The Politics of Art and Religion

Material Information

The Politics of Art and Religion Absolutism and Catholic Iconography in Early Stuart England 1603-1649
Morse, Michael
Place of Publication:
[Gainesville, Fla.]
University of Florida
Publication Date:
Physical Description:
1 online resource (538 p.)

Thesis/Dissertation Information

Doctorate ( Ph.D.)
Degree Grantor:
University of Florida
Degree Disciplines:
Committee Chair:
Hatch, Robert A
Committee Members:
Sommerville, Charles J.
Bergmann, Peter E.
Curta, Florin
Westin, Robert H.
Graduation Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
Calvinism ( jstor )
Catholic reformation ( jstor )
Catholicism ( jstor )
Kings ( jstor )
Monarchy ( jstor )
Princes ( jstor )
Protestantism ( jstor )
Queens ( jstor )
Religion ( jstor )
Trucks ( jstor )
History -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
absolutism, art, carline, counter, england, monarchy, political, reformation, stuart
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation
born-digital ( sobekcm )
History thesis, Ph.D.


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of The University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE POLITICS OF ART AND RELIGION: ABSOLUTISM AND CATHOLIC ICONOGRAPHY IN EARLY STUART ENGLAND (1603-1649) By Michael Eugene Morse May 2009 Chair: Robert A. Hatch Major: History Early Stuart England (1603-1649) was dramatically transformed by the first two Stuart monarchs, James I and Charles I. Less appreciated, the art and architecture of the early Stuarts, and the politics of the Absolute state, were strongly influenced by Catholic thought and Catholic iconography. The present study reevaluates the impact of Catholicism in church polity and material culture under the influence of the early Stuarts. Marking a clear departure from the art and display of the Elizabethan age, the Stuarts, I argue, introduced a Culture of Image that helped define the relationship between Catholicism and the English Absolute state. Both Stuart kings aimed self-consciously to use Catholic iconography to solidify and extend their Absolutist Claims. Evidence for Catholic influence is found in their patterns of collection and commission, which show important deviations from earlier Protestant monarchs, Edward VI and Elizabeth I. The influence of Catholic iconography on English political culture has been largely overlooked. The surprisingly short list of scholarly publications on the topic contrasts sharply with an otherwise rich and nuanced Stuart historiography. The present study is divided into eight chapters. Briefly, Chapter 1 introduces the broader historiographic context with particular attention to new issues identified in this study. Chapter 2 surveys the absolutist tendencies of the papacy and Hapsburgs as models of influence and iconographic inspiration. Continuing the theme, Chapter 3 focuses on Calvinist resistance to the religious expression of Imagery connected with church art and architecture, and importantly, with expressions of political Divine Right. Included in this chapter are examples of artistic expressions as they relate to English borrowings from other Reformed areas of Europe. Chapter 4 examines a defining political document written by James I, Basilikon Doron. A key inspiration for Charles, this work argues that the greatest danger to Divine Right came from local Puritanism, and further, that Presbyterianism and Puritanism threatened the stability of the English state. Chapter 5 complements these religious and political themes by addressing key Catholic influences on Charles before his accession to the throne, particularly Anne of Denmark, and among other influences, his brother Henry s artistic fascination with Italy. Chapter 6 further documents Stuart use of Catholic iconography by analyzing the role of art in the theological movement toward Laudianism. Several key themes are brought together in Chapter 7, which focuses on Absolutism and Catholic art in Carline England; particular attention is given to the renovation at St. Paul s Cathedral, and more generally, to Charles use of the royal image in sculpture and painting. The final Chapter, which serves as an Epilogue and Conclusion, evaluates the Culture of Image and its role in defining English Absolutism as an expression of Catholic art and iconography. ( en )
General Note:
In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note:
Includes vita.
Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description:
Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description:
This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Adviser: Hatch, Robert A.
Electronic Access:
Statement of Responsibility:
by Michael Morse.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
Copyright Morse, Michael. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
Embargo Date:
Resource Identifier:
664801051 ( OCLC )
LD1780 2009 ( lcc )


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text




2 Michael Eugene Morse


3 To all those who sought and continued to s eek religious dtente and accommodation through seeking the Good and Beau tiful in the world.


4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully recognize my indebtedness to all my committee members, who, through their constant support, made this endeavor possible. I had the privilege of having nearly all of them as instructors during my graduate experience. They all embody the highest degree of scholarship and were great mentors during th is experience. Dr. C. John So mmerville was extremely helpful in shepherding me through the ea rly chapters of this dissertati on after his retirement from the University. I will always be gratef ul for his generosity of time and talent. Dr. Florin Curtas gift of keen intellect and clarity he lped to make this a stronger pa per. His deep commitment to scholarship and his students has been an insp iration. Dr. Bergmann, who generously gave his time, offered key insights to crystallize the direc tion of this research and future projects. Dr. Robert Weston, a long time friend and mentor, supplied exceptiona l support and encouragement along with his expertise on this period of art. I especially thank my Chai r Dr. Robert A. Hatch, for his guidance, scholarly advice, valuable crit icisms, and most of all his encouragement and tireless commitment to this project. My final ack nowledgments go to all t hose who have instilled a love of learning, travel, and adventure in my e ducational process including the teachers of my youth, especially my parents. They sparked an interest in history, art, and a world of possibilities.


5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............................................................................................................... 4LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................8ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............10 CHAP TERS 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 12Religious Terminology ......................................................................................................... ..13Contribution to Scholarship ....................................................................................................13Method and Approach ........................................................................................................... .16Contentions about Absolutism ................................................................................................ 18Historiography: Political, Relig ious and Artist Research ....................................................... 23Cultural Histories ....................................................................................................................30Structure of This Study ...........................................................................................................392 CATHOLIC ABSOLUTIST ART AND ARCHI TECTURE IN ITALY AND THE HAPSBURG DOMINIONS FROM 1580 THR OUGH 1640: A MODEL FOR EARLY MODERN ENGLAND .......................................................................................................... 46Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........46Catholic Rulership: The Art of Virtue .................................................................................... 47Reemergence of Rome as a Sp iritual and Artist Center ......................................................... 49Effects of the Council of Trent ...............................................................................................51Change of Style: The Importanc e of Catholicisms Influence ............................................... 68Italy the Leader .......................................................................................................................71The Hapsburg Court: Philip II and Philip III ......................................................................... 87Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ..........953 THE CHANGING PROTESTANT AESTH ETIC: ENGLI SH PROTESTANT TRENDS AND TRADITIONS IN R ELIGIOUS ART, ICONOCLASM, PORTRAITURE, TOMB SCULPTURE A ND COLLECTION FROM 1560 TO 1620 ....... 98Introduction .................................................................................................................. ...........98Calvins Influence on Religious Imagery ............................................................................... 99Religious Conflict about the Use of Art ............................................................................... 101Legacy of Calvin in Elizabethan England ............................................................................ 108English Distrust of Imagery ..................................................................................................109Calvinism in Protestant Europe a nd Its Effects on English Image .......................................113Pressures against Image in Elizabethan England .................................................................. 120Difference in Tastes and Use of Art: Tudor verses Stuart ....................................................126Painting in Protestant England .............................................................................................. 128


6 The English Tomb: Protestant Tast e in Funeral Art from 1560 to 1619 ............................. 133Traditionalism: Catholic Survivals in Tomb Art .................................................................. 147James I and the Monuments in Westminster Abbey ............................................................ 150Protestant English Print Media ............................................................................................. 152Travel, Patronage, and Collecting ........................................................................................155The Grand Tour: Contact w ith the Catholic South. ..............................................................159Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ........1634 JAMES I: VIRTUE, ART AND POLITICS IN EARLY STUART ENGLAND ................ 169Introduction .................................................................................................................. .........169Analysis of Basilikon Doron and Influence on Charles I ..................................................... 184Of a Kings Dvetie in His Office: The Second Booke ........................................................... 190Of a Kings Behaviovr in Indifferent Things .........................................................................197Contemporary Catholic Thought on Absolutism .................................................................. 199Foreign Policy: The Marriage Plans for Prince Henry ......................................................... 207James, Classicism and Protestant Re action: Classicism and Catholicism ............................209An Imperial City for England ............................................................................................... 215A New Vision: Implemented and Planned Works 1619-1624 ............................................. 218Classicism in the Royal Chapel and Church During the Reign of James I ..........................221Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrew es and the Beauty of Worship .................................. 230Bishop Andrewes: Tradition and the Royal Chapels ............................................................ 234Pre-Reformation Themes in a Monumental Sculpture in the Reign of James I ................... 243Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ........2465 ART AND CATHOLIC INFLUENCE: TH E EARLY YEARS OF CHARLES I .............. 250Introduction .................................................................................................................. .........250New Direction in the Use and Collection of Art ..................................................................250The Loosening Grip of Calvinis m: Cecil, Religion, and Art ...............................................254Mary Queen of Scots Catholic Legacy: In My End Is My Own Beginning ..................... 266A Convert: Ann of Denmark and Church Papists ................................................................ 274Anne of Denmark: Patron and Influence on Charles I ......................................................... 280Henry, Prince of Wales ........................................................................................................ .297George Villiers: Duke of Buckingham .................................................................................300Inigo Jones as a Catholic Influence ...................................................................................... 317Italian Sources Reflected in the Banqueting House ............................................................. 324Sculptural Designs by Jones ................................................................................................. 3316 THE MOVEMENT TOWARD CATHOLIC ART AND IC ONOGRAPHY IN THE EARLY REIGN OF CHARLES I ........................................................................................ 341Introduction .................................................................................................................. .........341The Divines of Charles I and Their Agenda .........................................................................342Henrietta Marias Artistic Influence on Charles I ................................................................ 356Search for Order in Court Life .............................................................................................. 366The Authority of Images ....................................................................................................... 368


7 Banqueting House as a Religious Monumen t: Jam es, the Papacy, and Solomon ................ 370Themes of Iconography in the Banqueting House ............................................................... 378The Prince-Hero: Peter Paul Rubens and Justus Lipsius, Bernini and Charles I ................. 380Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ........3977 CATHOLIC INFLUENCE AND ICONOGRAPHY IN ABSOLUTIST ART IN CAROLINE ENGLAND .....................................................................................................401Introduction .................................................................................................................. .........401The Restoration of St. Pauls and Catholic Influence ...........................................................401Sculpture and the Use of Catholic Sources for Politi cal Propaganda ...................................416Image of Catholic Monarchy: Gian lorenzo Bernini and Charles I ....................................... 428Van Dyck: the Image of the King ......................................................................................... 442Spanish Model: The Rebuildi ng of Whitehall Palace ........................................................... 449Conclusion .................................................................................................................... ........4538 EPILOGUE AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................................... 457Reaction to Stuart Building and Sculptural Programs ..........................................................457Iconoclasm and the Great Sale ............................................................................................. 461The Stuart Attraction to Catholicism .................................................................................... 470Catholic Sympathies and Attitudes ....................................................................................... 482 APPENDIX LIST OF ARTWORKS NOT I LLUSTRAT ED AND PUBLICATIONS CONTAINING THEIR ILLUSTRATION .......................................................................... 486LIST OF REFERENCES .............................................................................................................495Primary Sources ............................................................................................................... .....495Secondary Source .................................................................................................................504Journal Publications ..............................................................................................................531 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .......................................................................................................538


8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1 William and Cornelius Cure. Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots 1612. Westm inster Abby. .... 44 1-2 (Detail of Angels) Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots ................................................................. 45 1-3 Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots ............................................................................................... 45 2-1 Cristoforo Roncalli. Pope Sylvester Baptizes Constantine transept ..................................... 96 2-2 Giovanni Baglione. Constantines Donation to the Lateran transept .................................. 96 2-3 Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, Vatican Museum Vatican City. .......................................... 97 3-1 Gerrit Berckheyde, 1650, View of St. Bavos Haarlem ....................................................... 167 3-2 William and Cornelius Cure: Tomb of Queen Elizabeth I and Mary I 1612 ...................... 167 3-3 Detail of Sarcophagus lid Tomb of Queen Elizabeth ........................................................... 168 3-4 Mary Stuart (died 1607) Our Lady Chapel, Westm inster Abby, London ........................... 168 4-1 Pantheon ............................................................................................................................. 247 4-2 Temple of Minerva com pletely restored and dedi cated to the Virgin Mary ....................... 247 4-3 Inigo Jones. West Front of the Banqueting H ouse Whitehall Palace. 1619-1622 .............. 248 4-4 The Virgin Porch 1637, the High Street entrance to St. Marys, Oxford ........................... 248 4-5 Tower of the Orders Oxford University, 1624. .................................................................. 249 4-6 James I giving his published works to th e University of Oxford ........................................ 249 5-1 Inigo Jones, Queens House, Greenwich ............................................................................. 336 5-2 Il Gesu Com pletion in 1577................................................................................................ 337 5-4 Interior Banqueting House ................................................................................................ ... 339 5-5 Peter Paul Rubens, Detail, Apotheosis of James I, Banqueting House Cycle ..................... 340 6-1 St. Katharine Cree East End of the Nave ........................................................................... 398 6-2 Bernini, Baldacchin o 1624-33 ............................................................................................ 399 6-3 Gianlorenzo Bernini. Relief of Holy Lance, Framed by Solomonic columns 1630-40 ..... 400


9 7-1 Le Sueur, Charles I on Horse Back ..................................................................................... 455 7-2 Bernini. Cenotaph of suor Maria Raggi ..457 7-3 The Temple of Antoninus and Faustina ............................................................................... 456 8-1 Sir Peter Paul Rubins. Wise Rule of James I Banqueting House ....................................... 485


10 Abstract of Dissertation Presen ted to the Graduate School of The University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy THE POLITICS OF ART AND RELIGION: ABSOLUTISM AND CATHOLIC ICONOGRAPHY IN EARLY STUART E NGLAND (1603-1649) By Michael Eugene Morse May 2009 Chair: Robert A. Hatch Major: History Early Stuart England (16031649) was dramatically transformed by the first two Stuart monarchs, James I and Charles I. Less appreciated, the art and architecture of the early Stuarts, and the politics of the Absolute state, were stro ngly influenced by Catholic thought and Catholic iconography. The present study reev aluates the impact of Catho licism in church polity and material culture under the influen ce of the early Stuarts. Marki ng a clear departure from the art and display of the Elizabethan ag e, the Stuarts, I argue, introdu ced a Culture of Image that helped define the relationship between Catholicism and the English Absolute state. Both Stuart kings aimed self-consciously to use Catholic ic onography to solidify and extend their Absolutist Claims. Evidence for Catholic influence is found in their patterns of collection and commission, which show important deviations from earlier Prot estant monarchs, Edward VI and Elizabeth I. The influence of Catholic iconography on English po litical culture has been largely overlooked. The surprisingly short list of scholarly publications on the topi c contrasts sharply with an otherwise rich and nuanced Stuart historiography. The present study is divided into eight chapters. Briefly, Chapte r 1 introduces the broader historiographic contex t with particular attention to new issu es identified in this study. Chapter 2


11 surveys the absolutist tendencie s of the papacy and Hapsburgs as models of influence and iconographic inspiration. Continuing the theme, Chapter 3 focuses on Calvinist resistance to the religious expression of Imagery connected with church art and architecture, and importantly, with expressions of political Divine Right. Included in this ch apter are examples of artistic expressions as they relate to English borrowings from other Reformed areas of Europe. Chapter 4 examines a defining political document written by James I, Basilikon Doron A key inspiration for Charles, this work argues that the great est danger to Divine Right came from local Puritanism, and further, that Presbyterianism and Puritanism th reatened the stability of the English state. Chapter 5 complements these reli gious and political themes by addressing key Catholic influences on Charles be fore his accession to the throne, particularly Anne of Denmark, and among other influences, his brother Henrys artistic fascination with Italy. Chapter 6 further documents Stuart use of Catholic iconography by analyzing the ro le of art in the theological movement toward Laudianism. Several key them es are brought together in Chapter 7, which focuses on Absolutism and Catholic art in Carline England; particular attention is given to the renovation at St. Pauls Cathedral, and more generally, to Charles use of the royal image in sculpture and painting. The final Chapter, which serves as an Epilogue and Conclusion evaluates the Culture of Image and its role in defining English Absolutism as an expression of Catholic art and iconography.


12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The two Stuart kings, Jam es and Charles, br ought important change to England. For inspiration to modernize, James I looked outside of England, a strategy more vigorously pursued by his successor Charles I. The political theory espoused by James was Absolutism, the Divine Right of Kings. Although some Protestant theo reticians championed this view of kingship, it was closely identified with Catholics. Following his fathers lead, Charles transformed England into the principal symbol of the absolute state. Central to their efforts, the early Stuarts used Catholic iconography as a statemen t and symbol of absolute politic al power. A central task of this study is to examine the contemporary litera ture and the artwork commissioned and collected by the early Stuarts in su pport of Catholicism Absolutism. Th is evidence, I ar gue, suggests that James and Charles developed cohesive policies in the choice of absolu tist art and iconography that affirmed their rule as Divine Right mona rchs. One consequence of these findings is that Catholic influence in England was considerab ly greater than previ ous historians have acknowledged. In support of thes e claims, this study aims to defi ne absolutist art and to assess the cultural climate in early Stuart England. Im portantly, it provides a de tailed analysis of how James and Charles bolstered the Divine Right of Kings by creating a Culture of Image. The present study offers a fresh analysis of th ese issues while filling a surprisingly large gap in scholarship. In the course of this st udy, I aim to address a series of questions only partially addressed, and sometimes entirely igno red, by cultural historians. These questions include: Was there significant Catholic influe nce in Stuart England? Did the Stuarts intentionally emulate the great Catholic monarc hies in their display and commission of artwork for political and religious purpos es? Was Catholic ic onography present in these Protestant political works about Absolutism? How importa nt were Catholics in early modern England,


13 especially the Stuart queens and members of c ourt in formation of propaganda works for the regime? Did Catholicism, real or imagined by detractors of the Stua rts, play a greater role in the demise of Charles? Religious Terminology Religion in early S tuart England was complex and remains difficult to categorize with appropriate historical labels. For example, no single term exists to de scribe the ceremonial worship, the love of art, and sacramentalism. A rminianism is too limited; it defines a theology that is not necessarily involved with decorous settings or ceremonial wors hip, although, more than a few Arminians were involved in such thi ngs. As with the term Puritan, it is a commonly hostile term used by opponents. A nglicanism did not exist in common currency, although it is the direct descendant of this movement. Patr ick Collinson used PrayerBook Protestantism to describe this movement, but it is inaccurate. Much more than only the Prayer Book was involved in their thought and practices. It is also cumberso me to use. Laudianism does not apply to the entire period, not least because some Laudi ans came before Laud, among them Hooker and Andrewes. Anti-Calvinism also presents difficulti es. Some supporters of ceremonial religion and art employed elements of Calvinist thought in their writings. In sum, rath er than contribute new terminology, I will use anti-Calvinism, Laudianism, and Arminianism, as interchangeable terms to describe a religion of ceremony, sacramentalism, and use of image for spiritual and political ends. Contribution to Scholarship Catholic influence and iconography have b een under-appreciated in Early Modern England, particularly in the context of absolutis t and religious art comm i ssioned or collected in early Stuart England. This avenue of research illuminates key problems encountered in Stuart studies. At the center of this discussion is the early Stuart monarchy, its use of art as


14 propaganda, and those influences th at led James and Charles to spons or such art. In its central focus, this study investigates the influence of Catholic-based abso lutist art and architecture as models for the Stuart court, and the successful use of art an d its ultimate collapse during the reign of Charles I. A related argument of this study is the renewal of the use of religiouslythemed art in collections and commissions for personal and public consumption. Absolutism, above all else, claimed a central religious theme: Absolute power came from revived traditions reflected in the Old Testament, the antiquity of the early church, and hero es such as Constantine and Charlemagne. As the first Christian emperor, Constantine was viewed as a Christian David or Christian Solomon, an instrument of Gods plan for state government. Charlemagnes legend continued this tradition, and Western emperors, popes, and kings associated these figures with their own divine right to rule. Abso lutism was inseparable from religion. The dominant cultural center at the end of the sixteenth-cen tury was southern European Catholicism. With France back in the Catholic fold, the three greates t European powers in 1600 were Spain, France, and the Holy Roman Empire The Counter-Reformation was in full swing, and Spain was the colossus that sat astride the wo rld. Charles V, Philip II, and Philip III were the most powerful monarchs of the day. After the Council of Trent, Rome was in the midst of political, religious, and artistic ascendancy through the first quar ter of the seventeenth century. Among the most important influences for James and Charles to emulate were these Catholic monarchs of the south. Catholic monarchs co ntinued and renewed impe rial and theological iconography long before Englands Solomon. Evid ence is presented that James I (from the middle of his reign) and Charles I (throughout the majority of his re ign) adapted this absolutist religious tradition in art. They used relativel y unchanged iconography in their public artistic contributions, as well as in their private co mmissions and patterns of collecting.


15 As Protestant monarchs, the Stuarts were out of step with other co-religionists. The lack of interest in art in general, or the use of art as a political or religious implement by Protestant monarchs, is central to understa nding the visceral attack art produced for Charles. What the Stuarts achieved in England is easily distinguished fr om their Protestant counterparts. The renewed iconoclasm of the period was due to the outbreak of the Thirty Years War. Differences in the use of art were evident even within dynasties including Elizabet h the Winter Queen (and sister of Charles I) and wife of Frederick V, the Elector of the Palatinate. Elizabeth and her husband helped inaugurate the Thirty Years War by orchestrating a scheme of iconoclasm in the great cathedral in Prague.1 A key area of scholarly concern focuses on th e connections of James and Charles to other absolutist thinkers, whether di rectly, as with Marc Antonio De Dominis, or through court painters, such as Justus Lipsius. These Catholic th inkers enriched the religi ous debate, so vital to Catholic-Protestant relations, concerning the role of the monarch in the early modern state. They also contributed to ideological di scussions involving the uses of ar t and architecture in support of absolutist ideas. These thinkers were prime exampl es of the fluidity of religious confessions and the notion that there was more agreement betw een Protestants and Catholics than generally acknowledged. Authors point out th e great divergence in thought in Protestantism. Catholicism is sometimes treated as a monolithic religion th at nodded predictably to papal authority. This study provides evidence that key thinkers asso ciated with James and Charles described 1 With the election of Elector Frederick V, th e Czech parliament vigorously promoted an iconoclastic agenda. The Winter Kings court preacher and advisor, Abraham Scultetus was central in the agenda for the tran sformation of the Cathedral of St. Vitus into a Calvinist edifice. The cleaning of the cathedral did not have broad-based approval and was a factor in the collapse of support for Frederick as King of Bohemia and an important excuse for imperial intervention. As the destructi on of art was destabilizing for Char less sister, the creation of art was destabilizing for Charles.


16 Catholicism and catholicity across a much broader spectrum. Popery is not the on ly mark of Catholicism. Some individuals defy useful categ ories. Fluidity of thought and crossing of confessional lines were important ch aracteristics of the early modern. This study contributes to a growi ng scholarship that consid ers the importance of the Catholic consorts of James and Charles in thei r religious and political choices, including the selection of artists who supporte d the royal display of Absolutism. Until recently, most of the historiography of early modern England has treated these wome n as peripheral. Anne of Denmark converted to Catholicism before her arrival in England. Henrietta Marias most important mission was to convert her husband, and then, through him, to s how England the true faith. Annes more restrained Catholicism, and Henrietta Marias militant Catholicism, must be understood in relation to their husba nds policies. Their influence is particularly evident in the arts of display and cons umption at court. Method and Approach This study builds on the work of art historians, in concert with cultural, political, and religious historians, who have a ddressed the issue of Catholicis m in early Stuart England. I examine Catholic iconography used by Catholic rulers and popes, and compare this iconography with Stuart output between 1603 and 1649. This st udy also includes analysis of documents that supported absolutism and the use of art as propa ganda within the broader Catholic spectrum. These topics depart from the work of most historians of this period, where integration of the Stuart legacy has ye t to take place. In addition to literary works, the evidence in clude artworks, architecture, chapel designs, and the writings of the monarchs and influential court officials, including bishops, theologians, architects, and most importantly, the propaganda works themselves. I will establish links between Catholicism and Stuart En gland as these monarchs attemp ted to explain and enact their


17 views on Absolutism, whether as theoreticians or practitioners. Most historians have not accused Charles of great intellect or strategic ability. But ample evidence demonstrates his conscious choice of art, based on Catholic absolutist and religious artistic themes, to support his views of the absolute state. The political and religious aspects of Absolu tism cannot be separated. Vital to the absolutist views of both James and Charles was a belief in their own unfettered power to shape the Church in England (Sco tland and Ireland as well) as G ods anointed monarchs. Their prerogative as head of these chur ches was clearly expressed in the political works of James I. This study also includes an examination of the relig ious polity that existe d in the English Church and the direction these monarchs envisioned for their churches. Neither James nor Charles was content with the status quo. Th e Arminian movement enabled by James, and totally embraced by Charles, was no less than an Arminian Counter-Reformation. Moderate Calvinists and Puritans alike-d eemphasized art, the beauty of worship, and ceremonies during the Elizabethan Age. The initia l part of Jamess reign continued these same policies. However, James changed this practice by the second decade of the seventeenth-century. For Charles (and for James) the use of artw orks and a renewed emphasis on ceremony veered dangerously toward a reconnection to Roman Ca tholicisms aesthetics and imagery. Image was as important as Word. This tradition emphasized th e visual arts in religion and politics as much as the spoken and preached Word of God. Clear ly, after the Reformation, most Protestants emphasized a sermon-based piety. The novel and changing aesthetics of the Stuarts, antiCalvinists, and Arminians did not look to Prot estant forms of worshi p for inspiration. They looked to Catholicisms past a nd its present. The political and theological theories, expressed in Basilikon Doron were extremely close to the Catholic-based theory of government pr oposed in the Counter-Ref ormation by continental


18 thinkers.2 This theory, recently called anti-Machiavel lianism, suggests a direct response to the writings and practitioners of Mach iavellis theory of princely ru le. Recent scholarship connects some of these philosophers with the use of Baroque art.3 Basilikon Doron, along with the writings of the Catholic anti-Machiavellians, based merits of monarchy on traditional virtues connected with governing and the medieval pol itical thought that cent ered governing on the Seven Cardinal Virtues. Many an ti-Machiavellians taught that art was an ideal way to express the virtue of the prince for political consumption at court and beyond. Contentions about Absolutism During the last several d ecades revi sionist authors have challenged the idea of Absolutism as a potent political theory in England. One r ecent work by Glenn Burgess, which ties most of the revisionist scholars works together, is Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitutio n.4 2 Catholic philosophers, including Marc Antonio De Dominis and his publication De republica seclesiastic and Justus Lipsius in his works Two Books on Constancy (1584) and Political Advice and Examples (1605), both advocated a strong a nd unified state as the way out of civil and religious chaos th at was engulfing their world. 3 Irving Lavin, Berninis Image of the Ideal Christian Monarch in The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts 1540-1773 Edited by John W. OMalley, S. J., (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999) is one of the most recent articles wri tten about the influence of anti-Machiavellianism in art. An entire school of thought exists on this subject by major scholars who are indebted to the writings of Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellianism: The Doctrine of Raison dEtat and its Place in Modern History (1927). Most important in this study is the work of Robert Bireley, The Counter-Reformation Prince (Raleigh, N. C., 1990), who sums up the main ideas and schol arship in this work, which su pports the notion that during the Counter-Reformation many princes tried to change the then commonly held view of the corruption of monarchy and church [by Protestant critics] by portraying the prince and prelate as noble, virtuous, anti-Machiavel lian figures. Another importa nt work is Mark Morford, Stoics and Neostoics: Rubens and the Circle of Lipsius (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991). The life and works of Lipsius are well known. His re turn to Catholicism and his continuation of Catholic themes meshed well with his devotion to the Christianization of Stoicism. The major study of Lipsiuss life is the subject of Morfords work. 4 Glenn Burgess, Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996).


19 Although Absolutism is discussed in Chapter 4, it may be fruitful to outline the claims of Burgess and like-minded thinkers, as well as J ohann Somerville, who pr ovides the strongest scholarly defense of English Absolutism. Burgess s main claim is that political Absolutism was rare in England during the time of the early Stuarts. As a follower of Conrad Russell, the most prominent revisionist historian, Burgess argued th at there was no widespread adherence to the theory of an absolute monarc h in pre-Civil War England. These scholars maintained that Absolutism ran counter to the deep assumptions of English common law, and that only small groups of clerics, civil lawyers, and royal servants embraced this political notion. This claim is itsel f controversial. But Burgesss statements about Jamess position on Absolutism are more conten tious. Burgess summed up the thought of authors, such as Christianson, Sharpe and Morell when he wrote, Unfortunately James did not think this, [Absolutism] nor did most of his subj ects. There is, indeed, so little absolutist in the political utterances of James I th at it is only the supposed absolutism of his Scottish writings that justifies applying the label to him, presumably on the principle that old dogs dont learn new tricks.5 Burgess aimed to rebut the claims of histor ians such as Somerville, who argued that a clear and ever divisive polarity existed between constitutionalist and absolutist accounts of political authority. Historians in this camp assu med that the ideological infrastructures of the civil wars of the 1640s were set up by two polarities, constitutionalism and Absolutism. Burgess argued that historians have fallen prey to this hermeneutic. By reexamining the language used in the early Stuart period, Burgess boldly stated that most historians have misunderstood the term Divine Right of Kings, as used by contemporary authors. As with Conrad and others, Burgess 5 Glenn Burgess, 43.


20 argued that the polemicists of the 1640s invent ed a conceptual opposition between absolutist and constitutionalist politica l authority, government, law, and ki ngship. Therefore, absolutist thought was not a cause of the Civil War, but a cons truct brought into being by the Civil War. Sommerville disagreed significan tly with this conclusion. Arguing against the efforts of Figgis6 and Sommerville, Burgess also attacked the de jure divino or divine law theories of monarchy as a source of English ab solutist thought. For Burgess, such arguments were theories of ob ligation articulated against papist or radical Protestant resistance theorists ra ther than political imperatives. In Burgesss view, Absolutism had no real teeth, even in the expressed thoug hts of King James. Another supporter of this view is Nicholas Henshall, who recently argued th at most European thinkers shared a consensus opinion that monarchy was not ab solutist (free monarchy) but it was limited in some way by constitutionalism. Nevertheless, both authors saw th e need for the term absolutist for those rare authors who argued that the king was above human law. Revisioni sts continue to argue that these rare period authors were not in step with political thought in England or on the continent. Although Burgesss conclusions have merit, his argument is ultimately unconvincing. A key question remains: Why and how did ideological disagreement and conflict happen if everyone agreed about politics and constitutiona lism in early modern England before the Civil War? His other treatments are brief. His refl ections on the religious c onflicts that underpinned civil beliefs, and the political writings of James I, are sketched in five pages of text. Since the appearance Burgesss book, the revision of English Absolutism has been continuously 6 J. Neville Figgis, The Theory of the Di vine Right of Kings (Cambridge: University Press, 1896.) See Ch. 9, Non-resistance and the Theory of Sovereignt y 217-253. In addition: The Divine Right of Kings 2nd ed., with three additional essays (Cambridge: University Press, 1914) 154-161, 242.


21 challenged by Johann P. Sommerville, the champion of those who wish to retain some elements of Absolutism as a political force. Drawi ng on documents of the period, Sommerville argued that Absolutism in England was alive and vital in a more dynamic manner than described by Burgess, Sharpe, or Russell. Sommerville publ ished works about James Is writings, including examples of numerous primary sources that defended English Absolutism.7 Summerville argued that English wr iters advanced political views identical to those published by continental theorists, most descri bed as absolutists or as adherents of free monarchy. If continental thinkers were truly abso lutists, he argued, then so were the numerous English writers he cited. At th e center of Absolutism was the notion that when the sovereign commanded, unless he was contradicted by the direct injunctions of God, the subject was obliged to obey and could not resist. The king had the ri ght to rule, free from constitutional restrictions, for the good of the kingdom. This was an inherent right in free monarchies.8 The king used the parliament to govern; the parliame nt did not use the king to govern. Sommerville was particularly critical of Burgesss notion that James was at heart a constitutionalist, and that a pologists, such as Hobbes and Fi lmer, articulated the idea of Absolutism as a reaction to the English Civil War. Sommerville pointed out that Jamess writingsincluding Basilikon Doron and The Trew Law of Free Monarchiesare clearly 7 Some important works on absolutism that Sommerville has penned include Thomas Hobbes: Political Ideas in Historical Context (New York: St. Martins Press, 1992), Patriarcha and Other Writings: Sir Robert Filmer edited by Johann P. Sommerville (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), and his direct answer to the writings of Burgess and others, English European Political Ideas in the Early Se venteenth-century: Revisionism and the Case of Absolutes, The Journal of British Studies 35, no. 2 (1996): 168-194. 8 Johann P. Sommerville, English European Political Ideas in the Early Seventeenthcentury: Revisionism and the Case of Absolutes, The Journal of British Studies 35, no. 2 (1996): 168-169.


