P. Mas.te  Nuovo leggendario della Vita di m.a Vergine  Ritratto del Card.le Ano Barbarino  Tre vol. Della Vita di filippos secondo con le guerre de suoi tempi descritti da Cesare Campana  Vita di Carlo quinto descritta da Alonco Ugliola  Istoria sacra della Vira di Giesu christo composta dal P. Stefano menocchio della Campagnia del Giesu ...  (182r) Opere spirituali dell P. Alexio Segala Cappucccino  Un libretto di lingua fiamenga di Giesu christo  Lettere del P. Nicolo piementi della Camp.a del Giesu del Indie  Opere spirituali del P. Granati  Un altro libretto in lingua fiamenga di Giesu christo  Vita del P. Camillo di Lellÿ  Trattato del padre Luigi Granato della Vita Christinana  La 3.a parte del Istorie del Sommona  Napoli sacro di Carlo de Lellÿ  Nove descrittioni del Regno di napoli di Gio. Pietro Rosti

In piccolo  Tomo 2.o del padre Alexio Segala  Vita del Padre Enrico Sosone Racolda da ...Ignatio dell nante  Ricordi overo ad maestramenti di monsignor Saba  Lapologia del Regno di napoli di Tomate Costa  Testam.o vecchio e nuovo del P. Del P. Damiano Muraffi  L’huomo appunto del P. Bartoli  Tesoro della sanita di Castor durante  Sette libretti spirituali

Nella quarta Cam.a  Un quatro di S. Gio.mo di palmi sei e sette con cornice indorata  (182v) Un quatro d’frutti dell istessa misura con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro di palmi otto e sei con cornice indorata di S.Gioe. 425

 Un tonno di palmi tre e due e mezzo altezza con cornice indorata con la speranza dentro con puttini  Due quatri di fratti di palmi 5 e 4 con cornice indorata  Un nativita di christo di palmi cinque e quattro con cornice indorata  Quattro quatri di tappazzaria con cornice negra di palmi tre e quattro  Una pace di palmi quattro e due e mezzo con figurine piccole con cornice indorata  Un altro paese d’palmi quattro e quattro con figurine piccole con cornice indorata  Una sammaritana con cristo di palmi sei e quattro con cornice indorata  Una nativita di christo con tre figure dentro d’palmi quattro e tre con cornice indorata  Un crocifisto con cornice indorata di palmi quattro e tre  Una battaglia d’quattro e tre con cornice indorata  (183r) Un altro d’Giacob di palmi quattre e tre con cornice indorata  Una testa di S. Gio di palmi tre e due con cornice indorata  Una girlanda di palmi quattro e tre con l’Immag. Di N S:to cornice negra et indorata allettremi  Due altri pezzi di palmi quattro e tre vasi d’ fiore con cornice negra indorata all’extremi  Un altro Vaso d’ fiori di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Due marine di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata liscia  Un anticaglia di palmi due e due e mezzo xib figarine con cornice indorata  Un christo dormente di un palmo e messo e un palmo con cornice indorata  Un rametto d’un palmo e mezzo e un palmo con figure con cornice indorata  Un maddalena d’un palmo e mezzo e un palmo con puttini con cornice negra  Una anticaglia con due paestori d’palmo due e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata  Una cornice senza quatro d’un palmo e mezzo d’altezza  Due paesini con cornice indorata di palmi due e uno e mezzo  Due marinelle senza cornice d’un palmo  (183v) Due quatretti d’un palmo e mezzo e uno uno di tobia et l’altro dell’egittiaca al decerto uniforme  Uno tonno ovato con cornice d’oro con giove e Venere  Un altro ovato d’un soldato con cornice indorata  Cinque seggi di Cacchetta usate  Sei panni d’Razza  Due boffette d’ebano di palmi sei e tre  Uno boffetino lavorato Aurlio di palmi quattro e due  Sei coscini di Vellato carmosino con fiocchi e panno bianco sopra  Uno scannetto indorato  Quattro ferri d’portiero  Un salvatore d’un palmo con cornice d’ebano  Tre cornice d’ebano senza quatri

Nell Anticamera della sala nova  Una boffetta grande di noce alla fiamenga  Un altra boffetta sim:e alla fiamenga a piegatore  Due boffette di noce di palmi sei e tre  Sette panni d’Piazza grandi d’ personaggi  Due panni d’oro pella

426

Nella sala grande  (184r) Dicidotto seggi di velluto verde  Due capofuogli d’ottone

Nella 6:a Cam:a a mandestra  Quattro quatri di fiori e frutti con cornice negra et stragalli d’oro d’palmi sei e tre  Due quatri d’palmi quattro e tre con cornice d’oro uno dell SS.mo l’altro del Bambino con la croce l’altro della Maddonna etdue santi et Angelo diversi  Due vasi di fiori di palmi tre e duce con cornice coler di noce indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi otto e sei di frutti e fiori con cornice indorata  Quattro marine d’palmi due e uno senza cornice  Un quatro d’palmi tre e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata de orfeo  Un altro quatro d’palmi tre e uno e mezzo palmo d’orfeo con lavoro con cornice indorata  Ottawa cornice indorate e negre senza quatri diverse piccole e grande  Una boffetta di marmo mischio con suo piede intaglio con tiratura  (184v) Quattro ferri di portiero con una molla d’ottene

Nell Cammarino Ultimo a mandestra  Cinquanta quatri tutti con cornice d’ebano di paesi pitture e marine di diverse ... cioe di tre in quattro e di due in tre et altre misure  Cinq.a altri quatri di paesi figurine e marine con cornice d’ebano negre  Quarant’uno altri quatri si ... con cornice d’ebano sim.e con paesi figurine e marine et un altro quatro sim.e di S.o Ano con cornice d’ebano  Altri quatri nove con figure e paesi con cornice d’ebano  Altri quatri sittanta nove di diversi paesi e figure con cornice indorate  Altri quatri quattro d’paesi digure et battaglie di palmi quattro e due cornice d’ebano  Altri quatri sette mezzani e piccoli di diverse figure e paesi con cornice d’poco negre ed stragalli d’oro  Altri quatri sedici di varie figure con cornice celaso negre  Una prospettiva di palmi sei e quattro con figure piccole con cornice di noce  (185r) Una maddonna di palmi conque e cinque con puttino inbraccio con cornice indorata  Un altra maddonna di palmi sei e quattro con putti in braccio con cornice ci noce sgraffliata d’oro  Due altri quatri d’paesi di palmi tre e due e mezzo con figurine et cornice d’oro schivate negre  Uno quatro della Regina Ester di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Uno quatro di battaglia con cornice d’ebano  Uno altro quatro di mezza figura di palmi tre e quattro con cornice negra e straggali d’oro  Uno stipo alla Genovese di noce con quattro teraturi con maniglie d’ottone indorata  In uno teraturo di d.a stipo si sono li trovate dieci libri di stampa cioe di segni  In un altro teratura stampe e di segni sciolti  Tre seggi di foÿro usate  (185v) Otto cornicelle diverse senza figure

427

Dentro uno dell Baugli rimasto nella cappella della prima prima cam.a  Uno portiero di tomasco carmosino usato  Una cortinaggio di trabbaica di tomasco carmosino con sei cortine con francie et bottoni et cinque d’oro et sue balzone tornialetto et coverta  Uno pavam.o di cam.a di tomasco carmosino con zagarelle di seta gialle di ferze n.o trent’otto con lo friso a torno di d.a cam:a con gallone e francie d’oro  Un altro pavam.o di Domasco giallo terchino guarnito di zargelle di seta gialle di ferze n.o trenta sei cioe dicecotto torchine e dicedotto gialle  Due portieri di velluto verde siano guarnito d’Gallassi d’oro  Uno covertulo di vellute verde con gallone d’oro  Uno involto di tomasco carmozino di ritglie

Dentro del altro bauglio rimasto nella cappella della primo cam.a vi sono le seg.e robbe  Uno cortioraggio di tomasco carmosino di pezzilli e galloni  (186r) d’oro attorno con balzane e tornialetto usato con portiero e capertulo sim.e guarnito d’galloni d’oro  Un altro cortinaggio di velluto verde foderato d’Armesino guarnito d’ galloni d’oro attorno con balzane e tornialetto guarnito con francie d’oro attorno  Tre portieri di Tomasco giallo foderato di sangallino torchino con galloni d’oro attorno

Nella prima Cam.a che si ascende dal Cavaco  Due prospettive con diverse figurine di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Due altri di palmi quattro e tre d’animali d’caccia con cornice indorata  Due paesini con cornice d’ebano di palmi due e uno e mezzo

Nella 2.a Cam:a  Un quatro del martirio di S.o Lorenzo di palmi dodice e otto con diversa figure con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi otto e sei con quattro mezze figure con cornice indorata  Un altro di S.o Sebastiano di palmi otto e sei con cornice indorata  (186v) Un quatro della decollat.o di S.o Paulo di palmi sette e sette con cornice indorata  Un S.o pietro dell istessa misura con cornice indorata  Uno ritratto di palmi quattro e cinque con cornice indorata  Un ritratto d’un monaco di palmi quattro e tre con cornice indorata  Due paesi di palmi due e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata  Un altro paese con diversa figurine di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Due baccanarÿ di puttini di palmi due e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata  Una maddonna con tre figure di palmi tre e due con cornice indorata  Una maddonna con putto nelle braccia di palmi tre e due con cornice indorata  Un paese d’palmi due e due con figurine con cornice indorata  Sedici quatri di diversi paesi con cornice d’ebano  Venti quattro pezzi di quatri di diverse figure paesi con cornice indorate  Uno letto per servitio de creati con lenola mante coverte et mataprazzi  (187r) Cinque seggi di vaccetta

428

Nella 3.a Cam:a  Una trabbacca indorata con sua capezzera  Un S.o Gen.mo di palmi otto con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro di palmi nove e sette di metamorfisi con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sette e otto di S. Bart.omeo con diverse figure con cornice indorata  Quattro quatri tonni con diverse figure e paesi con cornice indorata  Due quatrilli con cornice d’ebano d’paesi  Una seggia di Caÿro

Nella 4.a Cam.a  Uno quatro d’palmi otto e dieci d pesce con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’palmi otto e sei di S. Sebastiano e S. Barolomeo con cornice indorata  Cinque seggie di cataluffa turchine

(187v) Nella sala di detto parto  Uno quatro d’palmi nove e sei d’un satiro con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi sette e sei dell Istorie di Giacobe con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri di palmi tre e quattro di frutti con cornice indorata  Due quatri d’un boffone e una ninfa d’palmi tre e due con cornice indorata  Due paesi di palmi sei e tre con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri di palmi sei e tre d’un baccanario e un Titio con cornice indorata  Due ritratti di mezze figure d’palmi tre e due con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’palmi di due e uno e messo con cornice indorata di mezza figura  Un baccanario d’palmi dodici e otto con cornie indorata  Due quatri d’frutti di palmi quattro e tre d’frutti con cornice indorata  Un S.o paulo m.a [maggiore] eremita d’palmi quattro e cinque con cornice indorata  (188r) Due quatri di palmi quattro e cinque uno d’fiori e l’altro d’boffone con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro di sop.a parte di palmi sei e tre con due figure dentro con cornice indorata  Una giarra di fiori d’palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sette e cinque d’animali d caccia con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sette e cinque di S.o Sebastiano con diverse figure con cornice indorata  Tre quatretti con cornice indorata due de pesci et uno di frutti  Due paesi d’palmi otto e sei con cornice indorata  Una borrasca d’palmi otto e sei con cornice indorata di noce  Un altro quatro d’palmi sette e cinque con il ratto di Sabino con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro di palmi sette e cinque di tapazzaria con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro di christo al deserto di palmi sette e cinque con cornice indorata  Due quatri di palmi sei e cinque uno d’un boffone et l’altro di prospettiva con cornice indorata  Due quatri d’palmi tre e quattro uno d’Christo con S. Tomase (188v) et altro della Madonna con cornice indorata 429

 Due paesini di palmi tre e due con diversi animalieri con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’tapazzarie d’palmi quattro e cinque con cornice indortata all extremi  Un o quatro di palmi quattro e cinque di due boffeni con cornice indorata  Una nascita di christo d’palmi sei e cinque con cornice indorata  Un paese di palmi sei e quattro con diverse figure con cornice indorata  Un S. Ger.mo d’palmi sette e cinque con cornice indorata  Due quatri di palmi quattro e tre di Marinelle e paese con cornice indorata  Una seggi per tabile negra  Quindici seggie di vaccetta  Una boffetta d’ebano d’palmi otto e quattro

