The Portraits of Elizabeth I

Elizabeth Huff

Art History 330 Professor Och 4 December 2007 Throughout Europe, during the sixteenth century, women were looked down upon as being inferior to men. Queen Elizabeth I was most likely exempt from many of these handicaps due to her royal status as queen of England, but even still her ability to rule was always under great scrutiny by even her closest advisors. Ultimately she proved her greatest critics wrong by becoming one of the greatest rulers England has ever had. Over a reign that last forty-five years, the portraits of Elizabeth differ in style, but they all tend to underplay any sense of her physical presence and the ravages of the time. The early portraits portrayed a young girl who was only to become the daughter and then later the sister to the King, while her later portraits stressed consistence and continuity, for it was her untimate goal that her portraits tried to invent the myth that hers was an unchanging regime.

During a period of religious reform and division and the discovery of the New

World, portraiture was one major facet of the mass distribution of the Royal image that was so prevalent during the time.1 It was throughout this time that was labeled as the

Renaissance and Baroque periods that royal portraiture became one aspect of the alliance between art and power. This had a profound significance on the royal image throughout

Europe. This incursion of royal portraiture didn’t come to England formally until Hans

Holbein’s full-length portrait of Henry VIII (Figure 1), dated 1537. This portrait celebrated the Tudor dynasty and its legitimacy, and hung in the King’s Privy Chamber at

Whitehall Palace. With this portrait came the growing popularity of the mass production of the King’s image throughout England. Figure one is not the exact portrait by Holbein, but it is another one by the artist that is similar in style and date.

The earliest appearance of Elizabeth as a princess was in the family portrait that was meant to be displayed at Hampton Court, The Family of Henry VIII, which was dated

2 1543-1547 (Figure 2). Unlike an earlier group portrait, also labeled as The Family of

Henry VIII, by Hans Holbein (Figure 3), dated 1537, which just depicts Henry VII and

Henry VIII and their queens; this later group portrait by an unknown artist includes the royal children. The composition of both portraits derives from that of a Virgin and Child enthroned flanked by standing saints most likely.2 The central group in the later group portrait includes Henry VIII and his third wife Jane Seymour and their son Edward VI, who are separated by elaborate columns from Mary to the left and Elizabeth to the right.

Since the landscape depicted beyond the arches is an exact representation of the newly planted Great Garden of Whitehall Palace at the time, it can be assumed that the interior space is also a record of how the palace looked during the 1530s.3 Though this painting has never been attributed to any one artist the composition is evidence that artists in

England were familiar with the art being produced in Italy during the same time. In the case of this particular portrait its possible influence is Raphael’s Acts of the Apostles tapestries, which Henry VIII acquired a set of as either a gift from Pope Leo X or by direct purchase.4 It is also thought that the painting may have been done by an Italian artist due to this influence.

The first documented portrait of just Elizabeth (Figure 4), dated 1546-1547, was probably meant to go with a portrait of her brother Edward VI (Figure 5), which was painted at the same time and is of similar style. It is also most probable that both of these three-quarter length portraits were done by the painter William Scrots, who was

Edward’s court painter for the short period that he was king. Scholars have argued that the picture of Elizabeth relates to a letter which was sent to Edward on the 15th of May,

1547 along with the portrait of herself.5 In the portrait she epitomizes what the image of the sister of the king should look like. This was because the main goal of this portrait was to attract possible suitors. This is because her wealth, status, and intellect are on display

3 through her elegant clothing and jewelry and the depiction of books. Along with a number of miniatures by the female artist Levinia Teerlinc, these few works are the only paintings of Elizabeth prior to her becoming queen in 1558. The images produced by

Teerlinc would most likely go on to become sources for many of the early formal images of Elizabeth, such as from seals to the pattern image used on official document, which were required to execute the business of government.6

The few written descriptions of Elizabeth’s appearance that exist tend to state that

‘her face is comely rather than handsome, but she is tall and well formed, with a good skin although swarthy; she had fine eyes.’7 The fact that there are few written descriptions of the Queen and that she has been noted as saying that she was never beautiful, have led scholars to believe that Elizabeth had an extreme sensitivity toward her appearance and feared of its decay over time. The portraits of Elizabeth are the best records of her appearance that exist today, and even they are skewed in rendering due to her sensitivity. Not only does the color of her eyes and hair vary but the whole structure of her face is inconsistent throughout all her portraits. By the end of her reign there was a policy of rejuvenation that was instituted which therefore pervades the later portraits of the aging Queen.8 Although attempts to establish a relationship between inventories of her wardrobe and the portraits have failed, Elizabeth’s portraits are also records of her famous wardrobe that she was known to have had.