22 responses to any who would limit th e power of an absolute (free) sovereign, not just Papists and Puritans.9 After moving to England James did not change his rhetoric in later editions of these writings. Sommerville also documented sufficient exam ples of those who called for an absolutist theory before the Civil War, including Hobbes and Filmer, whose writings pr edated the conflicts. According to Sommerville, some of the scholars hip included serious slips on dates [which] are symptoms of rather more serious problems.10 It is important at the outset to d ecide which scholarly camp provides the most convincing argument. The issues raised by Sommerville seem sufficient to assume that James believed in his own theory. In general, I favor Sommervilles position on Absolutism. James tried to gain further control of the country and the Church of England, though he rarely pushed his will upon his subjects unless he thought a di re consequence at stake. He did believe that there were constraints on tyranny. Tyranny, given his cor onation oath to God to be a good King, was unchristian. However, he did nothing in his rule to support a notion of d evolving his powers to the estates of his realms. The attitude of James was hardly one of providing more constitutional limitations for himself and his successors. If anything, he aimed to be independent. It is important to note that during his long reign, from 1603-1625, parliament met for only thirtyseven months. He convened parliaments when he needed money; he closed parliaments when 9 Johann P. Sommerville, ed., King James VI and I: Political Writings (2001: reprint, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994). Throughout his introduction, Sommerville documents the notion of Absolutism in these important political works, esp ecially the notion that the king had absolute authority over the church ; these documents laid particular emphasis on final decisions on foreign and domestic policy by the king. This will be discussed in detail in subsequent chapters dealing with the influence of the Basilikon Doron. 10 Johann P. Sommerville, English European Political Ideas in the Early Seventeenthcentury: Revisionism and the Case of Absolutes, 171-73. See Sommervilles entire article for many examples of writers who supported the political idea of Absolutism in England.


23 they got out of control. That said, Jamess Absolutism was moderate ; he preferred to persuade or negotiate rather than command arbi trarily. Nevertheless, he insist ed on his right to govern as a free monarch. Historiography: Political, Religious and Artist Research Authors in the eighteenth and nineteenth cen turies argued for a sim ple paradigm: Greedy self-serving monarchs, thirsty for power, strugg led against the lofty id eals of fighters for religious freedom. The Whig narrative, like the followers of Weber and the Marx, tended to portray seventeenth-century Engl and as a victorious battleground against Stuart tyranny. The result, predictably, was a progressive, modernizi ng, secularizing, and truly Protestant country. England materialized on its own, freed from the shackles of Cat holic Europe through the power of its will and the truth of Protestantism. For the Whigs, this progression from popery and superstition through Protestant rea lism to a secular society largely ignores the vitality of early modern England and the influences that the continent had upon the island. As with these early scholars, historians focused much of their st udy on the causes and outcomes of the Civil War. Politics dominated the historiograp hical scene. For most of the last century, the debate was void of other causes for conflict in ear ly modern England. This hist orical perspective has changed radically in the last few decades. One of the classic Stuart scholars, G. M. Trev elyan, is a key represen tative of the earlier perspective. His work England under the Stuarts, first printed in 1904 and reprinted as late as 1985, is a case in point of early scholarship that directs the viewer to political pre-conceived conclusions: that revolution was inevitable, Stuart monarchs we re failures, and that English Protestantism was destined to lead the world. Ca tholicism in these early works was dangerous to the march of English supremacy. It was in many ways irrelevant, ignoring the fact that James and Charles had Catholic queens and spent much political and artistic energy making their brand


24 of Protestantism more appealing to European Ca tholic culture. Above all, the Whigs offered a teleological narrative that assumed inevitable progress. Social paradigms became the interpretive norm for those who rejected the great man theory of the Whigs. The chief characteristic of many works, produced from the 1940s through the early 1970s was an attempt to graft some sort of social dimension to the previous histories. Writers such as Lawrence Stone, who saw hi story through sociological perspective, or Christopher Hill, who looked to Marxism as a theory of history, added new data to the discussions. 11 But none of these studies offered a satis factory conclusion to the debate of the causes of the Civil War. Tawney, Trevor-Roper, and Hexter, assumed th at classes rising or falling were the major cause of tr oubles faced by Charles I. They largely ignore court culture. Historians began to question the fruitfulness of Marxist and sociological approaches to the social history of politics. In the 1970s, re visionists searched for alternative ways to place politics into an appropriate cultur al context. Their major assumption was that aristocratic ancient regime societies and politics had their own stru ctures that proved irreducible to simplistic paradigms. Their attack on former histori cal works was leveled against anachronism and reductionism. Structural history was replaced with narrative; long-term social causation was replaced with short-term radical change. 12 11 See Lawrence Stone, The Crisis of the Aristocracy 1558-1641 (1965), Christopher Hill The World Turned Upside Down: Radica l Ideas during the English Revolution (1972) for these viewpoints. 12 Examples of these views include Conrad Russell, Derek Hirst, and Kevin Sharpe. Conrad Russell, Parliaments and English Politics 1621-1629 (1979), Derek Hirst, The Representative of the People? Voters and Voting in England under the Early Stuarts (1975) and Kevin Sharpe, Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (1987).


25 A sub-group of revisionist hist orians revived the possibility of a religious interpretation of the Civil War. The central claim was that the key factor in the co llapse of the Stuart monarchy was religious discord. Revisionist historians reconsidered the social basis and the significance of radicalism in certain sectors of English society. Mu ch of this radicalism centered on the godly elite, the Puritans. Previously, Englis h revolutionaries were ta ken to be either antireligious, secularizing libertarians, or strict constitutionalists. This perspective was displaced by the radically religious characte r of the period. Historians ha ve found substantial evidence for interpreting the English Civil War and the collapse of the monarchy as religious conflict. J. C. Davis, Murray Tolmie, J. F. McGregor, and B. Reay are all authors who support the notion of radicalism within Protestantism in early modern England.13 The religious war model has clear advantag es in studying the culture of this period. It poses a greater capacity to integrate the divers e phenomena of culture into one story. The notion of religious struggle allows for an overall context in which to d eal with the art, practice, and ritual of the English Church, as well as church discip line, as important markers Englishmen used to choose sides during the conflict. This model al so allows the introduction of Catholicism as an influence in the conflict. A key issue is that the religious war was fought not between Catholic and Protestant, but between two kinds of Prot estantism. The victors were enemies of a Protestant state church. Nicholas Tyacke argued the rise to prominence and preferment of the Arminian church party. He hypothesized that Calvinism was not seriously challenged in England until the ascension of James, who steadily preferred those of Arminian tastes to the episcopate and 13 J. C. Davis, Politics, Religion and th e English Civil War (1973), Murray Tolmie, The Triumph of the Saints: The Separate Churches of London 1616-1649 (1977), and J. F. McGregor and B. Reay (eds.), Radical Religion in the English Revolution (1984).


26 important school positions. Andrewes, Laud, Wren, and others became potent preachers who argued for a gospel of hope, in which salva tion was the potential lot of everyone. [Arminianism] as it emerged in the 1630s was th at of communal and ritualized worship rather than an individual response to preaching or Bible reading.14 His convincing thesis showed a remarkable shift that changed the near-Calvi nist monopoly of the English Church by the time Archbishop Laud was appointed to Canterbury in 1633.15 Tyackes second argument was that the movement was not confined to the English Church but influenced Jacobean and Caroline churches in Ireland and Scotland. Here Tyacke not ed the same process of replacing Calvinism with a rising Arminian Imperialism (Tyacke s term). This was particularly evident in Scotland. Arminians and anti-Calvinists both helped to initiate worship that appeared similar to traditional Catholic worship. It endorsed a gl orious and beautiful liturgy, which was approved by Charles.16 The influence of the Arminians and thei r rejection by the neo-Calvinists (Tyackes term) of the 1630s and 40s fueled the demise of Charless monarchy. At the center of the debate between Arminians and Calvinists was free will and good works. As Tyacke wrote, To the 14 Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism, c. 1590-1640 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), 246. In his conclusion, Tyacke argued that the advancement of Arminians by James and then Charles mean t that the altar, ceremony, sacraments, and enhancement of the priesthood was a challenge in th e eyes of the true Calvinists who saw that the state of England and of her church seemed fa vorably inclined to the religion of the Papists. 15 Tyacke, 245-247. 16 Tyacke, 248.


27 extent that Popery was seen as synonymous with Arminianism, this was because the teaching on predestination by the Council of Trent was so similar.17 Other scholars who favor this religious compone nt argued for foreign influence. W. B. Patterson noted the importance of exterior influence and religious dtente as policy in Stuart England. Patterson made the case for a conscious effort by James to renew an ecumenical church in England and to connect the church to the broader European Christ ian community. As he wrote, James was both a Protestant in the Calvinist tradition and an advocate of closer relations among all the churches, including the Roman Catholic Church.18 Patterson noted that James believed that the liturgy, polity, and doctrinal standards of the C hurch of England were in the historic Catholic tradition of Ch ristianity. He therefore welcomed, even relished, religious discussions, and he worked toward the kind of organic unity, which he believed was the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church as desc ribed in the Apostles and Nicene creeds.19 Patterson portrayed James as a monarch w ho tried to reconcile Christian ity. His research included key theologians and court figures who urged the king toward his vision of a more united Europe. In a similar work, Anthony Milton surveys the vast field of work concerning the polity between the Church of England and its Protestant and Catholic root s. His conclusion is the most telling: Previous divines had located the Church of E ngland on the Protestant side of a polarized Christendom. The Laudians changed all this Where previous writers had seen antipopery as a positive form of religious expres sion and as a crucial means of vindicating 17 Nicholas Tyacke, Aspects of English Protestantism, 1530-1700 (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2001), 227. 18 W. B. Patterson, King James and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 342. 19 W. B. Patterson, 342.


28 the Protestant credential of the churchs hierarchy, Laudians consid ered anti-popery to be a destabilizing force, which prompted a fals e set of religious priorities and encouraged the growth of a puritan-style word-biased piety.20 This puritan-style would be a threat to the established orde r of the English Church as well as to absolute monarchy, especially to Puritans who did not welcome royal interference in matters of personal faith. Milton suggested a conscious effort by church and crown to move closer to the Roman Church fo r political and aesthetic reasons. The Crown admired the discipline, order, and the sumptuous worship of the Tridentine church. It admired its visual nature, something revived in the current masque s of the day. That said, Milton did not examine specific artworks or chapel designs. An analysis of this changing aesth etic will be a central contribution of this study. In The Personal Rule of Charles I, Kevin Sharpe examined various aspects of royal life, including the impact of the visual arts and literature. It is one of the most detailed reappraisals of the peacetime years of the reign of Charles I. In several respects, howev er, Sharpes research contains contradictory implications. While claimi ng that Catholicism and its culture were not welcomed in England by Charles, Sharpe pointed out how well ambassadors from the great Catholic powers, papal envoys, and the queens household were received and how they were granted free worship and movement.21 Sharpe also failed to acknowledge the considerable influence of Catholic Baroque cu lture and iconography on Charles, as well as his choice of artists and their visual use of cultural themes. 20 Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought 1600-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 529. 21 Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I, 306-307.


29 Sharpe also ignored the influe nce of Catholic art and piet y on the Church of England, particularly as its polity move d toward order, ceremony, and the beauty of worship. It is no coincidence that the queens of England were Cath olic at exactly the time Arminian bishops, as well as the monarchy, began to commission traditional artworks not seen since the days of Mary Tudor.22 The High mass of Neo-platonic monarc hy performed by the whole clerisy of court23 came into existence in the late 1620s and early 30s. It wa s the time of Stuart reliance on the arts, the time proclaiming their view of Absolutism. The mystery of monarchy was to be seen, heard, and experienced. Catholic connections to culture were also noted in the work of Caroline M. Hibbard. Seeking to bring Catholic studies out of the sh adows of English historiography, Hibbard saw her task as integrating the role of political anti-popery from 1637-1642 and connecting it to court Catholicism.24 Hibbards study, however, was too narrow thematically to include the cultural connections and importance of Catholics. Hibbar d noted that the court was highly visible in London and that the strength and visibility of London and court Catholicism should not, 22 Margaret Aston, one of the most reliable scholars of the 16th century, notes that it is Mary Tudor who restored painting and sculpture in England after the iconoclastic policies of Edward VI (in Margaret Aston, Englands Iconoclasts: Laws against Images Volume I (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988). Mary encouraged the re placement of altars and the artwork that was destroyed. Mary restored St. George, one of th e most often venerated non-biblical saints, especially by the royal family, who was often a subject in art for both Tudors and Stuarts after Edward suppressed his association with the Knights of the Garter. See Astraea: The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth-century (London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975), 108-109. 23 Peter Thomas, Charles I: The Trage dy of Absolutism, in A. G. Dickens, The Courts of Europe: Politics, Patronage and Royalty 1400 -1800 (London Thames and Hudson, 1977 ) 224. 24 Caroline Hibbard, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983).


30 therefore, be written off as a nomalous and thus insignificant.25 The influence of Catholicism was magnified through the communications networks originating in London and exchanged back and forth to the counties. She also noted that E nglish historians of this period rarely addressed the importance of Catholicism given their ignoran ce of Catholic history and Catholic sources.26 Cultural Histories A m ore holistic attempt to engage other disciplines, notably l iterary and art historians, is in increasingly more prevalent in Stuart studies. Roy Strong, one of the groundbreaking interdisciplinary historians, stressed the impor tance of art for its pol itical and religious ramifications. His works rely heavily on literary concerns, which explore a pan-European use of masques and spectacle begun in the late Middle Ages throughout the key kingdoms of Western Europe. 27 Illustrative of his approach is the Chapter entitled The Illusions of Absolutism: Charles I and the St uart Court Masques which was dedicated to the importance of the literary culture of the Caroline court. Strong emphasized the self-fashioning of m onarchs. He wrote in a Europe dominated by the problem of rival religious cr eeds and the breakdow n of the Universal Church, the monarch not only established himself as the arbiter in religious matters but gradually became adulated as the sole guarantor of peace and order within the state.28 He noted that Charles portrayed himself as a virtuous absolute monarch in quasi-religious works. These works 25 Caroline Hibbard, 5. 26 Caroline Hibbard, 5. 27 Roy C. Strong, Art and Power: Renaissance Festivals 1450-1650 (Berkeley: University of California Pr ess, 1973 and reprint 1984). 28 Roy C. Strong, 19.


31 were central to understanding the monarchy and the age.29 Strong also argues for the Englishness of what was created in the early 1600s. I will present evidence that these works were not so clearly English. As with Strong, Stephen Orgel contributed to the use of literary sources for understanding early modern England. He examined literary co ntributors of the period by offering detailed studies of Jonson, Milton, and Donne in relation to the early Stuarts. For instance, Orgel examines masques of the Jacobean and Caroline period to examine politics and the propaganda of Absolutism in the masques.30 Orgel and Strong offer a collaboration of disciplines in their work that emphasized the importance of Inigo J ones as a figure who straddled the visual and literary world. 31 Jones was the architect, not only of court masques, but also of the Banqueting House at Whitehall. This building was a major dynastic statement intende d to evoke religious, political, and imperial imagery. Shaped as a Roman Basilica, Strong suggests its imperial connections, though he fails to not e that the Basilica was used for Christian churches from the time of Constantine, and indeed, that the crucif orm church was simply two basilicas set at a crossing. This religious connecti on was part of the intention of the Banqueting House, especially after it was fitted with the works of Rubens. 29 Roy C. Strong. This notion is seen throughout his chapter, A Royalist Arcadia: Charles I in Splendor at Court, however he does not make the connection with Catholic iconography or use in church art or architecture. I will treat this area in my analysis of the artistic record. 30 Stephen Orgel, The Illusion of Power: Political Theater in the English Renaissance (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975). 31 Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong, The Theater of the Stuar t Court: Including the complete Designs for Productions at Court, for the Most Part in the Collection of the Duke of Devonshire, Together with Their Texts and Historical Documentations (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973).


32 In their research into the Stuart masques, Orgel and Strong were pioneers in noting the importance of Queen Anne and the influence of a French consort. In particular, both authors acknowledge Henrietta Maria s ever-pervasive attachment to he r freely practiced Catholic faith; both authors stop short, however, in investigatin g her influence on her husband (Charles I) and on the court. Until recently, the influence of Henrietta Maria has been systematically underestimated. The same can be said of th e historiography concerning Queen Anne of Denmark, also Catholic, but much more reserved in the practice of her faith. Following in the tradition of Orgel and Str ong, Jonathan Goldberg introduced new ways of adducing the political significance of aesthetic structures at c ourt. Goldberg argued that a political theology and iconography permeated earl y seventeenth century literature. Goldberg chose texts that cut across genres. He may well be th e first author to take seriously the talent of James I as a poet. Goldberg pointed out in the prefatory sonnet to the Basilikon Doron that in it, absolute and free, James indicates what the st yle of gods [kings] meant: the claim to total freedom in the reshaping of discourse to proclaim power.32 Goldberg argues throughout that James was a conscious shaper of the arts. Kevin Sharpe illustrates movement toward court culture as a vehicle for broader historical understanding.33 Sharpes more recent work analyzed Caroline court culture, that is, the arts and letters associated with the ascendi ng and ruling classes. Sharpe, though not the first to do so, stressed the influence of neoplatonic love at the court of Charles I. He claimed it was 32 Jonathan Goldberg, James I and the Politics of L iterature: Jonson, Shakespeare, Donne and Their Contemporaries (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983), 27. 33Kevin Sharpe, Criticism and Compliment: The Politic s of Literature in the England of Charles I (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1987).


33 the central philosophy that united Caroline culture.34 Through the study of three neglected poets of the Caroline period, Thomas Carew, Aurelian Townsend, and William Davenant, Sharpe has an historians grasp of the political nature of these works. The arts inform us much about the ideas and values of Renaissance c ourts as they inform us about aes thetics or tastes expressed at court. R. Malcolm Smuts examines a broad range of t opics dealing with court culture. Smuts assessment includes the examination of what he calls a haphazard approach to culture by the early Stuarts. One of his major theses is that we cannot trace the continuous development of a unified tradition. Instead, we will need to exam ine a number of loosely related cultural trends, not only within the court but in London and on th e continent, which coalesced into a reasonably cohesive culture only in the 1620s and 1630s.35 He concluded that the culture of the Stuarts failed to support the monarchy because it was haphazardly marketed to the broader audience.36 I will make a case that failure to achieve a program was not so much the marketing or design of the Stuart court as in the difficu lty of unifying three countries repr esenting vastly different forms of religious and political belief during a time of religious conflict that engaged most of western Europe. This failure was exacerbated by the lack of a cohesive English Church settlement. Charles and Laud tried to create a cohesive ch urch in the 1630s, but the Arminian CounterReformation was cut short because of religious tr oubles in Ireland and Sc otland; this left the always cash-strapped Stuart regime weakened and their Counter-R eformation unfinished. 34 Kevin Sharpe, 22-23. 35 Kevin Sharpe, 7. 36 R. Malcolm Smuts, Court Culture and the Origins of a Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987), 185-291.


34 Smuts noted the pervasive influence at cour t of Roman Catholic ta stes and attitudes.37 He explained the tolerance for Catholicism at Charless court by reminding the reader that stereotypes created by generations of conflict could not easily su rvive in an environment where people of different religi ons routinely socialized and intrigued together.38 However, he does not address how the regime used art or why th e greatest collector in English Royal history labored to expand his collections and commissions. Smuts continue s to view Charles as an inept ruler and haphazard collector. In emphasizing the rise of the Arminians and anti-Calvinists, he wrote: The attraction that Catholic fo rms of worship held for the ki ng and many of his courtiers also stemmed from more deeply rooted cause s. The pronounced aesth etic sensitivity of the court, its fascination with ritualisti c modes of thought and behavior, fostered receptivity to the splendor of the Roman church and distaste for Puritan austerity. Both kings and Laud believed that vi sible expressions of piety created an essential atmosphere of reverence.39 According to Smuts argument, all these forces united to shift the balance toward a Roman position. Though Smuts makes general claims, he fa ils to connect his argument with specific artworks. One of the most important contributio ns of the present study wi ll be to provide fresh 37 R. Malcolm Smuts, Court Culture and the Origins of a Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsyl vania Press, 1987), 225. Smuts argued as evidence that Catholics were treated more kindly fo r political reasons as we ll as the fact that the Caroline court tastes were more like that of the Roman church than the puritan austerity of the Elizabethan Age (224-228). He also presented those who deride d the new taste, especially Prynne, who was one of the most vocal critic s of Laud (227-228) because of his popish ceremonialism. Henrietta Maria gathered by 1637 a significant Catholic party around her and the papal envoy Gorge Con. This appeared to be extremely threatening to those who saw the Reformation slipping away, according to Smuts (219-222). 38 R. Malcolm Smuts, 227. 39 R. Malcolm Smuts, 227.


35 examples of artworks that demonstrate a self -conscious program of collection and commission by the early Stuarts. Roger Lockyer offers several useful exampl es of Catholic infl uence on court culture during the Stuart period.40 Concerning the influence of Henrie tta Maria, he wrote, Henrietta Maria was not simply a devout Catholic. She had al so been taught to regard herself as the agent through whom first her husband and then his ki ngdom would be returned to the papal fold.41 Lockyer points out that Henrietta Marias entourage included musici ans, artisans, and a bishop as her chaplain. She brought back to London, for the first time since Ma ry Tudors reign, the richness of traditional Catholic worship, w ith its entire musical and visual splendor.42 Erica Veevers also emphasizes the importan ce of Henrietta Maria, particularly the queens influence on the court of Ch arles I. Veevers goes so far as to lament the lack of attention paid to her. In discussions of Henriettas influence on lite rature, moreover, scarcely any attention has been paid to her Catholicism. If mentioned at all, it tends to be treated as an unfortunate aspect of her character that hastened Charless downfall.43 Veevers maintained that the study of Henrietta Maria was essential to und erstand the confusion perceived by the regimes opponents in connection with Charless developing religious tastes. A fresh look at her influence is imperative, including her influenc e in religion and the politics of art.44 40 Roger Lockyer, The Early Stuarts: A Political History of England 1603-1642 (London and New York: Longman, 1989). 278-279. 41 Roger Lockyer, 279. 42 Roger Lockyer, 279. 43 Erica Veevers, Images of Love and Religion: Queen Henrietta Maria and Court Entertainments (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 2. 44 Erica Veevers, 2.


36 An example of the growth of the interdisciplinary approach is a collection of essays edited by Linda Levy Peck.45 Peck argued for study that is more intertextual because James presented a new type of English monarch, very different from the thr ee Tudors following Henry VIII. The monarch now was a publisher of his own thoughts. He shaped his world directly by his writings and personal interven tion in court culture. I would a dd that Charles I was new type of monarch in his emphasis on the creation of fine arts, otherwise unseen since Henry VIII. As his father shaped culture through the Word, Char les shaped culture through the Image. One of the recent contributions to the di alogue of Stuart historiography is David Howarth, who focused on the politics of art among the Tudors and early Stuarts. Unfortunately, Howarth rarely mentions the influence of Catholic iconography and religious artwork in England. Although he continues many themes identified by others authors, Howarth dealt briefly with the topic of Catholic influence on th e English Church and state. He mentioned that Catholic art forms were adapted to bolster the rule of Elizabeth, and later James and Charles. As with others, Howarth neglecte d Catholic influence, judged outsi de his topic. These historians rarely ask a key question: If pre-reformed iconography had been transformed so successfully, why then did its use cause such vehement reaction in the 1640s? Why was it so misinterpreted? The transformation was not so successful. J ohn Peacock claimed that Charles was an energetic and thoughtful monarch. Through artw ork, as well as literary culture, Charles sustained an effort for almost twenty years to convince country and court, the truth of 45 Linda Levy Peck, Mental World of the Jacobean Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 39. These essays derive from a conference at the Folger Library, involving experts in history, literature, and art history to address issues of mentality at the Jacobean court.


37 Absolutism and his religious view. His effort s took much energy and thought. He used the Catholic artist Van Dyck, the supreme pupil of the greatest Baroque painter, Rubens, to shape his image as a demigod. Van Dyck portrayed Charles as an earthly king with a type of spiritual power. As Howarth noted: The idea that the abil ity of such a high order as Van Dycks was a kind of power intrinsic to the Italian renaissance traditi on which had been chosen by the artist as the context of his ambitions, and by the Ki ng as the medium of his cultural policy.46 Although these works appear decorative, they were pr imarily didactic. Charle s was always teaching. Charles used Italianate portraiture and a coll ection of Italian artist s, such as Titian, Tintoretto, Caravaggio, and Guido Reni, in a spectacular series of paintings in St. Jamess Palace. Their purpose was to impress the court officials, ambassadors, and visiting royalty. These works, specifically Titians portraits of the twelve Caesars, along with Giulio Romanos portraits of them on horseback, were used as a foil for Van Dycks portrait of Charles on horseback. In this display, Charles was a dire ct inheritor to the Roman and Constantinian imperial tradition. The spectator wa s impelled to see Charles as the imperial heir of the Caesars, and Van Dyck as the heir of the great Italian ma sters. This was the ki ng, and this the painter, that history had been waiting for.47 However, these were not initi al ideas of Charles. The king of Spain displayed years before in Madrid such a collection of works in the same way for the same reason. Charles saw this di splay, he learned and emulated. Many historians have assumed that the Stuart court was closed. But as Lockyer writes, Old assumptions about the closed nature of th e Stuart court are bei ng replaced with a more 46 John Peacock, The Policy of Portraiture in Culture and Politic in Early Stuart England in Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England Eds. Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1993), 223. 47 John Peacock, 226.


38 informed notion of access.48 Openness at court was important for Stuart monarchs to propagate their view of rule and to teach through court ce remonies, artworks, religious policies, and public venues. Recent authors such as Lockyer, argue that the assumption that Charles cut himself off from the English people is oversta ted. In fact there were oppor tunities for non-aris tocrats to see the spectacle of the court or to visit houses containing art.49 In a recent article, Tim Wilks maintained that authors have identified expressi ons of admiration for art during the Stuart period and fewer complaints about art th an previously believed. All this suggests that the display of art succeeded, on the whole, in gratifying the many onlookers.50 Graham Parrys most recent work argues fo r a concerted effort to shape culture by Charles and his divines. Parry successfully incorporates art history with sermons, devotional prose, church music, and architecture to describe the Arminian or anti-Calvinist movement as a Protestant Counter-Reformation.51 Though he allowed for some influence for this movement from Catholic sources, Parry remained unwilli ng to acknowledge Catholic Counter-Reformation culture as a significant force in England. With this said, Parry is an important scholar who has rightly emphasized the break between the Stuart and Tudor monarchies, though the importance of Catholic sources for this c ounter-reform remain understated. 48Roger Lockyer, The Early Stuarts: A Political History of England 1603-1642 (London and New York: Longman, 1989), 188. 49 Roger Lockyer, 188. 50 Tim Wilks, Art, Archit ecture and Politics, in A Companion to Stuart Britain ed. Barry Coward (Oxford: Black well Publisher Ltd., 2003), 188. 51 Graham Parry, Glory, Laud and Honour: The Arts of the Anglican CounterReformation (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2006).


39 Structure of This Study The presen t study follows the tradition of r ecent cultural histories. The perspective, perhaps most similar to that of David Howarth, aims to expand cultural history to give still greater weight to religion and art. In the course of this study, I address questions that have been ignored or only partially addressed by earlier authors. For example, was there significant Catholic influence in Stuart England? Did the Stuarts intentionally emulate the great Catholic monarchies in their display and commission of artwork or was it haphazard? Was Catholic iconography present in these Protestant poli tical works about Absolutism? How important were Catholics in early modern England, especially the Stuart queens and members of court? Did Catholicism, (real or imagined by the detractors of the Stuarts), play a greater role in the demise of Charles? In Chapter 2, Catholic Absolutist Art and Architecture in Italy and the Hapsburg Dominions from 1580 through 1640: a Model for Early Modern England I provide a comprehensive study of Catholic iconography after the Council of Tr ent (1545-1563) and its effect on Absolutist art. One important objective is defining absolutist within the Catholic matrix, and the views of the adherents of this po litical idea who were identified with the Roman Church. This study therefore includes an examinati on of the artistic and ar chitectural themes of the courts of Spain, the papacy, and other proponen ts of this theory of divine rulership. Particular attention is given to th e traditional religious, historical, and dynastic themes in art that demonstrate Absolutism. Important documents, such as the Council of Trent the writings of commentators about church construction a nd decoration such as Charles Borromeos


40 Instructiones Fabricate et Supellectilis Ecclesiasticae,52 and Gabriele Paleottis, De sacris et profanes imaginibus libri V,53 are included as evidence of the artistic context of Catholicism that embraced a Culture of Image. The artworks produced from the middle of the sixteenth century by Catholic courts demonstrated the rebirth of absolutist images among Catholics, particularly by the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V, his son Philip II of Spain (f ormerly king of England as well), and the early Baroque papacy. Most historians have conc luded that Charles V revived the notion of Absolutism. He also reinvigorated the iconographical vocab ulary of the divine right of kings. It is important to note not a single vo lume has been dedicated to the specific topic of absolutist art. As Chapter 2 addresses the Catholic aesthetic for the use of political and religious art, Chapter 3, The Changing Protestant Aesthetic: Englis h Protestant Trends and Traditions in Religious art, Iconoclasm, Portraiture, Tomb Sculpture and Collection from 1560-1620 discusses English Protestant aes thetic(s) and ideology by focusing on the reign of Elizabeth I and the early reign of James I. This change was exemplified in Jamess most important early statement, the memorial sculptural tomb made for Mary Queen of Scots in Westminster Abbey (Figures 1-1, 1-2, 1-3), a monu ment underappreciated as an exam ple of Stuart absolutist or 52 Evelyn Carole Voelker, Charles Borromeos Instructione s Fabricae Et Supellectilis Ecclesiasticae, 1577. A Translation with Commentary and Anal ysis (PhD diss., Syracuse University, 1977). Evelyn Voelker is the first to translate this work from the original 1577 manuscript of Borromeo into English and all re ferences to this document will be from her translation. Instructiones was reprinted many times in the la te sixteenth and early seventeenthcentury in Italian, French and Latin. 53 Gabriele Paleotti, Discorso intorno alle imagini sacre e profane (Bologna, 1582) editor, Pola Barocci in Tratati darte del Cinquencento vol. 2, 117-509 (Bari:Giuseppe Laterza e Figli, 1961).


41 religious art. This chapter notes the significant influence of John Calvin on tomb art and architecture, and the absence of Christian sym bolism. This chapter gives evidence of an evolution toward the use of more religiously -themed art that would shape their vision of monarchy and the English Church. Image was inte gral to the Stuart strategy of shaping an Absolutist state.54 Chapter 4, James I: Virtue, Art and Polit ics in Early Stuart England analyzes religious and artistic shifts in absolutist imagery in the re ign of James I. A principal focus is the political thought of James as reflected in the Basilikon Doron Charles was significantly influenced by his fathers ideology. Also of signifi cant interest are continental po litical thinkers who supported Absolutism, notably the Catholic anti-Machiavellia ns. They are discussed to illustrate similar views of Absolutism. Chapter 4 ends with an examination of Jamess changing attitude toward adoption of more traditional Ca tholic iconography. This is dem onstrated through the renovations of Protestant chapels, the build ing of Catholic chapels, the Banqueting House, and the planned dramatic renovations of St. Pauls. The major focus of Chapter 5, Art and Catholic Influence: The Early Years of Charles I describes influences on Charles I before his ascen sion to the English, Scottish, and Irish thrones. Included in Chapter 5 I will discuss key individu als who helped to shape his artistic choices, among them Charless older brother Henry, who wa s a brilliant but short-lived luminary who commissioned much art, and Queen Anne, a gra nd collector. Charles inherited both collections upon their deaths; he also inherite d their attitudes about the displa y of art. Chapter 5 continues 54 The notion found in the Basilikon Doron and other writings of James I, discussed in Chapter 3 are that the King could shift the chur chs polity in any dire ction as Gods personal representative. This will be explored in depth.