Nell 5.a Cam:a  Un Crocifisto con cornice di noce con stragallo d’oro di palmi cinq e sette  Una Maddalena di palmi quattro e tre con cornice indorata  Un quatro d’frutti d’palmi quattro e cinq con cornice indorata  Due quatri di palmi tre e due uno di bacco et l’altro di cerere con (189r) con cornice indorata  Due mezze figure di due e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata  Sei seggie di velluto verde

Nella 6.a Cam:a  Due quatro d’palmi dieci e otto uno d’caccia et l’altro di pesce con cornice indorata  Dice paesi con palmi dodici e otto con figurine con cornice indorata  Sette seggie d’rasillo terchino e giallo  Quattro ottangoli d’quattro d frutti e caccia con cornice indorata  Un paese d’palmi dodici e otto cornice indorata  Un S. Sebastiano d’palmi sei e cinque con cornice indorata  Uno ritratto di mezza figura di palmi tre e due con cornice indorata  Due battaglie di palmi quattro e tre e mezzo con cornice indorata  Dice mezze figure d’palmi due e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Una mezza figura d’palmi quattro e tre con cornice indorata  Due quatri d’palmi quattro e tre di tapazzarie e frutti con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmo quattro e tre d’frutti con cornice indorata  (189v) Un S.o And.a d’palmi otto e cinque con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’palmi quattro e cinque un d’S Paolo prima Eremita et l’altro un S.o Ano con cornice indorata  Dodici seggie usate di rasillo d;venetia  Uno boffettone d’palmi sette e mezzo e tre e mezzo d’ebano  Due altre seggie di Coÿro vecchie

Nella sala del quarto di mezzo  Un quatro d Sansone di palmi otto e sei con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi otto e sei d’una figura intitulata la musica con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi dodici e otto del sacrificio di diversa figure con cornice indorata  Una Nunciata d’palmi dieci e sei con cornice indorata 430

 Una presentatione d’maggi d’palmi otto e sei con cornice indorata  Tre pezzi d’quatri d’palmi quattro e tre con diversa figure con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’frutti e caccia d’palmi sei e tre con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’paese d’palmi sei e tre con cornice indorata  (190r) Un altro quatro d’una marinella d’palmi quattro e tre con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e cinque d’frutti con cornice indorata  Due paesi d’palmi otto e tre con cornice indorata con diverse figurine dentro  Due quatri d’palmi sei e tre d’ucellame e frutti con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e tre d’paesi con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e quattro d’un filosofo con cornice indorata  Due quatri d’palmi quattro e tre uno del martirio di S.o Andrea et l’altro d’ino Marinella con cornice indorata  Tre altri quatri d’palmi sei e tre d’paesi fiori e furtti con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e quattro d’Caccia con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’palmi ott e sei d’paesi con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’palmi quattro e tre uno del S. Gen.o et l’altro d’una marinella cornice indorata  Due marine d’palmi quatro e cinque con cornice indorata  Due battaglie d’palmi sei e quattro con cornice indorata  (190v) Due altri quatri uno d’cinque e tre e l’altro di due e tre e mezzo d’paesi e marinelle senza cornice  Dicennove portelli di vetriata  Una porta nova con posta ancora  Due seale una grande et l’altra piccola  Due seggie d’ Caÿro con francia carmosina e gialla

Nell anticamera  Un quatro di S.o Nicola d’Bari con la madonna di palmi dodici e otto con cornice indorata

Nella 2.a Cam:a  Due battaglie d’palmi sette e cinque con diverse figure con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri altri quatri d’palmi sei e cinque d’ucellame con cornice indorata  Una Marinella d’palmi sette e quattro con diverse figurine con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e cinque d’caccia con cornice indorata

Nella 3.a Cammera Vacante  (191r) Una trabbacca indorata con il suoi certinaggio di tomasco giallo con controtaglio  Sei seggie dell istesso controtaglio  Tre camere appresto Vacante

In Una cammarino in piano di detto quatro  Tre quatri d’palmi otto e cinque due d’paesi uno napoli senza cornice  Un quatro d’palmi dodici e nove d’personaggi senza cornice

431

 Un altro dell istessa misura ... christo caccio li ebrei dall tempio senza cornice  Un altro dell istessa misura della disputa di christo senza cornice  Un altro dell istessa misura di S.a Agata senza cornice  Due altri paesi d’palmi otto e sei zenza cornice  Due altri quatri d’palmi e cinque paese e frutti senza cornice  Sessanta sette pezzi d’quatri paessagi frutti battaglia tra grandi e pixcoli senza cornice

(191v) Nella saletta ammanco in piano a d.o quarto di mezzo  Due quatri grandi d’palmi dodici e otto della fuga d’Eggito e l’altro la cena del Derto con cornice d’oro  Quattro paessaggi di palmi cinque e tre con cornice indorata con figurine  Una boffetta di noce in ottangolo  Tre cornice indorata

Nella 2.a Cam:a  Un quatro d’palmi dieci e sette una magaria con cornice d’noce et stragallo d’oro  Un altro quatro d’palmi sette e sei d’frutti con cornice indorata  Due quatri d’palmi quattro e cinque con diverse figure e marine con cornice indorata  Un sansone d’palmi dieci e nove con cornice indorata

Nella 3.a Cam:a  Due quatri d’palmi tre e due con cornice indorata di ritratti  Una disputa di christo d’palmi quattro e quattro con cornice indorata  (192r) Un San Bruno de palmi quattre e cinque con cornice indorata  Cinque seggie di vacchetta repuntate usata

Nella 4.a Cam:a  Uno quatro de palmi cinque e cinque quando Christo andò innanzi a pilato con cornice indorata  Una Madonnina con putto in braccia d’palmi quattro e tre con cornice indorata  Un altra Madonnina con putto in braccia d’palmi due e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Uno paese d’palmi sei e quattro con cornice indorata  Due quatri d’palmi sei e quattro con cornice indorata  Due quatri d’palmi sei e tre uno d’paese et l’altro di venere adormentata con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro di tubiolo di palmi quattro e cinque con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’palmi sei e tre uno istoriata et altro della pigliata di Christo all Orto con cornice indorata  Due paesi di palmi quattro e tre con diverse figurine con cornice indorata  Una pieta d’palmi cinque e due e mezzo sopra tavola con cornice indorata  Una immagine della Madonna mezza figura con cornice (192v) Indorata d’palmi tre e due  Una vergine d’palmi quattro e tre con cornice indorata  Una navicella di christo d’palmi sie e tre con cornice indorata

432

 Un altro quatro d’palmi quattro e cinque d’pesce con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro dell istessa misura con frutti con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e quattro d’paesi con cornice indorata  Un altro paese d’palmi sei e tre con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e quattro con Adone e Venere con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi cinque e quattro della Maddonaa e S. Gio con cornice indorata  Otto quatretti di diverse figure con cornice d’ebano  Una Madonnina d’palmi tre e due con cornice indorata  Un altra dell istessa misura con cornice indorata  Una cena di nostro R:e di palmi tre e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Un S. Gio d’palmi quattro e quattro con cornice indorata  (193r) Un altro quatro d’un mezzo ritratto d’palmi quattro e cinq con cornice indorata  Un tonno con una testa d’ritratto di palmi due e cornice indorata  Un S.o Ano Abbate d’palmi sei e tre con cornice indorata  Una Maddalena pentita d’palmi cinque e tre con cornice negra  Un altro quatro d’quattro e tre con cornice di noce d’ritratto  Una prospettiva d’palmi sei e quattro con cornice indorata all estremi  Un altro quatro con la cena di christo d’palmi cinque e cinque con cornice indorata  Una nascita di nostro S.e d’palmi quattro e cinque con cornice indorata  Un paese d’palmi quattro e cinque con figure con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sette e cinque con l’arca d’noé con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro dell istessa misura con diverse figure et animali dell istessa banrica dell arca con cornice indorata  (193v) Una pietà d’palmi otto é cinque con cornice d’noce indorata all’estremi  Una Madonna con S.o Gioseppe con cornice all antica con due colonne  Due quatretti d’palmi due é uno é mezzo con diversa figure con cornice d’ebano  Due quatri d’palmi due é un é mezzo d’paesi con cornice di noce indorata all estremi  Due paesi d’palmi tre é due é mezzo con cornice di noce indorata all estremi  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei é due d’ucellame con cornice d’ebano  Una Madonna con putto inbraccio é San Giosep.e d’palmi tre é due con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi tre é due del Carriaggi d’Giacob con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro dell’istessa misura con marinelle con diverse figure con cornice indorata  Un altro paese d’palmi tre é due con una fuga d’eggitto con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi tre é due di mezza figura di S.Ger.mo con cornice indorata  (194r) Due altri quatri di palmi tre é due d’paese e frutti e spuonole con cornice indorato  Un altro quatro d’palmi due é uno e mezzo d’una marinella con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’palmi tre é uno d’marinelle con diverse figure con cornice d’ebano  Due altri quatri d’palmi tre é due con paesi et anticaglie  Due altri quatri d’due é uno é mezzo uno d’caccia et l’altro con buffoni con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi tre é tre con cornice indorata con diverse figure dentro  Quattro quatri d’palmi tre é due é mezzo d’marinelle con roncie ceraco indorata all’extremi  Un altro quatro d’palmi tre é due d’personaggio con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi quattro é tre d’marine con cornice indorata  Una battaglia di palmi quattro é due con cornice indorata  (194v) Un altro d’palmi quattro e due di mezza figura de ritratto con cornice di noce indorata all estremi 433

 Una altro quatro d’palmi tre e due di Giarra di fiori con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi quattro e cinque dell ecce homo con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre d’caccia con cornice negra con stragallo d’oro  Un altro d’palmi cinque e tre christo fa oratione all orto con cornice di noce indorata al estremi  Due altri quatri d’palmi cinque e tre uno d’paesi et l’altro di prospettiva con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi sei e quattro d’paese con diarine con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre d’paesi con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi quattro e cinque d’frutti con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro dell istessa misura d’paesaggio con cornice indorata  Un altro dell istessa misura d’palmi quattro e cinque d’pesce e ramo cipro con cornice indorata  (195r) Un altro del istessa misura d’frutti con cornice d’noce indorata all estremi  Un altro d’palmi quattro e cinque de fiori e frutti con cornice indorata  Una prospettiva d’palmi quattro e cinque con diverse figurine con cornice indorata all estremi  Un altro quatro dell istessa misura d’frutti con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi tre e due con paesino con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’un palmo l’uno con boffeni con cornice indorata  Due marinelle d’palmi due e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi due e uno e mezzo del Rosario cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi due e due e mezzo con Christo sdegnato con cornice indorata  Un altro d;giarra d’palmi due e uno e mezzo d’fiori con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi due e uno e mezzo con cornice de ebano  (195v) Un altro d’palmi tre e due de frutti con cornice indorata  Un paesino d’uno e uno e mezzo con cornice indorata all’estremi  Uno d’palmi tre e due d’fiori con figure di basso rilevio  Una S.a Catarina senza cornice d’palmi quattro e tre

Nella 5.a Cam:a  Un quatro d’palmi otto e sei con diverse robbe di cocina con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi sette e cinque d’caccia con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi sette e sette con figura baso d’Argento inbrauro et diversi istrom.i con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre con marde e venere con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi tre e due con mezza figura d’un ritratto con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi cinque e due e mezzo con la nascita di proserpina con cornice indorata  Due quatretti di due e uno e mezzo uno di S.o Gio con l’altro di S. Ger.mo con cornice indorata  (196r) Due altri quatri delli istessa misura d’paesini con cornice indorata  Un altro di due e due e mezzo con Istoria d’Abramo con cornice indorata  Due altri dell istessa misura d’prospettiva e paesino con cornice indorata  Un altro di palmi tre e due d paese con cornice d’ebano  Un altro di palmi due e mezzo d’paese con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi quattro e due d’Davide quando tagliata la testa al gigante olia con cornice indorata 434