The portraits of the Queen that were produced were not just painted for her personal viewing though. Sixteenth century families of prominence and nobility most likely had a portrait of the Queen in their own private portrait collections because not only was this a sign of respect but also a sign of status. Besides the collections of English noblemen, portraits of Elizabeth were also part of portrait collections abroad in mainland

Europe. Following the tradition that was customary throughout all of Europe during the

4 Renaissance, portraits of the Queen were also given as diplomatic gifts to other kings and queens. Her portraits were also sent abroad in connection with the numerous marriage negotiations which spanned over twenty or more years of her reign. In the later years of her reign, portraits were sent strictly for diplomatic reasons. Yet in 1584 when she sent one of her portraits to Catherine of Navarre, the sister of Henry IV of France, Henry saw the portrait and was quoted as saying that he couldn’t resist such beauty.9

The early portraits of Elizabeth tended to follow the Flemish traditions of the sixteenth century. This was the resulted due to Hans Holbein being the court painter for

Henry VIII. From 1565 on though, the style of portraiture combines both Flemish and

French influences to create what has been considered a short-lived, uniquely English style.10 This style has been characterized as being flat, archaic, decorative, and almost abstract in quality. Also less attention was paid to using full length portraits and instead rank was rendered through elaborate clothing in English portraiture.

What is unique about Elizabeth I was that unlike her father and brother, who officially used artists such as Hans Holbein and William Scrots during their sovereignty, she had no official court painter during her lengthy reign as queen. Even still Horace

Walpole states in his book Anecdotes of Painting in England that “there is no evidence that Elizabeth had much taste for painting; but she loved pictures of herself” and because of the time it was demanded of her to have portraits made of her.11 Even though she didn’t care for paintings, there is evidence that suggests that Elizabeth did sit on a regular basis for portraits.12 This can be seen through the portraits by Nicholas Hilliard, Levinia

Teerlinc, and Isaac Oliver. She possibly also sat for artists such as Federigo Zuccaro,

Cornelius Ketal, and George Gower. Still the majority of portraits done of her are by unknown artists because none of them can be solidly attributed to any one artist. Only assumptions can be made.

5 The fact that she never had a court painter who was well paid by the Queen also ultimately led to the predicament that Elizabeth was never able to sustain government control over her own image. This contrasted with the Valois court in France at this time that appointed a n artist as the peintre du roi of the court and who had the sole right to manufacture royal portraits. Hence the kings of France never ran into the difficulties which continually plagued the Elizabethan government when it came to controlling the depiction of their queen.13 Numerous proclamations were instated as a result of this. At one point Sir Walter Raleigh, a close confidant of Elizabeth’s, stated in his introduction of History of the Worlds that at one point during her reign Elizabeth deemed that all images of her by unskillful ‘common Painters’ be burned with the action of the Privy

Council in July 1596.14

The early portraits of the Elizabeth as queen vary greatly from those that were produced later on. They were as tentative as the Elizabethan government was, at least for the first ten years of her reign. Primarily done by the unofficial court painter to

Elizabeth’s older sister Mary I, Hans Eworth, these portraits have been described as unsophisticated, depressing, and never above mediocre in quality.15 Typically this group of portraits from the early 1560s depict Elizabeth in a three-quarter length stiff pose wearing dark clothing. In the portraits Elizabeth is never depicted with any royal attributes except for in one where she holds a rose in her hand. This style is a continuation from the brief reign of Mary, who was a devout Catholic. The portrait

(Figure 6), dated from 1560-1565, by an unknown artist is an example of this. When these portraits were painted the notion of portraiture as loyalist propaganda had yet to be conceived and politico-religious pressure, which demanded the projection of an image was nonexistant.16 These portraits are also further proof of why the proclamation of 1563 was instated, with the expectation of establishing a new image of the young queen.17

6 In response to not having what was considered to be an official court pattern image, Elizabeth did sit for one in the late 1560s in response to the portraits by Hans

Eworth.18 These official court patterns were approved images that could be copied over and over again in slightly different variations. Conceivably the sitting that occurred in the late 1560s stemmed from the marriage negotiations with the imperial court of the

Archduke Charles. The most important version of the official court pattern that resulted from this sitting has been attributed Steven van der Muelen of Antwerp. Figure 7 is another portrait that isn’t attributed to van der Muelen, but is very similar in style.