42 with discussion of Charless travel to the courts of France, and Spain, Particularly the brilliant atmosphere that had been created by Catharin e d Medici that opened his eyes the Baroque religious art. Stuart scholars underestimate this expedition. The nature of the Spanish court and philosophers from the Low Countries, ruled by Spain, were among the most energetic proponents of Absolutism. Hapsburg artistic wonders had considerable influence in the movement toward the use of Catholic iconography, and the significant return of religious art for display in the English court in the 1620s. Chapter 6, The Movement Toward Catholic Art and Iconography in the Early Reign of Charles I is a discussion of the extensive artist ic output and collecti ng during the reign of Charles I. His patronage added a dynamic current th at ultimately revolutionized artistic tastes in England. Charles presided over an unprecedented flourishing of the arts not seen since Henry VIII. This chapter examines the most importa nt artworks commissioned by Charles, which use Catholic imagery. Among these, the Banque ting House, which anchored the dynasty to traditional Biblical art and the classical world of Roman emperors (an important theme expressed by Charles Borromeo and Gabriele Paleotti), and its decorative cycle by Peter Paul Rubens. Analysis is presented that these works cont ain Catholic Counter-R eformation iconography. Relative silence on the issue of Protestant values in such commissions was their similarity to Catholic works from the Count er-Reformation. The gene ral peace established by James allowed a large number of the British elite and merchant classes to scrutinize these artworks for the first time. Chapter 6 provides evidence that one of the long-term assumptions, that Inigo Jones was the master designer of the ceiling paintings of the Banqueting House, may not be accurate. The paintings are likely a collaboration of Rubens and Charles. Finally, this chapter underscores the importan ce of the renovations of St. Pauls Cathedral. Having


43 languished during the reign of Elizabeth I, St. Pauls was in dire need of repair. James I began to make this a key project toward the end of his reign. The choice of classical/Baroque architecture for the exterior of the old cathedral, and the co ntroversial decoration of the faade, is a key monument of Catholic influence. The re-constr ucted porticoes at the main entrances connect Charles to the Solomonic legend of the great builder king. St. Pauls recalled the faades of many Catholic churches while adding an ecumenical flavor. Art as Absolutist instruction is the central theme of Chapter 7, Catholic Influence and Iconography in Absolutist Art in Caroline England Berninis talents are examined in the context of the famous bust created for Charle s, commissioned as a pres ent to him by Henrietta Maria. Irving Lavin sees this type of bust as a prime example of Catholic anti-Machiavellian artworks proclaiming the right to rule. This commission demonstrates the closeness of the English regime and the papacy of the 1630s. Ch arless most noted artist, Van Dyck, painted a triptych portrait as Berninis inspiration; this bu st was considered one of the best that Bernini completed (it was a sensation in Rome and London) and was done as an example of the developing anti-Machiavellian st yle made popular by Bernini. This chapter documents the influences of Queen Henrietta Maria on her hus band, as well as a concerted effort to use sculpture in promoting Absolutism. The final chapter, Chapter 8, is an Epilogue and Conclusion Here the attitudes of court Catholics are examined along with their attempts to make themselves appealing to the regime. The consequences of the early Stuart absolutist program, its filtrations with Catholicism, and the dispersal and ritualistic destructi on of Catholic art are examined as final symbolic gestures. This Epilogue provides a general conclusion to this study.


44 Figure 1-1. William and Cornelius Cure. Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots 1612. Westminster Abby. Photo by author.


45 Figure 1-2. (Detail of Angels) Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots Photo by author. Figure 1-3. Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots Detail of Christian Iconography showing the Chi Ro and the Cross-prominently displayed along w ith Palm branches, which suggest that Mary was a Martyr. Photo by author.


46 CHAPTER 2 CATHOLIC ABSOLUTIST ART A ND ARCHI TECTURE IN ITALY AND THE HAPSBURG DOMINIONS FROM 1580 THROUGH 1640: A MODEL FOR EARLY MODERN ENGLAND Introduction Historians agree th at Rome was the epicenter of the restoration of the Catholic Church. The pope emerged with renewed claims for a uni versal jurisdiction afte r the Council of Trent (1545-1563), thereafter-leaving matters of church doctrine officially in the hands of the pope. Late Mannerist and Baroque artworks were used successfully by popes, such as Sixtus V, Paul V, and Clement VIII to shore up the papal positi on as political heads of state and spiritual sovereigns; indeed, Rome was unquestionably the theater for the development of Baroque art, and essential to this development wa s the patronage of the Papal Court.1 Spanish influences were also important on Stuart England. Spain was the major foreign court, and Charles I spent a significant amount of time pursu ing the Spanish match. Though his mission eventually failed, James I spent years trying to marry his eldest son to an Italian and subsequently to a Spanish princess. After the de ath of Prince Henry in 1612, James continued his matchmaking efforts until 1624, hoping to arrange th e marriage of Prince Charles to the Infanta of Spain in a futile effort to bridge the gap of warring communions. Charles was influenced by the magnificence of the architecture of the Spanish court, its churches, and the Spanish Hapsburg tr adition of displaying fine art. It is also significant that the two most important artists working for the StuartsRubens and Van Dyckwere from the Spanish Netherlands. Rubens was not only an artist but also a trusted ambassador for both courts. Charles was ripe for influence. No Prot estant prince of his time displayed and cherished 1Catherine Johnston, Gyde Vanier Shepherd and Marc Worsdale, Vatican Splendor: Masterpieces of Baroque Art (Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1986), 15.


47 art as did Charles Stuart. His position as head of state and head of church was problematic; he was the head of a church that was theologically Calvinist. The English Church continued to struggle to find a place for the use of art that would fit Calvinist beliefs for the use of visu al arts (the topi c of Chapter 3).2 The art Charles collected and commissioned was centered in the notions of divine right, princel y virtue, and religious piety. So, too, was the art of southern princes who espoused the theory of the di vine right of kings. At the center of Catholic absolutist art is the notion of the Virtues of the ruler through ancestry, deeds and religious observance. It is th rough this absolutist art that the prince proclaimed his right to rule as Gods chosen. Though Absolutism taught th at divine right was au tomatically conferred at birth, the princes of the early modern period used their reputations as a way to show their elected positions. Rulers expected obedience be cause God chose them and because they were men of virtue. Catholicism paved th e way for this artistic vocabulary. Catholic Rulership: The Art of Virtue At the cen ter of the art produced for and by Catholic monarchs during the latter third of the sixteenth-century was an art to extol virtue, clarity, st orytelling, and classicism. The legends that gave rise to the concept of the virtuous, faithful, Christian prince were an antidote to the writings of Niccolo Machiavelli, who severely questioned that traditional virtues were always useful for the ruler. The ideal ruler Machiavelli described in The Prince was at times ruthless, at times 2 James I taught the notion of a virtuous absolutist monarchy, expressed through his writings and others literature, and through masque s, which were less threatening to Calvinist doctrine. I propose throughout th is study that Charles I tried to argue for the same virtuous divine monarchy not through words, but through the collection, display, and creation of the visual culture of his day. Those who professe d to be truly orthodox Calvinists would find it difficult to accept the use of art as a political or religious tool. The intertwining of politics and religion are essential features of this study in that England was a monarchy with a state church where the monarch was head of both church and state.


48 faithless, and to be feared rather than loved. This challenged the notions of Christian rule and society. Often detractors of monarchs accused th em of this Machiavell ian program. Therefore, princes in the Catholic south began to respond to such criticism with va st propaganda works in paint and stone. These works extolled their faith prudence, justice, and lineage in attempts to shore up their position as rulers. In response to Machiavellis writings and th e religious conflicts in Europe after the Reformation, the search for virtuous rule and stability was renewed. Absolutism addressed both of these problems. This quest for virtuous ru le was steeped in the traditional notions about virtue, rooted in Greek thought and the writi ngs of the Catholic and Orthodox Septuagint, especially in the Book of Wisdom and Solomons writings. The four cardinal virtues of prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice were initially provided by Plato, but were later adapted by Saints Ambrose, Augustine of Hi ppo, and Thomas Aquinas. The cardinal virtues were deemed especially indica tive of a sign of good rule. The three Theological Virtues of faith, hope and charity (or love) are found in Chapter 28 of Genesis, where Jacob describes his vision of a ladder or stairway leadin g to heaven. Saint Paul mentions these in Chapter 13 of First Corint hians, clearly reminding his readers of their connection to these ancient concepts: And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love. From the time of emperor Charles V, much writing, artwork, and architecture was devoted to tying individual rulers to all seven virtues in an attempt to shore up their right to rule as Gods chosen lieutenants. James I in Basilikon Doron uses some form of virtue 70 times.3 Rulers 3 I have counted this myself. This does not include references to specific virtues like temperance, love, etc. In this document, Jame s was obsessed with the notion that he and his


49 were obsessed with the promotion of virtue and with leaving a legacy of honorable rulership as expressed in Basilikon Doron At the center of a renewal it self, the Catholic Church, th rough the Council of Trent, challenged the pope to virtue. It al so called for the things of heav en to be expressed in paint, print, and stone. Largely, late Mannerist and early Baroque art surpassed the creations of the early and high Renaissance in this search fo r virtue, truth, and an immediate grasp of meaning for the viewer. The Baroque fundamentally sought clarity in storytelling. It was an art of exuberance, of excess, and fit for propaga nda. The Baroque aimed to surpass both of the previous styles of the High Renaissance and Ma nnerism in its ability to communicate emotion and evoke the faithful to follow the lead of sain ts and princes. Above all, its style had the potential to express the right of the virtuous Catholic prince to rule as a divine agent of God, especially the greatest of these princes, the pope. This art embraced the past, as well as legends, to further the Churchs beliefs and polit ics and the politics of individual rulers. Reemergence of Rome as a Spiritual and Artist Center In the years imm ediately afte r 1527, one would not have seen any prospect that Rome would again become an artistic or a political cap ital of the Western world or much less the center of a Universal Catholic Church.4 Yet Rome re-emerged even stronger than before the Reformation after the Council of Trent. A number of able and strong popes such as Sixtus V at the end of the sixteenth -century and Paul V at the beginni ng of the seventeenth-century, took firm control of the church and implemented the teachings of the Council of Trent. The Church successors be seen as virtuous princes with abso lute powers. This will be a major discussion in Chapter 3 of this study. 4 Madeleine Mainstone a nd Rowland Mainstone, The Seventeenth-century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 2.


50 fought back the Reformation by reforming itself a nd in many cases reversing some of the gains made by Protestantism. The mood of confident defiance that animated the council was better expressed by the majestic Christ of Michelangelos Last Judgment (A-1), completed shortly before it opened, than by any work from the latter part of the sixteenth -century. This was not because the council had been iconoclastic, as had so me of the Protestants. It had not sought, as they had, to banish paintings or statues of Christ or the saints from churches.5 Michelangelos Last Judgment (A-1) is a prime example of virtue and of the punishment of vice on a monumental scale at the heart of th e papacy itself, the Sistine Chapel.6 Although the Last Judgment included the Mannerist tendencies of nudity and some of its compositional structure, this work is a hopeful expression of Gods mercy on the church.7 Despite its magnificence, the Last Judgment needed repair in the eyes of the pos t-Tridentine church because of excessive nudity. Baroque art was to abandon the sensuousness of the Last Judgment and of the late Renaissance and Mannerist styl es to exhibit messages of propriety and high merit. This new vision of art was that it would show th e desirable quality of great religious truths rather than serve as conversation pieces for th e artistic elect, which Mannerist art had become. Art and architecture emerged s howing an appropriate use of the human figure, spiritual 5 Madeleine Mainstone a nd Roland Mainstone, 2. 6 Some art historians see this work as a proto-Baroque work, such as Robert Westin, professor of art and art history at the University of Florida (o ffice discussions, fall 2007). This work is difficult to classify, as it has elements of Renaissance, Mannerism, and what would be called the Baroque 40 years after its production. 7 Note that two-thirds of the painting is f illed with those already resurrected and in heaven or those rising to good j udgment, while the other third, destined for hell, are on the viewers right. This is a f act that is not often noted by historians or art historians.


51 emotionalism, and yet rationality. This change in aesthetics provided a pe rfect vehicle to show religious and political ideology. This was in cont rast to the theology of some of the reformers who rejected Image. Art was not abandoned or made neutral, it now more central than ever in religious and political propa ganda in Catholic lands. Effects of the Council of Trent Part of the function of late Ma nnerist and early Baroque art can be seen in the analysis of Spanish art historian A. C. Pe llicer, who characterized this p eriod as the art of becoming. Things are but the expression of ideas, [in contra st] to the classic mentality which saw in ideas the expression of things.8 In other words, ideology was made present and existent through plays, art, statuary, and so forth. One point that the Roman church wanted to express after the Council of Trent was its viability and legitimacy. The Church fought back by reformi ng itself. Some of the initiative was taken by saintly and highly competen t individualslike St. Ig natius who founded the influential missionary and teaching Society of Jesus, St. Fran cis Xavier who was an early member of the Society a nd a missionary in the east, St. Philip Neri who founded the Orations and St. Theresa who reformed the Carmelite order.9 The Baroque artist found inspiration in these men and women whose actions served the church so well that they acquire d sainthood soon after their deaths The artist drew insight from their writings. But the most important development for the church was the clear statement of faith and purpose found in the Council of Trent, which was responsible for renewed confidence in the papacy. This renewed confidence included recovery of lands and entire states that had 8 Louis Menashe, Historians Define the Ba roque: Notes on a Problem of Art and Social History, Comparative Studies in Society and History 7, no. 3 (1965): 335. 9 Madeleine Mainstone a nd Rowland Mainstone, 2.


52 become Protestant. The Council of Trent mandated superior education for clergy and the use of appropriate art as a tool of Chri stianity. Catholicism was energi zed and on the move once again. This newfound confidence was buoyed by a renewed use of art to explain the position of the church, and it indirectly infl uenced the claims of absolutists theories about the state of Christian government. After a string of mediocre and impot ent popes during and after the Reformation, popes such as Sixtus V, Paul V, and Urban VIII became some of the greatest patrons of art and architecture of all time, and art became one of this periods most important tools. These popes combined religious ideology with their claim of ab solute and universal jurisdiction. The Baroque style, wh ich emerged from Trent and the la ter writings of fathers of the council, was effective through clarity, exuberance, the positive charac ter of artwork, and a vocabulary of classical ideals, and a standardized religious ic onography. Pontiffs, by embracing this new style, re-made Rome into the cultural ce nter of the West. The st rategy of using art to defend Romes prestige continued for more than one hundred years, with its high point coming in the twenty-one year pontific ate of Urban VIII (1623-44). The new art called for by the Council of Trent was a response to the criticism by Protestants and Catholics alike rega rding the lack of virtue in th e culture of the Renaissance. Early reformers had attacked the church for being Machiavellian in its la ck of morals and for a religious doctrine, which seemed to support the sp iritual and resultant fi nancial bilking of the poor for remodeling projects such as the new St. Peters, along with the luxuriant lif estyles of the papal curia. This lack of virt ue and the corruption of the hi erarchy was the initial problem identified in the church by Erasmus (who remain ed Catholic), then by Luther and Calvin. Another basic criticism by the early reformer s--and one that was to continue in the Reformed mindset--was the distrust of church authority and the preference for personal


53 autonomy concerning the individual be lievers access to God. This le d to a characteristic of the corporate in Catholicism versus th e private in particularly Calvinistic Protestantism. Rather than shifting toward the idea of personal autonomy, the Council of Trents response was not to weaken hierarchy by replacing or limiting its power as suggested by the reformers, but to call for virtuous reforms of the Cathol ic hierarchy itself and to en hance its importance in church structure. This also meant an enhancement in the role of the papacy and it s role as overseer of bishops. Bishops were essential for Tridentine Catholicism. Forty year s after the closing of Trent, bishops would be just as essential fo r James and Charles, who supported the role of bishops in their particular brand of hierarchal Protestantism. As in Catholicism, these English Protestant bishops were to be a vital link in shoring up the monarchy, just as the role of the Catholic bishops was to shore up pa pal authority throughout the world. With the Council of Trents redefinition of in creased papal authority within the church came a new definition of increased interest in an art tailored for the Catholic resurgence. Trent promulgated changes in liturgical practice that created a more splendid mass fit for the total belief in Christs presence in the mystery of transubstantiation, upheld and defended at Trent. The sacraments, churches, oratories, and so forth were to be glorified, as well as Gods lieutenantsthe bishops and in particular the pon tiff. Ironically, almost sixty years after Trent, the monarchy and the majority of the bishops of the English Church would come to a very similar Counter-Reformation sens ibility about art and religious authority in England; some historians have suggested they came to this on their own. This seems unlikely. Trent was convened in three sessions over an eighteen-year period from 1545 to 1563. The decrees for which the Council of Trent argued in its plenary sessions were for liturgical and ecclesiastical reform, an end to abuses and a return to the principles of the early church (a theme


54 often reflected in the writings of James and hi s bishops), a program with which Rome and the Protestants both concurred. However, the retention of the cult of the Virgin and the saints with their relics, and the renewed importance of Eucharistic devot ion, as embodied in the true, absolute and real presence of Ch rist, were points that were obvi ous reinforcements of Catholic medieval traditional positions maintained at C hurch councils centuries earlier. These notions were in clear opposition to the novel Protestant theology that argued for abandonment of the cult of the Virgin and saints and a more symbolic pr esence in the Eucharist and other sacraments that remained or were disputed. Though clear ecclesia stical reforms aroseno sale of indulgences, one bishop per diocese, a better-educated clergy, and so forththe council failed to produce any kind of opening for reunifying the Christianity de veloping to the north. Tr ent, actually, was a reformation and a Counter-Reformation, one dire cted to ongoing proce sses from within the remaining Roman Catholic Church, the other dire cted to challenges from without, in the newly developing Protestant churches. Though some of the north was lost, Rome and th e papacy tried once again to assert their universality in the world, which included the Am ericas, parts of India, sections of Africa and parts of eastern Asia such as the Philippines (named after Phillip II of Spain). It was also at this time that attempts at luring Orthodox Christians b ack into a unified church came about by setting up Orthodox Uniate Rites. At this point, Rome was modestly successful. In all these attempts, the arts were an effective form of propaganda. Th ey helped to articulate the renewed confidence of the Roman Church and its claims to dominance over the Christian faith worldwide. Painting, sculpture, and architecture aggrandized the now unquestioned leader of Catholicism, the pontiff.


55 The Council of Trent was quite clear about the usefulness of art in instruction, in veneration, in education, and in the search for the ever-elusive trait of virtue which validated the church along with the virt uous church leadership. The holy council commands all bishops and ot hers who hold the office of teaching and have charge of the cura animarum, that in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive tim es of the Christian religion, and with the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred councils, they above all instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitim ate use of images. Moreover, that the images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and of the othe r saints are to be placed and retained especially in the churches, and that due honor a nd veneration is to be given them; not, however, that any divinity or virtue is be lieved to be in them by reason of which they are to be venerated, or that something is to be as ked of them, or that trust is to be placed in images, as was done of old by the Gentiles w ho placed their hope in id ols; but because the honor which is shown them is referred to the prototypes which they represent, so that by means of the images which we kiss and before which we uncover the head and prostrate ourselves, we adore Christ and venerate the sa ints whose likeness they bear. That is what was defined by the decrees of the councils, especially of the Second Council of Nicaea, against the opponents of images.10 Most importantly, the council prescribed that im ages were for public consumption, for teaching, and for use in propagation of the faith. This wa s an enhancement of the assumed role of art as the book of the illiterate. C ouncil fathers and other writers ar gued that art, because it was visual, was in some ways supe rior to reading or hearing. Moreover, let the bishops diligently teach that by means of the stories of the mysteries of our redemption portrayed in paintings and other representations the people are instructed and confirmed in the articles of faith, which ought to be borne in mind and constantly reflected upon; also that great profit is de rived from all holy images, not only because the people are thereby reminded of the benefits a nd gifts bestowed on them by Christ, but also because through the saints the miracles of God and salutary examples are set before the eyes of the faithful, so that they may give God thanks for those things, may fashion their own life and conduct in imitation of the saints and be moved to adore and love God and cultivate piety. But if anyone should teach or maintain anything contrary to these decrees, 10 H. J. Schroeder, trans., Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, On Sacred Images. Twenty-fifth Session, December 3 and 4, 1563 (St. Louis and London: Herder, 1941), 369.


56 let him be anathema. If any abuses shall have found their way into th ese holy and salutary observances, the holy council de sires earnestly that they be completely removed, so that no representation of fa lse doctrines and such as might be the occasion of grave error to the uneducated be exhibited. And if at times it happens, when this is beneficial to the illiterate, that the stories and narratives of the Holy Scriptures are portrayed and exhibited, the people should be instructed that not for that reason is the divinity represented in picture as if it can be seen with bodily eyes or expr essed in colors or figures. Furthermore, in the invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the sacred use of images, all superstition shall be removed, a ll filthy quest for gain eliminated, and all lasciviousness avoided, so that images shall not be painted and adorned with a seductive charm, or the celebration of saints and the visitation of relics be perverted by the people into boisterous festivities and drunkenness, as if the festivals in honor of the saints are to be celebrated with revelry and with no sense of decency. Finally, such zeal and care should be exhibited by the bishops with regard to th ese things that nothing may appear that is disorderly or unbecoming and confusedly arranged, nothing that is profane, nothing disrespectful, since holiness becometh the house of God. That these things may be the more faithfully observed, the holy council decrees that no one is permitted to erect or cause to be erected in any place or church, hows oever exempt, any unusual image unless it has been approved by the bishop: also that no new miracles be accepted and no relics recognized unless they have b een investigated and approved by the same bishop, who, as soon as he has obtained any knowledge of such matters, shall, after consulting theologians and other pious men, act thereon as he shall judge consonant with tr uth and piety. But if any doubtful or grave abuse is to be eradicated, or if indeed any graver question concerning these matters should arise, the bishop, befo re he settles the cont roversy, shall await the decision of the metropolitan and of the bishops of the province in a provincial synod; so, however, that nothing new or anything that has no t hitherto been in use in the Church, shall be decided upon without having first consulted the most holy Roman pontiff.11 The significance of the Council of Trent was that the stylistic changes evident in the visual arts at the beginning of the Ba roque Period were traced in a great part to the historical developments of the councils attitude toward pr oper religious and societ al art proclaimed in 1564. The council had heard the criticisms of reformers within and without the church regarding the superstitious nature of veneration of some art in isolated places. It had also heard the criticisms launched about the lascivious nature of some of the stylishl y complicated works of Mannerism that were almost unintelligible except by the cognoscenti 11 H. J. Schroeder, 378.


57 Two central bishops to influence though on art and its use were Charles Borromeo and Gabrielle Paleotti. They would cl arify the focus of art for the Catholic world and the Baroque in their writings and in their programs. Both of th ese figures were widely in fluential in establishing guidelines for the creation of Catholic religious art. These bishops vigorously opposed many of the themes and designs favored by the Mannerists of their day. They also called for a return to the High Renaissance ideals of naturalism and clarity for new church commissions. New works of art were to return to the vocabulary of the High Renaissance artists such as Titian, Raphael, Leonardo and Michelangelo before he helped initiate the Mannerist style. The iconography should be a vocabulary understood a nd developed in previous Christian history. In a way, these bishops also helped to enhance the value of these artists works. Charles I collected Titian, Raphael, Leonardo and others for these very same reasons. Borromeo and Paleotti both argued that the Council of Trent empha sized a Christian art that returned to an emphasis on the Theological Virtues (fait h, hope and love/charity) and the Four Cardinal Virtues (temperance, fortitude, prudence and justice). Both authors found these cardinal virtues in the Book of Wisdom. She [Wisdom] teaches temperance, and prudence, and justice and fortitude, which are such things as men, can have nothing more profitable in life.12 Here Solomon expressed his view that the greatest gifts that God could gi ve rulers were these cardinal virtues capped by wisdom. Trent then, in its artistic regulations, called the church and society back to the recognition of this virtuous tradition of art and away from the decadence of Mannerist style, which became dominant after the sack of Rome in 1527. It is also important to note that these virtues were central in propaganda works dealing with Absolutism. 12 The New American Bible (Cleveland, Ohio: Collins World, 1976), 782-783.


58 Borromeo was an enthusiastic promoter of religious images. One of the thirty-three chapters of his treatise, Instructiones Fabricae Et Supellectilis Ecclesiasticae / Instructions for Builders and Decorators of Churches, published in 1577, was an instruction on how an artist should treat sacred themes. Borro meo taught that religi ous art should present themes in a clear, intelligible, and instructive way so that the viewer images would be encouraged toward conversion. He wrote, The bishop [should] be attentive to the decrees of the Council of Trent and the Provincial Constitutions, but also a heavy punishment or fine has to be set for painters and sculptors so that they do not depart from the prescribed realities in their works.13 His emphasis on the churchs control of religious art is also seen in his noti on that offending clerics, who sponsored art that was not responsive to the new vision of Trent for an appropriate and dignified art product, should also be penalized by fines and punish ments. Penalties also have been determined in regard to pastors, who, cont rary to the prescribed rules of the Tridentine Decree, have permitted an unusual and offensiv e image to be painted or placed in their churches.14 Borromeo was clear on what should be avoided or observed in sacred images. First of all, no sacred image that c ontains any false teaching shoul d be painted, whether in a church or in any other place; nor a ny that suggest an occasion of dangerous error to the uneducated; nor, again, any that is cont radicted to Sacred Script ure and church tradition. Only such as conform to scriptural truth, traditions, ecclesiastical histories, custom and usage of our mo ther the Church may be painted. Likewise, nothing false ought to be introduced in the painting or carving of holy 13 Evelyn Carole Voelker, Charles Borromeos Instructiones Fabricae Et Supellectilis Ecclesiasticae 1577. A Translation with Commentary and Analysis (PhD diss., Syracuse University, 1977), 228. Evelyn Voelker is the first to translate this work from the original 1577 manuscript of Borromeo into English and all re ferences to this document will be from her translation. Instructiones was reprinted many times in the la te sixteenth and early seventeenthcentury (see Voelker, page 2). 14 E. C. Voelker 228.


59 images, neither anything that is uncer tain, apocryphal, and supers titious; nothing [of that sort], only that which is in agreement with custom. Similarly whatever is profane, base or obscene, dishonest or provocative, whatever is merely curious and do es not incite to piety, or that which can offend the minds and eyes of the faithful should be avoided.15 Borromeo was clear about the propriety of sacred images. From the bearing, the position, the adornment of the person, the whole expression of sacred images should fi ttingly and decorously correspond to the dignity and sa nctity of their prototype.16 Religious subjects in agreement with historical truth, church practice, and the rule s decreed by the bishops of Trent were essential for the revitalized use of th e arts in Catholic Europe. 17 The importance of this chapter in Borromeos text (and indeed the entire work) should not be underestimated. Art historian Anthony Blunt notes that Borromeo is the only author to apply the Tridentine decree to th e problem of architecture.18 Wittkower and Jaffe note that Borromeos Instructiones have long been identified as a major stimulus to the creation of a Counter-Reformation ecclesiastical style.19 This may be true, but it is also true that he was also the spokesman and codifier of a style coming into existence during the last third of the sixteenth century because of Trents influence.20 15 E. C. Voelker, 228-229. 16 E. C. Voelker, 229. I will argue that this quasi-religious and div ine prototype concept translated to the depiction of r oyalty during the Baroque Period, es pecially in the depictions of Charles I. 17 E. C. Voelker, 230. 18 Anthony Blunt, Artistic Theory in Italy, 1450-1600 (Oxford, 1956), 127-128. 19 Rudolf Wittkower and I. Jaffe, eds., Baroque Art; The Jesuit Contribution (New York, 1972), 20. 20 Rudolf Wittkower and I. Jaffe, eds., 20.


60 With Borromeos Instructiones Fabricae Et Supellectilis Ecclesiasticae in hand, the Roman Church, through one of its most important and influential bishops, argued that the church keep a firm hand on the helm of art and that the art should be clear, conc ise, appropriate to its task, and on message. The Borromean reform emphasized thematic ma terial that was either hagiographic or scriptural. The themes were to be designed to confirm and to encourage faith. Artists working under the direct rule of Cardinals Charles and Federico Borromeo from 1563 to 1630 set the foundation for a distinctive Lombar d style and aesthetic, simply because the atmosphere required them to do so.21 The artists who were directly affected by guidance of the Cardinals Borromeo are among the greatest of the late sixteent h-century and early seventeenth -century, and include Giovanni Crespi, Domenico Pellegri ni, Nebbia, and Caravaggio.22 Caravaggios style would become synonymous with the birth of Baroque painting for its reality, its emotion, and its drama and achieved pan-European status. The second important example of artistic trea tises produced by Catholic churchmen is Gabriele Paleottis Discorso intorno alle imagini sacre e profane / Discourse on Sacred and Profane Images written in 1582. Like Borromeo, Paleotti was a bishop who oversaw the production of Christian art in his diocese. Paleottis instructional guide was an attempt to attract a pan-European readership.23 He directly influenced style al ong with the notion that visual art 21 E. C. Voelker, 235. 22 E. C. Voelker, 235. 23 The classic biography remains Paolo Pridis Cardinale Gabriele Paleotti 2 vols. (Rome: Edizioni di Storiae e letteratura, 1967) Pridi documents the many editions and the influence that Paleottis work had. Th e standard reprint edition of Paleottis Discorso intorno alle imagini sacre e profane is found in Trattati darte del Cinquecento by Paola Barocchi, vol. 2, 117-509, (Bari: Giuseppe Laterza e Figli, 1961). All citations of Paleot tis work are taken from this edition containing Pa ola Barocchis translation.


61 was as important as or even superior to aural ar tistic forms, such as preaching or literature. Discorso intorno alle imagini sacre e profane was translated into English. Paleotti was one of the most vital influences in directing art from its Mannerist tendencies toward Baroque clarity. At the end of the 1570s, he dedicated himself to writing a large theological treatise about the correct uses of sc ulpture and painting within the church. His work De sacris et profani s imaginibus libri V, published in Bologna in 1582, was as insistent as Borromeos treatise that religious arts primary message must be clear and forcefully convey Catholic idoeology. He recommended that art should return to the naturalism of the Renaissance and that historical real ism must return to painting. Several prominent artists studied Paleottis recommendations and adopted his viewpoint including Annibale, Lodovico, and Agostino Carracci, all key figures in the ea rly Baroque. Paleotti went so far as to suggest that artists and art should be regulated similarly to the way books were regulated, cal ling for an institution of the church to supervise and censor art. Pa leotti conceived the following theory in Discorso : Heretics have denied the efficacy of images. To prohibit their use would be to commit a serious injustice against infinite numbers of people, and perhaps against the majority of the Christian populace, not only because it would c onstitute depriving them of their sensual ability to gain knowledge of necessary things, but also because knowledge necessary for the health of the soul would be inacce ssible to countless unfortunate illiterates.24 Paleottis quest for the health of the soul through their sensual ability to gain knowledge shows his adroit understanding of and attention to the importance of a theory of Image. His conception of the reception of art was formulated in using painting as a universal language, as argued from the earliest times of the Christian experience. As one of the leading Roman Catholic apologists of the sixteenth-century, Paleotti, as with earlier Christian apologists, 24 Gabriele Paleotti, Discorso intorno alle imagini sacre e profane (Bologna, 1582) Reprint ed. Paolo Barocchi in Trattati darte del Cinquecento vol. 2, 117-509 (Bari: Giuseppe Laterza e Figli, 1961), Book I, Ch. 24, 224-225.


62 drew on the tradition established in the early church of the universality of art. This tradition was embedded in the theology of Christ as the New Adam, the Image of God.25 To Paleotti, the universality of man-made images was tied to the way in which humanity perceived painting, sculpture, and indeed knowledge. Vision helped to connect man with expressed human longings for contact with the divine through sight. For Paleot ti, God gave man the ability to create images, which aided his natural desire to know and represent both the mate rial and the spiritual realms. Paleotti remarked that the imitation of the creator, in mans ability to create, was what made humanity unique among Gods creatures.26 In his work, one sees the echoing of Pico Della Mirandolas positive view of human potential celebrated in the Oration on the Dignity of Man. Paleottis sources were the Aristotelian and Thomistic views the Catholic Church had embraced since the high Middle Ages. Discuss ions of Mans cognitive abilities found in Aristotles De Anima and Poetics and Thomas Aquinass Suma Theologica were the general basis for Paleottis understa nding of human knowledge, includi ng his remark that knowledge begins with the senses.27 Paleotti argued that the sense of vi sion was superior to hearing. He argued, the ear was an inferior cognitive organ because the voice was personal, serving merely in a few places at a few times. It was not always po ssible to obtain words of explanation, and 25 For the earliest formation of Catholic th eory of image, look to Gerhart B. Ladners The Concept of the Image in the Greek Fathers, and the Byzantine Iconoclastic Controversy, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 7 (1953): 1-34 and Ernst Kitzinger, The Cult of Images before Iconoclasm, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 8 (1954): 83-150. 26 Gabriele Paleotti, Book I, Chapter 4, 139-141. 27 Pamela M. Jones, Art Theory as Ideology: Gabriele Paleottis Hierarchical Notion of Paintings Universality and R eception, in Clare Farago, ed., Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and Latin American 1450-1650 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1995), 125. Also, see Barocchi commentary about the Discorso for an in-depth study of Paleottis sources for his artistic theory.