 Un altro d’quattro e tre palmi d’fiori con cornice indorata  Due altri uno martirio di S.a Agata et un altro d’frutti e fiori d’palmi tre e quattre con cornice negra de ceraso  Un altro palmi due e uno e mezzo di Giacob adoremtato con cornice indorata  Due altri uno e mezzo e due palmi d’un paese e marinella con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi due e mezzo e due d’un paese con cornice indorata  (196v) Un altro d’palmi tre e due con l’adoratione d’Bacco con cornice  Un altro d’uno e due e mezzo paese cin cornice indorata  Una pieta di palmi due e mezzo e due con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi due e uno e mezzo con marinella con cornice indorata  Un altro di palmi due et uno e mezzo con la pioggia d’oro con cornice indorata  Undici quatri d’paesini caccia con cornice d’ebano  Uno quattro di mezza figure di S.o Ant. Abbate d’palmi tre e due con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi tre e due d’paese con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi due e uno e mezzo d’Susanna giudicata  Un altro d’palmi due e mezzo edue d’paese con cornice indorata  Un altro di palmi tre e due d’paese di diverse figure con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi due e uno e mezzo quando christo andava al Calvario con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e due con paese con cornice d’ebano  Un altro d’palmi quattro e quattro del martirio S.a Catarina con cornice indorata  (197r) Un altro quatro d’palmi quattro e cinque d’caccia con cornice d’noce indorata all extremi  Un altra con trofeo et armi dell istessa misura con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi due e mezzo e due di mezza figura di S. Ger.mo con cornice indorata  Un altro dell istessa misura della Madonna con S.o Carlo con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’palmi tre e due d’prospettiva con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi due e due e mezzo d’paesi con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi due e uno e mezzo d’paese con figurine con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi due e mezzo e due con adone e venere con cornice negra sgraftiata d’oro  Un altro d’palmi sue e uno e mezzo d’paese con diverse figure con cornice d’oro  Uno paesino d’un palmo e mezzo et un palmo con cornice d’oro  Due quatri di palmi tre e due e mezzo con diverse figure cuno d’abello et l’altro d’sciono con cornice indorata  (197v) Due altri quatri di palmi quattro e due con due ritratti uno d’huomo et l’altro di Donna con cornice indorata  Un altro palmi quattro e tre d’frutti con cornice indorata  Un altro di battaglia dell istessa misura con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi tre e due e mezzo dell Immagine della Madonna e pecerelle con cornice d’oro e negra  Un altro d’palmi tre e due con paese con cornice d’oro  Un altro di palmi tre e due e mezzo d’una prospettiva  Un altra d’palmi due e mezzo e due d’mezza figura con cornice indorata  Un altro di palmi tre e die do S. Giacomo con cornice indorata d’mezza figura  Un altro d’palmi due e uno e mezzo del sacrificio d’Abramo con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi due e mezzo e due d’un paese con cornice d’oro

435

 Due quatri di palmi tre e uno e mezzo d’uno sciavetto et l’altro ritratto con cano alle mani con cornice d’oro  Due quatri di due palmi e uno e mezzo euno mezza figura di S. Pietro et l’altra mezza figura di S. Ger.mo con cornice indorata  (198r) Un altro d’palmi quattro e cinque venere con putto con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri d’palmi quattro e tre uno d’frutti e l’altro d’paese con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi tre e mezzo e tre d’frutta con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre con la disputa di christo con cornice negra sgrafiata d’oro  Un altro di palmi quattro e due e mezzo paese con cornice indorata  Un altra battaglia d’palmi cinque e tre con cornice indorata  Due altri di palmi due e due e mezzo di prospettiva con cornice indorata  Due altri d’paesi d’un palmo e mezzo e un plamo con cornice indorata  Un altro dell istessa misura con una testa con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi tre e uno e mezzo con Christo con cornice indorata  Due altri d’palmi quattro e due d’ritratti di mezza figure con cornice indorata

Nella 5.a Cam:a vi e uno Cammarino a manmano  (198v) Un quatro d’palmi sei e quattro un giove fulminate con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi sei e quattro e mezzo d’Abramo con Isack con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi sei e quattro con mercurio e venere con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi cinque e quattro d’Uleano nella lete con cornice d’oro  Due altri di palmi tre e due con cornice d’noce e stragallo d’oro d’paesi  Due altri d’palmi quattro e tre di due ritratti con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre di S. Luise con cornice negra meniata d’oro  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre d’ritratto con la goliglia con cornice negra  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre con paese con cornice negra et oro  Un altro d’palmi tre e due di S. Ger:mo con cornice negra et stragallo d’oro  Due altri d’palmi tre e due d’frutti con cornice d’oro  (199r) Quattro altri dell istessa misura d’un paese con caccia con cornice d’oro  Due altri paesi d’palmi due e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Due altri paesi d’palmi due e due e mezzo con cornice indorata  Due altri quatri dell istessa misura con mammoeli con cornice d’oro  Due altri quatri di palmi due e due barca navÿ con cornie d’oro  Due di palmi due e uno e mezzo di paesi con cornice indorata all estremi  Un altro di palmi due e uno e mezzo d’una battaglia con cornice negra indorata all extremi  Un altro di palmi tre e due con Ucelli con cornice bianca intagliata  Uno specchio d’palmi uno e messo e uno con cornice d’ebano

Nella 5.a Cam:a  Uno quatro d’palmi otto e sei del sacrificio d’Isack con cornice d’oro  (199v) Due quatri di palmi sette e cinque uno con diana gerita et l’altro con satiro con due nife con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi otto e sei con due strolagi con cornice d’oro  Due altri quatri d’palmi quattro e cinque con due gilosofi con cornice d’oro

436

 Un altro d’palmi sette e sette quatrato d’un Europa con puttini con cornice di noce indorata all estremi  Uno sop.a porta d’ ercole di palmi sei e quattro con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi quattro e tre d’una Lucretia che se ammazza con cornice indorata e negra  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre con S. Gio con cornice indorata  Un altro dell istessa misura con paese con cornice di nove indorata all estremi  Un altro dell istessa misura di Caccia con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre con S.o Sebastiano di mezza figura con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi sette e cinque d’frutti e fiori con cornice (200r) con cornice indorata  Due quatri simili misura uno d’ucellame et un altro della sammaritana con Christo con cornice indorata  Un altro d’quattro e cinque palmi de una Madonna con puttino inbraccia con cornice indorata  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e quattro d’paese con diverse figure con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi sei e quattro con la pigliata di christo al deserto con cornice d’oro  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e tre d’uno notune d’mare con diverse figure con cornice d’oro  Un altra d’palmi sei e tre d’una marina con una imbarcatione di diverse figure con cornice d’oro  Due altri d’palmi quattro e inque uno d’paesi et l’altro di Caccia con cornice d’oro  Un altro quatro dell istessa misura di pesce con cornice d’oro  Un altro quatro d’palmi sei e quattro una marina con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi quattro e cinque con tre marie che vanno il molimento con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi sei e tre d’una marina con diverse figurine con cornice d’oro  (200v) Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre con frutti e cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre di mezza figura di S.a. M.a Maddalena d’pazzi con cornice d’oro  Due quatri d’palmi quattro e tre d’ due marina con vascelli con corince d’ebano  Due altri quatri d’palmi quattr e tre d’paesi con cornice indorata all extremi  Due quatri di palmi tre e due uno d’pesci et l’altro de frutti con cornice d’ebano  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre con prospettiva con figurine con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi quattro e cinque con l’Angelo tobia con anticaglia con cornice d’oro  Un altro quatro d’palmi nove e cinque con una figura dentro con diversi istrume.i d’astrologia con cornice indorata  Uno paese d’palmi dieci e sette con Istoria d’Mazeoalfiame con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre d’paese con cornice negra sgrifiata d’oro  Una madonna con putto di palmi tre e due con cornice d’ebano  (201r) Un altro d’palmi sei e quattro del Istoria del eleconte con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi sei e cinque con cristo con li apostoli con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi sei e cinque con una madonna e diverse figure con cornice indorata in estremo di noce  Due paesi d’palmi sei e quattro con cornice di noce indorata all estremi  Due altri quatri d’palmi sette e cinque di prospettiva con cornice di noce  Un altro quatro d’palmi sette e sei d’ marte e apollo con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi sette e cinque d’Apelle con corince indorata all extremi  Un altro d’palmi tre e quattro d’una madonna con una figura ingionschiata interra con cornice d’oro 437

 Due mezze figure di palmi tre e due con corince d’oro uno della Maddalena et l’altro un ritratto con cornice d’oro  Un altro d’palmi tre e due e mezzo con frutti e fiori con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi tre e quattro d’frutti e fiori con cornice indorata  Un altro di S. Ger.mo d’palmi tre e quattro con cornice indorata  (201v) Un altro dell istessa misura con frutti e ragosta con cornice d’oro  Un altro dell istessa misura con frutti e ucellame con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi sette e quattro d’paese con cornice indorata  Un altro d’palmi quattro e tre con paesaggio con cornice indorata  Due tavolette con due ritratti con cornice di noce  Uno ritratto sop.a tavola d’palmi due e uno senza cornice  Cinque quatretti con diversi figurine e paesi con corince d’ebano  Tre tonnetti con paesi con cornice d’noce  Uno ritratto sop.a rame d’uno priete  Una boffetta di noce

Nell ultimo quatro in una Cam:a vi sono le seg.te robbe:  Uno quatro d’palmi quattro a tre con cornice negra e stragallo d’oro d’paesi  Due altri paesi d’palmi sei e cinque con cornice negra  Uno quatro con vetro in caccie con donna con cornice misca d’palmi quattro e quattro  Due carte da navigare con cornice d’oro  Otto ritratti con cornice negra d’palmi nove e cinque parte delli con panni d’taffetta  Un altro ritratto senza cornice d’palmi sei e cinque  Quattro seggi di velluto torchino vecchio  Quattro scabelli intagliati  (202r) Cinquanta nove pezzi d’panni de razza con figure e fiori e personaggi  Una trabbacca indorata  Due coscini di carrozza di velluto verde et due parasangli d’Vacchetta con galloni carmosino  Due trappeti uno nuoveo e l’altro usato  Tre coverte di lana neve  Una trabbacca di ripeso con copezzera ustata con diversi scanni e una botte vacante  Due roti di stole nove  Uno ferr dell arcovo grande

Nella pr.a Cam:a amandriatta della prina grada dove habita S. And:a Montaldo magiardomo di detto q.m Gaspar si vi trovato  Un letto con trabbacca di noce liscia con cortinaggio di rosciato bianco et anco uno stipo boffette cascie e baufli con cortimaggio di Domasco usato dentro detta cascia  Uno brasiero di rame due pezzonetti uno grande et l’altro piccolo  Una caldava di rame  Uno scaldaletto et una Ramera per far collori et una tiella  Due capofochi et una con colasapra brascirodi legno  Due scopette di caccia nell armario  (202v) Due specchi mezzani e due piccoli

438

 Uno quatro della madonna del Rosario con cornice indorata piccolo  Un croscifisco di legno  Un altarine con tre bambini et una madonna et altri quatretti

Quali beni mobili si sono li lasciata al d:o Andrea Montaldo preverno suoi proprÿ con la di chiavaeo.e fatta nel suo testam.o fatta da d:o q.m Gaspar

Nella seq.te Cam:a dove habita detto And.a Montaldo sono ritrovate le infrascritte altri beni mobili sim.le proprÿ di detto And.a Montaldo ciro  Due baugli di vacchetta usati dentro delli quali sono alcune biancarie una concoletta d’Argento con brocche e cecchiari sono proprÿ loro con for.e detta dichiara:e  In un altro bauglio vi sono ritrovate alcune biancharie usate quali stavano per servitio del riposto et tavla di detto Gaspar  Quattro para di lenzola nove di tela della cava di quattro-ferze l’uno delle quali se ne sono rilasciate dice para a d.o Andrea giornate le biancarie usate per d.o servitio di tavola et riposto [illegible] della dis.pe di d.o Ss. Gaspar

(203r) Dentro uno coscia di noce si sono ritrovati l’infratti vestiti cecchi di d.o Ss. Gasparo  Uno ferraiolo di teletta liscia color di musco usato  Tre para di calzoni due cassache et due corpetti di boratto negro usati quali similm.e sono rilasciati a d.o And.a

In un altra cascia di noce si sono ritrovate l’infratte robbe:  Uno pavam.o di sato falso carmosino bianco e Giallo di ferze vent’otto  Un pavam.o di rezza cecchio foderato di sangallo torchino di ferze venti con il friso attorno dell istesso  Un altro pava.o di broccatello di venetia verde camorcio e bianco di ferze venti sei  Due corscini di tomasco gialle e roste  Due ferze di braccatiello bianco  Una calamaro e polverino d’Arg.o