Though the portrait was meant to set a new standard, it still does not have the powerful qualities and iconography that her later portraits would have. In van der Muelen’s portrait, he treats Elizabeth merely like an aristocratic lady holding gloves in one hand and a pomander chain in the other. This could have been due to the fact that many of these early portraits were intended for possible suitors still.

During the late 1500s a shift away from the naïve and temperate portraits of the mid-1500s was seen when it came to the portrayal of the Queen. For Elizabeth was far more than a mere woman or ordinary queen.19 She was the Virgin Queen as well as the figurehead of not only state but also the English Church. Because of this the artists who painted the Queens image became concerned with depicting her as an object of worship.

Elizabethan royal portrait painters were not just concerned with portraying a likeness, but instead an image that exhibited ‘full glory’, an icon calculated to evoke in the viewer the principles that the Queen and her government stood for.20 These powerful late images of the queen were the foundation for the cult of Elizabeth.

Besides the typical portrait, there were also allegorical images that were painted of the Queen. The earliest known of these images, Queen Elizabeth and the Three

Goddesses (Figure 8), was painted in 1567 and has been attributed to Joris Hoefnagel.

7 Though the subject of the painting varies from her portraits, what is still present is expectation that the Queen is still to marry. Unlike later allegorical images of the Queen which celebrate her as the triumphant virgin queen. In Hoefnagel’s painting he depicts

Elizabeth standing stiffly with two ladies in waiting on the left-hand side. To the right of them are three goddesses, Juno with her peacock, Minerva wearing armor, and Venus seated embracing Cupid. In the background is Venus’ chariot being drawn by swans.

Also centrally positioned in the background is Windsor Castle.21 Unlike the majority of paintings from the English court at this time, Queen Elizabeth and the Three Goddesses follows more of the Itialian style then English style due to it’s naturalism. This allegorical portrait is thought to have not been commissioned by Queen Elizabeth, but presented to her as a gift by possibly protestant exiles living abroad in Europe, who were devout followers of her cult. Since these exiled Protestants were most often associated with founding the Cult of Elizabeth, this image is considered to be one of the earliest cult images. Another example of an allegorical cult image is the painting known as The

Allegory of Tudor Succession (Figure 9), dated to around 1572. The artist is thought to be

Lucas de Heere. Unlike the earlier allegorical image though, this painting has a politico- religious note to it, marking the beginning of this trend in portraits of Elizabeth.

In The Allegory of Tudor Succession (Figure 9), Henry VIII is depicted enthroned in the center of the painting. It is evident that the artist was influenced by the earlier group portraits done of the Tudor family (Figures 2 and 3) when he painted this allegorical portrait around 1572. What is striking about this painting is the political division that is evident. To the left of Henry VIII are Mary Tudor and her alliance with the Habsburg empire, King Philip, which ultimately led to war between England and

France. This is symbolized by the figure of Mars. Contrasting with the left-hand side of the painting is the right-hand side which depicts Edward VI and Elizabeth I, who had a

8 close relationship and both of whom made peace with France during their reigns. There are also religious connotations in the painting as well. These are illustrated on the left- hand side of the painting with the group, which consists of Mary, Philip, and Mars, being the forces of Catholic reaction against the group on the right-hand side, which is made up of Elizabeth, Edward, Peace and Plenty, who manifestations of Protestant reform.22 This politico-religious connotation would continue to be used in the portraits of Elizabeth until her death.