63 even when it was, auditory sensation had less longevity than visu al; images, rather than words, imprinted information on ones memory for a longer time.28 Image was superior. Following the iconophiles before him, Paleotti believed that painting was the universal language. He argued that for aural arts to su cceed, one must understand the language and the author and have not only an opportunity for lear ning but also the ability to comprehend and to find real value or truth in liter ature, even sacred scripture.29 For Paleotti, painting was more egalitarian, more democratic. This Roman Cat holic position confirmed the power of art. For Paleotti and many other Counter-Reformation Cathol ics, art was for the advancement of what was good, true and eternal and was a superior language of God in many ways. It was an extremely powerful tool of propaganda. This truth was not lost on the ru lers of this period. Paleotti maintained that the visual process had a direct bearing on the reception of concepts. Art had a capacity to explaining central ideas by its very natu re because it promoted reflection on Gods creation and used the senses to internalize through artistic re-creation. Mankinds knowledge is of three sorts: the first is sensual, which is had by means of senses; tasting, smelling, touching, etc.; the other is rational, which, if it also originates in the senses, passes by means of reason and ma terial thing; the third is supernatural, being born from a divine light infused in us by means of faith, through which we believe and know things that exceed not only the capacity of the senses, but also every human discourse and rational intelligence. We call this spiritual cogni tion, which was given to earthly and innoc ent souls by the singular grace of God.30 Spiritual cognition was useful in persuading the viewer in the pr actice piety, thus directing the viewer to God. Like sacred oratory, sacred painting also had more specific ends, such as 28 Pamela M. Jones, 125. For Paleottis arguments about the ey e over the ear, see Discorso, Book I, Chapter 4, 139-140 and Book I, Chapter 18, 207-208. 29 Gabriele Paleotti, Book I, Chapter 23, 221. 30 Gabriele Paleotti, Book I, Chapter 22, 216-217.


64 moving Christians to penitence, voluntary su ffering, charity, disdain for the world, and the obedience and awe they owe God.31 It seems clear that this line of reasoning, this understanding of the importa nce of art translated to propaganda works for the state as well as for the Christian God. Papal works of the late Ma nnerism and the Baroque combined both purposes: church and state. Rome produced many multi-purpose works combining religious awe with papal political power. One of the arguments Paleotti used for his understanding of art was Aristotles notion of delight. He noted that a higher level of rational knowledge with its accompanying delight [one could] reach the highest level, that of supernatural knowledge with its corre sponding spiritual delight only ifunder divine inspirationhe considered how God, in his great providence and wisdom, wanted by means of created things to provide human beings with a staircase by which to ascend to the celestial realm of eternal bliss.32 Paleotti applied this cognitive process to the act of seeing art in the marvelous pleasure and recreation [through] the variety of colors, shadows, figures, and ornaments, and the diverse things represented in them [artworks]such as mountains, rivers, gardens, cities, landscapes, and other things.33 Through the viewers imagination the artw orkin Paleottis cas e, paintingcaused delight that would lead to something more th an simple pleasure or connoisseurship. Here Paleotti again aligned himsel f with Aristotelian thought. Aristotle wrote in the Poetics that since man alone among all the other animals was born to imitate, by instinct he derives very great delight and pleasure from imitation. Imitation 31 Pamela M. Jones, Art Theory as Ideology: Gabriele Paleottis Hierarchical Notion of Paintings Universality and Reception, 128-129. 32 Pamela M. Jones, 128-129. 33 Gabriele Paleotti, Book I, Chapter 22, 218.


65 seems to have been born of the virtue of reason, which is peculia r to man. And this imitation, which is so obvious in painti ng, causes delight. It im mediately renders present to man things that are far away. A nd in the manner of the omnipot ent hand of God and of nature, his minister, painting brings to life in a moment men, animals, plants, rivers, palaces, churches, and all the sa me works are seen in this great machine of the world. .Thus, the more closely pain ting imitates life and truth, th e more rational delight they carry.34 Paleotti was somewhat of a m ystic on how this was to take place within one who viewed sacred art. He was not particularly specific about how to achieve th is level of cognition. However, Paleotti believed that the pious were able to achieve this leve l of mystical thought as with understanding of sacred scripture. W e do not doubt that a person who will look at Christian paintings with purged eyes will be ab le to participate in all of these delights.35 For Paleotti the pure of heart would simply see the truth in these religious works. Paleotti, as with the Council of Trent and Bo rromeo before him, did not think Mannerism could fulfill the necessary requirements for sacred ar t. There is a clear reaction against this style [Mannerism, which] no doubt prompted th e objections found in both Paleottis Discorso and the Council of Trents decree on images [t hat were] confusing, indecorous art.36 Art needed to be more precise and clear to be us eful for universal understanding. Paleottis Discorso promoted the churchs position that art had a uniquely powerful universal language. According to Jones, Paleotti emphasized that proper sacred art should have design, in the sense of both intellectual and ma nual creation, to produ ce acceptable ecclesial works.37 For Paleotti, artworks should be clearly composed and highly finished based on their 34 Gabriele Paleotti, Book I, Chapter 22, 218-219. 35 Gabriele Paleotti, Book I, Chapter 22, 220. 36 Pamela M. Jones, 131. 37 Pamela M. Jones, 143.


66 reception for mixed audiences; this included the cognoscenti, the intellectually trained and the vast majority of Christians: common illiterate folk. Clear presentation was necessary because the vast majority of viewers were uneducated, se nsually inclined, and less intelligent than the educated few. This notion, which ru ns like a leitmotif throughout the Discorso, cannot be overemphasized.38 However, he did not believe that art should be watered down. Pale otti referred to Psalm 96 vs. 6, and explained that magnificence appeals to the high intellect, as well as the uneducated. In the final chapter of Book 2 of Discorso he argued that the way Da vid taught the people of the Old Testament should be an example and that the same magnificen ce of universally good painting should be used. Confession, beauty, holiness, and magnificence were the words David used in Psalm 96 vs. 6 in the translati on of the Vulgate. This psalm centered on the glories of the Lord as the king of the universe. It emphasized his power and majesty as inventor of a beautiful and good creation. According to Paleotti, confession, beauty, holiness and magnificence were regarded as the four pri ncipal characteristics of sacred painting.39 Paleotti also believed that paintings of or dinary landscapes and such profane works could lead the viewer to spiritual cognition and teach about the uni versal truths and the natural order of the universe. As with most others of hi s age, his notion of the ordinary, which occupied a low place in Gods hierarchical universe, could lead one up the steps to celestial things and to the knowledge of celestial matters. This, of c ourse, was a positive view of the universe and creation. Younger ecclesiastical co lleagues, such as Robert Be llarmine and Federico Borromeo, also had views of the universe and humanity that were more positive than some of their own 38 Pamela M. Jones, 134. 39 Pamela M. Jones, 134.


67 Catholic contemporaries, and certainly more pos itive and optimistic than those who had accepted St. Augustines view of man living in a completely fallen state.40 The study of the universe could reveal as much about God, his plan, and natu ral order and law, as could the holy. Though Paleotti was a man of his time who belie ved in hierarchy, rank, order and a natural law of the superior versus inferi or in society (a view reprehensi ble to twentieth-century readers), he was typical of any man of his elite status of his day. However, a glimmer of Christian optimism appears for the ordinary person. Even t hough the ordinary majority could not rise to the greatest heights of metaphysi cal speculation when viewing painti ngs of nature or of sacred history, they could nonetheless ascend to the highest spiritual cognition. Though Paleotti did not explain in Discorso how a person became one of the purged eyed who ascended into the spiritual realm, he did reveal how he brought himself to that level. He used spiritual exercises on a uniform and regular basis, and these raised his spiritual state. He certainly believed others could do likewise. In his view and in that of ot her Catholic reformers mentioned so far in this study, a lack of education wa s not an obstacle to movement up the spiritual ladder.41 Combined 40 Pamela M. Jones. Federico Borromeo and the Ambrosiana: Art Patronage and Reform in Seventeenth-century Milan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993). For a thorough discussion of the optimism of Bellarmine and Borromeo as well as Augustines point of view, see in particular pages 33-36 and 76-89. The importance of the goodness of creation and the ability of man to achieve knowledge and gr ace through active engagement in the created world was something that was in direct opposition to many of the reformers ideology. 41 One of the great Counter-Reformation spiritu al exercises was the retreat offered by St. Ignatius in his Spiritual Exercises. Paleotti devoted ten days per year to performing the Spiritual Exercises Paolo Prodi, Il Cardinale Gabriele Paleotti (1522-1596) 2 vols. (Rome: Edizioni di Storia e letteratura, 1959-1967), 36. All of three Counter-Ref ormation thinkers, Borromini, Paleotti, and Borromeo thought meditation on sacr ed history and the di vine mysteries could move one up the spiritual ladder. None of th ese presupposed that one had to be literate. Protestant theology emphasized th e more elitist notion that it was primarily through literacy that one could achieve spiritual knowledg e, not through visual or emo tional means. This was one of the major differences, which separated Chri stianity during the Reformation. Counter


68 with spiritual exercises, the visual road would be the most effective way to the celestial for the masses. Paleottis notion of the viewe rs response to art in the Discorso itself and his thoughts in general lead us to the notion that art, and in particular painting was one of the most important ways to express ideas. The post-Tridentine wo rldview that prevailed throughout the Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchies was a continuation of the microcosmic experience to understand Gods macrocosm. Art was used to inform ones not ion of the universe, which was hierarchical, positive, and decreed by the Creator as useful for mans spiritual endeavors. Paleottis theory, well known throughout Europe, informed many of the artists of his day in Italy and eventually throughout most of Catholic Europe and possibl y the New World. Because of the Council of Trent, Borromeo and other like-minded thinkers, Baroque art developed and superseded the more ambiguous and less useful Mannerist style. It was the first pan-European style since the International Style three centuries earlier to inform the beliefs of a majori ty of European culture in religion, politics and hierarchy. Change of Style: The Importan ce of Catholic isms Influence It is clear with Trent and the multiple treatis es written by Catholic ecclesiastics that the Roman Church by the 1580s had a template for the use of art for political as well as religious purposes. The treatises, such as Charles Borromeos Instructiones Fabricae et Supellectilis Ecclesiasticae of 1577, and Robert Bellarmines Disputationes, with its 1586 dedication to Pope Sixtus V, and Gabriele Paleottis Discorso, were published in Germany, Italy and Spain.42 Reformation saints included men, such as the illiterate St. Isidore the Farmer, who was known for his spiritual power and example. 42 John T. Paleotti and Gary M. Radke, Art in Renaissance Italy (Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1997), 451.


69 In contrast to Baroque, Mannerism was a st yle of complicated innuendo, subterfuge, and odd non-classical beauty, luxuriant and comp lex. An iconic example of this style is Parmigianinos Madonna with the Long Neck (A-2). In this work, we see all the ambiguity, deception, lack of clarity, and luxuriant use of co lor this style could express. Though this work is indeed beautiful, it is unsu ccessful in its ability to produce piety and fails to communicate devotion to the viewer. Art regained its orig inal purpose: communica tion of ideas, instruction, and propaganda by use of the ideal, the classical a nd naturalistic beauty that was true to subject, patron, and ideology. It was also to be an art of virtue that primarily e xpressed cultural values or the absence of these values if this was part of the in tention of the scriptural, religious, political, or ideological story imparted to the viewer. One prime example of this type of art would be Berninis David (A-3), completed around 1623. The Council of Trent maintained the efficacy of images to convey the messages of belief not as simply recommended but as imperative. This was contrary to the belief of somethough not allof the newly established churches. Luther anism was in agreement with the use of art for communication and propaganda, as well as for a de votional aid to the faithful. However, many of the fledgling Calvinistic churches43 were directly opposed to the use of religious images as sacrilegious, nothing but idolatry. Art could be in the hom e, of course, and possibly even religious art could be displayed th ere, but not in the church. Even a few Calvinists were against the portrait as prideful, self-aggrandizement. Ov erall, among Calvinists, no clear agreement on 43 When one refers to Calvinism, one must admit that from the beginning there was no pan-Calvinist communion that allowed this grou p of churches any kind of real unitary bond or doctrine.


70 art existed except for the strong distrust of religiously themed art in general.44 Englands hybrid church did not have a cohesive policy for or ag ainst images. Confusion seems to have been the official policy when it came time for implem entation of Parliamentary, Crown, or church directives, especially during the reign of Elizabeth I. Iconoclastic periods in England hampered the use of religious art and would have questioned the use of absolutist art with any religious connotations.45 However, for Catholicism, the reach of the Decrees of the Council of Trent were far-flung and retroactive. The Roman Church attempted to censure even previous masterworks that were deemed inappropriate for religious consumption. Works such as Michelangelos The Last Judgment (A-1) were attacked for thei r lack of modesty. One response to the offensiveness of its nudity led to Daniele da Volterra--immediately after Michelangelos de ath--covering the genital areas of many of the nude figures in the fr esco. This earned him the nickname of the Braghettoni, or b reeches-painter.46 Even the greatest artist of the Renaissance was not immune to the new movement toward virtue and propriety. Other important artists who worked in the last third of the sixteenth -century were brought before the Office of the Inquisition because they did not follow the directives of Trent. For 44 This will be one of the central topics disc ussed in chapter 3. Ambiguity, plain style, or even the destruction of art was the rule in many Calvinist areas of Europe. This ambiguity was true in England concerning ar t, religion, and monarchy, and any monumental use of image during the Tudor period after the reform. 45 Many of the tried and true religious images loved and venerated in the English Church of the Middle Ages were more or less aba ndoned. The Crucifix and the Madonna were often ridiculed as signs of popery and were replaced by th e coat of arms of the monarch at the front of the church. These uncertain, eclectic, and at time s iconoclastic views toward art are discussed in the chapter 3. 46 John T. Paleotti and Gary M. Radke, 415.


71 example, Veroneses grand painti ng with over life-sized figures, the House of Levi (A-4) was originally conceived as a Last Supper When questioned by the Inqui sition for not following the narrative of sacred scripture, and for the pa intings ambiguity and its overly sumptuous expression, Veroneses response wa s not to substantially alter the painting but to simply do minor adjustments and rename the work. This allowed him to show the festive atmosphere in the painting by changing the subject. It would not pass the specifi cations of a clear, virtuous reenactment of the Lords Supper and institution of the Mass, but it did present a feast described in the scripture at the House of Levi. Catholic standards about religious painting had changed dramatically, and this also had effect on political art. The Council of Trent, and bishops like Bellarmine, Paleotti, and Borromeo were central to this change in art. The Roman pontiffs, however, were major innovators who implemented these ideas in vast new building and artistic projects at the end of the sixteenth and the beginning of the seventeenth-century. Italy the Leader The art of the m id-sixteenth-cen tury had fallen into mere pale imitation of the works of Michelangelo, Raphael, and Leonardo. Mannerism was a style that offered imitation of art in which form dominated yet conviction was lacking.47 By 1580, new artists of conviction appeared in northern Italy. Their works were characterized by a renewed adherence to naturalism, which breathed new life into the de pleted artistic world of Italy and Europe. Caravaggio, Annibale Carracci, and Federico Barocchi created works that were novel in their close observation of the natural world and in the freshness of their artistic insight. Their art once again spoke clearly, reflecting the noti on of Paleotti, who taught in his Discorso that the 47 Catherine Jonston, Vatican Splendour: Masterpieces of Baroque Art (Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1986), 15.


72 rendering of the microcosm could connect one to the macrocosm of the universe through the clarity of presentation and the study of beauty. Also influenced by the wide-reaching thoughts of Trent and the artistic theologians, new stars, such as Borromini and Bernini, would transform the outward appearance of Rome in a celebration of the Church Triumphant, real or not. Milan initially guided Italy af ter the council. Charles Borrome o, as Cardinal Archbishop of Milan, was instrumental in leadi ng reforms. Religious leaders were the quickest to counter Protestant challenges to the Roman Church beca use of their proximity to Germany and because of constant threats of political domination from the north. Encouraging art that was simpler, more powerful, direct, and free of preciosity a nd artificiality, Lombardy laid the groundwork for the prescriptions of the Council of Trent.48 However, it did not take long for other prelates and rulers to take advantage of art that showed clarity of style and the return to classical ideals of virtuous ideology and leadership. Though the northern of Italy was the leader for the initial years from Borromeo and families such as the DEste, because of the usefulness of this style, the pope embraced it for his own propaganda. One of the major artistic themes that re-emerged in this period was a view that the bishop of Rome had the right to be senior emperor, as was argued in the Middle Ages. These legendary stories, whether steeped in fact or fiction, were widely believed and huge artistic cycles during the pontificates at the turn of and during the sevent eenth-century were created as they had been in the early Renaissance and mediev al times. The right of the pope to this exalted position was reflected in the fanatical devotion of the Jesuits and in th e art produced for papal propaganda, as well as in the print of the day th at supported the religious and political dominance 48 John T. Paleotti and Gary M. Radke, 417.


73 of Rome. At the end of the sixt eenth-century the legends of anti quity were put into stone and paint by Pope Sixtus V in San Giovanni in Laterano, the Cathedral of Rome. The Roman pontiffs claim was not only to superiority in the spiritual realm. Popes made vast political claims that they saw as subs tantiated by precedent and by church councils along with medieval texts, such as the Donation of Constantine Even though it was known to be apocryphal and a forgery, it was st ill politically expedient for th e spin of the day. There was historically a ring of truth in that the papacy was the most important institution to survive the fall of the Western Roman Empire and fill a vast political and spiritual gap left by the empires demise for close to 800 years. Yes, there was an empire, but who crowned the emperor? After all, the papacy had made an emperor wait in the snow in the Middle Ages to do penance. Therefore, the popes of a renewed and reinvigorated Catholic Church hoped to wield the same kind of political jurisdiction and prestige in their age as they b elieved popes had wielded (real or not) in previous ages. The papacys vocabulary in art was drawn from s acred scripture, from the glorious past of the Roman Empire, from the philosophical worlds of Plato, Aristotle, and medieval saints. These popes used ideas from the virtuous writings of pagan Rome and Greece to extend and justify their use of personal power and the power of the church, proc laiming their absolute rights through art and building. Of course, the learned of the time would recognize this vocabulary immediately, whether or not they agreed with the themes and teleological views expressed by the papacy. Much of it was so clear that even the unlearned could appreciate the legendary stories and Biblical justifications for papal power that was like background noi se for their culture. Popes such as Sixtus V, Clement VIII, Paul V, Gregory XV, and finally the most important pope for this study, Urban VIII, all rallied to th e notion of the magnificence of the Papal States.


74 They regenerated and made splendid its capital, Rome, the true Christian heir of the ancient world and biblical heritage, in their minds at le ast. All these pontiffs were important in their connection with England and the monarchy in either a positive or a negative connotation. Some had relatively sour relations w ith London; others had relatively cordial relationships, an oddity when considering the venom often spewed by bigots on both sides of the religious divide. These relationships are important to this study fo r numerous reasons and they will be integrated throughout the remainder of this paper. The Rome that was famous then and indeed famous today and has been seen by untold millions of tourists is not primarily the Rome of the early or high Renaissance but of the late Mannerist and Baroque artistic periods. These pontiffs transformed late Mannerism into the Baroque style by their use of art and their patrona ge of the most important artists of the day. They also directly affected artistic cycles and plans for the works construc ted. It was a city and a style that was eventually emul ated as far north as Sweden. Along with the popes, their nephews, and so metimes their children, and the cardinal princes, and other dignitaries at tached to the papal court, popes provided commissions on an unprecedented scale. Painters, sculptors, archit ects and artisans of all kinds had always been drawn to Rome, but now in response to the recommendations of the Council of Trent to reform and reinvigorate the Catholic C hurch using art as a vehicle, a whole new range of possibilities open[ed] up.49 The first pope who truly anticipated th e Baroque style was Pope Sixtus V (April 24, 1585-August 27, 1590). Sixtus was one of the greatest reformers and implementers of the council. He shared the council fathers vision of the use of art as a virtuous tool to teach, proclaim, and explain the political as well as religious attitudes of resurgent Catholicism. 49 Catherine Jonston, 15.


75 From the beginning of the pontificate of Sixtus V, a true believer in the papal legacy, the reassertion arose of the importan ce of papal credibility expressed in art and public works, as well as a less corrupt government in the Papal States. Sixtus modernized Rome by bringing water with the Aqua Vergine, straightened the streets, finished the dome of St Peters, and declared war on crime. Rome was to be a city of almost puritan morals in its disregard for decadence or graft, but he was certainly not Puritan when it came to art. Within a short time, the Papal States were quiet and safe and on excelle nt financial footing; therefore, Sixtus began using the vast surplus of wealth generated by new taxes on public works and art commissions. What the pope achieved in a relatively short time was nothing short of miraculous. Towards the end of the century under Pope Sixtus V, the city itself was re-planned as we see it todaywith long straight streets connecting oval points adjacent to important churches. Each focal point was marked by a fountain or an antique obelisk. It was the declared aim of Sixtus V to make the city once more a worthy capital, a worthy Christianized successor to pagan Imperial Rome.50 Sixtus added the Loggia of Sixtus to the Ba silica di San Giovanni in Laterano, the Chapel of the Preaesepe in Santa Maria Maggiore, and as well an addition and repairs to the Lateran Palace (A-5) and the Quirinal and Vatican palaces Most impressive of the political works in Rome was the setting up of four obelisks, in cluding one in St. Peters Square. These became symbols of the church triumphant. All were crowned with religious symbols of Catholic Christianity, the cross, saints Peter and Paul, or the Virgin Mary. All were also marked with the popes family crest as a glorification of his personal good rule and as a member of the papal dynasty inherited upon becoming successor of the prince of the apostles. In a not-so-subtle statement, Sixtus communicat ed his hegemony as Vicar of Christ of the Roman Church over the empires of the world, both past and pres ent. To emphasize further that 50Madeleine Mainstone and Rowland Mainstone, 2.


76 he and the church were the inheritors of the cl assical world, he placed bronze Christian statues of St. Peter and St. Paul on top of the columns of Trajan and Ant oninus, showing the domination of the citys saints over its pagan past. Even th e Minerva of the Capitol was not safe; it was converted into an allegory of Christian Rome. For Sixtus, art was a way of validating his rule and the absolute rule of the Roman Church, not only over the religious world but over the political world as well. In his view, he was senior monarch. Sixtus Vs political involvement was extremel y important in defining the relationship that Catholicism was to have with England. He agreed to renew the excommunication of Queen Elizabeth I of England and granted a large s ubsidy to the Spanish Armada of King Philip II (former King Philip I of England) when he heard of the execution of Mary Queen of Scots. The Spanish and the papacy throughout Elizabeths reign were the foils and the excuse for her firm control of government. Because of Philip and Sixtuss opposition, Spanish and Catholic baiting became the favorite sport of the day. With the nega tive heritage of her sister Queen Mary I as a foundation for anti-Spanish and anti-Catholic at titudes, Elizabeths policies became enshrined not only in government but in the mindset of the English. This remains to the present age.51 Sixtus was more successful in his dealings w ith France. Sixtus excommunicated Henry of Navarre. However, the slim prospect of the c onversion of Henry to Catholicism did not stop Sixtus from negotiating with Henrys representa tive. Eventually Henry converted and France 51 Catholic conspiracies agai nst the crown such as Guy Fawkes Day, November 5, are still celebrated in England with fireworks and bonfires, on which effigies of the conspirator are burned, though it was Protestant Puritans who execu ted a king and briefly disbanded the British Empire formed by James I. The immense stra in over religion between England and Spain along with Sixtus and the succeeding popes complicated any attempts at reconc iliation and gave ample fodder to those who continued to demonize Catholics as tools of the papacy in England whether they were like Fawkes or not. Recently, Prime Mi nister Tony Blair waited to officially convert to Catholicism until he was out of office even though he had attended the Roman Church for years to avoid political scandal.


77 was brought finally into the Catholic fold. Fr ance became the great Catholic rival of the Hapsburgs once again. Henrys marriage to Catharine d Medici also helped to move Italianate ideas north into France. Their daughter, Henrie tta Maria, would become the Queen of England and Charles would stop in Paris on his way to Spain. Henrietta Maria was a founder of the arts in England, involved in the masques, art colle ction, and construction in the Stuart court.52 The renewed use of art during the long pontificate of Sixtus influenced th e habits and political fortunes of his successors and princes in the Cath olic world, and the Protestant sphere as well. John Peacock notes that the artistic influence of Sixtus V reached England in that the Catafalque for James I (A-7) is modeled after the Temp ietto-like catafalque fo r Sixtus V (A-7 C).53 Inigo Jones mirrored the most solemn funeral right s of the papacy for a Protestant king. The next papal innovator in the Baroque Period was Clement VIII (January 30, 1592March 3, 1605). Pope Clement VIII is perhaps better remembered for his temporal achievements: his efforts to bring back France and Poland into the bosom of the Church, his espousal of the Congregation of Missions in th e Orient, Africa, and the New World, and for the annexation of Ferrara to the Papal States. Yet he was a devout and humble man, not averse to walking barefoot in processions and pilgrimages.54 Clement also had a relatively long pontificate. He was responsible for the Synod of Brest held in 1595 in Lithuania, where a great part of the Ruthenian clergy and people were reunited with the Roman Church. The most important aspect of his papacy was the reconciliation to the Church of Henry IV of France (1589-1610). Henry embraced Catholicism (if not personally, at least 52 This will be a major discussion in Chapter 5. 53 John Peacock, Inigo Joness Catafalque for James I, Architectural History 25, (1982): 1. 54 Catherine Jonston, 15.


78 publicly) on July 25, 1593. After ta king a short time to assess Henrys sincerity, Clement VIII solemnly absolved him, thus putting an end to th e thirty years of religious war in France and winning a powerful ally in a reinvigo rated and united France. Artistically, Clement V IIIs reign was a period of transi tion. To St. Peters he added the bronze orb and cross that crown the lantern above Michelangelos cupola, and he commissioned the Cavalier dArpino to design the mosaics on its interior surface.55 Though much of the work done for Clement was somewhat mannered, the st yle of the works drifted toward a more cohesive and structured compos ition and understanding. This also was the time that Caravaggio revolutionized painting with his realistic scenes, such as the Calling and Martyrdom of St. Matthew in S. Luigi de Francesi and the Conversion of St. Paul and Crucifixion of St. Peter in the Tiberio Cerasi chapel in Sta. Maria del Popolo.56 Clement VIII was one of the most significant renovators of Baroque Rome. An enormous cycle completed during his pontificate was a religi ous-political themed decoration of the popes Cathedral. Here the legendary relationship of C onstantine and Pope Sylves ter was put into paint to cement the special political na ture of the papacy in the Ch ristian empire. Continuing the policies of his predecessors, Clemen t used art as a way to connect th e church to its past glories in hope of regaining some of that glorious past. Th ese themes of the pristine and celebrated times of the early church were executed at San Giovanni to help celebrate the Holy Year of 1600.57 55 Catherine Jonston, 16. 56 Catherine Jonston, 16-17. 57 The themes of renewing the pristine early church, its liturgy and beliefs was also central to Anglican thought in the early sevent eenth-century.


79 The first phase of renovations began in the summer of 1596 when he restructured San Giovanni. Clement VIII replaced existing colu mns with antique columns from the Roman imperial port of Nettuno and with others from the Roman Forum.58 In a renewed connecting of the basilica to the Roman imperial past, the d ecoration was to center on Constantine the Great and his political and religious largess to the Roman Church a nd the papacy. The decoration of San Giovanni involved commemorating the basilicas importa nce through an evocat ion of its special history and precious relics, pursu ed in the decoration that cente red on the high altar, on the one hand, and the appropriate display of the sacr ament in the transept, on the other; in the end these separate aims were combined so th e Laterans glorious past and the ineffable mystery of the Eucharist were fused.59 Much of the cycle is a glorifica tion of the loyalty of Constantine to the church and the churchs visible head, the papacy. This was perfectly ex emplified by paintings in the cycle, such as Pope Sylvester Baptizes Constantine by Cristoforo Roncalli (Figure 2-1), Giovanni Bagliones Constantines Donation to the Lateran (Figure 2-2), and finally Pope Sylvester Consecrates the High Altar of the Lateran by Giovanni Battista Ricci (A-10). As a proto-Baroque forerunner, the Constantinian cycle at San Giovanni included and expressed a vocabulary of material opulence a nd activation that extende d through the entire wall cycles of the transept. This cycle of frescoes, ce lebrating the intertwined histories of the Lateran and Constantine, was presented as a series of feigned tapestries attached to the wall of the basilica.60 The Lateran program of decoration also addressed the hierarchical dignity of the 58 Jack Freiberg, The Lateran in 1600: Christian Concord in Counter-Reformation Rome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 42. 59 Jack Freiberg, 50. 60 Jack Freiberg, 50.


80 Church of Rome in its primal seat, San Giovanni the first legal Christ ian church, indeed the mother of all churches. The Old Testament figur es of the priest-kings David and Solomon are located at the entrance of the transept. Thes e figures provide the pr e-Christian history of redemption traced from the Old Testament through th e incarnation of Christ at the annunciation to the final triumph at the altar when the Lord enters heaven at the ascension.61 The fresco cycle of Constantine is sandwiched between the entran ce and the Eucharistic chapel of the church. It is a statement of how the agency of Gods will through the first Christian king, Constantine, established the first permanent a nd legal church at the Lateran. This cycle ties Christian kingship into the mystery of the Eucharist, which is the central Catholic Christia n mystery, by its joining of humanity to the divine purpos e and linking all in a common faith.62 This Constantinian cycle, a fusion of threedimensional forms with illusionistic elements was an ingenious solution to a particularly difficult problem.63 Clement VIII wanted to unite the political, spiritual, and physical worlds in a unified statement of Catholic faith. In doing so, Clement also made a statement about the central ro le of the papacy in Christian political history and about himself as inheritor of that tradition. At the turn of the sixteen th-century, Clement VIII had shown the way through clear, decorative unity fo r the expression of an art that would communicate story in majesty and naturalism. He made the first Church of Christendom into a template for Baroque propaganda, not only for the use of the church but also indeed for the use of rulers. Though not intentionally, Clement also unwittingly emphasized the role of the Christian king as an important agent of the divine Monarchs had in the past and would continue 61 Jack Freiberg, 50. 62 Jack Freiberg, 50. 63 Jack Freiberg, 50.


81 to use the same political heroes enshrined in the Lateran: Constantine, David, and Solomon. Indeed, this would also reinforce what the Haps burgs had introduced in their great cycles and building complexes in the second half of the sixteenth-century. These also emphasized the importance of the monarchy in Gods plans, a nd from a Roman Catholic point of view the salvific, saintly purpose a nd quality of the monarchy. After all, one of the most important titles expressed at the crucifixion in Latin, Greek, and Aramaic was th at Christ was King. The audience for this renewed artistic vigor wa s one of the largest in history. According to recent scholarship, the Holy Year of 1600 wa s a phenomenal success. This was because Clements political achievement of securing p eace throughout most of Europe enabled more people to make the journey to Rome than ev er before possible. Only England and Spain remained major states at war at the time of the Holy Year. It is estimated that as many as three million came for the celebrations. Many, if not most, were from outside of Italy; France and German principalities were well represented.64 English artist, architect and designer Inigo Jones was in Italy during this time. T hough his longest and most extensiv e trip to Italy is the least documented, it seems certain that he would have gone to Rome to study the newly finished works at the Lateran, which received universal ac claim at their completion. Scholars agree he had lived and studied in Italy fo r several years before the turn of the century and returned to England some time in 1601.65 Though Jones was careful to ke ep his religious leanings to himself, it is not a stretch of the imagination that he studied the pomp and circumstance of the Holy Year because most biographers agree he was Catholic. As a young artist, architect, and 64 Howard Hibbard, Carlo Maderno and Roman Architecture, 1580-1630 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1971), 20. 65 Michael Leapman, Inigo: The Troubled Life of Ini go Jones: Architect of the English Renaissance (London: Headline Book Publishing, 2003), xiii.