In uno stipo di chiuppo si sono tirtovati l’infratti robbe:  Sette ferze di controtaglio spare  Cinque ferze di tomasco giallo  Uno baldacchino di braccatiello d’un netia camorcio consistente in uno panno grande con friso atorno  Due coverte di tafetta in cotrate rosse e gialle  (203v) Un portiero di tomasco carmosino con francie di seta gialla  Un altro pavam.o di taffetta scanogente di pezzi sette  Due ferze di tomasco giallo vecchie  Uno friso di taffetta torchino  In un altro stipo di chiappo grande

439

 Un cortinaggio con zampanaro di taffetta regato inforrato di taffetta verde consistente in pezzi venti due  Un altra corinaggio con zampanara sim.e di taffetta regato di pezzi venti cinque carmosina e torchina  Un copertulo di armesi color di perla inferrato di taffetta torchino  Uno sproviero di mezzo tomasco carmosino d’pezzi quattro in fluta detta coperta con francia d’oro e seta con la sua cappetella con francia di seta e oro e controtaglio alle extremi consistente in pezzi cinque ... tre pezzi d’spbroviero coppietella e tornialetto  Un altro sproviero sim.e di tomasco carmosino consistente in cinque pezzi con francia d’oro e seta  Un altro sproviero di tomasco all extremi con controtaglio di velluto e oro con sua coppetella e tornialetto  Tre copera di tomasco delli soputo tre sprovieri

(204r) Dentro un guarda robba di noce con quattro fodari vi sono le seq.e robbe:  Un friso di braccatillo di venetia con francia di seta consistene in pezzi sei color camorcio rosso e biancho  Uno portiero di tomasco verde con galline d’oro

Nell 2.o fodaro  Due coperte di tomasco con li estremi di controtagli  Due portieri di tomasco con francie

Nell 3.o fodaro  Sei panni d’armetino ondato con estremi d’Armesino torchino con francia di seta

Nell 4.o fodaro  Uno friso di broccatiello d’venetia turchino bianco e rosso  Uno sproviero di cataluffa giallo  Uno pezzo d’armeti torchino  Un altro tornialetto  Undici pezzi di broccatiello di venetia torchini vecchi

 Nell altro guardarobba di noce  Uno aparam.o di tomasco verde di ferze ... quaranta quattro  Una cortina di tomasco ricamata all extremi verde di tafetta sim.e verde de pezzi ... dicenove  (204 v) Un portiero et friso da’’ istesso

Nell 2.o fodero di detto Guardarobba  Una trabbacca di tomasco caromsino con controtagli de pezzi n.o otto  Due portieri di tomasco verde con galleni d’oro  Un altro portiero di tomasco carmosino

440

 Un altro portiero di taffetta rigato inforato di tagetta verde  Un altro portiero di tomasco carmosino con francia gialla  Uno panno di taffetta carmosino coprire quatro  Un altro portiero carmosino  Un altro portiero di cataluffa gialla  Una copertulo d’Armesino coler di perle usato

Nell 3.o fodaro  Tre portieri di tomaca carmosino con francia gialla di seta  Un altro portier di tomaco torchino  Una copertulo di tomaco carmosino con controtaglia  Due pezzi di taffetta legato

Nella loggia del primo appartamento vi sono sissant’uno teste d’Agrume di diverse agrume tinte torchine

(205r) Nella cisterna una ferro con la trocciaola d’ottone tiranli accqua

Nella piano di detto palazzo et proprie in una stalla grande grande vi sono tavole n.o venticinque per servitio di fabrica con diversi stanteri porte et altre mezzoni di lavole et lesi di tavole per fabbricare Uno centimolo con sua rota per tirare pietre d’monte ...ravi vecchi n.o sei

Nella cantina vi sono ritrovati novanta due fiaschi impagliati pessi et molti altri fiaschi sim.e impagliati con quattro tavole sotto detti faschia Et piu quattro travi vecchi con una quantita di travicelli et mozzoni di tavole

In una Cam:a in piano del cortile vi sono le infratte robbe:  Dieci capofochi d’ottone tra grandi e piccoli  Due terocciole calzare fabrica  Un ferro per la rosa  Una cascetta di caÿro  Uno stipo grande di chiuppo con quantita d’pezzi d’oro pelle  Quattro trappeti di tavola  Due spiti  (205v) Un mezzo stipo di castagno  Una cascia di chiappo  Una trabacca di noce indorata all extremi mancante alcuni pezzi  Uno ferro di catena

In un altro cammerino in d.o Cortile  Due coscioni di Abeto 441

 Uno fonicello grosto la fabrica  Una quantita di chiancarelle vecchie e legname

In una altra Cam.a in d.a Cortile con legne dentro  In una cam:a delli creati chisisale per il cortile dove habita lonardo Durso et baldassarre chiappino  Una seggia di Coÿro vecchia con due scabelli di noce indorati  Una boffetta di noce  Una tiella di ferro con manica vecchia

Nella 2.a Cam:a  Due lecti con matarazzi due per letto con lenzola et coverte con tavole e scanni  Uno specchio in ottagolo con cornice negra rotto  Una concola di rame per brasicro  (206r) Uno scabello di noce intagliata  Una seoppetta et due ...fioni

In uno altra Cammerino in piano d.o palazzo vi sono le seq.e robbe:  Uno matarazzo con tre trappiti  Uno scrittorio di noce vecchio  Una concola sue brasera

In una rimetta dentro detto palazzo  Una carrozza di campaona con cortine di tomasco carmosino con cortine di vacca  Venti due portielli diversata tra grandi e piccoli

In un altra rimetta vacanse Nel pezzo di c.o Cortile le due secchi di rame con sua funa et brocciola di ramo cipro con ferro Dove si lava una caldara grande per colata

Nella grada del quatro nuovo della Cam.a dove habita il Carlo Monaco gentilhuomo del Gaspar In ... sei seabelli di noce inodrati usati  Un crocifisto in argentato in quatro con cornice d’ebano d’palmi due e mezzo in d.a  Un letto ciro trabbacca di riposa due matarazzi copertulo (206v) Di debbetto con francia bianca quali di chiara essere suoi proprÿ  Uno specchio con cornice d’ebano d’palmi due in circa proprio di d.a Gaspar  Due boffette di noce sim.e di d.a heredita  Una scppetta a mortinetto di caccia

442

Nella med:mo quatro nove dove habita il Coco –  Una lettera con due matarazzi due coperte et uno paro di lenzola

Nella Cam:a del compratore di Coco vi sono ‘infratte  Due letti perservitio decreati due matarazzi per letto con mance e lenzola  Quindici quatri sopra pietra d’Genova con cornice negra et stragalli d’oro con diverse figurere  Un scrittorio di sei teratori d’avolio intagliato  Un oriloggia di spito  Una scopetta

Nella P.ma Cam:a della Cocina  Una botte e tre scanni di chiappo  Un altro tavolona di noce e due scanni di chiuppo

(207r) Nella 2.a Cam:a di detta Cocina  Una concolene grande di rame  Uno fornello di ferro  Uno fornelleo di Rame  Uno paro di sicchi di rame con catene di ferro  Una cocoma di rame  Quattro pozzonetti due piccoli e due grandi  Una concola di rame  Uno secchio di rame  Tre cannavata due grande e uno piccola  Tre pastabrodi di rame due grandi e uno piccolo  Tre barraichiglie e due tielluicie di rame  Due tielli di rame una grande e una mezzana et et altri resdi di ferro di cocina uno spito abiento con li contropisi  Due gractiglie  Una navicella lotta  Un capofoco di ferro  Una pala di ferro et due coperchi di rame

Nella dispenza...vanti  Nota delle Biancarie exhibite dalla Signora Elisabetta Montaldo  (207v) Quali biancarie soraino poruto dell B.A delli Gaspar Romer ad finorea moltalodo magiardomo suo marito quali stanno dentro un baullo di Vacchetta  Due para di lenzola nove di tele sottile della Cava  Sette para de lenzola usate di tele della cava  Sette mesali di fiandra usati 443

 Quarant’uno salvietti di firandra usati  Enti quattro cammise della B.A de Il. Gaspar vecchie  Sedici para di calizenette della D. deli Gaspar Vecchie  Cinq.ta nove salvietti di fiandra ledi usati  Tre para di lenzola vi tela lordi et usati  Sei musali di fiandra lordi usati  Sei cammise lorde di tela della cava

Nella Cam:a del riposto in centro la Cam:a di detto And:a dentro uno stipe vi sono le seq.e robba:  Sette lenzola usate di tela della cava  Tredici mesali di faindra usati  Sissant salvietti usati  Vent’uno cammise di tel della cava usate  Vent’uno lenzola creati usati

In un altro stipo si m.te in d.a Cam:a  (208r) Venti sette mesali usati  Seidici lenzola decreti usati

In uno sacchitiello quale sta nelle Cam:a di sopra saruato vi sono le seq.te robbe:  Una ritratta di rame di S.a M.a Maddalena de Pazzi  Alcune pochi monete false cioé alcune d’argento tre monte d’oro ciro una di Duc.ti sei una senliglia et una mezza doble –  Una corona di pastiglia –  Le vetriate sistentino in d.o palzzo –  La carrozzino et un para de cavalli

444

Appendix C Last Will and Testament of Gaspare Roomer, 1673

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino, 298/39

[406r] Jesus Maria Joseph. Testam.to in scriptis chiuso e sigillato cono.to ordinato e fatto per me Gaspare de’Roomer, queste voglio, che voglia per rag.ne di testam.to in scriptis chiuso, e sigillato e se per tal rag.ne forsi non va lesse voglia per ne di testam.to nuncupasicco di codicilli donat.ne causa mortis di legato, et in ogn’altra meglior via che dalla legge mi view portnesso cassando et annullando con questo tutt’altri testam.ti, codicilli, donationi causa mortis, e pios causos per me fatti sino ad hoggi e particolm.te il mio testam.to in scriptis per me fatto l’altri passati per mano di N. Paolo Colacino e siano à rispetto delli legati pris ma voglio che questa sia la mia ultima volontà, e chi dal presente testam.to si ne possa decrahere nè defalcare cosa obscura, per me rag.ne di natura, falcidia o trebellianica overo per sussido de beni né per quals.a altra rag.ne causa, e snodo.

Prim.te perche l’a situa è più degna del corpo, e di tutte le cose create, però Io sono testatore come ver, e fedele christanio lascia [406v] al sommo, et sua potente Io dò mio creatores supplicandolo humilimente a ricerverla per il merisi della possione di Giesu Christo suo figliolo unico Sig.r nostro la racommando alla protettione della gloriosissima madre Vergine Maria mia Avocata e Protettrice, al mio S.to Angelo Custode a S.to Michele Archàngelo, S.o Giuseppe Glorioso, S.ti Francesco d’Assisi, e di Paula, Santo Ant.o de Padua, S.to Pietro d’Alantar, S.to Nicolo di Bari e di Solessino, Santa Marina Maddalena de Pazzi et à tutta la Corte del cielo, quale prego devo tasn.te degnito collcarla nel SS. Regno del paradiso, e voglio che quando ‘Anima mia sarà seporrata dal corpo, il mio cadavero si deb.a sepilire nella Vente chiesa di S.ta Maria della Vita del Borgo de Vergini di questo Città di Napoli dell’ord.e carmelitano per perche istitutione dell’herede e capo e principio di quals.a testam.to senza la quale il testam.to per di sposit.ne di legge si dice esser nullo, per tanto Io sod.o testatore istituisco, ordino e con la mia prop.a bocca nomino, e fo à [407r] mio herede Unive.le, e particolare il sacro Ospedale e casa S.ta dell’Incurabili di questa med.ma Città di Napoli, sopra tutti e quals.no miei beni, mobili, e stabili, presenti, e futuri dovunque siti, posti, et in qualsivogliono luoghi, e cose consistentio, annue entrade con li loro capitole sopra diversi arrendam.ti insieme colli tre quinti à me spettanni di quello devo ricuperare dalla Reg.a Corte consistente in liberanze spedite dalla med.ma Regia Corte che l’altri due quinti spettano all’heredi del S.o Giovani Vandeneinde, della quali liberanze me tiene nota il Sig.r Gio: Battista Siniscalo; e qualsi vogliono effetti d’arrendam.ti scordati con le loro annue entrade, et altre qualsivogliono rag.ne et attioni a me sod.o testatore spettantino, e pertinentino nune, et in future in quals.a modo eccetto però dell’infrascritti legati, e dispositione quali voglio si deb.no in tutto, e per tutto ad...adempire et osservare per esser tale la mia volontà