One of the most well known portraits of Elizabeth I is known as the ‘Ermine’

Portrait (Figure 10), dated 1585. The artist that this particular portrait has most often been attributed to is William Segar, but Nicholas Hilliard has also been attributed to this painting since he was the foremost portrait painter around this time and even though a miniaturist painter, Hilliard was responsible for painting many full-scale portraits of the

Queen. What is unique about the ‘Ermine’ Portrait is that it moves away from the typical

Renaissance conventions that are used in Queen Elizabeth and the Three Goddesses by being returning to the flat and two-dimensional style that lacks any shadow or light which was typical of the English court. In the portrait Elizabeth wears a large lace collar and a jeweled gown. This large collar would become a characteristic element in all of

Elizabeth’s later portraits. In her hand she holds an olive branch, while on the table is the sword of justice.23 While these elements of the painting signify her power as a leader, the use of an ermine, which implies purity, on her arm embodies her as the Virgin Queen.

This relationship between power and virginity would continue to be seen in her portraits until her death.

There are a series of later portraits that characterize the final years of Elizabeth’s reign and the ultimate message regarding her as a powerful queen that she wanted to convey. These include the ‘Sieve’ Portraits (Figure 11), the ‘Armada’ Portrait (Figure

9 12), and the ‘Ditchley’ Portrait (Figure 13). These three, slightly varied, depictions of the

Queen all relate to one another through the incorporation of a globe in them. The

‘Ditchley’ Portrait is a logical progression from earlier portraits due to this one main aspect. In the ‘Sieve’ Portraits England is depicted glowing mysteriously on a globe in the background behind the Queen; in the ‘Armada’ Portrait the globe is brought forward in the paintings, for now she holds it; and then ultimately in the ‘Dichley’ Portrait the

Queen, crown, and England become one, as Elizabeth is now depicted standing on top of the globe. By depicting the Queen in this manner, she and her kingdom have become interchangeable.24 In especially the ‘Armada’ and ‘Dicthley’ portraits Elizabeth is portrayed wearing intricately jeweled dresses and large collars. The use of a white gown and pearls in her hair in the ‘Dichley’ Portrait are another way in which purity is being depicted in an allegorical form. This particular group of portraits is an excellent examples of how sure Elizabeth was when it came to her power and control as a queen.

By the 1580s Elizabeth was sixty years old and age had caught up to her. This was incompatible with the image of a votive deity that she was always obtaining to achieve in her portraits. A French ambassador who wrote about her aged appearance saying “as for her face, it is and appears to be very aged, and her teeth are very yellow and unequal compared with what they were formerly, and on the left side less than right.”25 To avoid being portrayed in a way that went against her goal of an unchanging regime, Elizabeth was depicted wearing what was considered to be a “mask”. Hilliard was the artist most responsible for this development in her portraits. In these portraits, her face no longer had a youthful blush but instead has become whiter. There is also more attention being paid to other elements in the paintings like her clothing rather then her face. It wasn’t till after Elizabeth’s death that images illustrating her true age came about.

Elizabeth I with Time and Death (Figure 14) is an example of this. The artist for figure

10 fourteen is unknown but it was painted in 1625. The Queen is depicted in the painting leaning over in a weary way with very aged facial features. Behind her right shoulder is a skeleton, a reference to death, and then a reference to time over her left shoulder with a broken hourglass.26

In 1603, Elizabeth I died at the age of seventy. Over a span of forty-five years she was able to unite a country both politically and religiously and prove to both critics in

England and abroad that a woman, who remained unmarried and a virgin her entire life, could successfully rule a country. This can all be seen in the portraits that were painted of her. The doubt in her authority that was prevalent at the beginning of her reign is illustrated in the early portraits, while the strong certainty in her command that was seen at the end of her sovereignty is portrayed in her later portraits. By being depicted as though she was wearing a mask of youthfulness at even an old age, Elizabeth was promoting not only prolonged existence in herself but the overall sense of an unchanging regime.