82 designer, it is inconceivable that he would pass up a moment ous opportunity to study the regenerated churches and monume nts of the Eternal City. As a Catholic, he may have even studied them with some spiritual motivation. His most important early biogr aphers, including J. Alfred Gotch, maintained that both Inigo and his father were Roman Catholics.66 The Dictionary of National Biography affirms this with confidence. There is no doubt that he was Friendly with many Catholics in his early ye ars: Edmund Bolton and Tobie Matthew were two, both converts to the faith as young men and both stubborn in the refusal to abandon it. He also had a long friendship with the Earl of Arundel, Thom as Howard, a member of one of the countrys leading Catholic familie s though he [Arundel] eventually became a Protestant for political convenience.67 It is also vital to note that Jones was partic ularly close to Queen Anne of Denmark and Queen Henrietta Maria, both Catholics. Clearly, this was in part because of their love of the arts, but another explanation for their close affinity might have been as co-religi onists. All three then would have been Catholics in a sea of Protestants. Jones would have certainly noted that Clement s chosen central theme for the Holy Year of 1600 was political unity and spiritual reconciliation in the Lateran decorations. It intentionally drew parallels to the Golden Age of the Cathol ic Church, which existe d during the reigns of Constantine and Sylvester.68 In the Clementine transept, the paradisiacal, Constantinian, and Eucharistic resonances coalesced into a moment ous statement about the political and spiritual achievements of Clement VIII. The decision to gi ve these themes tangible form at San Giovanni 66 Alfred J. Gotch, Inigo Jones (London: Methuen and Co., 1928), 43. 67 Michael Leapman, 18. 68 Massey H. Shepherd, Jr., Liturgical Expr essions of the Constantinian Triumph, Dumbarton Oaks Papers 21 (1967): 57-58.


83 was a precise correspondence betw een visual and conceptual expression with its associations with the Universal Church and the historical a nd eschatological future that longed for concord and unity as their fundamental reference points.69 The Lateran was the beginning of the great flowering of ecclesiastical and papal art during the seventeenth-century. Another of Clements key contributions to artistic development in Rome was his annexation of the territory of Ferrara. Following the sojourn of Clement VIII in Ferrara, he took much of the dEste collection to Rome. Great Re naissance artists and ar twork were reintroduced to Rome, such as Giovanni Bellinis Feast of the Gods and Titians Bacchanals. These more classically styled works were to have consider able importance as templates for the clarity and naturalism of Baroque painting.70 Classical artists, such as Titian and Raphael, would become the favorite collectables of Charles I. These decorative schemes continued in the ensuing pontificates. Camillio Borghese, Pope Paul V (May 16, 1605-January 28, 1621) is remembered for his warning to Galileo not to hold or defend the heliocentric ideas of Copernicus as tru e. However, Paul V also demonstrated a great love of art and used it as a way to glorify his family and the papacy. St. Peters, which had been initiated almost 100 years earlier by Julius II was not yet complete. Paul V ordered the completion of the project, including the rest of th e chapels, additions to the nave that made the church a Latin rather than a Greek cross, the choir, the lower portico, and the upper portico for the papal benediction at St. Peter s. Paul Vs name is boldly writt en on the faade of St. Peters. It proclaimed that he was Roman of the Romans.71 Using this appeal to classical antiquity, 69 Jack Freiberg, 176. 70 Catherine Jonston, 17. 71 Even though he actually was not from the city of Rome.


84 Camillio Borghese (Paul V) announced his standi ng and importance as a successor to not only St. Peter but also the Roman Imperial legacy.72 It is important to note James I made this same claim for himself and his successors at the end of Basilikon Doron .73 Paul V continued his important role in establishing th e Baroque aesthetic. He was an av id supporter of the talented Baroque painter Guido Reni, whose clarity and ma sterful storytelling were renowned in Renis own age. Charles pursued Reni, unsuccessfully, as his court painter for this very reason. Foreign relations were also cen tral to this pontiff. Paul V kept maintained relationships with King Henry IV of France74 and tried to further better relati ons with James I. Here he was not as successful. In July 1606, Paul V wrote James, congratulating hi m on his accession to the throne. Paul asked James to revise the Oath of Allegiance that had been constructed to require Catholics to have allegiance to the king, including re ligion, after the failed Gunpowder Plot of 1605. Paul and a significant number of English Ca tholics felt that in good conscience they could not accept the oath as written. When the oath remained unaltered, Paul condemned it twice in written briefs, first in September 1606 and then again in August 1607. The matter was serious enough that it created a divisi on among Catholics in England, which hampered the English Catholic mission, surely to the pleasure of James I. However, even with this said, according to his writings, James feared Catholic disloyalty less than he feared the Puritan unruliness.75 72 This claim is proclaimed across the front of St. Peters and includes the popes family name, Borghese, as well as his papal name. 73 James I, Basilikon Doron in King James VI and I: Political Writings Johann P. Sommerville, ed., (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ ersity Press, 1994), 44. He fancied himself as the emperor of a new Roman empire rising in the West, and called his sons Romans. 74 Henry was assassinated by a fanatic in May 1610. 75 This will be a major topic in Chapter 4 through examination of Basilikon Doron The amount of criticism spent on Puritans is four times the amount spent criticizing Catholics.


85 One point that the previously mentioned pontiffs and Paul had in common was a shared belief in their own absolute monarchy.76 James as the English king often claimed absolute authority in his realms, but in practice, it was never achieved.77 Paul Vs inability to achieve some kind of agreement with James was a signifi cant failure of papal policy, however, his work with France and his ability to w ithstand the power of Spain and Ve nice left the Papal States in good standing; moreover, his completion of the exterior project of St. Pe ters won him universal acclaim. It was up to his successor, Urban VIII, who reigned for more than twenty years, to complete much of the interior of St. Peters along with many othe r projects in Rome that truly crystallized the absolutist theories of th e papacy in stone, pain t, and architecture. Maffeo Barberini, Urban VIII, ruled the Papal States and tried to rule Catholic Europe from August 6, 1623 to July 29, 1644. He was central to the Baroque Age and to the notion of absolutist art as he began the most important an d extensive decorations of the interior of St. Peters. He also employed the dazzling architects Bernini, Borromini, and painters such as Guido Reni, Nicholas Poussin, Claude Lorrain and a host of others in these projects. Urban commissioned the Palazzo Barberini, the College of Propaganda, the Fontana del Triton in Piazza Barberini, the Vatican Cathedra and many othe r prominent structures in the city. Pietro da Cortona embellished the gran salon of his family palace with an apotheosis allegory of the Triumph of the Barberini, also called Divine Providence In this allegory, his family is celebrated 76 Absolutism is the major theme of Basilikon Doron and The Trew Law of Free Monarchies. 77 However, it is interesting to note that Parliament sat in session for only 36 months during his entire reign and a freque nt tool James I used was to cl ose parliament when they did not give him what he wanted. Absolutism was only partially achieved in England for the years of Charles Is personal rule.


86 as chosen by God to lead the church through Urban. Cortona provided us with a soto in su work that dazzles the eyes with lush and luxuriant mo vement as Urbans coat of arms, expressed in three huge honeybees, is welcomed into the divine realm. This symbolic apotheosis is clearly similar to the Apotheosis of James I on the Banqueting House Ceiling (A-9), in theme if not in execution. Urban was the last pope to extend the papal territory and was the pope responsible for a mild rapprochement with the English through go od relations with the French monarchy and the Queen of England, Henrietta Maria. It was Urban who allowed hi s servant Bernin i to make the glorious Bust of Charles I, which survived the ravages of the Ci vil War, but did not survive a fire at the end of the seventeenth-cent ury. It has been copied in ma rble by various artists and exists as engravings (A-11 and A-12). It was during Urbans reign that the Baroque style became the overpowering style used in Catholic countries around the world, subseque ntly moving to England directly from the experiences of Inigo Jones and his familiarity with Italy and the great Catholic artists of the Baroque such as Artemisia Gentileschi, Orazio Gentileschi, Peter Paul Rubens, Bernini, and Anthony Van Dyck. All these artists worked directly or indirectly for either the papacy or the Hapsburgs. They were known best for their religi ous works as well as classical allegories or political works for princes. In particular, R ubens and Bernini, along with Van Dyck, became famous for their portrayals of princes who espoused absolutist theory and helped to synthesize an absolutist Baroque style that emphasized above all else the virtue of the prince and divine right to rule. One of the central propositions of this st udy is that Charles I enga ged all of these artists for this very reason--the servic e of his state--parti cularly for the aggrandizement of his dynasty and therefore of himself through monumental pa inting, sculpture and bu ilding. This was not


87 haphazard collection of beautiful objects; it was a display of Image on a grand scale for a purpose. The Hapsburg Court: Philip II and Philip III For five years, from 1554 to 1558, Philip II wa s the co-regent King of England and king of much of Europe. If his marriage to Mary Tudor, the oldest daughter of Henry VIII, would have produced an heir, the empire created would have included th e most powerful countries of Western Europe. An heir was not produced, a nd Elizabeth succeeded to the throne in 1558 at Marys death. She was not universally recognized, to say the least. Many of the Catholics in England and most of the Catholic s outside the country argued that she could not succeed, as the union of her mother to Henry VIII was illegitimate. The Catholic candidate was Mary Queen of Scots (Mary Stuart), the closest legitimate rela tive of Henry VIII. This of course created instant problems between the tw o cousins and led eventually to the capture and execution of Mary during her own political woes. Marys problems stemmed from Calvinists who took control of the monarchy and installed her one-yea r-old son as king. The ex ecution of Mary Stuart by order of Elizabeth in 1587 brought about a wa r between England and Spain, which did not end until 1603, after the deaths of both Elizabeth and Philip. This war led to a period of cultural isolation for England. Isolation did not continue after Stuart accession to th e throne. The importance of Hapsburg influence on art in the early Stuart period is impressive. What is equally striking is that this f act is underestimated by many English hi storians and has only been noted by scholars in the last few years. Another significant fact is th e importance of Philip II to the growth of absolutist ideology in Europe. Though he never achieved an absolutist st ate, he is pivotal to the development of the ideology of Absolutism in early modern Eu rope through his patronage of artists and philosophers. Many historians now agree that Philip IIs role in the develo pment of the notion of


88 the divine right of kings was definitive.78 From the beginning of hi s reign, Philip followed the lead of his father, Charles V. Drawing on the my stic image developed by his father; Philip II manipulated traditional vocabulary to emerge as the master coordinator of the customs associated with divine right. These included a more limite d access to the royal person, something Charles I emulated. Philip also had large sums of money to work with in developing art and its use for a propaganda that emphasized his divine right to rule. Philip concentrated on shaping his monarchy in the mold of the unapproachable god-king. 79 He was a master at using iconography that showed the legends of ancient and medi eval prophecy: David, Solomon, and other images such as Christian and pagan Roman emperors. Such claims by the Hapsburgs were put into stone, mortar, paint, and gold in the imperial palace-monastery as seen in the engraving of the View of the Escorial (A-13). With Philips inheritance as sovereign of Spain came the New World, the realms of Naples, Sicily, and Lombardy, the titular sovereignty of Jerusalem, and the title of the Latin Empire of Constantinople. Philips Spanish heritage was a strong basis, from his point of view, for the claim of a world Christian emperor. Lege nds of a revival of the imperial days of Rome persisted. Philip used these legends and prophecies fully in the development of his personal and dynastic propaganda. Philip took as the chief tenet of his monarchy hi s right to restore the universal rule of the Roman Empire from East to West. He empl oyed an increasingly s ophisticated syncretism 78 Marie Tanner, The Last Descendant of Aeneas: Th e Hapsburgs and the Mythic Image of the Emperor (Dexter, Mich igan: Thomson-Shore Inc., 1993), 133. 79 John H. Elliott, Spain and Its World 15001700: Selected Essays (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989), 152. Elliott maintains that Philip blended Burgundian and Spanish ceremony with papal ceremony to make his kingsh ip more impressive and remote from his subjects.


89 of classical and Judeo-Christian traditions to achieve this goal, and he shaped his kingship in the mold of the priest-kings of antiquity.80 Philip did this by grounding his family tree in divine and saintly ancestors, such as pagan emperors of Rome, the emperors of Constantinople, and the Frankish kings. Hence, Philip established himself as the most likely heir to pagan and Christian antiquity, a renewed world empire.81 In addition, as a corollary to a pseudo-me ssianic destiny, he identified himself with Solomon and with a Christianized version of allantica ancestor worship in the Temple of Jerusalem at the Escorial.82 Here he ordered from Titian a series of mythic paintings that extolled his Hapsburg familys destinies in the manner of the ancient Caesars of Rome. These emphasized the Hapsburg families divinely ordained victories against Muslims.83 Charles Stuart would exhibit the exact sa me kind of display of the pagan Caesars in his palace during his reign, with himself as the natural successor to the Caesars, by incorporat ing a Van Dyck portrait of himself on horseback as the focal point.84 Charles begged the Spanish king, Philip III, for these Titians on his visit to Spain. Things went so far that they were packed up and ready for shipment, only to be re-installed at the Escorial when the Spanish match failed.85 80 Marie Tanner, 143. 81 Marie Tanner, 143. 82 Marie Tanner, 143. 83 Marie Tanner, 143. 84 This parallel will be discussed fully in Chapter 7 dealing with the years of personal rule. 85 Marie Tanner, 142-145.


90 One of Phillips chroniclers, Father Siguenza, recorded the construction of the Escorial and took credit for the librarys ic onographical program. He heralded it as a Noahs Ark, the tabernacle of Moses, and a place where God was just as present as he had been in that other Temple of Solomon, which Phillip II imitated.86 The conformity to Solomons temple extends to the combination of royal palace and ce nter of worship in a mortuary context that was intrinsic to model. This intention is expressed in a chronicle of the building prepared for Philips heirs by the Escorial prior Fray Francisco de Santos. As Philip had gained the appellation of the second Solomon, it was his ro yal intention likewise to imitate the Jewish monarch in building an augus t sepulcher for his father.87 Following this lead, though Charles I did not have the funds or the time to build such an august sepulcher for James I, the Banqueting House Ceil ing cycle (A-9) acts as such a memorial, a cenotaph. The Escorial was a model of the Heavenly Jerusalem and a sign of Gods blessing on the Spanish empire with its new Solomon. Charles I stay ed at this impressive complex in Madrid in his bid for a Spanish match. Rubens also stud ied the iconographical aspe cts of the Escorial during his employment by the Haps burgs. The Escorial was for its age one of the wonders of the world.88 For the Stuarts, Rubens repeated these sa me themes, only slightly modified, in the Banqueting House. James was the blessing of God for the English people, founder of the British Empire, the beloved and benevolen t New Solomon of the British. It is an association that James relished and furthered throughout his own reign. 86 Fray Joes de Siguenza, La Fundacion del Monasterio de el Escorial por Filipe II (Madrid: Aguliar, 1963), ii. 87 Marie Tanner, 167. 88 These parallels will be made apparent with similarities to the Escorial, plans for further work at Whitehall Palace, and the Banqueti ng House decoration cycle in Chapter 6.


91 Lucas De Herre created an imposing painting of Philip II as Solomon (A-14). Here Philip, seated on the Lion Throne representing Judah, holds his scepter. Philip as the New Solomon receives tribute from the Queen of Sheba, from the New World and other far-flung parts of his empire. He is enthroned like a Caesar. Roman imperial iconography is also present in the headdress of his general on the right of the painti ng. Philip is portrayed not only as the successor to the legacy of Solomon, but also as inheritor of the Ro man/Byzantine tradition started by Constantine the Great, who is clai med as an ancestor of Phillip (a nd claimed as an ancestor of the Stuarts as well). The Roman imperial legacy of the Escorial should not go unappreciated. It was expected that Philip II would eventu ally receive the crown of Holy Roman Emperor, though this expectation was not met. One of the important ideas that a great many people in early modern Europe believed in was the connection of that impe rial title to the Parousia. The pattern was set with the Roman model, and geograp hic realities aside, no city ever dislodged Romes status as the New Jerusalem, the divinely decreed site of Solomons rebuilt temple to which Christ would return at the Parousia.89 This eschatological hope of the S econd Coming was not confined to Protestant polemics. It was reflected in the literature of early Christianity and the quasieschatological place of Rome in the mindset of Western Christianity for much of the Christian era. In this vision, Empire and Christianity we re intertwined and insepa rable. Philip II bought into this Christianized imperial legacy. He sought to transfer Rome to his dominions. As with Charlemagne at Aachen, with Otto at Treves, with Charles IV at Pr ague, a new geographic stratification came into being: the New Temple of Jerusalem was rebuilt in transalpine Rome. Catholic emperors built complexes that were, in one way or another, reflections of the union of 89 Marie Tanner, 171.


92 Solomons temple as a model of imperial rule The propaganda statement made by Charles I in the Banqueting House ceiling (A-9) can be seen in the context of inheriting these imperial traditions. The Escorial (A-13) was filled with a pervasiv e blend of sacred architecture and imperial architecture that unifies Old Testament, New Testament, and imperial notions of absolutist kingship.90 Above all, the royal chapel evoked the Ho ly of Holies and a reconstruction of the heavenly temple. It also served as the most solemn reception site of the monarchy as did the Banqueting House for Charles I. The crypt in the Escorial was a reminder of ancestor worship in a syncretism of Old Testament sources and Roman and Greek practices combined with Christianity, whose spiritual ance stor worship was in its venera tion of the saints. This kind of veneration of the ancestor was re jected by most of Protestant ism during the Reformation, but curiously not so in England.91 Here the life-sized figures of Ch arles IV and his family along with Phillip II and his family created by Pompeo Leoni (Figure 2-17) kneel in perpetual veneration of God and are witness to the greatness, fait h, and imperial heritage of the Hapsburgs. Philip III, King of Spain, King of Portugal, King of Naples and Sicily, was the next Hapsburg ruler. He succeeded his illustrious/ infamous father in 1598 and ruled until 1618. Philip III continued the artistic traditions of his fa ther and the legends of the familys pedigree. In Arbol Aniciana, dedicated to Philip III when he was a prince, the Cistercian monk Ionne 90 Marie Tanner, 171. 91 It is interesting to note that there was a type of ancestor veneration practiced in postReformation England. This was pol itical and aimed at establishi ng dynastic prowess rather than anything akin to the veneration of saints. Saint veneration was almost completely wiped out in post-Reformation England with the exception of the cult of St. George, connected closely with the Stuart monarchy. These topics will be discussed in the next chapter, wh ich deals with funeral monuments made during the Elizabetha n and early Jacobean periods.


93 Siefried created a pedigree for the Hapsburgs. Thes e claims went back into antiquity. Siefried maintained in his genealogy that the Hapsburgs ancestors included the Trojans, Constantine and Junius Bassus,92 whose sarcophagus (Figure 2-18) was re discovered and made famous shortly before the publication of Siefrieds work. This sarcophagus depicted o rthodox representations of the Saviors dual nature, the suffering Jesus of the Passion and the ruling Christ as King of the Universe. This famous stone piece emphasized Ch rists rule as God the Fathers regent over earth and gave new inspiration to the Hapsburgs as Christs lieu tenants and successors to World Empire. This ancient monument and its connectio n with its original pa tron helped to support some of Hapsburgs imperial pretensions.93 Philip IIs daughter, like her brother Philip III, continued the use of complex religious and imperial iconography and claims to the Hapsburg familys pre-Christian and imperial legacy. The tapestries that the Infanta Isabella Clar a Eugenia had made for the Monastery of the Descalzas in Madrid were a significant commission for Rubens. The Infanta had Rubens portray the tapestries for this church as a combined notion of the triumph of the Eucharist and the triumph of the Hapsburg family. The Victory of Eucharistic Truth over Heresy (Figure 2-19) is an example of Hapsburg use of iconography to identif y the family with Catholicism, pre-history, and antiquity. Philip II is prominently figured in the Victory of the Eucharistic Truth (A-16) as one of the champions of Catholicism. One of the most important features in these works is the use of Solomonic columns to invo ke religion, virtue and the div inity of chosen monarchs. The 92 Ionne Siefried, Arbor Aniciana Seu Genealogia Se renissimorum Augustissim Austr Domus Principum Ab Anicia Antiquissima nobili ssimaque Urbis Rom familia deducta septemque Libra explicata, Book 2 (Vienna: Joannis Fidler for Zwethalensibus [Zwettl], sumptibus Auctoris [Seifrid], 1613), 44-45. 93 Marie Tanner, 195.


94 Solomonic columns had been connected with the Euchar ist from antiquity.94 The inclusion of these columns as architectural frames for each ta pestry emphasized the notion of the priest-king. Rubens incorporated this same symbol about divine monarc hy in the Stuart cycle. The political atmosphere conditioned the conne ctions between the art of Spanish princes and English princes. This was a result of the two peace treaties, one dur ing the reign of James and the other during the reign of Charles. It is well documented that more than five hundred Englishmen went to Spain for the signing of the original peace treaty between Philip III and James I. James and Charless peace allowed English collectors to scour Madrid and other Spanish dominions for artistic treasures. Ironically, after the E nglish Civil War, the Spanish turned to England to search for artistic treasures amassed by Charles I and by those who supported him during the Civil War95 The amount of time that Charles spent in Spai n is imperative to unde rstand his vision of monarchy. During the five and a half months he and the Duke of Buckingham were there on their vain quest for a Spanish match, there is no doub t that, they would have been treated to a seminar in royal collecting. It was also a seminar in the use of art by the Hapsburgs. Charles would have seen the splendors not only of the three kings named Philip, but also the treasures amassed by Charles V, Margaret of Austria, Mary of Hungary and other possessions of the family. They also would have seen the collectio ns of royal favorites, aristocrats, and court 94 Connections are made in the following chap ters dealing with th e Banqueting House and the construction of the Baldacchino by Bernini at the behest of Urban VIII. Rubens and his use of the Solomonic columns in Stuart iconography will be developed furthe r in the same chapter dealing with the Banqueting House. 95 The return of much of the collection of royal English art is documented in Jonathan Brown and John Elliott, eds., The Sale of the Century: Arti stic Relations Between Spain and Great Britain, 1604-1655 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002).


95 officials who for more than a century had benefi ted from posts in Italy, the Netherlands, and Germany. The sight of this wealth of pictures, st atues and architecture by so many great masters, most of them religious or political in tenor had a profound effect on Charles and affected Buckingham as well. Conclusion The papacy was one of the m ost significant sour ces of absolutist art in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. It is clear that the Catholic kings and popes of this era were engaged in themes rooted in Ca tholic history and the Western im perial tradition. Rulers modeled themselves on Constantine, Charlemagne, or ot her eastern emperors, or claimed them as ancestors, certain this association would cement thei r assertion of total powe r and control of their kingdoms. They also struggled to attach themselves to biblical traditions and icons, such as Solomon or to legends originati ng from biblical prophecies about empire or the Parousia. In addition, themes of sacraments, especially Eucharis tic themes that attached them to the sacrifice of Christ the King, were incorporated to validate their position as Christs vicar on earth. The royal collections cited in this chapter were works that contribu ted to the overall claim of the Hapsburgs as Gods divine right rulers. Though they did not achieve a level of absolute rulership, as did the French, the Spanish kings, Hapsburg emperors, and ar chdukes led the way in propaganda for this type of govern ment supported by the writings of the Catholic propagandists. Art, as well as literature, was at the center of this dialogue on th e European continent. The claims and artistic output of the English monarchy in the late sixteenthcentury and the early reign of James I would pale when compared to th ese sources of divine right propaganda.


96 Figure 2-1. Cristoforo Roncalli. Pope Sylvester Baptizes Constantine, transept, San Giovanni in Laterano. Photo by author. Figure 2-2. Giovanni Baglione. Constantines Donation to the Lateran, Transept. San Giovanni in Laterano. Photo by author.


97 Figure 2-3. Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus, Vatica n Museum, Vatican City. Photo by author.


98 CHAPTER 3 THE CHANGING PROTESTA NT AESTHETIC: ENGLISH PROTESTANT TRENDS AND TRADITIONS IN RELIGIOUS ART, ICONOCLASM, PORTRAITURE, TOMB SCULPTURE AND COLLECTION FROM 1560 TO 1620 Introduction W hat was the climate for the use of religious or state art as propaganda by the Stuart monarchy when James I became king of England 1603? Was his policy or use of art or patronage significantly diffe rent from that of Elizabeths rule ? Was there an official policy for the use of art in the English C hurch? Was there a dramatic sh ift in the reign of King James toward a more Catholic aesthetic for political as well as religious reasons? These major issues are examined in this chapter, which will be an exploration of the artistic spectrum of Protestantism in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries in England. Part of the task of this study is to define general theological view points that existed in this rather unguided and often contradictory English Protestant view about fine arts and public use of art. One assertion of this study is that the early Stua rts tried to form some kind of art policy because of the vacuum left by Elizabeth and her lacklu ster guidance of the Church. This chapter will examine the impor tance of John Calvin as the originating source for iconoclasm and the theological sp ectrum dominant in this peri od. I will then describe the attitudes about art in the middle to late Elizabet han Age. This will include what was considered appropriate use or what was the lack of use of religious art and imagery for church and state. A narrative well then follow of some uses of art by James in his early reign. Included in this discussion are tombs erected for Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scotts (Figures 1-1, 1-2, 1-3) located in Westminster Abbey. I will also brie fly describe the influen ces that helped move English thought toward a visual cu lture and then offer conclusions.


99 Calvins Influence on Religious Imagery From the beginnin g of the reign of Edward VI, Calvin influenced most of the important religious minds of the first generation of the English Reformation. The English Reformation, like many German territorial reformati ons, was first an act of the stat e. In reality, England was like no other country except perhaps Sweden in th at the rupture from Rome came so thoroughly by the workings of the monarchy. The theological orientation of the Church of England was of the Reformed tradition, not Lutheranism, and was essentially fixed during the short reign of Edward VI (1547-53). Edward and his ministers followed the teachings of John Calvin on the rejection of religious imagery, on the symbolic understanding of the sacraments, and on the apocalyptic nature of the papacy as the root and expression of the evil of their age. B ecause of this Calvinist underpinning, and the union of Church and Stat e through the monarchy, the use of imagery was complicated during this period. Imagery was much more prevalent and connected with Catholicism. Calvins rejection of religious im agery was close to total in his writings, with the exception of copying nature as homage to the Creat or. Calvin validates some, but not all, works of art that deal with history painting or portraiture Even these artistic fo rms could lead to the sin of avarice and pride. One point is clear through a close examinati on of Calvins writings: Art had no value in the pedagogical effort in religion. For those who fo llowed Calvins thought process about art as valueless as a teaching tool in religion, it is not a stretch to imag ine that it might also be insignificant for teaching the important civic/theology of early modern England about monarchy, especially Absolutism wh ich was at its very center a reli gious theory. The fact that the king was head of church and the notion that the king was Gods special agent would complicate the use of the kings image in any reli gious or quasi-religious works for Calvinists.

PAGE 100

100 This might explain the reality th at no great history cycles were painted during the reign of the later Tudors. Their contribution focused on portraiture. In his Institutes, Calvin described the corr ect use and place of art. And yet I am not gripped by the supers tition of thinking absolutely no images permissible. But because sculpture and painting ar e gifts of God, I seek a pur e and legitimate use of each, lest those things which the Lo rd has conferred upon us for his glory and our good be not only polluted by perverse misuse but also turned to our destruction. We believe it wrong that God should be represented by a visible appearance, because he himself has forbidden it [Ex. 20:4].Therefore it rema ins that only those things ar e to be sculptured or painted which the eyes are capable of seeing: let not God's majesty, which is far above the perception of the eyes, be debased through unseemly representati ons. Within this class some are histories and events, some are images and forms of bodies without any depicting of past events. The former have some use in teaching or admonition; as for the latter, I do not see what they can afford other than pleasure. And yet it is clear that almost all the images that until now have stood in churches were of this sort From this, one may judge that these images had been called fo rth not out of judgment or se lection but of foolish and thoughtless craving. I am not saying how wickedly and indecently the greater part of them have been fashioned, how licentiously the painters and sculptor s have played the wanton here--a matter that I touched upon a littl e earlier. I only say that even if the use of images contained nothing ev il, it still has no value for teaching.1 Much of history painting, biblical stories, God, angels, virtues or saints ar e off limits in the theory of Calvins art world. Even as Calvin allows for the creation of sculpture and paintings, he restricted them severely. For Calvin most re ligiously themed art was within the category of the forbidden: one may judge that these images had been called forth not out of judgment or selection but of foolish and t houghtless craving. There is not much room for a true godly believer or follower of Calvins thought to embrace art even in a limited way for pedagogical purpose by using the Institutes as a basis. Calvins theological and philosophical vision of art led to ma jor iconoclastic outbreaks throughout the sixteenth and sevent eenth centuries. This anti-ima gery theology took root early 1 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion vol. I ed. by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), vol. I, 112.

PAGE 101

101 in the Calvinist wing of the English Church, a wi ng that many historians have taken for granted as the largest and most influential part of the En glish Church. This factor alone is important to note as a backdrop to the arguments of this pape r. Therefore, it is essential to grapple with Calvins total rejection of an intellectual ar gument for the spiritual, or worship-aid use of imagery, or the notion that religious imagery could instruct the faithfu l about any religious concepts. Of equal importance to this discussi on is that Arminians and anti-Calvinists would later disagree with Calvins thoughts and biblical exegesis. They argue for a more Catholic, prereformation use of art, as in the shared history of the Roman and Eastern c hurches in arts use as propaganda, worship, and instructions sake.2 Religious Conflict about the Use of Art English conflicts about and innovati ons in church polity, doctr ine, and practical piety generated by this m ix would prove exceptionally important to the history of the Reformed churches throughout Europe-all the more so in that, with its tota l population of 2.75 million people in 1541 and more than 4 million in 1600, England was the largest country whose national 2 Throughout this paper, evidence will be given that the near total rejection of the use of imagery for ecclesial purposes hampered the mo narchy in the use of imagery, until the notion was challenged somewhat vigorously by James, in the latter part of his reign, for political purposes. Charles and the Arminian wing of the English Church--for religious and political purposes to extol the value and importance of the monarchy-further devalued Calvinist abhorrence for religious art and d ecoration. It is my contention that their use of art in many ways cannot be distinguished from the use of art by Ca tholics on the continent, thus the use of art by Arminians and anti-Calvinists was an obvious an d important friction for the pro-Calvinist wing of the English Church and those who would later separate entirely from Anglicanism. With the Stuart monarchys embracing of Absolutism as their core justification to rule as Gods appointed lieutenant, their use of religious and imperial iconography was indeed different from the use by Elizabeth and was more in tandem with the Catho lic monarchies. These monarchies used art in this service to further Catholicis m and their own right to rule as absolutes. James would begin to use art in the same way as these Catholic m onarchies, and Charles would use the greatest aficionados Baroque style to fu rther his own personal Absolutism as no English monarch had or would ever do again.

PAGE 102

102 church took on Reformed hues.3 This is the estimation of Philip Benedict who argues in his recent study of Calvinism. He noted that Engla nds position as a primarily Calvinist church is contested today between two groups of revisionis t historical groups. The religious history of sixteenth -century England has been larg ely rewritten in the past generation by two movements of revi sionist scholarship The first, associated with Christopher Haigh, J. J. Scarisbrick, and Eamon Duffy, has wanted to exorcise the ghosts of the Protestant national myth that equated the cause of the Reformation with the will of the people. The sequence of religi ous changes implemented by England's monarchs from Henry VIII to Elizabeth I, they st ress, was anything but the necessary consequence of a contemporaneous upsurge of evange lical sentiment among a population alienated from the late medieval church. On the c ontrary, change was imposed from above on a largely hostile or indifferent populace. The second movement, associated especially with Patrick Collinson, Nicholas Tyacke, and Pe ter Lake, has more gradually and less polemically undercut the long-es tablished projection onto the first ge nerations of the Elizabethan and Jacobean church of the Church of England's later self-image as a distinctive church tradition representing a via media between Catholicism and continental Protestantism. A salient Anglican theological traditi on of this sort did emerge in the wake of the Reformation, these historians would ag ree, but not until the last decade of the sixteenth century; it did not come to dominate the church until some point in the seventeenth. Prior to that time, the church drew its th eological inspiration from continental theology and was fundamentally Reformed in outlook. This second reinterpretation is particularly convincing becau se it has broken free of the insularity that ch aracterizes so much English historiogr aphy and situated it s subject within the range of contemporary European po ssibilities. The same is less true of the early Tudor revisionists, who display a much more limited awareness of the la rger world of European Reformation scholarship and of its implications for their topic.4 These contemporary arguments about the process of the Refo rmation both point out a considerable amount of conflict wa s generated regarding the nature of what should be preserved from the medieval English Church or jettisone d by the series of reformations begun in the sixteenth-century and continued into the seventeenth-century. However, the English monarchy looked toward Europe for its art, architecture and form of government, Absolutism. Scholars 3Philip Benedict, Christs Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven & London: Yale Univ ersity Press, 2002), 231-132. 4 Philip Benedict, 132.