 Item lascio all Ven.le Chiesa parochiale di [407v] San Giuseppe glorioso mio particolar divota e protettore sita alli trabaccari, inauratori, e mastri d’Ascia di Monte Oliveto di questa città di Napoli. La mia casa grande con le botteghe a torno sita dirimpetto il portone del Ven.le mon.io d’ Monte Oliveto, con l’annue entrade che si cavano dalla pig.ni d’essa Casa, e col peso del censo di D.ti cento due tarì tré, e grana trè, che si devono ogn’anno al d.o Mon.sio di Monte olivetro, e voglio che dell’entrade, ch’ogn’anno pervenneranno da d.o Casa, e botteghe, dedotte le spese necessarie per manteni.to di d.a casa, e botteghe, e d.o annuo censo di D.ti 102.3.3 si ne debbiano 445

maritare tante figliole zite e povere de Mastri trabaccari, inauratori e mastri d’ascia, alle quali figliole si li debbia dare docati Cento per ciasc.a d’esse per suo maritaggio, e questo sotto il governo et a dispositione delli maestri governatori di d.o chiesa parochiale di San Giuseppe pro tempore non volendo chi in questo S’habbia si modo alcuno da ingerire il R.do Parrochia ne il sacrestano di .d.a Parochia, e chiesa di Sa. Giuseppe.  [408r] Item lascio tutti li danari cosi contanti quali a tempo della mia morte si ritroveranno in mia casa, tanto in oro, quanto in argento, come ancora nelli banchi al m.to R.lo Padre Maestro fra Honofrio Sorrentino Carmiltano mio Padre spirituale acció ne disponghi conforme la mia intentione, la quale simila.te comunicheró a bocca a d.o S.r Gio. Batta Sinscalco, e si contenera in una nota scritta e firmata de mia prop.a mano, et autenticata per mano di N. Paolo Colacino alla quale si debbia dar pieta fede, la quale nota s’inserira in fine del presente Testamento in foglio a parte.  Item lascio anzi confermo la donatione e e vendita per me fatta gli’anni passati Ven.le M.io di S.ta Teresa del SS.mo Sacramento delle Sig.re monache carmelitone sito vicino il Ponte di Giesumaria et al presente reformoso con breve Aposolica et approbato dall’ ess.mo Sig.r Cardinal Caracciolo Arcivescono Nap.no sotto titolo di S.ta Maria Mad.na de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to d’annoi d.ti cinquemila duceto cinquanta per Capitale di D.ti settanta cinque mila sop.a la prima impositione delle grana venticinque per [408v] che s’esigeno nella R.a dohana di Nap. e suoi giurisdictione per goderli alla mia morte, et impiegarli nella maniera conforme d.e Sig.ne Monache all’hora s’obligarano per pu.ica scrittura alla quale mi rimetto.  Item lascio alla R.da sor Maria Diodata de Rosa Monaca nel Ven.le M.rio seu conservatorio del SS.mo Rosario alle Pigne di questa città di Nap. sito nel borgo de Vergini docati trenta il mese sua vita dur.te tantum con conditione peró, che debbia continuare la sua habitatione in d.o conser.io e no altrim.ti d’altro modo, atteso tale è mia volontà.  Item lascio all R.da sor Elisabetta Corrardi Monaco nel M.io di S.ta Maria del Soccorso di questa città di Nap sotto il Mon.io della Trinità delle monache d.ti diece il mese durante la vita di d.a Sor elisabetta tantum e non ultra.  Item lascio à Giovàn Stella mio serv.te li d.ti cento che l’ho improntato in due volte per lo banco del Spirito Santo.  Item si lascio al sod.o Mon.rio seu Conser.io le Ss.mo Rosario alle Pigne d.ti diece mila per una volta tantum da pagarsili fra diece anni decordi daldi da mia morte, cioè d.ti mille l’anno da spendersi per servitio della fabrica di quello, però li lascio tanto meno quanto io sod.o Testatore da hoggi avanti (concedendome il S.r Iddio gratia di vita) risolversi di far mettere mano alla d.a fabrica, nel qual caso si deb.a defalcare e deducere da di. D.ti diece mila q.lla summà di danaro, che forsi da hoggi sino aldi de mia morte si ritroverà da me pagata per causa di d.a [409r] fabrica conforme apparira delle partite di banchi per li quale saranno da me fatti li pagamenti e tanto meno sarà in tal caso li obligo al mio herede delli sod.o d.ti diece mila di pagare per da d.a fabrica, la quale voglio, che si facci con la consulta et à piena dispositione del M.io R.a Sig.r Canonico Protettore del medesimo M.io del Ss.mo Rosario delle pigne, con possessa di mettere, e levare quelli operarÿ, che li pareranno necessarÿ e convenevoli, nessuno eccettanto per da. fabrica.  Item lascio docati mille pro una vice tantum da celebrassione per l’anima mia subito dopo mia morte tante messe a rag.ne d’un carlino la messa nelle sottoscritte chiese cioè o Ducati ducento in d.o Vent.le Mon.rio e chiesa di Santa Maria della Vita de RR. PP Carmalitani. o Altri docati ducento nel Cente Mons.iro e chiesa di S.ta Maria della Stella de R.R. Padri minimi di santo fran.co de Paula.

446

o Altri ducati ducento nel Ven.le Mons.iro e chiesa de R.R. Padri Scalzi di S. Agostino eretto sop.a li Regij studÿ nuovi. o Altri docati ducento nel Ven.le Mon.rio chiesa della Madre de dio de Rev.d Padri Scalzi Carmelitani eretto sopra li regÿ studÿ nuovi o E li restanti docati ducento li lascio alla Ven.le chiesa del collegio de Rev.di Padri Giesuiti eretta sotto seggio di Nido di questa Citta di Napoli.  Item lascio al d.o Ven.le Mons.rio S.ta Maria Madalena di Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to tutti li miei argenti lavorati tanto [409v] indorati quanto senza oro, ch’a’tempo della mia morte si ritroveranno nelle mie case.  Item lascio che delli danari contanti, e nelli banchi, che si ritroveranno nella mia heredità à tempo de mia morte, si deb.no pagare docati sei mila al d.o Ven.le Mon.rio di S.ta Maria della Vita de R.di Padri Carmelitani pro una vice tantum, cioè docati tre mila per dare un poco di luogo al mio cadavero, e l’altri d.ti trè mila da impiegarsi in compra di beni stabili o’ annue entrade con peso che dell’entrade che ne pervenera di RR. Padri di S.a Maria della vita deb.no ogn’anno celebrare in d.a chiesa di S.ta Maria della vita co’l mag.r decoro possibile nel giorno di S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi la sua festa, con prediche, e musica, conforme hanno pratticato questi anni passati dopo la canonizatione d’essa S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi, e non altri.ti ne d’altro modo.  Item lascio al d.o Ven.le Mo.rio di S.a Maria Madalena de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to tutte l’altre mie case ch’al presente possedo in quals.o luoghi, che siano et anco quelle ch’a tempo della mia morte forsi possedero, e si ritroverano nella mia heredità, con li loro giardini, et intiero stato con li pesi censi che in fussero, e con li seguenti pesi, et oblighi, cioé ch’a rispetto della mia casa dove al presente habita il S.r Gio. Tomoso Ruschi di rimpetto le case dell’ Ill.s sig.r Fran.co Caracciolo, Duca di Miranda nel borgo de Vergini, la quale sta locata al d.o S.r Ruschi per docati quaranta cinque l’anno, voglio che le pig.ti di d.a casa dal di detta mia morte avanti deb.no decorrere a benefi.o di Carlo Monoco mio servitore vita sua durate tantum, et che le [410r] pig.ti per l’avenire crescessero molto più di d.i ducati quarantacinque l’anno con conditione e parto però, che d.a Carlo dalle med.me pig.ni deb.a pagare sua vita durante l’anno censo di ducati undici che sop.a d.a casa viene il sod.o sig.r Duca di Miranda.  La casa c’ho comprato dal banco, e casa s.ta del spirito santo sita nel med.mo borgo de Vergine et proprio sotto la mia casa grande quale era prima del Sig.r Duca di Madaluni consistente in più stanze quarti, et appartam.ti con giardino, la lascio che dopo la mia morte sia per habitat.ne, vita loro durante tantum, et con ultra, cioé l’appartam.to di sopra, dove al presente habitá il Sig.r Gio: Batta de Fiore, e paga docati undeci l’anno di pig.ne sia per habita.ne di Andrea Scarpallo mio servitore, con quella commoditá conforme lo viene al presente d.o S.r Fiore e l’appartam.to di sotto, sia per habitat.ne d Vinceso Troise similm.te mio serv.te con quelle commodità, conforme al presente lo tiene il med.mo Vincenzo, cosi ancora uno basso a canto della porta grande dove al presente habita una povera femina stroppiata, e vecchia, sino alla sua morte tantum habbia da essere per habita.ne di d.a povera femina gratis, e senza pagamento di pig.ne e dopo la morte di d.a. femina il d.o basso deb.a servire per commodità del d.o Vincenzo vita sua durante come di sop.a l’annuo censo di docati cinquanta 4.17 che sop.a d.a casa tiene d.o Sig.r Duca di Miranda si deb.a pagare dal di de mia morte avanti et in futurum per d.o Mon.rio di S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to e se per sorte rendesse più commodo alli sod.i miei servitore alli quali ho’ossegnato habitat.ne in d.e mie case come di sop.a di non habitari, ma di volerle locare à particolari, loro vita [410v] durante, lo concedo, e me ne contento, purche le lochino à persone quiete e honorate.  Item lascio che tutti questi beni mobili, e suppelleti di casa ch’à tempo della mia morte si ritroveranno nelle mie case tanto nelle case che furono del Sig.r Duca di Mataloni, quanto 447

nella casetta nuova.te per me comprata dal S.R Ger.mo Apicella, come ancora quelli mobili, che ritroveranno nella mia casa sita nella pedimontina di S.to Erasmo sotto il mon.rio del sblendore da me comprata sub hasta del S.C in del banca del m.co Dom.co de Martino, siano, e deb.mo essere, conforme di quelli ne dispongo à benef.o del d.o M.rio di S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to dico qualsivoglia sorte de mobili e suppelettili, et adob.ti tanto di seta, quanto di lana, lino, panni di razza, trabacche, scrittorÿ, specchi, quadri grandi e piccoli, matarazzi, coperte, lenzola, carozze, mule, cavalli, et altri quals.no animali, e tutt’altri mobili, e suppellettili, nessuna cosa eccettunta per grande o minima che fusse, li lascio tutti al d.o. M.rio S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to, con l’infranto obligo e peso a non altrimenti né d’altro modo, cioé che di d.i mobili si deb.no per d.o M.rio subito seguita mia morte consignore, conforme ne lascio ad Andrea Montordo mio servitore tutti li miei vestiti, e biancherie, ch’erano per servitio della mia tavola e quelle del riposto et anco le camise nuove e vecchie, tovaglie, calzonetti, con due para di lenzuoli grandi nuovi, con tutte le coperte di dobratto, et uno paro di coperte di lana del prop.o mio letto grande, con le scoppette di caccia, zoffioni et [411r] altre armi di fuoco acció si li goda per mia memoria in recompensa della longa, e buona servitù che d.o Andrea Montardo m’ha fatto al quale gli li dono, e lascio.  Item lascio, e voglio che tutti l’altri mobili, e suppellettili della mia heredità detto Mon.rio ‘hab.a fare stimare da persone esperte principalm.te li quadri per esser tutti assai buoni e rari, e la mag.e parte d’autori forastieri e non bene conoscuiti da pittori napoletani, per il che voglio, che nella stima di d.i quadri siano chiamati pittori forastieri et espressamente il pittore Giovanni Vandeneynde nativo d’Brusselle, con altri ad elettione, e parere d’esso Vandeneynde e che poi il tutto si debbia vendere all’incanti e liberarsi alli ultimi licitatori, e più offerenti li sod.i quadri, e mobili e delli primi danari che da d.a vendita perveneranno si debbiano pagare al so.do And.a Montardo mio serv.te docati cinquecento pro una vice tantum al quale ci li lascio.  Item lascio che delli danari perverranno dalla vendita de d.i quadri, e mobili si paghino alli sottoscritti l’infrascritte quantità cioé o Al sod.o Carlo Monaco mio serv.te voglio che si li paghino e li lascio altri docati duecento pro una vice tantum per essere tale la mia volonta o Al soprad.o Andrea Scarpello simil.mte mio servitore voglio che si li paghino, e li lascio altri docati ducento pro una vice tatum o [411v] Al sodetto Vincenzo Troise similmente mio serv.e voglio che si li paghino, e li lascio altri docati ducento pro una vice tantum. o Al med.mo Giovanni Stella mio servitore anco li lascio, e voglio che si li paghino altri docati ducento pro una vice tantum o Et altri docati ducento per una volta tantum li lascio, e voglio che si paghinoà Dom.co de Ferrarÿs mio servitore dal prezzo di d.a vendita.  Item delli sod.i mobili ne lascio alli mie staffieri ch’à tempo della mia morte si ritroveranno al mio servitio, oltre le loro livree, con le loro armi, ancora li loro letti, con sianni tavole, matarazzi, coperte e lenzuoli per una mutanda tantum  Item lasci al Ill. Sig.r Tomaso Imperato docati cinqcento per una sola volta tantum, quale legato insieme con li altri sottoscritti legati voglio che si paghino da d.o mio herede Uni.le.  Item lascio al med.mo Sig.r Tomaso Imperato annoi d.ti ducento sua vitadurante tantum, con oblige, e peso peró che deb.a continuare confirme al presente esercita la mia procurra, e deb.a attendere, e procurare la fine della liti pendenti al mag.r beneficio della mia herede, et anco deb.a attendere à tutti altri liti della mia heredità, attive, possive, mote, et movède pro, et con ora, che sono al presente, et in futuro in [412r] qualsivoglio modo insurgessero, con quella solita accuratezza, che per lo passato li ha esercitate. 448