11 Images

Figure 1: Portrait of Henry VIII, 1540 Hans Holbein, 89 x 75cm

Figure 2: The Family of Henry VIII, 1545 Unknown Artist

Figure 3: The Family of Henry VIII, 1537 Hans Holbein

12 Figure 4: Portrait of the Princess Elizabeth, 1546 Figure 5: Portrait of Edward VI, 1546 Attributed to William Scrots Attributed to William Scrots

Figure 6: Portrait of Elizabeth I, 1560-1565 Unknown Artist

Figure 7: Portrait of Elizabeth I, c. 1565-1570 Unknown Artist- After Steven van der Muelen 13 Figure 8: Queen Elizabeth and the Three Goddesses, 1569 Attributed to Joris Hoefnagel

Image 9: The Allegory of the Tudor Succession, c. 1572 Attributed to Lucas de Heere

Figure 10: The ‘Ermine’ Portrait, 1585 William Segar

14 Figure 11: The ‘Sieve’ Portrait, 1580-1583 Attributed to Cornelius Ketel

Figure 12: The ‘Armada’ Portrait, c. 1588 George Gower

Figure 13: The ‘Ditchley’ Portrait, 1592 Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger

15 Figure 14: Elizabeth I with Time and Death, 1625 Unknown Artist

16 Notes

1. Davin Howarth Images of Rule: Art and Politics in the English Renaissance, 1485-1649. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997), 78.

2. Roy C. Strong Gloriana: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I. (London: Pimlico, 2003), 49.

3. Strong, 49-50.

4. Strong, 50.

5. Strong, 51.

6. Strong, 53.

7. David Piper The English Face. (London: Thames and Hudson, 1957), 56.

8. Strong, 19.

9. Strong, 22.

10. Piper, 57.

11. Horace Walpole Anecdotes of Painting in England. (London: R.M. Wornum, 1862), 150.

12. Strong, 10 . 13. Strong, 11.

14. Sir Walter Raleigh The History of the World. (London: Macmillan, 1971), 10.

15. Strong, 59.

16. Strong 59.

17. Strong, 59-60.

18. Strong, 61.

19. Strong, 59.

20. Strong, 69.

21. Strong, 66. 22. Strong, 66.

23. Strong, 113.

17 24. Piper, 69.

25. Piper, 70.

26. Strong, 164.

18 Bibliography

Buxton, John. Elizabethan Taste. London: Macmillan & Co. Ltd., 1963.

Harrison, G.B. The Elizabethan Journals. London: George Routledge and Sons, Ltd., 1938.

"Hilliard, Nicholas (c. 1547-1619)." Encyclopedia of World Biography. Thomson Gale, 1998. NA. Academic OneFile. 23 Sept. 2007 .

Howarth, David. Images of Rule: Art and Politics in the English Renaissance, 1485-1649. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997.

Piper, David. The English Face. London: Thames and Hudson, 1957.

Raleigh, Sir Walter. The History of the World. London: Macmillan, 1971.

Reynolds, Graham. English Portrait Miniatures. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

Rowse, A.L. The Elizabethan Renaissance. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1972.

Schama, Simon. “The Domestication of Majesty: Royal Family Portraiture, 1500-1850.” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, XVII:I (1986): 155-183.

Strong, Roy C. Gloriana: The Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I. London: Pimlico, 2003.

Strong, Roy C. Portraits of Queen Elizabeth I. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1963.

Strong, Roy C. The English Icon: Elizabethan & Jacobean Portraiture. London: The Paul Mellon Foundation for British Art, 1969.

Strong, Roy C. Elizabethan, vol. 2 of The Tudor and Stuart Monarchy: Pageantry, Painting, Iconography. Rochester: The Boydell Press, 1995.

Walpole, Horace. Anecdotes of Painting in England. London: R.M. Wornum, 1862.

Warner, Marina. Monuments & Maidens: The Allegory of the Female Form. London: Butler & Tanner Ltd., 1985.

Warnicke, Retha. “Elizabeth I: gender, religion and politics: did it matter the fifth Tudor monarch was a woman rather then a man? Retha Warnicke investigates. (Talking Points).” History Review 58 (Sept 2007): 30(6). Academic OneFile. 22 Sept. 2007 http://find.galegroup.com/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE.

Wheaton, Robert. “Images of Kingship.” Journal of Family History 12, no. 4 (1987): 389- 405.

19 Woodall, Joanna. “An Exemplary Consort: Antonis Mor’s Portrait of Mary Tudor.” Art History 14, no. 2 (1991): 192- 224.

Woodward, Jennifer. "Images of a dead Queen." History Today 47.n11 (Nov 1997): 18(6). Academic OneFile. 23 Sept. 2007 .

20