PAGE 103

103 such as Patrick Collinson, Nicholas Tyacke, and Peter Lake argued for a more connected and continentally influenced English development. In following chapters, I will argue that the influence of Catholicism also could be seen in a wider European context, and the movement of James and Charles in politics, re ligion and art was made to make England less insular and in tandem with the rest of Europe and its majority religion. One of the problems the Stuart mona rchy confronted was the polit y of the English Church and its majority Calvinist theological underpinning at the beginning of the reign of James I. It resisted the openness reflected in Stuart policy toward the tradition of the medieval church on ceremony and imagery. Calvins adamant teaching in the Institutes explicitly rejected this ceremony and imagery Calvin argued: Meanwhile, since this brute stupid ity gripped the whole world to paint after visible figures of God, and thus to form gods wood, stone, gold, silver, or other dead and corruptible matter we must cling to this principle: God's glor y is corrupted by impious falsehood whenever any form is att ached to him. Therefore in the law, after having claimed for himself alone the glor y of deity, when he would teach what worship he approves or repudiates, God soon adds, "You shall not make for yourselves graven image, nor any likeness" [Ex. 20:4]. By thes e words he restrains our waywardness from trying to represent him by a visible image, and briefly enumerates all those forms by which superstition long ago began to turn his truth into falsehood. For know that the Persians worshiped the sun; all the stars they saw in the heaven s the stupid pagans also fashioned into gods themselves. There wa s almost no animal that for the Egyptian was not figure of a god. Indeed, the Greeks seemed be to wise above the rest, because they worshiped God in human form. But God does not compare these images with one another, as if one were more suitable, another less so; but with exception he repudiates all likenesses, pictures, and other signs by which the superstitious have thought he will be near them.5 Calvin calls those who are not in agreement with him: stupid, idolaters, corrupt, pagan and ignorant of Gods will for man. Imagery of anyt hing connected with the divine will also be challenged. This is particularly important, as th e king was the image of the ruler of heaven in 5 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion vol. I, ed. by John T. McNeill (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), vol. I, 100.

PAGE 104

104 most absolutist thought. The incorporeal must not be made corporal. He is emphatic in the notion that the spiritual is superior to the carnal or created order. Every stat ue of God or Christ is therefore an abomination in his theological poin t of view because one cannot make the spiritual into the carnal.6 Calvin gives very little cover for reli gious material culture in any Calvinistic centered ecclesiology.7 He argued against any kind of an appeal to the notion of incarnation theology. This theology was especially prevalent in the late Middle Ages and in the Renaissance and was emphasized in Tridentine Catholicism by such au thors as Paleotti and Borromeo as the major motivation for religious art. Though Calvin does not deny the incarnation and that God had shown himself in the material, in the flesh, and in history, he argued that direct signs of the divine presence were not enough for him to justify any religiously themed artworks. God, indeed, from time to time showed the presence of his divi ne majesty by definite signs, so that he might be said to be looked upon face to face. But all the signs that he ever gave forth aptly conformed to his plan of teaching and at the same time clearly told men of his incomprehensible essence. Fo r clouds and smoke and flame [Deut. 4: 11], although they were symbols of heavenly glory, restrained the minds of all, like a bridle placed on them, from attempting to penetrat e too deeply.The Holy Spirit appeared under the likeness of a dove [Matt. 3: 16]. Si nce, however, he vanished at once, who does not see that by one moment's symbol the fa ithful were admonished to believe the Spirit to be invisible in order that, content w ith his power and grace, they might seek no outward representation for themselves? For th e fact that God from time to time appeared in the form of a man was the prelude to his future revelation in Christ. Therefore the Jews were absolutely forbidden so to abuse this pretext as to set up for themselves a symbol of deity in human form. The mercy seat from which God manifested the presence of his power under the law was so constructed as to suggest th at the best way to contempl ate the divine is where minds are lifted above themselves with admiration. Indeed, the cherubim with wings outspread covered it; the veil shr ouded it; the place itself deeply enough hidden concealed 6 John Calvin, 100-101 7 It would also be problematic because of the religious climate in England for the king to image the divine order as expressed in the c ontemporary explanations of Absolutism including Basilikon Doron. This will be an important discu ssion in the following Chapter.

PAGE 105

105 it [Ex. 25:17-21]. Hence it is perfectly clear that those who try to defend images of God and the saints with the example of those cherubim are raving mad-men.8 By using arguments from the Old Testament, Calv in concluded that God wanted to be always veiled in mystery rather imaged. Contemporary Catholic art reformers such as Paleotti and Borromeo argued that Calvin interpretations we re wrong and the issue was not so black and white. Calvin argued that humanity had a natu ral affinity toward idolatry, which can be traced to the thoroughly corrupt nature of man. This se ction argues the ignorance of the Orthodox as well as Catholic Church. He wrote: Those who trust in them become lik e them [PS. 115: 8; cf. Ps 113b:8, Vg.]. But we must note that a "likeness" no less than a "graven image" is forbidden. Thus is the foolish scruple of the Greek Christians re futed. For they consider that they have acquitted themselves beautifully if they do not make sculptures of God, while they wantonly indulge in pictures more than any other na tion. But the Lord forbids not only that a likeness be erected to him by a maker of statues but that one be fashioned by any craftsman whatever, because he is thus represen ted falsely and with an insult to his majesty.9 Calvins rejection of imagery was so sever that stained glass was idolatrous. His greatest attack on images and the Ca tholic church is reserved in section seven of the Institutes : Therefore, if the Papists have any sh ame, let them henceforward not use this evasion, that pictures are the books of the une ducated, because it is plai nly refuted by very many testimonies of Script ure. Even if I were to grant this, ye t they would not thus gain much to defend their idols. It is well known that they set monstrosities of this kind in place of God. The pictures or statues that they de dicate to saintswhat are th ey but examples of the most abandoned lust and obscenity? If anyone wished to model himself after them, he would be fit for the lash. Indeed, br othels show harlots clad mo re virtuously and modestly than the churches show those objects wh ich they wish to be thought images of virgins. For martyrs they fashion a habit not a wh it decent. Therefore let them compose their idols at least to more moderate decency, that they may with a little more modesty falsely claim that these are books of some holiness! 10 8 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 102-103. 9 John Calvin, 104-105.

PAGE 106

106 This section concludes with a stri king criticism of the type of religious art being produced in the middle part of the sixteenth-centu ry, the high point of Mannerism. At this point Calvin lamented that art was overly sensual. The insight of some of his biographers may be helpful to understand his visceral reaction to the later artworks of Michelangelo and the Mannerists of Calvins day. According to William J. Bouwsma, the body was an extremely difficult thing for Calvin to appreciate. He noted of Calvin, lowest of all is the body, the primary source of human wickedness, and Calvin suggested that God ha d displayed his own disd ain for it by creating it from the dust in order to keep us humble. It is the body, he wrote, th at prevents us from recognizing God as the source of order in human affairs.11 Bouwsma also noted about Calvin Thoughts of the body, especially when associated with sexuali ty, could produce in his rhetoric sudden reversals in which he would switch within a single paragraph from wonder at the miracle of human procreation to a sense of the body as ordure and contagion and the procreative act as a shameful thing one dares not mention. This conventional and unbiblical attitude to the body may have had deep roots in Calvins own feelings. There is something so unaccountably shameful in the nakedness of man, he [Calvin] remarked, that scarcely anyo ne dares too look upon himself, even wh en no witness is present. This attitude also gave him theologi cal difficulties.12 This disgust of the human form and lack of appreciation of the nude certainly made imagery an obstacle for him. His disdain for the created-flesh also helped to inform his distancing from the traditional sacramental formulas of the ancient and medieval church in which the church believed that sacraments were outwa rd signs working in the material world of Gods inward grace. His lack of respect for th e material world explai ned his reasoning and understanding sacraments as only s piritual manifestations that confirm election while not truly 10 John Calvin, 106-107. 11 William J. Bouwsma, John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 80. 12 William J. Bouwsma 80.

PAGE 107

107 affecting election. Calvins lack of disregar d for the human form might also explain his apprehension of the use of images of the Incarnation, God-made-flesh. His dualism between spiritual and physical at times seemed to appro ach Manichean or Gnostic ideas about the duality of the spiritual and th e material spheres. Calvin was harsh and clear about a ssociating any kind of reverence toward locality, such as a shrine or holy place connected with an individual saint or image. For Calvin there is no room for veneration of relics or place or for the veneration of artworks connected with miracles. Many shrines were attacked in England with fe rocity. Local saints and their shrines were damaged during sporadic iconoclastic incident s, including St. Thomas Beckets, which was destroyed by order of Henry VIII. Many more shrines were damaged or destroyed during the reign of Edward VI and from time to time during the reign of Elizabeth. Those who assert that this was not done heretofore, and within our memory is still not being done, lie shamelessly. For why do they prostrate themselves before these things? Why do they, when about to pray, tu rn to them as if to Gods ears?....Why do they tire themselves out with votive pilgrimage s to see images whose like th ey have at home? Why do they take up the sword to defend thes e images today as if they were altars and hearth fires, even to the point of butchery a nd carnage, and more easily bear being deprived of the one God then of their idols? Nevert heless, I do not yet enumerate the crass errors of the multitude, which are well-nigh infinite, and which occupy the hearts of almost all men; I am only indicating what they profess wh en they especially wish to exculpate themselves of idolatry. We do not call them our gods, they say. Neither did Jews nor pagans of old so speak of them, and yet the prophets did not hesitate repeated ly to accuse them of fornication with wood and stone.13 Calvin showed a disdain for any association with pilgrimage, also a disdain for common folk as ignorant and easily led to such folly. This is in disagreement with the writings of slightly later Catholic apologists such as Paleotti or Borro meo who thought image was the most expedient way to connect religion the multitudes. 13 John Calvin, 110-11.

PAGE 108

108 For Calvin, the greatest breakers of Gods laws and injuncti ons against idolatry or religious imagery were the Cat holics or those who supported the notion of the use of image for religious purposes. It is also clear from his rhetoric that those who chose to follow their corrupt and idolatrous ways were no better than Catholics themselves. Do Calvins teachings about rejection of the use of art to mirror or illustrate th e divine within the church also have implications for following English monarc hs who attempted to de monstrate a divinely instated monarchy? Yes, if a king thought that he was the image of the King of heaven and a personal lieutenant, then such images would be idolatry. Many made such a criticism during the early Stuart period.14 Legacy of Calvin in Elizabethan England In retrospect, Henry VIII did lit tle m ore than reject papal authority, decree royal supremacy over the English Church, initiate lo calized iconoclasm, and steal a great amount of ecclesiastical property in his reform. Edward moved the church and its practice in a patently Reformed direction. Worship was only partly shorn of the Catholic practices that most other Reformed churches rejected as unbiblical. The Cat holic interlude of Mary I led Elizabeth to hold to a modified and more conservative Edwardian settle ment as the best way to bring stability in an increasingly polarized religious situation. But advancing Prot estants tried to revive the unfinished business of Edwards reign and continued to challenge royal authority during Elizabeths rule. These further reforms or innov ations were rooted in the ever-pervasive teachings of John Calvin. Through the first three decades of Elizabeths reign, successive waves of religious agitation, which sought to make and m ove the English Church truly within Calvins 14 This notion will be explored fully along with the detractors of James, but particularly Charles in the following Chapters.

PAGE 109

109 Reformed tradition. Further reform included calls for a Presbyterian form of church government, the abandonment of the office of bishop, clear theological statements about the symbolic nature of the sacraments and the removal of all religi ously offensive artwork according to the new antiimage tradition established by Calvin. Elizabeth at times seemed to be unint erested in the church as long as her personal piety or prerogative was not questioned. It is only in the late 1580s and 1590s that Elizabeth suppressed multiple Presbyterian movements. However, her repression of the movements toward further reformation did not protect her or her successors regimes from continued criticism in the press and from many preachers who continually called for further reforms and removal of more images. The English Church remained a predominan tly Reformed, indeed, Calvinist church in its theological teachings and orientation even with its mingle-mangle of austere doctrines, unreformed ecclesial courts, canon law, administra tive hierarchies and half-reformed rituals. English Distrust of Imagery Those who adhered to strict Calvinism taught, much of the suspicion surrounding monumental images was that they were compre hended through the sense of sight; and sight was not thought altogether trustworthy.15 Often for these anti-imagery theoreticians there was a tendency to see sight as a femini ne sense that also led to cert ain mistrust if representation.16 According to Nigel Llewellyn, the fear of the visu al as a feminine attribute was grounded in the general patriarchal fear of woman. Women were an uncontro lled allure, which was also 15 Nigel Llewellyn, Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 242. 16 Llewellyn, 242-243.

PAGE 110

110 important in the notion of the idolatry of the visual.17 Bishop Cleland in sermons and letters warned the young grand tourists agai nst enjoying of the visual st imuli of Catholic Europe and of wasting time on fixing their vi sion on the fine marble in Italy.18 One of the consistent themes in reformist moralizing literature was to distrust the eye. Reformer William Clarke in his works condemned the images of Catholicism as all for the snar e the heart of a carnal man, bewitching it with so great gl istering of the painted harlot.19 For the true adherents of Calvinism, Gods worship is in Spirit & trueth; and poperies is in gold and silver & pearle, and crucifixes, and Agnus deis all for the eye, a nd to share the heart of a carnall man, bewitching it with so gr eat glistering of the painted harlot.20 Cosmetics also covered the truth, distorted the natural look of women, and there by distorted the handiwork of God by wrapping it in vanity. Many examples of women being compared to a baser mettle or being gilded like statues. One such work is by Thomas Tuke who commented on cosmetics, of poisoning and murder, of pride and ambition, a nd has one chapter in his work named The picture of a Picture or the character of a painted woman.21 Art and deception are linked in the 17 Llewellyn 243. 18 James Cleland, Hero-paideia, or The institution of a young noble man by James Cleland (Oxford: Printed by Ioseph Barnes, 1607), 261. 19 Llewellyn, 243. 20 William Charke, An answere to a seditious pamphlet lately cast abroade by a Iesuite conteyning ix. articles heere inserted and set downe at large, with a discouerie of that blasphemous sect. By William Charke (Imprinted at London: By Chri stopher Barker, printer to the Queenes most excellent Maiestie, Anno 1581), B.viii. 21 Thomas Tuke, A discourse against painting and tin cturing of women Wherein the abominable sinnes of murther and poysoning, pr ide and ambition, adultery and witchcraft are set foorth & discouered. Whereunto is added The pi cture of a picture, or the character of a painted woman (Imprinted at London: By Thomas Creede and Bernard Alsop for Edward Marchant, 1616).

PAGE 111

111 minds of many of those who followed Calvins theological premises, and they are linked to essentially feminine attributes of fallen nature, which can be tr aced as far back as Eve and the apple as models of feminine deception. Even the use of color was fraud according to Calvins thoughts. He noted how color was used for deceit and allure, wypping aw ay all deceitful color, shoulde set them forth to be seen of the simple shuche as they be.22 The use of enhanced color in art hid the natural surfaces of Gods creation. This ornamentation aroused th e notion of an obscuring quality to hide the Creators original intentions. Replication of na ture then was allowable as an art form but the enhancement to deceive or make more beautiful th an the original creation was at the very least not genuine and at the wo rst, dangerous ruse. Because of these multiple fears raised by these critics of art, William Harrison, a court preacher and anti-Catholic, noted that the work of English yeomen was merry without malice, and plain without inward Italian or French craft and subtlety.23 To be influenced by the Italian or the French was to be identified with popery an d its subtle, corrupting forces. Plain work that echoed the Creator was acceptable as long as it did not reflect the ar tistic tastes of the continent and remained simple repetition of nature. These critics of art were correct in their notions of decep tion in art. Single point perspective, the illusion of dept h, even the notion of idealism was in itself a type of deception. Technical sleights of the hand were used to create works intentionally to fool the eye. Often 22 Jean Calvin, The institution of Christian religion, vvrytten in Latine by maister Ihon Caluin, and translated into Englysh according to the authors last edition. Seen and allowed according to the order appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions (Imprinted at London: By Reinolde VVolfe & Richarde Harison, Anno. 1561), 148. 23 Joel Hurstfield and Alan G. R. Smith, Elizabethan People: State and Society (New York: St. Martins Press, 1972), 28.

PAGE 112

112 stone was painted by English masons to appear as bronze. Numerous examples of these types of works appear throughout England for the obvious reason that stone was cheaper. This kind of technical deception was more evid ent in painting and was a probl em for those who distrusted images in general. In his diary written in 1603-1604, John Manningham observed, The divel, like those painters which are skillful in the art of perspective, taketh pleasure, by false coulurs and deceitful shadowes, to make those things seeme farthest of which are nerest of hand.24 The stage arts were not immune to criticism by the commentators of the day. Though the Elizabethan and Jacobean ages were noted for their love and patronage of theater, there was ample criticism of this art form by true beli evers. By the time of the English Civil War, Thomas Fuller, a critic of the arts as well as the Stuart monarchy assessed that plays and masques shews [not] substance, marking alone Page nts, Pictures, beautiful Buildings etc.,25 and the stage in particular should be avoi ded by English either at home or in travels for goodness is not portrayed out with equall accents of li veliness as the wicked things are.26 Even Shakespeare was banned in the years of the inte rregnum as decadent and subversive.27 The common thread about all arts connected to image, from the strict est view of the adherents of Calvinism--was that art was deceptive and coul d and would most likely lead to idolatry. 24 John Manningham, The diary of Jo hn Manningham, edited by J. Bruce, Camden Society XCIX (London, 1868): 43. 25 Thomas Fuller, The holy state (Cambridge: Printed by R. D. for John Williams, 1648), 158. This is a second edition work originally printed in 1642. 26 Thomas Fuller, 185. 27 Jack Lynch, Becoming Shakespeare: The Unlikely Afte rlife that Turned a Provincial Playwright into the Bard ( New York: Walker, 2007). Jack Lynch, in one of the most recent scholarly treatments of Shakespeare, notes that during the English Civil Wa r, all plays, including Shakespeare's, were banned by the triumphant Pu ritans because of what was considered their lascivious, immoral content.

PAGE 113

113 Calvinism in Protestant Europe and Its Effects on English Image Much unease arose in the English Church about continued use of the religious buildings inherited from its Catholic past. The continuity of worship could be justified on financial and practical gro unds but as Archbishop Whitgift admitted in 1574, Many be offended with our churches, and will neither hear sermon nor receive the sacraments in them.28 The position of Elizabethan separatists, such as John Penry, a nd Henry Barrow or the Commonwealth sectarians such as Samuel Chidley, was uncompromising. They argued that the old Catholic church buildings were wholly unacceptable even if they were stripped of their ornaments and popery. The orientation, shape, and structure were intrinsically idolatrous and they had to be leveled and begun again.29 Some English looked outside of England for something different. There were Protestant models. Ca lvinism influenced the artwork and architecture of France and the Low Countries. These countries we re the most important examples of Calvinist theory put into practice. Protestants from Englan d encountered these prototypes in their travels. Though France was never in serious danger of becoming Protestant, many tumultuous years of struggle existed between Catholic forces and Huguenot s. Philip Benedict noted that the effect of the reformed tradition on religious imagery wa s usually negative in both of these areas. Inside such Huguenot-controlled citi es as Rouen and Orleans, events followed a pattern that would be repeated a decade late r in many parts of the Low Countries. Initially, the new Protestant masters proclaimed a commitment to religious toleration and allowed 28 The Works of John Whitgift ed. John Ayre (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1851-53), 2:60. 29 Keith Thomas, English Protesta ntism and Classical Art in Albions Classicism: The Visual Arts in Britain, 1550-1660 ed. Lucy Gent (Yale University Press, New Haven & London, 1995), 227.

PAGE 114

114 Catholic worship to continue. Soon the polar izing effects of warf are swept aside the voicesof moderation. The churches were purified of their altars and statues in great waves oficonoclasm. Catholic services ceased as priests fled in fe ar for their lives.30 Iconoclasm was an effect of the Reformation in both France and the Low Countries. However, one exception for the use of repr esentation was the press in such works as The Overturning of the Great Marmite (A-17). As in England, the gra phic arts were used extensively in the Protestant cause. There were positive uses of the arts and architecture employed by Calvinists in France. After the Edict of Nantes granted in 1598 Protestants liberty of conscience along with freedom of worship there emerged, until the revocation of the Edict, the development of Protestant architecture and furnishings in Prot estant areas of France. Prime examples of these temples erected, outside of the city limits usually, such as The Temple of Charenton (A-18) which originally built in 1606 and rebuilt after 1621, and the Temple of Bourg-LAbbe (A-19) which was finished in 1612. The Temple of Charenton was a larg e structure that used an elongated nave and various levels of galleries as a modifi ed basilica for optimum hearing of the Word. Salmon de Brosse (designer of the Luxembourg Place for Marie de Medici) designed the replacement temple. Its symbolic place as the temple for the Parisian community, and the spread of the design beyond France assured the Charenton temple of enormous pr estige and elevated it in some ways to the position of the ideal temple or, more appropria tely, the ideal of the Protestant temple.31 These French Protestant churches exemplified extreme simplicity, some of the these structures can be 30 Philip Benedict, Christs Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism (New Haven & London: Yale Un iversity Press, 2002), 145. 31 Helene Guicharnaud, An Introduction to the Architecture of Protes tant Temples, in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition (Cambridge & Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1999), 137.

PAGE 115

115 effectively compared, if not to the barn so disd ained by the Catholics, at least to models in use for local civil architecture and adopted to the needs of Protestant worship.32 The temple of Bourg-lAbbe at Caen (A-19) was in the form of a central plan. It had a two-tiered roof, a small tower for a bell, and a lantern at each end. As in the temple of Charenton (A-20), the interior had no visual or acoustical obstacle [that] stood between preacher and congregation.33 The first order of business for architects and contractors was to create a structural arrangement that would be well suited to the sermon service, that most important and elementary feature of Reformed wo rship. They [architects] strove to eliminate any possible obstacle between preacher and congregation.34 Decoration of these temples was severe. Ornament did vary somewhat from church to church. It usually included the coat of arms of the local elite, municipal arms, or royal ar ms. The only religious deco rations were biblical inscriptions, and there was usually a Decalogue Board (A-21).35 The Huguenots followed Calvins exhortation on the arts to the letter th at no representations of the divinity, saints, or angelic figures were to be loca ted in the place of worship. Another important country that i nvolved many Englishmen in trade as well as religious sympathy was The Netherlands. This Country tried to gain religious and political freedom from Hapsburg dominion during the second half of th e sixteenth-century and much of the early seventeenth-century. The Netherlands, as with England, was a reformation from the top down with limited support for the Protestant minority who gradually gained majority status. The 32 Helene Guicharnaud, 141. 33 Helene Guicharnaud, 141. 34 Helene Guicharnaud, 153. 35 Helene Guicharnaud, 154.

PAGE 116

116 character of the Netherlands reform must be put in context of a mo re widely influenced reform. Calvinism in the Netherlandic context, particul arly for the period prio r to the Synod of Dort, needs to be seen in a more inclusive unde rstanding of the term Reformed as The Netherlands had an indigenous reform ation under way well before Jean Calvin turned from Catholic to Protestant. In the early years of the sixteenth-century the reformation movement in the Netherlands was fed by local theologiansErasmus not least among themthen informed by other th eologians, particularly Martin Luther.36 Thus Calvinism did gain an upper hand as the underpinning of the Netherlandic Reformation, especially in iconoclastic activ ity, something Erasmus would conde mned as a lover of not only art but church art as well. Luth er also would have been unimpre ssed with their destructive zeal. One exception for the use of image in instruction was polemical texts. Hendrick Goltziuss work Christs Fulfillment of 1578 (A-22) illustrated the combination of the Word and Image. This was a common type of graphic art used in instructional books in the Netherlands. It confronted Calvins notion that image was not useful for teaching. Hendrick Hondius with his work Papist Pyramid (A-23), circa 1599, is t ypical of the anti-papal tradition combining fierce attack and diabolical illustrati on of Catholicism during the Nether landish civil wars. Literature could be enhanced with art to teach an ideology. Dutch illustrations of the period are also helpful in documenting the movement toward the Calvinist aesthetic for church d ecoration. Jan Wierix did a series of illustrati ons centering on reformation piety. Give Us This Day our Daily Bread (A-24) is a description of a Reformed congregation listening to a sermon, the bread of the spirit. In the background is a man at a table 36 James R. Tanis, Netherlandish Reformed Traditions in the Graphic Arts, 1550-1630 in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition (Cambridge & Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1999), 420.

PAGE 117

117 giving thanks for real bread. The action is set in a Catholic church, complete with an altar in the background where a priest celebrat es the Mass. The church is decorated in the traditional Catholic fashion with statues a nd a high altar where a crucifix dominates the scene. In his second edition of the work (A-25) the church was stripped of all offending art and the priest is replaced by a minister, a communal table, a nd a plain wall behind it. Though Calvinism certainly did not impede the flowering of seve nteenth-century art in Holland, nor did it ever intend to do so. Calvinists were opposed to relig ious altarpieces and representation of anything associated with the divine, which they had banished from their own circles.37 Further examples of the banishment of religious art are numerous during the period of 1560-1630 in the Netherlands. One case study is St. Bavos in Haarlem. St. Bavos (Figure 3-1), was erected as a typical northern Gothic cath edral encrusted with decoration, statuary and splendid stained glass windows. These Catholic decorations were expunged from this important building in the late sixteenth a nd early seventh century. Painti ngs were banned from the main body of the church, the interior wa s nevertheless enriched with or nate choir screen, pulpits, and tombs. In addition, costly stained glass windows that had not served a liturgical purpose were retained, provided they did not co ntain any overtly Catholic motifs.38 Examples of such removals are typified by St. Bavo. In St. Bavo in Haarlem, the glass panels depicting the Trinity and the donor, Joris van Egmond, bishop of Utr echt, were removed fr om the large window designed by Barent van Orley. In or around 1595 they were repla ced by scenes illustrating an 37 Ilja M. Veldman, Protestantism and the Arts: Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century Netherlands in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition (Cambridge & Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdma n Publishing Company, 1999), 419. 38 Ilja M. Veldman, 412.

PAGE 118

118 episode from Haarlems history; the augmenta tion of the citys coat of arms by Emperor Frederic II.39 Other examples of iconoclasm in churches were chronicl ed in Frans Hogenbergs Iconoclasm of 1566 (A-27). Iconoclast s pull down statues, break offending windows, hacks apart an altarpiece, and tear up ec clesiastical garments. One of th e captions reads, after a little preaching of the Calvinist religion.40 Most of the great churches of the northern Netherlands were treated this way by 1600. An examination of the Interior of St. Bavos Haarlem (A-26) shows that all offending art had been removed from this former cathedral no longer known as St. Bavos, but after the cl eansing, the Great Church.41 A plain style, exemplified by the French innovations and the Dutch stripping of artwork seems to have been absorbed and imitated by the English in a few English chapels that were constructed in the early 1600s. Pr otestant books illustrating the ar chitecture and decorative habits of fellow Protestants and Calvinist leaning-c hurches made it to England. In addition, the expanding travel of the English aristocracy and merchant classes, after the peace with Spain, brought them into direct contact with these designs of churches in France and the Netherlands. Several examples of these English plain style buildings are Langley Chapel, Shropshire, constructed circa 1601 (A-28) and Toxteth Ch apel, Liverpool, 1604 (A -29, A-30, A-31). Other examples no longer exist or their decorations an d redesigns do not allo w historians a clear 39 Ilja M. Veldman, 412. 40 Philip Benedict, Christs Churches Purely Reformed, 183. 41 I have visited St. Bavos on several occasions It is even starker without people in the building, as shown in the paintings from the se venteenth-century, and it still looks much the same as it did when painted in the 1640s.

PAGE 119

119 picture of their original constructions or revetments. Puri tans who sought to remain in the established English Church desi gned or redecorated buildings, such as Langley Chapel, with simple rectangular elegance in stone. The building initially had a structural chancel. It was oriented in the traditional medieval manner with a priests door at the south side. The interior was arranged so communicants could sit around a simp le table. The table is very small and could not serve many. The rest of the church was used as an auditory. Christopher Stell noted the communion kneelers were likely an addition afte r the restoration and not in the original.42 The simplicity of this chapel is stark being devoi d of any decoration, including stained glass. Another less modest building is T oxteth Chapel, Liverpool. This chapels first minister was Richard Mather, who reluctantly accepted ordinati on in the English Church to minister to his congregation. Mather was accused of unorthodox pr actices, omitting the sign of the cross in baptism, and failing to administer the sacrament to communicants kneeli ng. In 1635 he followed the footsteps of many of his fellow Puritans and set sail for the New World.43 His chapel at Toxteth still stands (A-29, A-30, A-31) relatively undist urbed though the walls were raised in the eighteenth century and a larger entrance was added at that time.44 This chapel illustrates what will become the typical eighteenth-century meetinghouse layout, with the pulpit against a longer side wall.45 It would be for those who eventually left the English Church to wipe away 42 Christopher Stell, Puritan and Nonconf ormist Meetinghouses in England in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition (Cambridge & Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1999), 52. 43 Christopher Stell, 54. It has been estimate d that between twenty and thirty thousand religious dissidents immigr ated to the New England co lonies between 1620 and 1642. 44 Christopher Stell, 56. 45 Christopher Stell, 56.

PAGE 120

120 completely all of the old popish holdovers such as cancels, communion rails, religious art and kneeling at communion. Pressures against Image in Elizabethan England W ithin a short time of her acce ssion, Elizabeth began to dismantle some of the reconstruction of ecclesiastical decoration and furn ishings of churches reinstated by her sister Mary I. According to Margaret Aston, Marian Cat holics had not just restor ed the familiar face of English parish churches before Edward, but they countered in the most positive manner the image-denying Protestants. In the church of Ma ry I, the crucifix was to be blazoned in the centre of the church; the cult of the local saint was physically rest ated. Old, faded and diminutive carvings would not meet the new standards. The stat ues were to be large and ablaze with color. It was a time when many aging craftsmen found themselves back in demand, a time for burnishing rusty tools.46 These tools, largely, would be laid to rest until the advent of the Stuarts.47 There were many who were happy with this change [return to the Catholic past] comforted by the return of accustomed sight. Yet things could never be the same again. The restored cross and crucifix, church patron, and adorned altar now held a new significance. These were dogmatic response to the iconoclasts and a speaking of the teachings of the church in the laymans painted book.48 Whatever else Marys brief reign accomplishe d, it surely brought home to many parishioners the state of flux in things religious. Who can not doubt that the faiths of Word and Image were 46 Margaret Aston, Englands Iconoclasts Volume I, Laws Against Images (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988), 289. 47 Margaret Aston, 289-291. 48 Margaret Aston, 294.

PAGE 121

121 not allies, but opponents?49 Elizabeth tried to split the diffe rence between her si blings, at least in her own chapel. However, her Puritan bi shops did further damage to church fabric. Elizabeth was heralded by reform-m inded Englishmen as an Old Testament figure like Deborah who was to complete the purification of the church, which in her case entailed repurging England of its monks and its Mass, as well as destroying, or redestroying, its idols.50 Her attempts at this were half-hearted at best and hypocritical at worst, considering that she kept much of the faade of the Latin Mass (now in English) in her own personal chapel, including richly decorated vestments and the crucifix at the center of the altar as in the style of the English Church when in union with Rome. This hold over was an unwelcome compromise to the Puritans and more committed Calvinists with idolaters. Elizabeths difficulties in constructing her religious settlement came from the diverse opin ions of her subjects but also because of the diverse precedents built up in the previous twenty years of the last three Tudors.51 Though Elizabeth allowed and reaffirmed through the canons of the church, the laws passed by Parliament and injunctions by her father and he r brother for the removal of images, Elizabeth amended these injunctions to be more accommodating for images not connected with superstition.52 This was a complete disappointment to most of her bishops and many of the reform-minded writers and clergy.53 49 Margaret Aston, 294. 50 Margaret Aston, 295. 51 Margaret Aston, 296. 52 Margaret Aston, 299. 53 Margaret Aston, 298-300.