 Item lascio al med.mo Sig.r Gio: Battista Siniscalco annoi docati ducento vita sua durante tantum, con espresso obligo, che deb.a continuare nelli carichi, et offirÿ, questi al presente esercita à benef.o et utile della mia heredità, e d’altri inseressati conforme del tutto mi confido per il buona affetto, che sempre mi ha mostrato, e spero non mancherà di continuare per l’accetire.  Item lascio à Domenico Lucchese mio serv.te il letto con l’armi in confomità della staffieri, et anco li lascio docati cento per una volta tantum.  Item lascio à Baldassarre Ciappini mio serv.re il letto con l’armi in conformità della staffieri, e similim.te li lascio docati cento per una volta tantum.  Il mio quadro grande venuto da Fiorenza, nel quale sta ritratta Santa Maria Madalena de Pazzi mia devota confirme si ritrova nella sua sepoltura Firenza, dove è stato per molte volte posto, e toccata quella S.ta reliquia, voglio che subito à tempo della mia morta nella maniera, che si ritrova al presente nella Cappela della mia casa grande sita vicino il M.rio di S.ta Maria della Stella, dove io hora habito, con la suo bella cornice intagliata, et indorata con le sue corsine d’Armosino bianco adornato de fiori e uccelli [412v] di rapunno racamato al naturale d’oro, e seta insieme col quadro grande dell’altare, dove si dà sepoltura il nostro Redentore molto divoto fatto di mano di Giacinto Brandi valentissimo pittore, con la sua cornice indorata cosi ancora l’altri quadretti piccioli, cioè della med.ma Santa Maria Madalena de Pazzi, de Santo Pietro d’Alcantar, e Santo Ant.o de Padua, quasi tutti d’una grandezza, come ancora il pavamento di Domasco Rosso, il panno d’Altare di lama, insieme col calice d’argento, e tutto l’altro appartenente alla celebrazione della santa messa, non s’hab.no da comprendere nella stima e vendita dell’altri quadri, e mobili come di sop.a ho detto, ma subito dopo la mia morte dette robbes si deb.no trasportare in di Ven.le Mon.rio del SS.mo Sacramento e conservarsi per servitio di T. Mon.rio, e tutto lo resto di di mobili, e quadri si deb.a vendere dal d.o Monasterio come ho’detto di sop.a e lo prezzo che ne perventerà, detto Mon.rio lo deb.a spendere per finimento della fabriche necessarie e per ampliasione del med.mo Mon.rio così in compra d’altre cose consignare dalla parte di sop.a s di sotto d.o Mon.rio, come per altre spese di fabriche necessarie e se bene nel prituo obligo della sod.a donazione delli dett’annoi docati cinq mila ducento cin.ta desiderano io restatore, e voleva, che la donazione ch’all hora feci alla b.A di sor Maria Madalena de Roomer mia figlia di ducati cento il mese, come ancora alcuni altre annue entrade, che stavano in resta di d.a mia figlia b.A, che non si possessero mai disponere in comune quando le Sig.re Monache del d.o Mon.rio risolvessero divinire in comunità, adesso ch’è passato all’altra vita d.a mia figlia, havendo io ben considerato il negozio, prego, e supp.co tutte le [413r] religosa dal d.o Mon.rio di S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.o vogliano abbracciare santam.to di vivere sostamente sotto la vero regola della comunità, confirme si fà nel la Città di fiorenza nel Ven.le Mon.rio delle monache di S.ta Maria dell’Angeli, dove sta sepolta la S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi à finche non s’hab.a più a dire mio, e suo, ma solo nostro, conf.e s’usa nelli veri monasteri reformasi acciò il restatore possi vivere questi pochi giorni d’vita che m’avanzano con quiete, e morire con questa con solatione, che per me sarà grandissima, e spero, che nessuna di d.o sig.re monache sicuserà à con correre di vivere vita comune con tutte l’altre, e quando vi ne fussero alcune, il che non credo, che non voglia concorrere à menare vita comune, in questo caso voglio, che tutte l’entrade, che perveneranno ogni’anno d’altri beni, et effetti per me lasciati, e donati al d.o Mon.rio deb,no andare, e decorrere à benef.o solo di quelle monache le quali viveranno nella vita comune, et in nessuno conto dell’entrade delli miei beni deb.no participarne quelle monache le quali non meneranno vita comune con tutte l’altre atteso sole è mia espressa volontà.

449

 Item lascio alli sottocritti l’infroscritte robbe e danari da pagarsili per d.o mio herede Universale, cioè o A Domenico ______mio carozziniero li lascio docati Cinq.ta pro una vice tantum insieme col suo letto, armi e livrea____ o A Carlo______famiglio li lascio docati Venti pro una vice tantum insieme col suo letto. o [413v] A Mastro Claudio de Bernardo mio cuoco li lascio docati Cinq.ta pro una vice tantum o A Carlo_____fiamengo mio serv.re li lascio docati cento pro una vice tantum.  Item lascio à tutti li miei staffieri, ch’à tempo della mia morte li ritroveranno al mio servitio docati trenta per ciascuno d’essi, e questo pro una vice tantum atteso tale è mia volonta.  Item lascio docati diece il mese al sod.o An.a Montando mio serv.te insieme con Benedetta sua moglie, e questo vita loro durante tantum, e morendo uno di loro si deb.a similm.te continuare il paga.to di docati diece il mese à chi di loro sopraviverà sua vita durante tantum et non ultro, atteso così ordino, e voglio.  Item lascio al d.o Dom.co de Ferrarÿs annoi docati venti sua vita durante tantum, da pagarsili in due tande ogn’anno, acció ne possi pagare il pig.te della casa, confirme e ha goduto sino al presente.  Item lascio che se al d.o Dom.co de Ferrarÿs mio serv.te occorresse de maritare un altra sua figliola, in tal caso, nonostante che di sop.a hó specificato et obligato che li Gov.ni e mastri della Parrochia de San Giuseppe con l’avanzo della pig.ti di d.a mia casa sita nella strada di monteoliveto si deb.no solo maritare, figlie povere d’inauratori, [414r] intagliatori, e mastri d’ascia, voglio che ció non obtenne, sia preferito d.o Dom.o mio serv.re d’ottenere, et havere ducati cento per sussidio delle doni di d.a sua figliola.  Item dichiaro che dell’avanzo di d.e pig.ti di casa si ne deb.no maritare figlia povere d’inauratori, intagliatari, e mastri d’ascia habitanti nella Parochia di San Giuseppe tantum, e non d’altri quartieri, peró sia preferita la figlia del d.o Dom.co mio serv.re come ho detto di sopra.  Item graceo d.o Ospl.e delli incurabili mio herede Univ.le, che per l’Anima mia sia obligato far celebrare due messe quotidiane in perpetuo nella prop.a chiesa di S.ta Maria del Popolo dell’Incurabili, con eligere per tal effetto due cappelloni, alli qualivoglia si li paghi à rag.ne d’un tari la messa quale peso di messe deb.a star in perpetuo notato nella tabella della sacristia di d.a chiesa pro futura memoria per esser tale la mia volontà.  Item lascio à Mastro Filippo Paulo mio barbiaro docuti cinq.ta pro una vice tantum.  [414v] Item lascio ad And.a della Mura annoi docati cinquanta sua vita durante tantum.  Item lascio al sud.o Carlo Monoco mio serv.e annoi ducati sessanta vita sua durante tantum.  Item lascio al sod.o Giovaani Stella mio serv.re annoi ducati sessanta sua vita durante tantum.  Item lascio al soprad.o And.a Scarpello mio servitore annoi ducati sessanta vita sua durante tantum.  Item lascio al sud.o Vincezo Troise annoi docati sessanta vita sua durante tantum.  Item lascio al d.o Dom.co de Ferrarÿs annoi docati sessanta sua vita durante tantum.  Item lascio à Pietro Milanese uno de miei staffeieri, e spenditore, oltre il lasciato li come staffiero, altri docati cinq.ta pro una vice tantum.  Item lascio al d.o Ven.le mon.rio di S.ta Maria della Stella dell’ord.e de Minimi di San Fran.co de Paula docati cinque cento pro una vice tantum.

450

 Item lascio al sig.r Dom.co Sorrentino nepote del M.ro R.do Padre Maestro Onofrio Sorrentino tutte se le mie stampe antiche, e moderne, tanto sciolte quanto legate in libri, ch’à tempo di mia morte si ritroveranno in casa, e di più li lascio cento docati pro una vice tantum.  [415r] Item lascio à Sebastiano Moneglia, li quale al presente si ritrova in Roma insieme con la sua madre bisognosa, e vecchia annoi ducati cento durante la loro vita tantum, e morendo la madre, si paghino al d.o Sebastiano solo ducati cinq.ta annoi sua vita durante tantum, e volendo d.o Sebastiano farsi sacerdote, et essere Cappellono d’una di d.o due messe quotidiane per me diposte in d.a chiesa di S.ta Maria del Popolo voglio che d.o Sebastiano sia preferisco d’una di d.e due messe quotidiane da celebrarsi per l’Anima mia in d.o chiesa di S.ta Maria del Popolo dell’Incurabili, al quale si li deb.a pagare dal d.o mio herede à d.a rag.e d’uno tari la messa.  Item lascio à Teresa Vuattere dependente da nation fiamenga povera donna carlini trenta il mese vita sua durante tantum.  Quansuaq di sop.a ho’detto che sopra la d.a casa per me comprata dal d.o banco e casa s.ta del spirito s.to sita nel borgo de Vergine sotta la mia casa grande, che fu del S.r Duca di Madaloni in fosse un anno vento d.ti cinq.e 4.17 doversi al S.r Fran.co Caracciolo la duca di Miranda e che quale si dovesse pagare dal d.o M.rio di S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to dal di di de mia morte avant, et in future dichiaro haver io detto per errore, atteso sopra d.a casa al d.o S.r Duca non vi have havuto, nè vi have censo alcuno ma realm.te sopra la d.a casa si erano due censi tantum, cioé uno di ducati sette donersi all’heredi dal q.o S.r Paulo Squillano e l’altri di ducati cinq.a 4.17 donersi all hered del S.r Ettore Caracciolo, et io comprai d.a casa col peso di d.i due censi tantum med.e Istr.o p m.o di N. Paolo Colacino in Napoli à 12 Agosto 1670 tutta volta il d.o censo di d.ti 5.7.17 del d.o Ettore Caracciolo il mi l’ho affrancato dall Cappella dall SS.ma Ann.ta de Sig.r Caracciolo costrutta sotto il pulpito della chiesa Arciv.le di Nap. donatana del d.o S.r Ettore et li pagato per affrancat.e di d.o censo d.ti cento settanta e 3.12. per lo banco di S.r Jacovo, e Vittoria e n’appare Istro. per m.o di S. Fabrizio d’Ipolito di Nap. à 27 luglio 1670 e peró sop.a d.a casa hora mie solo il peso del caso di ducati sette donarsi all’herede del d.o S.r Paolo Squillano, qualevoglio che dal di de [415v] mia morte avanti, et in future si pahino à d’hered de Squillano dal detto Mon.rio di S.ta Maria Madalena de’Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to atteso cos dichiaro ordino, e voglio  E se sua Divina Maestra mi facesse gratia concedermi altri giorni di vita, et io fra tanto da hoggi avanti pagassi à di d.o M.rio di S.ta Maria della Vita li sod. D.ti sei mila come di sop.a per me disposti per l’effetti espressi à d.o legato à benef.o di d.o M.rio pro una vice tantum delli danari ch’a tempo di mia morte si ritroveranno nella mia heredità, come da d.o legato appare, e del pagam.to d’essi n’apparisse Istrum.to partita di banco per dove farò d.o pagam.to in tal caso non si deb.no di nuovo dopo mia morte pagare di d.ti sei mila al d.o M.rio, ma d.o legato nel caso sud.o s’intenda casso, irrito, e nullo, e per non fatto à finche non si facci duplicato pagam.to atteso tale è mia volontà.  Item lascio al Il. S.r Bar.eo Imperato figlio del sud.o S.r Tomaso Imperato d.ti ducento pro una vice tantum per suo palmanno, e ricomposa per haver assitato al d.o su Padre nelle mie lità.  E per non causarsi confusione, e differenze nella stima e vendita che si haverà da fare delli miei mobili come sop.a ha detto, s’hà da sapere che d.o And.a Montardo, insieme con d.a Benedetta sua moglie hanno diversi mobili loro proprÿ che’à me non spettano, cioè diversi quadri, e quadretti di poca valuta, una trabacca di legno, con due corninacci, uno di damasco giallo, e l’altro di Rosciato, con matarazzi, lensoli, cosinere, coperte di lana, e di debretto, con altre minuezzine, et anco hanno alcuni argenti lavorati, cioè una concoletta, quattro cocchiani, e altro tanto brocche ordinarÿ, et il tutto si ritrova nella trè 451

