Armor is comparable to their best work, there is no specific correlation between the construction and decoration of the Leeds armor and those of the signed or firmly attributed Negroli oeuvre. The Lion Armor does, however, exhibit cer­ tain parallels with the works of the Negroli family that may reflect their influence. As has already been noted, the armor was modeled on the Italian form of small garniture and in this is not unlike the Masks Garniture. The exquisite dama­ scened decoration recalls the work of Francesco Negroli, particularly the burgonet of 1545 (cat. no. 35), which employs bands of interlaced foliate scrolls of generally similar style and complexity. On the Leeds armor, the fictive pteruges at the base of the pauldrons, their individual forms defined by gilt channels framed by damascened lines, repeat a solution used on the pauldron and skirt of Guidobaldo della Rovere's so-called Fame Armor (cat. no. 23). The snub-nosed dragons Fig. 76. Portrait of a Man in Lion Armor, ca. 1620. Oil on canvas, damascened on the helmet visor also recall similar gro­ 1 33% x 38 !4 in. (85 x 97 em). Muzeul Narional de Arta al Romaniei, tesque creatures on the embossed breastplate signed by Bucharest Giovan Paolo Negroli (cat. no. 43). Although certainly not demonstrable as an autograph work of the Negroli atelier (whose activity after 1545 is virtually unexplored), the Lion on an Italian anime thought to date about 1540-45 in the Armor must surely be acknowledged as having been made Metropolitan Museum (ace. no. 32.130). A strong argument in their wake by an equally talented and inventive craftsman. against a French attribution is the fact that there is no hint in The Lion Armor at Leeds has also impressed some schol­ the decoration of the Lion Armor of the current and most ars as more French (or Franco-Flemish)6 than Italian (Blair fashionable styles favored by the court in the I550S, that is, 1958). The impression of an origin north of the Alps is embossed armor employing the sophisticated Mannerist strengthened by comparison to the more Italianate Lion ornament of the Fontainebleau school and the elegant Armor in Paris. The Leeds armor's compactness of form and designs created for the king's armors by the Parisian gold­ the almost fussy precision of the ornament do indeed have smith and engraver Etienne Delaune. Next to these proto­ a northern sensibility, although among Italian armorers the typical French Renaissance examples the Lion Armor looks Negroli rivaled their German counterparts with faultless decidedly Italian. craftsmanship and precision of detail. There are, however, To summarize, the Lion Armor appears to us Milanese in several details that could suggest a Franco-Flemish origin or inspiration and not too distant from the work of theN egroli. at least an Italian armorer adapting his work to French taste. Despite this, one can also distinguish a certain preciousness, The helmet in particular recalls certain French examples of difficult to define, that could be interpreted as French. This the 1550s. The use of pivoting hooks to lock the upper bevor singular armor continues to defy easy definition, but its to the lower one and the lower bevor to the bowl is rarely beauty and quality of workmanship nonetheless confirm found in Italy but does occur on certain French examples, our impression that the Negroli, while unexcelled, compet­ such as the helmet belonging to the embossed armor of ed with many other talented armorers and damasceners Henry II, about 1550-55, in the Louvre, and on the Franco­ active in Milan and elsewhere during the same years. Flemish embossed armor of Maximilian II, about 1555, in Vienna (Hofjagd- und Riistkammer, inv. no. A 1400; Gamber 1. The toe caps match an embossed and damascened Milanese armor of about 1580 that was presented to Philip III of Spain by the duke and Beaufort 1990, pp. 204-5), as well as on several individual of Savoy in 1606 (Real Armeria, Madrid, inv. nos. A 291-294), por­ helmets of about 1555-60 with distinctively French etched dec­ tions of which were stolen in the nineteenth century and subse­ oration (Musee de 1' Armee, inv. no. H. 42; Saint Louis Art quently appeared for sale at Christie's, London, January 23-24, Museum, inv. no. 79:39). The elaborate cartouche-shaped 1839. The toe caps were probably acquired at this time, possibly plume tube, a seemingly insignificant detail, is nonetheless lot 103, for the Royal Armouries and were undoubtedly associated with the armor by reason of their shared iconography. very like several found on mid-sixteenth-century French hel­ A falling buffe for the burgonet belonging to the same armor is mets, such as a burgonet etched with the date 1554 (Musee in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London (inv. no. M. n1-192I; de 1' Armee, inv. no. H. r62), although the same type occurs Hayward 1965, no. 34). 315 .