PAGE 122

122 The royal proclamation issued by Elizabeth I on 19 September 1560, to suppress iconoclasm was somewhat important for the preserva tion of some images, how ever there is little evidence for the creation of religious or absolutist art sponsored by Elizabeth. She did temper iconoclasm with moderation. This was expressed in her revision of Edwards injunctions to be less strident, more subtle. The Queens Majesty, understanding that by the means of sundry people, partly ignorant, partly malicious, or covetous, there hath been of late years spoiled and broken certain ancient monuments, some of metal, some of stone, which were erected up as well in churches as in other public places with in this realm only to show a memory to the posterity of the person there buried, or that ha d been benefactors to the bu ilding or donations of the same churches or public place s, and not to nourish any kind of superstition; By which means not only the c hurches and places remain at this present day spoiled broken, and ruinated, to the offense of all noble and gentle hearts and the extinguishing of the honorable and good memory of sundry virtuous and noble persons deceased; but also the true understanding of diverse families in the realm (who have descended of blood of the same persons deceased) is thereby so darkened as the true cour se of their inheritance may be hereafter interrupted contrary to justice, besides many other offenses that hereof do ensure to the slander of such as either gave or had charge in times past only to deface monuments of idolatry and false fei gned images in churches a nd abbeys; and therefore, although it be very hard to recover things broken and sp oiled, yet both to provide that no such barbarous disorder be hereafter us ed, and to repair as much of the said monuments as conveniently may be: Her majesty chargeth and comm andeth all manner of persons hereafter to forbear the breaking or defacing of any parcel of any monument, or tomb, or grave, or other inscription and memory of any person deceased being in any manner of place, or to break any image of Kings, princes, or noble estates of this realm, or of any other that have been in times past erected and set up for the only memory of them to their posterity in common churches and not for any religious honor, or to break down or deface any image in glass windows in any church without consent of the ordinary. Upon pain that whosoever shall herein be found to offend to be committed in the next jail, and there to remain without bail or mainprize unto the next coming of the justices for the delivery of the said jail, and then to be further punished by fine or imprisonment (besides the restituti on or reedification of the thing broken) as to the said justices hall seem meet, using therein the advice of the or dinary and (if need shall be ) the advice also of her majestys council in her Star Chamber.54 54 Paul L. Hughes and James F. Larkin, (eds.) Tudor Royal Proclamations Volume II The Later Tudors (1553-1587) (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1969), 146-147.

PAGE 123

123 The key points of this injunction were that iconoclasm had gone to o far, the iconoclasts are variously motivated for gain, often taking valuables, or overzealous or just plain ignorant. They had broken a range of commemorative and liturgical objects that were no t idolatrous. Tomb breaking damages the honorable memory of the dead and destroys valuable data, and the original terms of the ordinance against idolatry have b een exceeded. No more tombs or secular images are to be broken and that only certain types of painted glass can be br oken if it were deemed idolatrous. All losses are to be recourse and any legal damage repa ired, and that the terms of the proclamation are to be supported by threat of excommunication. The local church authority, the bishop, should work in tandem with the states highest authority before there is any more destruction of imagery. Ironically, the bishops were often instrumental in iconoclasm. Indeed the royal chapel of Elizab eth held out firm against the image-breakers, while a running fight went on. Repeatedly, the personal crucifix of Elizabeth was damaged or stolen by image-breakers in the royal chap el. The injunctions ordered in 1660 to preserve, not destroy images, especially funeral monument s as well as statues and paintings55 may have been a response to the iconoclasm personally experience d by Elizabeth herself. Her own ancestors tombs had been ravaged along with her cross. Yet, the official stance a bout image was confusing. Astons study of various outbreaks of iconoclasm explained the importance of the subtlety in Elizabeths injunctions and the difficulty in tryi ng to satisfy an ever religiously diverse nation. For example, Elizabeths second injunction reworded the 1547 order to the clergy against preaching in favor of images from the Edwardian form of they shall not set forth or extol any images, relics, or miracles, for any superstition or lucre, nor lure the people by any enticements to the pilgrimage of any saint or image; but reprov ing the same to they shall not set forth or 55 Margaret Aston, Englands Iconoclasts Volume I, 314.

PAGE 124

124 extol the dignity of any images, relics, or miracles; but declaring the abuse of the same.56 Elizabeth slightly moderated the Edwardian anti pathy to image. Elizabeth reworded other injunctions by Edward that attacked images to leave out the injunction against images all together.57 Elizabeth did not intend to put the clock back to 1548. But she did little to defend or promote images for the church or for the state exce pt portraits that flattered her. Elizabeth left no unified or clear precedent in England on the use of or the destruction of images. The confused and convoluted use of images in Elizabeths middle of the road construction allowed for places in England to keep their precious religious artworks. But in other locals, crowds rampaged through the streets wi th royal injunction in hand, and destroyed all images they came across, not just those connected to abuse spoken of in softened Elizabethan injunctions.58 Oddly, it was the bishops she elevated, even as she disposed of the Marian bishops, who were significantly responsible fo r iconoclasm in the Elizabethan period. The preaching of Puritan Elizabethan Bishops, which en couraged isolated destruction of images, and these eruptions occurred more than once during her long reign in various areas of the country.59 Aston noted that the bishops inte rpretation, in their inspections for erroneous images, led to the removal of all imagery in churches. 56 Margaret Aston, 299. 57 Margaret Aston, 299. 58 Margaret Aston, 299-303. 59 Margaret Aston, 320-330. Aston argued that Elizabeth was often at odds with the extreme iconoclasm of her own cler gy. So why did she appointed them in the first place. Others with a more moderate tone could have been found in England. It seems that she feared a radical Protestant backlash rather than a traditionali st or Catholic backlash according to her appointments of Puritan bishops.

PAGE 125

125 One point is clear when one examin es the Tudor reign: all but one of the Tudors had a religious tradition that allowed fo r some kind of religious imagery to survive. Henry VIII and Elizabeth I had more in common with Mary than is sometimes allowed for: given the choice they preferred some of the comforts of ancient ritual to the brilliant nakedness of the new Word.60 However, the later Tudors were pressured by the religious forces to purify England of all of its remaining idolatry and popery. With the notab le exception of Edward VI, whose title of young Josiah seems well earned, the T udor monarchs appeared to have been united in holding out against the iconoclasts, trying to re strain the destroyers and safegua rded the existence of at least some imagery.61 Elizabeth could be judged prudent in her lack of restraint against iconoclasm, as it was often popularly motivated. However, her actions could be viewed as cowardly in that she did not uphol d her own personal beliefs about imagery as exemplified in her private chapel. Though Elizabeth insisted on her cr ucifix and candles at her high altar, no evidence supports her commissioning any relig ious paintings for churches or cathedrals. But she did have a tapestry of a crucifixion behind her alta r as a replacement for her damaged crucifix.62 Her use of art hardly extended to the personal or to historical pr opaganda of her dynasty, as did her fathers, with the exception of portraiture. Issues about imagery remained unsettled during and immediately after her reign. How does one balan ce traditional religious observance with the 60 Margaret Aston, 341. 61 Margaret Aston, 341. 62 Margaret Aston, 313. In 1567, after another breaking of her crucifix by an offending youth, she replaced the cross for a while with a ta pestry of the Crucifixion that hung directly behind the communion table. Af ter the youth broke the candlesticks around Christmas of that year, he was taken to the Tower of London at the Queens order.

PAGE 126

126 rejection of the traditi on by a small but ever growing party within the church, especially when this minority often casted off authority and tradit ion as non-essential? How does England insert herself into the emerging culture of the day w ith such conflicting view s on the arts at home? Elizabeth did not grapple with this issue, but James did. The answer for James was a moderate change, an enhancement of imagery in church an d state. The response by Charles was to turn toward the more traditional elements of his C hurch and embrace image making, even religiously themed works such as the Banqueting House Cycle. For Charles, art was to be used for the service of an absolutist th eory of church and state. Difference in Tastes and Use of Art: Tudor verses Stuart It is difficult to describe in sim ple categories the religious persuasions of early modern England. It is even more difficult to place in certain and strict cat egories the particular kinds of monuments and artworks produced for these vari ous religious groups. By-and-large one can see first the High Church, anti-Calvinist faction, with a broad adhesion to the terms of the Elizabethan Settlement and their defense of hierar chical relationship between the bishops and the monarchy. They embraced much of the Catholic past as far as art and ceremony and had an affinity to church traditions. They were the most conservative element in the English Church. English Catholics, still in significant numbers in 1600, were able to produce consistent traditional artworks but in vastly less numbers because of religious pressures and the fear of iconoclasm and further persecutions. Puritans and Calvinists were inconsistent in their own use of artworks for tombs or for portrait purposes. The religious spectrum of England, as opposed to Catholic Europe, exhibited a particularly destabil ized backdrop for the use of art as a propaganda tool. Though Elizabeth or the English Church leadership sparingly used religious art during her reign, the use of religious art began to be revive d from the beginning of Jamess. This was lead

PAGE 127

127 by the high-church party. This turn toward a visual culture was not well received by Puritans and Calvinists who gave priority to godly pr eaching always seeking a society based on moral order and personal piety. Puritans often regarded the High Church pa rty as tainted by the theology of Arminius and Catholicism and th e High Church party co uld not distinguish Anabaptist and antinomians from Puritans. 63 An example of this mistrust of imagery is the Puritan bishop of Gloucester, Miles Smith, who expressed his outrage at Dean William Lauds reorganization of the cathedr al furnishings in 1616. Bi shop Smith, after seeing the reintroduction of previously disavowed art, vo wed never to enter the building again until the popish decorations were expunged.64 He was incensed about the return of the altar to the traditional position, replacement of a few images of biblical saints and the use of candles sticks at the altar with a simple cross. For Smith, an avowed Puritan, these were retrogressions back to popery. For Laud, these were well within his under standing of the injunctions of Elizabeth and the Canon law of the English Church. As futu re archbishop of Canterbury, Laud would enforce the injunctions and code in this direction and beyond. Unlike the Catholics who embraced art, Protestants who followed Calvins basic theories on art and Puritans argued that tr ue religious expression was essent ially verbal, not visual. The visual faith and the verbal faith found reconc iliation difficult. This was seen in the futile attempt to bring together Catholicism and the Reformed tradition in France at the Colloquy of St. Germain-en-Laye in 1562. The debate was restri cted to the use of images. Two groups of theologians from both churches hoped to meet somewhere in the middle. Calvins point 63 J. Sears McGee, The Godly Man in Stuart England. Anglicans, Puritans and the two Tables, 1620-1670 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1976), 2. 64 David Verey and Alan Brooks, Gloucestershire 2 The Vale and the Forest of Dean, 2nd edition, from the series The Buildings of England (London: Yale University Press, 1976), 202.

PAGE 128

128 expressed that images are not simply against Gods commandmentthey are also superfluous to, and actually detract from, where God reveals himself to usin the Word.65 This stood in contrast to the common Catholic an d Lutheran opinions that images are the Bible of the illiterate, or that one can now show God as he revealed hi mself as a human, like us in all things but sin. The notions of Catholic art theo rists who followed the Council of Trent, such as Bellarmine and Paleotti, argued art could be a spiritual ladd er to greater communion with the divine than preaching was anathema to reformed Christians. Puritans and other Calvinists who followed John Calvin rejected these noti ons and remained unconvinced. Th eir view as one of the most literate groups in the early mode rn period was that the literate had no need of images. The Word could stand on its own. Painting in Protestant England The portrait was the m ost importan t expression of art in E ngland during the reign of Elizabeth, though other forms of painting such as Greek and Roman mythology were painted for the nobility of the day.66 Henry VII and Henry VIII both commissioned murals and frescoes at Whitehall (destroyed in the fire) as other Cat holics of their period portraying their military exploits that emphasized the divine plan in th eir victories. However, no great muralist or portrait painter worked for the cour t of Elizabeth. Most of the portraiture for the queen was done as gifts for Elizabeth by courtier s who were trying to flatter Gloriana. A prime example of this 65 David Willis-Watkins, The Second Commandment and Church Reform: The Colloquy of St. Germain-en Laye, 1562 (Princeton: Princeton Theological Seminary, 1994). This text describes the major issues between the Reformed Tradition, Catholicism, and Lutheranism on the use of images. Willis-Watkins argued that it is the reliance/over reliance of the reformed churches use of the Old Testament--as the basis for their rejection of imagery--that was used traditionally from the earliest times of the Christian church. 66 Eric Mercer, English Art 1553-1625 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962), 145.

PAGE 129

129 type of painting is Elizabeth and the Three Goddesses of 1659 (A-32), which shows Elizabeth awarding herself the prize for her virtue. He re the goddesses symbolize virginity (Venus), marriage (Hera queen of the gods and patron of motherhood), something always on the mind of her court officials, and Pallas who represents armed might. Elizabeth repres ents Paris, and at the same time, awards herself, as the goddesses flee her virtuous magnificence. Another intere sting and illustrative work is An Allegory of the Tudor Succession (A-33) painted by Hans Epworth. This work features a seated Henry VIII flanked on the one side by Mary and Philip of Spain with a figure of Mars, and on the other by Elizabeth and Edward VI who are flanked by Peace and Plenty. A painting is devoid of religious symbolism and scarcely evokes notions of Greek or Roman virtue.67 One important aspect of this work is the positioning of the figures in the work. Inte restingly, the right side (facing the direction of those portrayed), which is traditionally reserved in painting and artworks for the elect or the redeemed, shows Philip and Mary. Elizabeth and Edward are on the left or traditionally the dammed or enemies side. In all the Judgments painted in the Renais sance and Middle Ages this formula of those on the right being the redeemed and those on the left being the dammed is reversed in this portrait. Even with this anomaly, it is most commonly asse rted that this work is a prime example of Protestant propaganda about the favorable succes sion of Protestant monarchs and their peaceful and prosperous rule. In r eality, Elizabeths reign was c onnected with ongoing wars and economic decline. Elizabeth rule was romanticized during James Is reign. No evidence shows that Elizabeth commissioned any paintings that were religious in nature. Surviving paintings [by E nglish artists] on religious subjec ts of the period are extremely 67 Eric Mercer, 146-147.

PAGE 130

130 rare.68 Two notable exceptions during the early part of Elizabeths reign are An Allegory of Man (A-34) and Allegory of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (A-36). Both works may have been intended for a Protestant patron. Karen Hearns analysis of the ar twork noted no intermediary in the Allegory of Man therefore making it Protestant, but sh e neglected to notice that an angel hovering over the man in the cen ter of the painting that clea rly comes between him and the traditionally rendered resurrected Christ. The angel seems to be assisting the man caught in the pull of earthly pleasures, a rather intercessorial posture. This work does not seem to be so conclusively Protesta nt in nature, and The Allegory is just as inconclusive. They may have been made for Catholics. No evidence indicates that Elizabeth collected any religious art. From what scholars have been able to discover, religious paintings were not central in th e collections she inherited. They were central to the collections of contemporary princes in Italy, France, and Spanish dominions. Some of the English peers also continued to c onserve and collect relig ious works by great and minor artists during the Elizabethan period.69 Most nobles in following he r lead in the arts began to collect and commission portraiture or classicall y themed art, and they stayed away from most works that directly inferred religion. Works lik e the above-mentioned religious allegories ceased to be commissioned on any kind of regul ar basis during her reign (1558-1603). Though interest in painting still exis ted in Elizabeths early modern England, options were severely limited by the ideology of the English Re form. For the Protestant aristocracy, who were more traditional, the options and comforts of art and artists in general were hampered by the 68 Karen Hearn, Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630 (New York: Rizzoli, 1996), 74. 69 Eric Mercer, 148-49.

PAGE 131

131 iconoclasm and anti-art attitude of the Lords Spiritual, the senior churchmen. Many of the peers were still secretly Catholic. A conservative estimate shows that as many as twenty percent were still committed to the Old Church.70 For the aristocracy, one such comfort was to place tapestries, generally imported, and others hanging s upon formerly bare or painted walls of many rooms: and, in consequence, to reduce the dema nd for domestic murals. These also had the advantage of being taken down or hidden if a particularly Puritan visitor came a calling. At the same time there was practically no demand for chur ch murals as the doctrines of the Reformers enforced a decent plainness upon religious buildings,71 which was enforced zealously by most bishops during the rei gn of Elizabeth. Portrait painting, which had often included religious themes and symbolic statements about the belief of the subject of the portrait, saw those themes ex cised from much of the artwork of the Elizabethan period. In this situation, the most reasonabl e opportunity for the painter to express ideals in portraiture were the concepts embraced by Humanism. The stress on the individual that was th e most revolutionary concept of the period entailed, for all its liberating influence, [t here were] some severe restrictions. It considered an interest in mankind to be an in terest in persons, histor y to be a pageant of theirs and remained a matter of direct communication between a man and his Maker.72 English painting in this Protesta nt era tended toward the cult of the individual, and the artwork that read as religious emphasized the individual rather th an the divine. 70 This is the low-end estimate of Christophe r Haigh whose research shows the reluctance and slow advance of Protestantism in the Elizabethan age. This is pointe d out in his essay The Church of England, the Catho lics and the People found in The Reign of Elizabeth I (Athens Georgia: The University of Georgia Press, 1985). The underestimation of the residual resistance of Catholicism in Early Modern England is the major subject of his many works. 71 Eric Mercer, 149-150. 72 Eric Mercer, 149-150.

PAGE 132

132 Art historians, such as Eric Mercer also saw the beginnings of a proto-absolutist trend expressed in the Elizabethan period through this type of portrait painting. Thus, for Mercer, individualism was a force that helped cha nge the iconography and helped to usher the disappearance of Catholic or Christian expression. The more private nature of religion and the consequent attitude toward idolatry eliminated any great desire for paintings of biblical subject or of individual saints and Madonnas. With the painter in too humble a position to express whatever objection they may have had and with the narrative tradition of mural pain ting exerting no influence, the easel painting of the period was, in essence, a reflection of the ideas of the absolute state and its creatures and creator [the monarchy].73 Painting and then sculpture emphasized the histori cal nature of the king or queen and the state, unlike the historical narratives being created in the Hapsburg dominions and in Italy. English portraiture was closer to a form of ancesto r worship-veneration w ith no overt religious expression, unlike European counterparts. This ancestor veneration was expressed in tomb sculpture of the period. Mercer examined the art collections of significant nobleme n such as Leicester and Lumleys collections that emphasized the important men of history as an cestors. This kind of collection showed some of the prevailing ideas on the importa nce of the individual and the nature of the state developing in Elizabethan England. Mercers re search concluded that inventories were quite cat holic [universal] in thei r range and mingled, with an apparent lack of discrimination, friends and foes, co-religionist and heretic, Englishmen and foreigners.74 What most of these collections emphasized was the noti on of the great ancestor in whom the greatness 73 Eric Mercer, 150-151. 74 Eric Mercer, 159.

PAGE 133

133 of a house or dynasty was justified.75 Even dynasties of religious or educational thought were commissioned. During the Jacobean period be tween 1616 and 1618 a series of over two hundred portraits chronicling the greatest individuals of secular and reli gious learning were commissioned at the Bodleian Library in Oxford.76 These portraits include very little religious imagery. Almost nothing in these paintings woul d have identified them as great seekers of religious truth or revelers of the mysteries of God. The English Tomb: Protestant Taste in Funeral Art from 1560 to 1619 One of the m ost important places to explore the Puritan-Protestant-Calvinist aesthetic during the late sixteenth and early seventeenth-centuries is tomb art. It is clear that funeral monuments were the most important type of art made in England after the Reformation. During the Elizabethan age, it is surprising to note that most of the art created for and displayed in churches exhibited almost a tota l lack of Christian imagery. Ir onically, the tomb was a creation that made the final statement about the believer regarding his faith. What is just as surprising was the amount of pagan classical Greek and Ro man imagery used to show the virtue of the Protestant inhabitant of the tomb. Connoisseurs of painting and sculpture in the England of the post-Reformation recognized a dangerous side to the images from the Calvins viewpoint. He taught that legitimate images were ones in accord with the wo rld of nature rather th an with the world of imagination or belief.77 The problem of monumental images was that they were comprehended 75 Eric Mercer, 156-159. 76 Eric Mercer, 156-159. 77 Jean Calvin, The institution of Christian religion, vvrytten in Latine by maister Ihon Caluin, and translated into Englysh according to the authors last edition. Seen and allowed

PAGE 134

134 though the sense of sight, and they regarded sight as untrustworthy or ev en diabolical as it distracted one from the spiritual world. The sense of sight was most active in sculpture as a truly three-dimensional art form. Calvins teachi ng [about the sense of sight] shows that even theological opinion was subsumed within the general assumption that the illusions perceived by the senses were subject to scales of importan ce, hierarchies of value and varying degrees of scepticism.78 The world of sight was a pitfall for the tr ue follower of Calvins radical rejection of religiously themed art. Some of the fear of image was gr ounded in the generalized patr iarchal fear of woman as an irresistible allure. The prin ciple of uncontrolled allure also informed the discussions of idolatry by some of the writers of the late sixt eenth and early seventeent h-century in England. Bishop Reginald Peacock warned those who were devoted to these images were like those who were devoted to sexual relations. He claimed th at images were powerful forces of the visual imagination and such imagery should not have a place in the Church of England.79 Peacock warned the young Grand Tourists streaming to Ital y not to enjoy the visual stimuli to excess. Here he echoes a consistent theme in some reform ist moralizing literature that the sense of sight makes one vulnerable to the works of the devi l. Ironically, church art and especially Elizabethan and early Jacobean funeral art was de void of religious imagery that might lure one into idolatry. according to the order appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions Translated by Thomas Norton (London: By Reinolde VVolf e & Richarde Harison, Anno. 1561), 26v. 78 Nigel Llewellyn, Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 242. 79 Nigel Llewellyn, 243.

PAGE 135

135 Fashions also helped keep religi ous symbolism and iconography out of funereal art after the reform. One of Eric Mercers main themes in his study of English tomb art was that fashions, inseparable from the history of the English Reformation in funeral monuments, also determined and very severely restricted both th e style of the sculptors and the subject-matter.80 It became the fashion for the growing merchant classes, often Puritan, to follow the lead of the landed gentry in funeral monument s. A growing number wealthy merchant class Protestants and minor aristocracy employed sculptors to memori alize their lives and of ten their professions. Though these classes tended to have simpler to mbs and sculptural works commissioned, they did follow the tastes of the higher nobility in ad ornment of small or massi ve architectural tombs. Depending on their wealth, they utilized very little religious ic onography or decoration.81 The religious and social changes of the mid sixteenth-century had an effect on native sculpture that had a twofold result: They [reforming monarchs] destroyed the wealth and influence of the medieval Catholic Church in England then, therefore, the widest market and keenest inspiration for the sculptor in early modern England. The second effect was that the market for sculptors then became the new classes of wea lthy but individually powerless landed proprietors with a Protestant ideology, therefore religious feeling of these new patrons could not be expressed in the familiar ways by erecting or adorning chur ches with religious iconogr aphy of the old religion.82 Once the church was, for all practical purposes, out of the business of commissioning art, sculpture had to change radically from the past expressions and be different from the sculptural forms being renewed and created on the continent. In England, the relig ious feeling of these new men could not be expressed in the old wa y, in erecting or adorning churches; within a 80 Eric Mercer, 217. 81 Eric Mercer, 217. 82 Eric Mercer, 217.

PAGE 136

136 church it could reveal itself upon li ttle but their tombs, and since, while not equating wealth with worth, they tended to regard the former as an outward sign of the la tter, they made these [monuments] display their rank and station.83 Large, sumptuous, and expensive shrines became the sign of election, not Christian iconography. This as an early expression of th e gospel of prosperity was often associated with Puritanism. These tombs therefore had to be impre ssive [and] they needed to be large, for the trade-nature of tomb-making at the time, carried out by men all at much the same level of skill and with the same lack of inspiration, allowed wealth to reveal itself only in the size of the monument and richness of its ornament and material84 not its religious sensibility or a renaissance expression of form or beauty. Merc er argued that for this new class of patrons, wealth was a sign of election, not the old familiar signs of angels, crosses, or the Virgin and Child. In comparison to most works done dur ing the Catholic period of the sixteenth-century, the individualism of these Protestant monuments is striking. The fo rmer Catholic monuments--the chantry monuments--were designed as buildings within a building, wherein priests could offer masses for the soul of the individual buried with in the monument. The monument was not so much for the display of his rank, his connections, or his family. It was more of a hope for a happy outcome in the afterlife th rough the prayers of the chur ch and good works offered by the individual, his family and friends. But some were indeed splendid. The secular nature of these Protestant tombs was involved w ith a notion of the descent of blood, as well as the prosperity of the ancestor Mercers research re vealed, The great and 83 Eric Mercer, 218. 84 Eric Mercer, English Art 1553-1625 218.

PAGE 137

137 lesser medieval families had been able to take their line for granted; these later men could not and so they emphasized it wherever they could.85 These Elizabethan tombs were monuments not to God or even strictly about the faith of the tombs inhabitants. Tombs during the Elizabethan period and the early Jacobean period were more often about the family or heraldry. The importance and protection of such tombs now had become indispensable for the state. They became markers of rank and status within E nglish society. Injunctions were made against iconoclasm in 1560 forbidding the destruction and ruin of monuments and tombs mainly because of their historical value and for the protection of personal family history. These injunctions were not put into place to spare these monuments for thei r religious or artistic values. What was more important for Elizabeth and the st ate she was creating was as John W eever noted fifty years later: The honorable and good memory of sundry virt uous and noble persons deceased and the preservation of the images of Kings, Princes, or noble estates of this Realm, or of any other that have been in times past set up, for the on ly memory of them to theyre posterities in common Churches, and not for any religious honor.86 Tombs were created and preserved from attacks by iconoclasts because they were records of virtuous and nobl e ancestors of present rulers and in the end a memory of the social fabric of the aristocracy. Elizabeth felt strongly enough about the substance of family lineage that he r only major renovation of tombs were for her Yorkist ancestors in Fotheringay church, wher e she replaced those desecrated by iconoclasts.87 85 Eric Mercer, 218-219. 86 John Weever Ancient funerall monuments within the vnited monarchie of Great Britaine, Ireland, and(London: Printed by Thomas Harper, 1631), 10. 87 Eric Mercer, 220.

PAGE 138

138 The characteristics of many tombs in this period showed their re ference to classical, not Christian culture. These tombs, according to Llewellyn, showed a nagging ambiguity about the pagan thread in Elizabethan classicism.To what extent was the pagan acceptable in Elizabethan church art?88 Though the saints were driven out, pagan virtues were accepted. Lawrence Humphrey in The Nobles: or, Of Nobilitye a book dedicated to Elizabeth I and published in 1563, dealt with the importance of a rich visual cu lture to accompany death rituals. Humphrey sought to justify the nobles privileges and thought that even modest monuments could be enough to honor the peers.89 In his treatise, Humphrey also connected early mode rn monuments to ancient monuments of his perfect state, ancient Rome. He connect ed these monuments of antiquity with rank, honor and coats of arms, and suggested that funeral monuments of his da y were used in the same way and for the same reason as they had been in ancient Rome.90 Following the lead of Humphrey and others who wrote and argued for such a taste in tomb art, the Elizabethan age saw a radical shift from late Medieval and early Renaissance Ch ristian tomb sculpture to a type of tomb that celebrated family lineage, personal piety, and a distinct lack of Christian imagery. These tombs emphasized the persona l faith of the individual, but even more clearly emphasized the line of decent from the ancestor.91 This representative configuration of the faithful ancestor tomb is exampled in the Monument of Sir Anthony Cooke (d.1576) (A-36) and 88 Nigel Llewellyn, Plinie is a weyghtye witnesse: The classical Reference in PostReformation Funeral Monuments in Albions Classicism: The Vis ual Arts in Britain, 1550-1660 (New Haven &London: Yale Un iversity Press, 1995), 147. 89 Nigel Llewellyn, 311. 90 Nigel Llewellyn, 309. 91 Eric Mercer, 217-221.

PAGE 139

139 the Monument of Thomas Andrewes (d. 1590) (A-37). Both tombs show families in a rather hieratic formation, stiff, staid, emotionless, and focused toward the deceased whom they remember. A common thread of these sculptures is the lack of talent that most show. The plainness of Protestantism lowered the mark from what English sculptors had been able to achieve during the earlier part of the century. Na tive artistic skill and talent were to revive only after the advent of the Stuarts. Most of these types of tombs show ed no outward sign of the el ection, salvation of the individual, or the presence of the supernatural In addition, a complete lack of emotion is evident; grief is absent from t hose who mourn at the tomb as is their lack of elation at the salvation of the inhabitant. Eyes are usually fo cused upward in an attitude of personal reflection and piety reflecting on the un-seeable Divine. In the seventeenthcentury, these types of funeral monuments gradually were replac ed by new models with roots in Baroque sensibilities not expressed in the aesthetic of Pu ritanism-Calvinism of the Elizabethan period. They became akin to the Catholic Counter-Reformations love of sentiment, nature, and image. English artistic sensibilities became more in tune with the grea ter European cu lture only in the second decade of the reign of James I and flou rished during Charles Is kingship. According to Eric Mercer, these ideas and sensibilities were threefold: A deepening freedom of emotion between individuals and within a family, a reactio n of many among the upper class against the austere Puritanism of the earlier generations a nd the consequent adoption of a more emotional attitude toward religion and the consciously held aesthetic views of the virtuosi.92 The clarity, emotion, and realism of the Council of Trent finally made headway into the English aesthetic and mindset in the early Stuart period. 92 Eric Mercer, 241.

PAGE 140

140 This changing aesthetic was greatly in fluenced by those who traveled in the last decade of the sixteenth-century and the first two decades of the seventeenth-centu ry to see the wonders created in the Catholic south. Many of the great masterworks of the Renaissance and the newly produced masterworks of the Baroque were made present in England th rough the aggressive collecting of Queen Anne of Denmark, Henry, Pr ince of Wales, and then Charles. Other collectors reflected this new openness to the gather ing of religious art as well as the commission of religious art. One fact is certain: This new openness was made possible because of the general peace that James I secured and his ecumenical po licies for marriage for his children. James and Charles were much more Europeanist than Elizabeth ever had been. Examples of the change ushered in during the Stuart age include sentiment and the renewal of religious imagery. Tombs such as the Monument of Sir John Jeffery (d. 1611) at Whitchurch Canonicorum, Dorset (A-38) exemplified this movement. It is an altar-shaped tomb with putti figures above the columns and two full-fi gured angels in the corners of the arch. Also of note is the cross held by one of the allegory figures above the column to the right. The cross had been assaulted through numerous iconoclastic attacks in graveyards and churchyards during the reign of Elizabeth, as well as its symbolic use during the rite of bap tism. This change was abrupt and was signaled by the arrival of a king from Scotland whose mother was a Catholic martyr. Another example of the reintroduction of religious symbolism in the early reign of James I is that of the Tomb of Lord Teynham (A-39). Though the Teynhams were Catholic, they set the tone for the unrestrained emotion that would be unleashed after the 1630s on contemporary

PAGE 141

141 Protestant tombs.93 The daughters of Teynham are almost inc onsolable at the loss of their father. Above them in the upper register is a multitude of putti. Images of angels, the Cardinal virtues, or the Theological Virtues, which were common in sixteenth and seventeenth-centuries Catholic monuments in Europe, now, were expressed openly in tomb art in England. Early on in Jamess rule, these religious virtues were often personifi cations of the virtues di sguised in a religiously neutral or antique pagan inspiration.94 Hubert Le Sueur introduces the move ment toward the aesthetic of the continent in the Tomb of Ludovic Stuart (A-40). Here Lodivics tomb is surm ounted by an angel of fame It also has two cherubs under the effigy of Ludovic. Cla ssically clad, the four cardinal virtues hold up the magnificent canopy. Another example of reli gious imagery of the Old Testament is the Monument to Mary Digges (A-41). This work exhibits th e four cardinal virtues seated on pedestals around an ionic column. In 1631, Dudley Digges used a text from the book of Genesis to praise his wife Mary Moyle: and Rachel travailed and had hard labor. And it came to passthat the midwife said unto her, Fear not: thou shalt have this son alsoAnd Rachel died, and was buried.And Jacob set a pillar upon her grav e (35:16-20) the m onument has no effigy but comprises a 10-foot pillar upon his own [Dudley Digges] sepulcher.95 Numerous tombs were created such as this tomb with a noted return in religious iconography. This change 93 Eric Mercer, 242-245. 94 Brian Kemp, English Church Monuments (London: B. T. Batsford Ltd., 1980), 70. 95 Nigel Llewellyn, Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 290.