stanze dover essi And.a e Benedetta per ordinario habitano nella mia casa grande sita di rimpetto il M.so di S.ta Maria della Stella.  Il med.mo dichiaro circa il letto, et altri mobili che tiene nelle sue stanze Carlo Monaco mio serv.re in d.a mia casa grande, li quali per non esser miei, ma spettanti alli sod.o mie serv.i voglio che sempre à loro piacere ne possino disponere senza difficoltà ne impedim.to veruno.  Item lascio al d.o And. Montardo mio serv.re oltre li sod.i legati, altri annoi docati novanta vita sua durante tantum, da pagarsili ogni quattro mesi in fine docati trenta cominciando dal primo giorno dopo la mia morte.  Item lasco à d.o Benedetta moglie del d.o And.a Montardo oltre di legati, altri annoi d.ti novanta sua vita durante tantum da pagarsili [416r] in tre tande nella med.ma maniera che li hò lasciato al d.o And.a suo marito li sod.i annoi d.ti novanta.  Item lascio à Fran.co Carlino altra serv.re del questo S.r And.o Mercurio docati cinque il mese sua vita durante tantum.  Item lascio à d.o Mon.rio di S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to tutti li censi da me addrancati, e che forse m’à affrancarò comprerò ó acquirlerò sino al di de mia morte.  Item lascio, e voglio che li pittori, li quali verranno da fuori, e s’occuperanno in farle stime di d.o miei quadri, siano recompensati dal med.mo Mo.rio di S.ta M.a Mad.na de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacram.to come sarà ragionevole acciò non hab.no occasione di lamentarsi.  Item lascio al P.Pietro Fabrÿ nativo d’Anversa laico di Padri chienci regolari ministri d’infermi al pante nel convento del chiatamone annoi d.ti quindeci sua vita duranta tantum, pagarbili per d.o mio herede tertiatia, cioè ogni quattro mesi in dine docati cinque num.do dal di de mia morte avanti.  Item lascio al SS.mo Sacram.to della chiesa parochiale di S.ta Maria delle Vergini docati cinq.ta pro una vice tantum.  Item lascio altri d.ti tremilia pro una vice tantum al d.o Mo.rio di S.ta Maria della Vita de Padri Carmelitani, e questo oltre dell’altri d.ti seimilia lo lasciati li come di sop.a da pagarsili dell’danari contanti, et in banco, che si ritroveranno nella mia heredità à tempo de mia morte, quali d.ti tre mila si paghino in banco vincolati per impiegarsi da d.o Mo.rio in compra di beni stabili, o annue entrade, li frutti dalli questi beni et entrade deb.a d.o M.rio spendarli da volta in volta in ornam.to bellim.so della cappella, et altare di S.ta Maria Mad.na de Pazzi eretto in d.a chiesa da S.ta M.a della Vita, e questo legato di d.ti tre mila soraischi il suo effetto in caso che non si ritrovassero da me pagati in vita mia di d.ti tre mila à d.o M.rio da hoggi avanti per partita di banco o pu.co Instrumento.  Voglio ch’il mio cadavero sia accompagnato dal R.do Capto di Nap. e dalli poveri dell’ospitio di S.ti Pietro e Gennaro extra metria, e per tal effetto lascio à d.o R.do Capitoli d.ti ducento pro una vice tantum, una con lo candele che li saranno consignate, et al d.o ospitio lascio per tal affetto docati cento per una vice tantum con le candele che li saranno dare.  Item voglio che tutte le mie scritture publiche, e private, che dopo la mia morte li ritroveranno in casa mia, siano consignate in potere del Sig.r Gio: Batta Siniscolco, e principalm.te quale che si ritroveranno in un mio scrittorio piccolo indorato fatta nella china dell’Indie, nel quali si ritroveranno similm.te diverse reliquie di S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi con le loro autentiche che, quali reliquie subito dopo mia morte voglio [416v] che siano consignate alle M.ro R.de Priora, e sotto priora di d.o M.ro di S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacarmento  Item dichiaro che la d.a nota che di sop.a hó detto esser scrittor e firmata di mia prop.a mano, realm.te detta nota di mio ordine e volontà è data scritta de prop.a mano di N. 452

Paolo Colacino, et firmata di mia pro.a mano, et autenticata dal sod.o N. Paolo, la quale s’inserirà à questo mio testam.to, et à quale si dia pieta, et indubitata fede, et eser.ne parata

[417r] Nota fatta per me Gaspare de Roomer con la quale voglio un ordino che tutti li miei danari, ch’à tempo di mia morte si ritoveranno tanto contanti in casa mia quanto nelli banchi, li deb.a esigere, e ricerversili il molto R.do Padre Maestro Onofrio Surretino Carmelitano prop.a authentiche, quale nota voglio che si conservi dentro il mio testam.to in scriptis, e di d.a nota ne faró mentione in d.o mio testam.to nel quale diró che lo comunicherò à bocca al d.o S.r Gio: Batta Siniscolo.  In primis delli detti danari che si ritroveranno nella mia heredità à tempo de mia morte ne dispongo, e voglio che d.o P. Maestro Onofrio Sorrentino mio Padre spirituale subito dopo mia morte ne deb.a pagare, e sodisfare li sotto scritti legati e disposinioni, cioè o Al Ven.le Mon.rio di S.ta Maria della Vita dell’ord.e de R.di Pp. Carmelitani d.ti nove mila per una volta tantum, questi med.mi c’hó lasciato al d.o Mon.rio seu li lascieró nel mio testam.to al sopra d.o Mon.rio o Al Mon.rio seu conserv.rio del SS.mo Roasario alle Pigne docati quattro mila, in conto della docati diece mila che lascieró al d.o Conserv.io in d.o mio testam.to o Item voglio che di d.i danari si ne paghino li d.ti mille che lascieró in d.o testam.to pro una via per celebra.re di messe subito dopo mia morte à cinq monastrÿ, come da d.o testam.to apparirà. o Di più voglio che de d.i danari si ne paghino li d.ti cinq.cento che lascieró al Mon.rio di S.ta Maria della Stella de Rev. Padri [417v] minimi di Santo Fran.co de Paula, come da d.o test.mo apparirà o Item voglio che di d.i danari si paghi tutto questo bisognerà per le mie eseguire, come ancona li d.ti ducento che lascieró al R.do Capitolo, e d.ti cento all’ospitio de poveri di. S.ti Pietro e Gennaro confirme da d.o testam.to si vedrà, come anco voglio di ne paghino le cere, e tutt’altre cose necessarie per sepelire il mio cadavero. o Averrendo peró ch’in caso Io da hogi avanti durante la mia vita sodisfaressi alcuni di d.i legati in virtù di partita di banco ò di pue.co Istrumen.to e non altrim.ti né d’altro modo in tal caso quali legati che forse si ritroverassero da me pagati per pu.co Istrum.to ò partita di banco non si deb.no d’nuovo pagare con questi danari per con sodifarsi duplicatamente. o E tutti l’altri miei danari contanti che reservanno à tempo di mia morte tanto in casa, quanto nelli chnchi, sodisfatti di legati e disposiz.ni voglio che d.o P. Maestro Onofrio li deb.a subito pagar à d.o M.rio di S.ta Maria Madalena de Pazzi del SS.mo Sacarm.to vincolati per spendersi in ampliat.ne di d.o Mon.rio e fabriche d’esso e questa è la mia volontà, e per futura memria hó firmato la pisnte di mia m.o et autenticata dall’infrascritti hon. Nap. e prop. Nel borgo dei Vergini 6 9.mbre 1673

453

Appendix D Codicile of Gaspare Roomer, 1674

Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Montessori Soppressi 4600 ff. 273r-277v

See also: A.S.N., Notai del ‘600, Paolo Colacino 298/31 ff. 116r-323r Page citations here are for the Montessori Soppressi version.

(273r) Codem Die primo m.s Aprilis mill.mo Sex.mo septua.mo quarto Neap. Et proprie in suburbio Virginum cum lie Prev.mi Gents Vicarÿ buris Civitatis Neap. Ob Diem Domincum, Ad press nobis Saltas pro parte Doni Gasaris de Roomer persolr accesstimus ad qualdiam suam Domum sitam in di d.o suburbio Virginum contra Ventem Ecclesiam Sancta Maria de Stella ordinis minimorum Sancti francisi de Paula iveta uos notorios fines et dum ibidem essemes et proprie in quadam Camera superiori quala Domus invenimus cu dem Domim Gasparem in lecto facentem infrimum corpore sanumtamen Dei gratia mente et in sui recta loculione, et memoria a partier (273v) su tentem, qui sponte asservit coram nobis seripsum mensibs pteritis suum ultimum inscriptis clausum, et sigillatum condidisse Testamentum manu mei in quo instituisse heredem universalem et particolarem sacrum Hospitale, et Sanctam Domum Incurabilium huius Civitalis Neap, et in ed fecisse multa legata et Dispositionis ut constat a dicto Testamento condintomanu mei, cui relatio habeatur.

Et quia ultima voluntas per ambulatoria est usque ad mortem et licet unicuique testari et in euis Testamento addere et deco diminere ad sui libitum, propterea dictus Dona Gasapr ratificano dictum Testamentum acomnia et singula inco contenta, ad maiorem Cautelam fecit subptos Codicillos quos valere voluit fure Codicillorum, fure legati Donationis causa mortis et omni alia meliori uias, et quaobabis, non possit aliqued dectartu seu de faliari fure naturs, ratione falcide seu trebellianica aut pro debilo bonorum subsidio nec fure causa et moda quocumque.

Primieramente codicillando dichiara ch’indetto sup Testamento sia fatto alcuni legati a beneficio della Cappella di S.a Maria(274r) Madalena de Pazzi eretta nel Vente Monasterio e Chiesa di Santa Maria della ita del borgo de Vergini di questa Città di Nap. al presente ratifica e confirma detti legati e quanto in essi sicontiene e vuole, che tutti li danari che si tirtoveranno contanti in Casa sua cossi d’prp come d’argento si debbiano ponere dal M.to R.do P.M Honofrio Sorrentino, d.o Tomaso Imparato, e Gio: Batta Siniscalco nel Banco della SS.ma Annuntiata di Nap. subito seguita sua morte e con consenso di tutti trè, si debbiano spendere per servitio di detta Cappella di Santa Maria Madalen conforme ha ordinato in detto suo Testamento, et avandandosi qualche summa di quella espressa in detto Testamento si debbia da detti P.M Honofrio, S.r Tomaso e Gio: Batta spendere e distribuire à poveri eligendo da loro conforme la loro necessità ad arbitrio di detti tre per l’Anima di d.o Testatore.  Item lascia al detto Gio: Batta Siniscalco, oltre li legati fatti in detto Testamento à beneficio suo altri annoi doc.ti ducento (274v) affrancabili à raggione di quattro percento, quale legato det.a andare a beneficio di detto Gio: Batta e di suoi heredi e soccessori in perpetuo.  Item lascia al detto S.r Tomaso Imparato oltre li legati fatti in detto Testamento à beneficio suo altri annui docati Ducento affrancabili à raggione di quattro per cento quale legato deb.a andare à beneficio di d.o S.r Tomaso e di supi heredi e soccerssori in perpetuo.

454

 Item lascia a due figliole di Filippo Paulo suo barbiero docati Cinquecento cioè docati Duecento in quanta per ciasche duna d’esse eligende dal d.o Filippo Paula quali si d.i deb.no pagare à tempo del loro maritaggio o monacaggio e di più rilascia al detto Filippo Paulo il pig.ne delle due Poteche e due Camere a Monte Oliveto dove al presente habita per lo tempo d’un anno finiendo a quattro Maggio 1675. Atteso per tutto lo passato detto Filippo Paolo ha pagato puntualmente il pigione.  Item lascia à Carlo Monaco l’usofrutto, et entrade delle (275r) case per esso Testatore comprate dalla Casa dal Chiesa Del Spirito Danto mediante Instromente per mano mia e questo durante la vita del detto Carlo tantum et non ultra conpeso che detto Carlo bennia durante sua vita pagare li Censi che si divono s.a dette case.  Item lasica al detto Carlo Monaco tutte le vetriate, che stanno in dette case comprate dalla chiesa del Spirito Santo  Item ordina e comanda che tutti li libri e scritture di quals.a sorte che si ritrovano in Csa sua si debbiano inventariare e consignare al detto – Gio: Batta Siniscalco accio le deb.a conservare in Casa sua perserino delli heredi et altri legatariÿ, et Interessati.  Item lascia, che per l’Anima sua subito seguita sua morte si debbiano celebrare due milia messe pro uno vice tantum e l’elemosina di dette messe si debbia pagare con li danari che sono in una fede di credito di doc.ti mille e settecento del Banco di S. Giacomo in testa di detto Carlo Monaco girata in bianco e consignatio al detto M. Gio: Batta Siniscalco, gia (275v) che d.o danaro e proprio di g.o S.r Gasapre e quello che restera da detta fede di credito si deb.a spendere per li suoi funerali lutti, e pagamento della fameglia da detti P.M Honfrio Sorrentio , D. Tomaso Imparato e m.o Gio: Batta Siniscalco.  Item lascia all’ em.mo s’Innico Caracciolo Arcivescono di questa Città di Nap. per il Molto affetto, che li porta e per l’infinita obligatione, che li professo due Profomiere e scalda vivande d’argento, quali stanno unite.  Item vuole che l’Amministratione delle due Impositioni di grana venti cinque per onza, che esigono nella Reg.a Dohana di questa Città di Nap e sue giurisdictione con l’Impostitione delle seconde grana cinque per staro d’oglio di questa med.ma città e sua giurisdittione come anco di tutti altri Arrend.ti che detto S. Gasapre possede si debbia esercitare dall S.r Ferdinando Vandeneynde Marchese di Castelnuovo sua vita durante, atteso tale e sua volonta.  Item lascia a Not. Paolo Colacino di Nap do.ti Ducento per Testamento e Codicillo.

(276v) Primieram.e condicillando dichiara haver donato e consignato al S.r marchese Gerdinando Vandeneynde alcuno quantita di quadri quali d’ordine di detto Gaspare, e di sua volontà se l’ha trasportato in sua Casa.

Pero dichiara che la sua volontà è stata et è che detti quadri (277r) siano di detto S.R. Marchese, che sono numero cinquanta quali ha ricevuti d.o Marchese, e di più li lascia altri pello numero venti, che si li possa dirgere d.o S.r Marchese à sua destione subito seguita la morte di S.r Gaspare.  Item lasco alli m. D.R Tomaso Imperato e Gio: Batta Siniscalco tutti li mobili e suppelletti, che si ritrovano nella Casa grade di S.R. Gaspare sita al Splendore di questa Città di Nap. quali se l’hab.no da dividere ugualmente fra loro e questa oltre le quantità lasciate a detti Tomaso e Gio: Batta in detti Testamento e Codicilli.

 Item dichiara have lasciato a due figlie femine di Filippo Paolo suo Barbiero docati cinquencento da parasile à tempo del loro maritaggio o monacaggio. Al presente vuole che sia lecito a d.o Filippo assignare detti docati cinquecento ad una delle sue figlie prima 455

maritanda à tempo del suo maritaggio o monacaggio quali di si lo debb.no pagare subito che si mariterà o monacherà.  Item lascia a Gio: Andrea sciappi docati Ducento.  (277v) Item lascia a Not. Paolo Colacino altri doc.ti Ducento.

456

Appendix E Letters to Margareta de Groote in Antwerp from Sebastian van Dale and Cornelis Weckevoort in Naples

Letters found in the Stadtsarchief Antwerpen Translated from the original Dutch

IB 29 To Marg de Groote from Weckevoort & Van Dale 1654

To miss Margareta de Groote, widow of Marten Hureau BDG 3 March 1654, Naples

From: Cornelis Weckevoort and Sebast. van Dale

Honourable, virtuous miss, this is an answer to your letter of August 23rd, we received the letter you included for Mr. de Romer, we have given it to him, and furthermore we have asked him if he will follow the order that is given to him in the letter, by Susanne Hureau, widow of Bartolome van Collen, and by mr. Balthasar de G…. to repay you the sum he owes you of 6223:4:12 with interest. On which he gave the answer that he will not do so, fearing that it will be disadvantageous for him, and he will not speak about it to anyone except aformentioned miss Susanna, with whom he has corresponded. Although she answered him that, because of the orders, he can make this transaction without any disadvantage, she did not want to listen to him [litt: understand him]. So, you shall see if it will be sent. The intention of mr. de Roomer would be to give paintings of the masters to pay for the debts and interest, he sent us an account of them. He suggests to pay a part of the debt in paintings, and the other part in cash, because perhaps our friends do not want paintings, and then he pays as much capital as he possesses in Napels, he asks us if we want to deliberate with aformentioned miss Susanna, and when she decided on this matter, that we will make an affort to provide him with cash. Please let me know what the friends think about this idea, it would be great if you could settle this amicably. Because, only provided that you are protected by ‘Hoff’ otherwise you cannot do much against him. However, to accept the paintings would mean a loss, and it would also not be advisable to touch his export duties(?) , because it is uncertain if he will always stay there. We shall confer about this matter, and we shall see if we can convince him to make a better proposal. In the meantime, we shall await your answer, and whatever you will command us, we will happily do, all the more because mr. De Groote ordered this. Greetings, etc.

IB 29 To Marg de Groote from Weckevoort & Van Dale 1654

9 June 1654, Naples

Honourable and virtuous miss, we received your letter of April 24th and saw that you were satisfied to accept the offer of mr. de Romer to give you p. 4000,- in cash, and the rest of the sum, p 2223:4:13, with interest, in paintings of famous masters. We talked with him about this matter, and we handed him the letter of approval from your daughter, and then he finally consented to co- operate, he handed us the bill, which we include, concerning 4 pieces of paintings, which he will give you. Especially the first three paintings are very beautiful, but the money he claimed they 457

were worth was very much, and we could not understand that they could be worth so much money, however, he said that this was the right price for the paintings. Please take a look at the bill first and obtain information about paintings like that, please tell us how much they are estimated over there, and when they please you, we shall try to get some other paintings from him, for you, or for ourselves. We shall await the procuration from your daughter, in ample form, to receive the money and the paintings. In the procuration, it should be stated that we are also allowed to receive the ‘penn from the bane’. We absolutely want this clause inserted in the contract, by notary Van Neerlant. We will await your answer about the paintings. Greetings etc.

Cornelis van Weckevoort and Sebast. van Dale

IB 29 To Marg de Groote from Weckevoort & Van Dale 1654

To miss Margrita de Groote, widow of Martin Hureau BdG August 18th 1654, Naples

Honourable and virtuous miss. We received your last letter and understand you heard that we practically have reached an agreement with mr. De Romer, and that he will satisfy the debt he owes Mr. Balthazar de Groote and pay him p 4000 in cash and that he will pay the rest, with interest, in 4 paintings, of said famous masters, of which agreement you said you were satisfied. We said to mr. De Romer that we would like to receive the money and the paintings and have the matter settled, and we agreed that he would pay the money and give the paintings, and then he said he did not have the money ready, and that we would have to wait for it, he had expected to receive a batch of money from the nation of Genoa, but had not yet received it, because all the funds from that nation were yet to arrive. So we hope he will pay off his debt all at once, and we hope it will not take too long....Greetings, etc.

Cornelis van Weckevoort and Sebast. van Dale

IB 29 To Marg de Groote from Weckevoort & Van Dale 1654

To Margarita de Groote, Widow of Martin Hureau BgG September, 1st 1654, Naples

Honourable and virtous Miss, Fourteen days ago, we agreed with mr. de Roomer that he would pay his debts to you, p 4000,- in cash and the rest in paintings, but he did not have the money, and did not have the possibility to get it soon. Afterwards, we spoke with him again and he confirmed again he did not have the money ready and asked us to wait. But he presented us with an offer of Giovan van den Eijnde, to pay the money in Antwerp, to which we consented, this order amounts to p 4400,-, p 400 for d’avanso, that is for mr. Frans van Eijck and P. Michielssen to pay this amount to him, Roomer, and he pays it to you. We will include the bill, please procure it properly. We do not doubt this transaction will go well, and we would like to hear from you how it went. Concerning the estimations of the worth of the paintings, we agreed that he estimated the price too high, so we agreed he will give another four paintings to you: so you will receive 8 paintings. We await your orders about the transportation. Greetings, etc. Cornelis van Weckevoort and Sebast van Dale.

458

IB 29 To Marg de Groote from Weckevoort and Van Dale 1654

To Maria de Groote widow of Martin Hureau BDG 1654 October 24th Naples

Honorable, most virtuous miss, We received your letter from the 23th passato, and saw you received the bill of exchange of p 4400, - @ 100 which we sent you, which we got from this mr. Gaspard de Romer, for the sum he owes miss the widow of Bartolome van Colen, concerning mr. Balthasar de Groote, and we do not doubt that you will be paid well, we like to hear from you concerning the paintings, which we keep for you in a dry room, and when you give us order to ship them, we will do so as soon as possible, following your orders. Greetings etc. Cornelis van Weckevoort and Sebast. van Dale

IB 29 To Marg de Groote from Weckevoort & Van Dale 1654

To miss Margareta de Groote, widow of Martin Hureau Bdg 1654 December 29th Naples

Honourable, most virtuous miss, we received your letter of 13th passato, and saw you received the p 4400,- @ 100 p, which we sent to you from mr. de Romer, we also received the p 80,-, we got it via mr. Giacom. de Groote, which you sent us as a ‘provisie’, we thank you for this money. The paintings we received from mr. de Roomer will stay here in good preservation. It is impossible to sell them here, paintings as valuable as these are not bought here, except by the viceroy and other important gentlemen, and they do not pay the money the paintings are worth, but they pay the money they like to pay for them, and when they have them in their hands, you will have to do what they want, to prevent falling into their disfavour and the worst is that they do not pay their bills and you have to chase them constantly to get your money. We could not easily have the paintings estimated, because we did not want to make it publicly known that we have these pieces here in our possession. Therefore, it seems to us the best, when we sent them with a Dutch convoy to Amsterdam. Mr. De Wale Ven. has done the same, when he bought p 20 (000)? of paintings from mr. De Romer, but of course we will completely follow your orders on this matter. Greetings etc.

Cornelis van Weckevoort and Sebast. Van Dale

IB 24 Magareta de Groote from Sebast. van Dale 1657

To miss Margreta de Groote, widow of Marten Hureau A. 1657, 18 October, Napels

To the honorable, virtuous miss, I received your letters of 3 August and 9 September in which you give me the order to keep the eight [pieces of] paintings which were entrusted to our company by Gasparo de Romer, at the disposal of the widow and heirs of Balthazar de Groote, and follow their orders [about the paintings], so in the future, I shall advise them as well, as long as you do not tell me to act otherwise. Greetings, may the Lord be with you. Sebast. Van Dale

459