PAGE 142

142 appeared abruptly in the middle of the second d ecade (and continued in the third decade) of the seventeenth-century.96 One of the most important tombs of noblemen was the Tomb of Robert Cecil First Earl of Salisbury (A-42), and the work of Maximilian Colt. Here Colts inspiration has been thought to be influenced by French or Dutch exemplars.97 The tomb design is one of nearly life-sized kneeling virtues holding an effigy of the earl with a skeleton below. This same basic structure was to be employed often in the se venteenth-century for other noblemen.98 Tomb monuments with not-so-veiled religious themes appeared as if from nowhere during the reign of James. Catholic themes like the memento mori which had roots in the late Middle Ages and the Italian Renaissance, were consistently in use in religio us art and sculpture on the continent. Important nobles such as Cecil rein troduced them to England. The cadaver figured large on the tomb created by Maximilian Colt for Robert Cecil in 1612 or 1613 at Hatfield (A-42).99 The Dean of Fotherbys tomb, set up in 1619 at Canterbury Cathedral shows the whole skeleton carved in hideous detail,100 emphasize the currents of connection to Europe. These artistic elements experienced a renewed use in Italy and Spain concurrently and prominently figured on papa l tombs during the sixteenth and seventeenthcentury. They were easily accessible to Protesta nts during the time of general peace or such times as Holy Years. The pull of emotion, specifi cally grief, so important in Baroque art, helped 96 Brian Kemp, 70. 97 Brian Kemp, 77. 98 Brian Kemp, 77. 99 Eric Mercer, English Art 1553-1625 245. 100 Eric Mercer, 245.

PAGE 143

143 to make these monuments signs of hope for resurr ection rather than statem ents of heraldry as they commonly were during the Elizabethan period. Depictions of death and of hope for resurrection--so familiar in Catholic art in the sixteenth-century--reappeared rapidly in the reign of Jame s, as exemplified in the Monument of Thester Salisbury who died in 1614. This tomb was deco rated with the emblems of the five wounds of Christs Passion a nd with the Crown of Thorns.101 Clearly, this theme connects Thester with the suffering of Christ and the hope of the resurrection. These and other such works are evidence of the relaxation of the Calvinist traditional ban of religious themes used in the monuments created during the rei gn of James. But what was thei r ultimate source in England? These changing images did not go unnoticed. Certain of the Godly began to complain after 1612 about a smell of popery to these monume nts. Mrs. Esdaile, a Puritan and a minor member of the court, noted that full-length ange ls reappeared on tombs of the early seventeenthcentury and that it was odd that th ey suggested no thought of Popery.102 Mrs. Esdaile was quite right to notice this shift. In fact, there had been a not so subtle move toward an intellectual sympathy and a relaxing of persecution of Catho lics during this period of negotiations for a Spanish Match for Prince Henry and then Prince Charles.103 This movement toward a more traditional remembrance at the grave came from an intellectual sympathy and the reality of political opportunism. The relaxing of the former persecution of Catholics and allowing the 101 Eric Mercer, 245. 102 Ada Katharine Esdaile, English Church Monuments, 1510-1840 (London and Malvern Wells: B. T. Batsford, 1946), 90. 103 Eric Mercer, 245.

PAGE 144

144 expression at least in part of Catholic and near-Catholic views and feelings104 made great political sense to James in the second decade of th e sixteenth-century. This regressive shift, in the eyes of the Puritans, seems plausible because of the dynasties politi cal ambitions. It was given form, however, in a magnificent tomb, the first royal tomb built since Henry VIIs tomb. This tomb was also rich in reli gious iconography, the tomb of Cat holic Mary Stuart (Figures 1-1, 1-2, 1-3). It is no coinciden ce that James commissioned a sympathetic history of Mary Stuarts reign at this time.105 Expressions of the spiritual or th e presence of the divine, such as cherubs, had been familiar in early Renaissance work from the tim e of Henry VII. But these expressions were seldom incorporated into tomb work (except by Catholics) in si xteenth-century England after the Reformation, and they particularly suffered in the Elizabethan period. After their reintroduction, they became a standard ingredient of monument al iconography in English tomb art until the end of the eighteenth century.106 Cherubs were usually shown as complete figures, but sometimes they were portrayed only as winged heads. It is interesting to not e that both of these types of angels are featured prominently on the Tomb of Mary Queen of Scots (Figure 1-2). It does not seem a stretch of the imagination to assume th at the use of these symbols, which had suffered iconoclastic attack during the early Reformation in England, became templates after their wellknown display on the tomb of the Martyred qu een. Once again, the divine was expressed as moving and involved in the real world of man th rough the action and intercession of Gods most 104 Eric Mercer, 245. 105 Both of these realities will be featured in the following chapters dealing with the influence of the memory of Mary Queen of Scots. 106Brian Kemp, English Church Monuments, 71.

PAGE 145

145 powerful supernatural agents. Angels were overt signs of Gods redemptive power and intermediaries of divine grace which had b een played down by English Protestantism or eliminated from the artistic vocabulary altogeth er. On Marys tomb, the divine was imaged again, but criticisms arose by thos e who supported Word over Image. Many dissenters protested tomb bu ilding. Some convinced Prot estants were concerned about showing excess and pride in these images, even if they were not idolatrous. In their mind, these excess and false prides were part of the papist tradition and needed to be guarded against at all cost. Complaints arose about the construction of such magni ficent tombs from the beginning of the reform. As early as the 1540s Bishop Kn ight chose to be commemorated not by a tomb but by a pulpit erected at Wells Cathedral (A43) so that his memorial might be useful. Because of the danger of pride, fear of idolatry, and the great cost for figures in tombs, some of the Protestant elite abandoned figures a ltogether. One such example is Edward Hoby. Hoby translated Coingnets Les Instruments aux Princes that he re-titled Politique discourses upon Truth and lying. This translated work of 1585 described painters as renderers of deceit and lewdness, and linked all statuary with the notion of idolatry.107 Members of the Hoby family were known as great tomb patrons for most of th e sixteenth-century. But after the death of his wife in 1605, Sir Edward decided to utilize a small obelisk with a heart surrounded by swans rather than to have human figures involved in the memorial at all.108 Even as a movement arose toward tombs that are more traditional by some of the elite, others resisted strongly and reiterated the tradition of the simpler Protestant aes thetic achieved durin g Elizabeths reign. 107 Matthieu Coignet, Politique discourses upon trueth and lying An instruction to princes to keepe their faith and promis (London: Printed by John Winde t for Ralfe Newberie. Cum gratia & priuilegio Regi ae Maiestatis, 1586), 160-161. 108 Nigel Llewellyn, Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England 246.

PAGE 146

146 As magnificent tombs returned, a gr owing complaint arose that tombs only comforted the living, not the dead. The Eli zabethan reformer Thomas Bec on quoted St. Augustine in his famous rebuke from The City of God that an expensive and sumpt uous and costly burial rather comfort the living than help the dead.109 Richard Brathwaite, who died in 1585, stressed the traditional message whereby riches stored in heaven have greater value than those made on earth. A fellow may give a costly funeral o r erect in your memory some gorgeous Monument, to shewe your vaine-gl ory in death, as well as life but you will soon be forgotten ereone worme enter the shroud, which coverd the corpes. Educated patrons may [and more than likely would] have known [many] humanist version[s] of this topos.110 For many convinced reformed believers, creation of such memorials, even simple ones, smelled of popery, and the cult of purgatory where the faithfully departed were remembered and even prayed for at their tombs. The Puritan minister Thomas Gainsf ord, a contemporary of James I, was also a critic of the monumental tomb. He told the poor [in sermons and writings] that their souls would be in heaven though their bodies would be in the churchyard a nd that gorgeous buildi ngs, sumptuous tombs, large hospitalles etc. were va nities, not signs of piety. M eanwhile, he preached, the rich men richly commemorated shall be tormented in hell.111 109 Thomas Becon, The sycke mans salue. VVherin th e faithfull christians may learne both how to behaue them selues paciently and th ankefully, in the tyme of sickenes, and also. (Imprinted at London: By Iohn Day, dwelling ouer Aldersgate beneath Saint Martins, [1561] second edition at Edenbburgh, 1584), 125. 110 Nigel Llewellyn, 247. 111 Nigel Llewellyn, 247.

PAGE 147

147 Though prosperity was a sign of election, conspic uous consumption was not. Ample evidence of the preaching of the godly testifies that many in early modern England were not supporters of the vanities of image or commemoration in elaborate tombs. Traditionalism: Catholic Survivals in Tomb Art The most Catholic of the survivals in tomb art in England was the altar tom b. A fine example is the Tomb of Sir John Jeffery (A-38). The traditional Catholic altar was challenged in use and purpose by Protestant theology and most were replaced with a simple communion table that was more accessible to the faith communit y. However, it also devalued the importance of Eucharist, as did the new Protestant theology. Often these tables were placed in the nave of the church rather than in the traditional location of the sanctuary. During the reigns of Elizabeth and James, the altar was not always placed even at the east end of the churc h, though this seemed to be their personal preference in their own chapels. Archbishop Laud made this a controversial element of his policy in the 1630s in demanding that all tables be placed al tar-wise in churches. He took the traditional pre-Reformation view that the most sacred space in the church was the east end sanctuary where the divine mysteries were to be celebrated. A number of tombs were built that echoed this more traditional sentiment. A small group of Protestant tombs were constr ucted during the end of the reign of Elizabeth and during Jamess reign that took the form of an a ltar. These were placed in the sanctuary portion of the church. The tomb of John Hoskyn in Abbey Dore, Herefordshire, and the Scott Family Memorial (A-44) created in 1600 at Brabourne, Kent, are both good examples of this type of tomb. The Scott family tomb even acted as the high altar for Anglican services, and includes lengthy genealogies and texts from the Bible.112 112 Nigel Llewellyn, 115.

PAGE 148

148 The Christian altar was and is (in Eucharist-based churches) an image of the tomb that Christ was buried in and from wh ich he was resurrected. It is a remembrance of his sacrifice and the communal link to the believer. This symbolism was strengthened by the popularity of Easter sepulchers as sites for burial and commemoration.113 At times, these altar tombs were used for the repose of the Easter Sacrament kept for the distribution to the sick and homebound until it was used up after the Easter celebrations ended. These tombs were usually in the north wall of the sanctuary. Here the reserved sacrament was traditionally kept by more traditional high church practitioners in the English Church (a leftover from Catholic practice).114 Calvinism denied the effectiveness of the sacraments in th at they were essentially only symbols of grace already present through the faith of the believer. Emphasis on sacramentalism was an antiCalvinistic practice and example in tomb art and the retention of former Catholic practice by a few in the Church of England. Another conservative element to surv ive was the fact that some more traditional (in a preReformation sense) Protestants began to aggressively question the Calvinistic Protestant disqualification of the use of sculpture in a re ligious context altogether In 1618, Robert Reyce regretted that monuments remained subject to envy, bitternesse of malic e etc. The anatomists brother, William Burton, regarded iconoclastic attacks on his beloved Leicestershire as the vain and idle conceits of some novelists. 115 The biographer of Bishop Laud, John Evelyn, noted that when God ordered Moses to engrave the law upon the tablet s, God had created sculpture 113 Nigel Llewellyn, 115. 114 Nigel Llewellyn, 115. 115 Nigel Llewellyn, 270.

PAGE 149

149 even before he condemned idolatry.116 Committed Protestants could also defend sculpture with religious themes in the early se venteenth-century, but a consider able shift appeared in ideology after the coming of the Stuarts. John Weever, the author of Ancient Funerall Monuments in the late 1620s and early 1630s leveled a vicious and wide-ranging attack on iconocl asm. This was within the context of a wider defense of religious orthodoxy: attacks on tombs [and ar tworks] were as impious as heretical sermons and as treasonable as the invasion of the realm. Monument s occupied extremely sensitive territory; they personified a blur ring of distinctions between idols to be worshipped and images to be followed as ex amples and were an easy target for devotees of new religious creeds amongst the masses.117 However, the fact that such a work was written by Weever well into the re ign of the Stuarts gives witness to the consistent threat against art, in part icular art that seemed to be religious in nature. This attack on art would be evidenced by renewe d iconoclasm during the Civil War and the sale of most of the art co llections of aristocrats who supported Charles al ong with the magnificent riches that Charles had amassed. Weevers view is expressed clearly in this excerpt from his work: Certain persons, delighting as may seems in novelitie, for they can abide not mark of antiquitie [who] had defaced [the antiquities], these man that take upon them to be reformers, whos e duties are grate through th e singularities and pride they have in their own wits and understandings, weening themselves to be very wise, where indeed they are very simple, and only look but into the abuses of things, and do not see into the grounds and depth of the reasons and causes for which good ordinances are made. never seek they to reforme the abuse, 116John Evelyn, Sculptura, or, The history, and art of chalcography and engraving. (London: Printed by J.C. for G. Beedle and T. Collins, 1662), 15. 117 Nigel Llewellyn, 270.

PAGE 150

150 but by their wits, goeth ordinanc e and all [Weever hoped] that these simple fellows taking upon them to be reformers might be reformed themselves.118 Weever thought that iconoclasts were those who were encouraged by a broad spectrum of schismatics and those who spread seditious pamphlets. He noted that these men also were often anti-monarchy. Lists of sectarians were long and grew longer in ear ly Stuart England. In the view of Weever, few images could be idols, wh ich rendered our blesse d Savior hanging on the Cross. These visual images were acceptable and respectable because they taught as well, as did the mental images of the book. Weevers writings were dedicated to Archbishop Laud. Sharing Lauds view, Weever stated that the belief in the importance of images was necessary for a proud and respectable church to be maintained and constructed.119 In his publications, Weever was an important supporter of Charles a nd Lauds restoration, additions to St. Pauls, and other artistic building projects before the Civil War. Obviously Weever could have stumbled into his thought through reflection on the works of Aristotle, but the numerous works defending religious art produced after the Council of Tren t likely was his influence. His arguments for the power of image are extremely similar to that of Pale otti who had been translated into English. James I and the Monuments in Westminster Abbey As noted early in this study, two of the m ost important tomb monuments done early in Jamess reign are found in Westminster Abbey. The first is the grave site of Queen Elizabeth I (Mary I is buried rather uncomfo rtably next to her in an unmar ked grave) (Figures 3-2, 3-3), 118 John Weever, Ancient funerall monuments within the vnited monarchie of Great Britaine, Ireland, and the islands. (London: Printed by Thomas Harper. 1631. And are to be sold by Laurence Sadler at the signe of th e Golden Lion in little Britaine, 1631), 54. 119 John Weever, 50.

PAGE 151

151 which is void of religious symbolism, magnificently rendered, yet not as sp lendidly as the second which is the grave site of Mary Queen of Sc ots (exhumed and moved there by her son James). These works are in opposing wings of the Lady Chapel created by Henry VII in Westminster Abbey, London. Between Elizabeth I and Mary is Henry VIIs tomb, created with significant religious imagery. The official tomb of Mary, who linked the tw o dynasties together, reintroduced religious symbolism on this dynastic monumental work. The Cross, four full-length angels, two putti heads, and the Chi Ro are prom inently displayed on this tomb. Obviously, by containing such religious imagery, in a very public venue, the tombs creation made possible or even validated religious themes for others (Figures 1-1, 1-2, 1-3) Marys tomb instillation in 1612 is significant in that ma ny more religious works of ar t began to be produced. Their production had dynastic approval. The decade lo ng involvement with religious themes culminated in a grand cycle at St. Pauls Cathed ral of the life of Paul in stained glass in 1619.120 On Marys tomb, three angels ar e portrayed over the arches on either side of the magnificent portrait of the martyred queen. Other religious sym bols associated with Catholicism are prominently exhibited, including the Cross at both ends of the gable, the crown of thorns, and the X P (Figure 1-3). Though sumptuous and beau tiful, this is not the typical tomb made to show Protestant wealth or stoic virtue but martyrdom and personal faith. Mary lies in repose with an almost beatific look and serene countenance. Juxtaposed to the rather stiff and formal tomb of Elizabeth who clutches her si gns of monarchy, Mary St uart looks upward, hands folded as if in prayer, to heaven to receive her crown of martyrdom like a Counter-Reformation saint. 120 This cycle is discussed in chapter 4. Its creation was such a significant event in London that James attended the dedication.

PAGE 152

152 The religious symbolism was not lost on the viewer of the early seventh century of this murdered-martyred-executed queen. Her grandson Charles I will meditate on such a martyrs crown in his last will and testament in Eikon Basilike (A-45). This inclusion of angels to watch over her is clearly a rather traditionalist statemen t of the notion of Gods presence in the world who would resurrect his holy anointed, with the he lp of his divine intermediaries. Martyrdom was considered the fastest way to glory, especial ly those who suffered as Christ did. Marys tomb in general is a positive religious statement about the qu een and her ironic victory over Elizabeth. Thought she herself neve r clutched the orb and scepter. It is her dynasty that now holds power in England. Jamess choice of the Our Lady Chap el is also revealing. The Virgin Mary is the most powerful intercessor in Catholic theology, and is connected with martyrdom, as she suffered through the death of her son (hen ce, Mary often wears red as m other of sorrows and a living martyr). Most of the early Stuarts are buried in this chapel of Westminster, including Mary Stuart, Jamess daughter who died in 1607 (Figure 3-4). James c hose to be buried near Henry VII, close to the high altar of the Abbey, which is physically between th e two rivals in life, Elizabeth and Mary. He asked that no monument be created for hi m. By being physically buried between England (Elizabeth) a nd Scotland (Mary), James made a rather important statement about his position as the unifier of Great Britain. Charles I always intended to create a tomb for his father, though lack of mone y prevented the creation of a splendid monument for the first Emperor of Great Britain. The Banque ting House paintings sufficed. Protestant English Print Media One exception to the exclusion of th e use of i mage for the Puri tan-Calvinist spectrum of England, like that of the main la nd, was the use of print media for polemics. The Puritans and other Protestants who rejected reli gious art included illustration in print. Print, being small,

PAGE 153

153 unrealistic, and usually done in black and white, i llustrated a story line and could be helpful in teaching. It was difficult to suggest that religious or semi-religious artwork could lead to idolatry in print (though several ex treme critics of art did make that poi nt). Print media was an essential component used by Lutherans, Calvinists, and Puri tans (as well as Catholics) as an essential vehicle of the Reformation. Print was the natu ral ally of those who wished to explain the corruptions of the Catholic C hurch and extol the defenders of the new religion. A prime example of the type of print art that was accep table to many, but not all Protestants and most Puritans was the work of John Foxe. John Foxes Acts and Monuments was the most influential re ligious book of the sixteenth and early seventeenth-centuries in England. This work, origina lly a production of the Marian period (first edition, 1554), supplie d a Protestant history of relig ion from the beginnings of the church to the present-day Engla nd of Foxe. It recorded the pe rsecution of the righteous from the beginning of Genesis until burnings under Queen Mary Tudor, and placed that persecution of the true church in a millenarian scheme of hist ory. This work persuaded Englishmen that they were fighting a holy war against the Antichrist who was connected with popish threats. It also concentrated on the sin of idolatry that was, in Foxes estimation, rampant in anything associated to Roman Catholicism. Acts and Monuments was enlarged and repr inted many times and was the basis for much of the Protestant rhetoric of ea rly modern England. In later editions of this work, Elizabeth, who certainly to lerated the work as it enhanced her position in English myth, was heralded and portrayed as a second Constantin e or Solomon, as in the woodcut from Thomas Mortons Salomon or a Treatise Declaring th e State of the Kingdome of Israel printed in 1596. This work shows Elizabeth as an heir to the trad itions of Solomon (A-46). Her brother Edward was often portrayed in Acts and Monuments and other similar texts as one of the reforming kings

PAGE 154

154 of the Old Testament, usually Josiah. Josiah was a destroyer of idols, as was Edward VI. In these printed works, the religious imagery of early Chri stian saints, such as Constantine, and biblical figures were not only tolerated but also embrace d. But they were slightly reinterpreted to emphasize a break with Rome and Romes allegi ance with the dark forces of the universe. Almost from the beginning of Jame ss reign, some within the hierarchy and theological circles in the Church of England began to draw b ack from the apocalyptic descriptions of Foxe. However, by the 1630s a renewal of fear arose that the Church of England could slip back into the papal fold by many committed Calvinists, Puritans, and other dissenters emerging before the Civil War. These elements were energi zed by the constant republication of Acts and Monuments This work helped provide a pedigree for reaction against the church of Charles and Laud and was a ground for iconoclasm during the Civil War. Th e frontispiece (A-47) shows Roman Catholics (on the right of the viewer, but the left of the print denoting th e lost side) beguiled by priests, rosaries, procession, and the Mass being consigned to hell. But on the left (the right of God in the illustration), Gods Protestant Englishman read spiritual works, discuss sermons, and are martyred for their faith. They will enjoy the b liss of heaven by the rejection of popery and its foul habits and heresies. The use of print in early modern Engl and was not restricted to critics of the papacy or to iconoclasts. On the contrary, those who embraced image also used print. One such example is the use of the print media to install a sense of immediacy for the reconstruction and redemption of such great buildings as St. Paul s Cathedral. In this case, prints were used to further artistic renovation and to persuade elements of the hierar chy of both the church and state to artistic action. A painting with its dedication shown on its frame was created by John Gipkyn for Henry Farley in 1616. Pamphlets for the Society of An tiquaries included reprod uction of this diptych

PAGE 155

155 that depicts Old St. Pauls in a dilapidated c ondition on one side, and then a renovated state on the other. Pamphlets published by Farley in 1616 and 1621 make it evident that the painting was intended to be presented to James I as an eloque nt petition for the restoration of the building.121 Print would be used as propaganda for the creation of art as well as for its destruction; however, those who were anti-art significantly outnumbered those who were pro-art. Travel, Patronage, and Collecting Jam es was a more consistent patron of the arts than Elizabeth had been. With the accession of James I, religious images started to regain their popularity because of the more cosmopolitan religious mindset of this monarch.122 Unlike Elizabeth, James visite d an important court outside of the British isles, Denmark. Denmark was Luth eran, not Calvinist. Ja mes was an iconophile in private though in public he often denounced Papists for their idol atry (while at the same time negotiating with them and accepting gifts of art). He could however make a clear distinction between idol, and image as reported by the shrewd courtier John Chamberlain who recorded in his diary items that James took along on a trip to Scotland. Chamberlain commented that James often traveled with his personal chapel, which was embellished with pictures of the Apostles, Saints, Faith, Hope and Charitie, and such other religious representations how welcome they 121 Henry Farley, The complaint of Paules to all Christian soules, or, An humble supplication, to our good King and nation, for her new reparation written by Henry Farley (London: For Laurence L'isle, and are to bee sold at his shop in Pauls Church-yard at the Turkeshead, 1616). 122 George Yule, James VI and I: Furnishing the Churches in his Two Kingdoms in Anthony Fletcher and Pe ter Roberts (eds.), Religion, Culture and Society in Early Modern Britain: Essays in Honor of Patrick Collinson (Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press, 1994). This is a constant theme in this article.

PAGE 156

156 will be thither [in Scotland] God knows.123 Chamberlain also knew th e controversial nature of religious imagery not only in England but also in Scotland. James was a lover of his own image a nd the image of favorite courtiers. He had as many if not more portraits painted of himself than Eli zabeth did and often had many portraits painted of his favorites. Though his artistic output and co llection were no match for the splendor of the court of his successor Charles (or his wife Anne and deceased son Henry), James employed important artists and artisans fo r the virtuous enrichment and aggr andizement of his court. One of the central issues of this study is that James made a more conscious effort-and more so by Charles--to use image and architecture than any of the previous Protestant monarchs of England or many in other contemporary Protestant kingdoms in Europe. This was a policy to illustrate and justify their prerogative to ru le as divine right monarchs. Ja mes and Charles chose to use art for what they perceived as a virt uous stabilizing factor for their reigns. They also used art as a way to shape their public and private image as monarchs who taught (if not achieved) Absolutism. Though James was involved to a lesser degree using portraiture and artwork than in the court masque and limited building projects, he was clearly more open to the possibilities and the public use of art than was Elizabeth. He used art to inform his court and his country about his own personal virtue and his vision of Divine Monarchy.124 This willingness to look backward past the early Reformation to the use of art and architecture, as it had been before Englands reform and to the renewed and reinvigorated use by great Catholic powers, distinguis hed James significantly from Eli zabeth. His gradual preferment 123 John Chamberlain, The Letters of John Chamberlain vol. 2 (Philadelphia, The American philosophical society, 1939), 42. 124 Examples of this are examin ed in the following chapters.

PAGE 157

157 of Arminians to high-church posi tions at school, as well as dioceses, would also be significant for the changing view of the use of art for propaga nda in his other realm, the church. These antiCalvinists again began to patronize the arts fo r specifically ecclesiastical commissions, as prelates had never sponsored during Elizabeths time.125 Anti-Calvinist church leaders significantly moved the spectrum of the English Church toward a more traditional and Catholic use of art in the Church of England. Laudians and other conservative collectors and patrons shared in the monarchys efforts to make art and ceremony once again important forces in the Church of England. For James, Charles, or for any of the Arminians/Laudians, this move toward a new use of image is only possible because they left behind stri ct Calvinist iconoclastic views of the nature of art and architecture. They bypassed Reformed views and chose the old aesthetic that was revived through the Baroque resurgence on the continent. They ventured far beyond Elizabeths use of public imagery126 as in the Bishops Bible (A-48) c onnecting themselves with monumental Imperial Catholic imagery as Otto II (A-49) meant for public consumption. 127 125 This change in the hierarchy is examined along with their relati onship to Absolutism, which was often preached by these churchmen along with their endorsement of image. These are central topics in the following chapters. 126 John King, Tudor Royal Iconography. Literature and Art in an Age of Religious Crisis (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1989). King discussed the use of Catholic Iconography and its reinterpretati on and use by the Tudors throughout his text as a way to shore up Tudor power and prestige for both the Cathol ic queen Mary and the Protestant Tudors, especially Elizabeth. King noted that Protestant tracts reinterpreted this ancient iconography for use in the new religion. Elizab eth is portrayed from time to time as a Constantinian type; however, these were rooted in a thousand-year mideval tradition of ru lership. Elizabeth never commissions monumental imagery. This substan tially differentiates her from the Stuarts. 127John King, 8-10.

PAGE 158

158 From the perspective of those w ho were against imagery, one dangerous use of models, such as Constantine and Solomon, wa s the fact that traditions and scripture identified them with building and religious imagery. Solomon was the bu ilder of the temple and of a great palace. Constantine was one of the greatest decorators and builders of the churches of antiquity in Rome, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. From a Calvinis t view, some of this legacy was negative. Solomon is branded an idolater beca use he followed his wives religion. When Solomon was old his wives had turned his heart to strange gods . Solomon did evil in the sight of the lord ; he did not follow him unreserve dly as his father David had done. Solomon then built a high place to Chem osh, the idol of Moab, and to Molech, the idol of the Ammonites, on the hill opposite Jerusalem ( I Kings, ch. 11 vs. 3-10). He had strayed from the pure religion, so the legacy of Solomon was a mixed inheritance, especially considering that Englands Solomon also had a wife of a different religion. Yet the imperial claims of Constant ine and Charlemagne were too tempting not to be used even by committed Protestants. They were identified with the theme of translation which was a concept that these two Christian rulers were seen as successors to David and Solomon. These figures were identified with the unification of the secular and spiritual concerns of the world.128 During the medieval period, which wa s rife with conflicts with th e papacy, the theocratic notion of government was often infused with a millennial yearning for an imperial Davidic Kingship, a renovatio .129 The inherited status of the kingdom of Israel was claimed by the Holy Roman Empire, as well as Byzantium. As noted in Chap ter 1, these claims were reissued by the Catholic monarchs of the Hapsburg family and to a lesse r degree the Protestant Elizabeth and James. These assertions and images were s lightly modified by Protestants. 128 John King, 11. 129 John King, 11.

PAGE 159

159 Another factor that helped continue the use of this medieval im agery was the factor that legends surrounding Constantine sp oke of his British heritage. Tudor and Stuart apologists focused on Constantines British li neage and the central role he pl ayed in the establishment of the Christian church. These imperial images were used extensively in the late fifteenth and sixteenth centuries and were having another renaissance during th e first half of the sixteenthcentury by the papacy and Catholic monarchs such as the Hapsburgs. The Grand Tour: Contact with the Catholic South. According to Edward Chaney, one of the important inf luences that helped move British art toward the continental Catholic was travel. As noted in chapter 2 of this study, one of the beneficiaries of travel was Charles who went on a jaunt to Spain with Buckingham for the hand of the Spanish Infanta. By ending the war with Spain in 1604, and by actively working to make better relations with the great Catholic po wers of Europe, James helped to usher in the beginning of what came to be known as the Grand Tour. Often important to this tour were English Roman Catholic priests su ch as Richard Lassels, alias Bold s, and a significant number of others of the old faith. Though technically Lasse ls was an exile the moment he entered Douai College in the Spanish Netherlands in 1623, he kept up many important connections with Catholics and more open-minded Protestants in England.130 Lassels and other English priests often had a difficult time finding work on the continent due to the abundance of available local priests. Well-educated English clergy, such as Lassels and Peter Fitton, became involved with teaching young Catholic Englishmen, and at times, young Protestant Englishmen about European, and in particular, Italian culture. Though 130 Edward Chaney, The Grand Tour and the Great Rebellion (Geneva: Slatkine, 1985), 19.

PAGE 160

160 officially a traitor, Peter Fitton became Englands most important art agent-resident in Rome who helped the royal family, as well as important courtiers collect art.131 Fitton was also a close associate and acted as a personal agent in Rome to Queen Henrietta Maria periodically between 1638 and 1650.132 Other English Catholic priests, such as George Gage and Tobie Matthew, used their virtuosity in art to earn a living abroad while maintaining contacts to acquire works of art on behalf of the great pr e-Civil War English collectors.133 According to Anthony Wood (a contemporary of Lassels) in his Athenae Oxonienses, Richard Lassels took great delight in seei ng foreign countries. traveled thro It aly five times as tutor to several of the English nobility and gent ry, whereby obtaining great knowledge of place, men, manners and customs, was esteemed the best and surest guide or tutor for young men of this time, and drew up [itineraries a nd maps] for the use of them and others, that should come after.134 Edward Chaney documented that the 1620s and 1630s were particularly important times for the establishment of an English presence in contin ental Europe in this growing tradition of the grand tour. This was possible because of the marriage of Henrietta Maria to Charles I. After the assassination of Buckingham, and the subseque nt treaties of peace with France and Spain and the dissolution of Parliament, Henrietta Maria played an increasing role both in relations to her English co-religionists and in foreign affairs.135 She also became the excuse for the ostentatious 131 Edward Chaney, 19. 132 Edward Chaney, 26. 133 Edward Chaney, 19. 134 Anthony Wood, Athenae Oxonienses: An exact hist ory of all the writers and bishops who have had their education in th e University of Oxford. (London: Rivington ed. P. Bliss, 4 Vols., 1813-1820), 818-819. 135 Edward Chaney, 41.

PAGE 161

161 presence in London of priests, friars, and Papal envoys, her chap el being the focal point for a wave of conversions in fashionable court circles.136 More than a few sophisticated Sc ots and Englishmen of the day, including some of the Puritan pro-French aristocracy, welcomed the rapprochement with the continent.137 Many English travelers first took advant age of the initial peace treaty with Spain during Jamess reign and the peace treaty during Charless travel to Europe. At times, the relationship between the Crown and Italian prelates became positively chum my. The hospitality of Cardinal Barberini (nephew of the Pope) made young Englishmen of good family welcomed and entertained when they visited Rome and the Papal States. Barberinis hospitality became legendary.138 Even Church of England prelates shared in the ca rdinals kindness and emphasis on rapprochement with the English. John Williams, the bishop of Li ncolns nephew, had been kindly entertained in Rome and proclaimed Cardinal Barberini had d one more to reclaim the northern kingdoms by his civilities than cardinal Bellarm ine had ever done in by his writings.139 Walter Montague also made two journeys to Rome with letters from his goddaughter, Henrietta Maria, to the pope, and described an extremely flattering reception in the Papal States. Her joy [Henrietta Marias] had increased when she daily hear d, that all the English who went thither were treated in the same manner, respectively to thei r character [religion]. Thes e extraordinary civilities to the 136 Edward Chaney, 41. 137 Edward Chaney, 41. 138 Edward Chaney, 41. 139 Edward Chaney, 41.

PAGE 162

162 British nation were a common subject of conversa tion at court. Both the king and the nobility were pleased with it.140 Other important members of the cour t such as the highly cultiv ated Scot, George Conn, a canon of San Lorenzo in Damaso, had influence when he replaced Panzani as papal agent for Rome.141 Conn was more acceptable than Panzani b ecause of his fluent English, his expert connoisseurship, and his lay status.142 He was given free access to Henrietta Maria and Charles, and he had a particularly close relationship with the Earl Marshal, Arundel, and the Duke of Buckinghams Catholic widow.143 Many sought from the Italophile Arundel, or from his Catholic wife, or from the queen herself in th e 1620s and 1630s letters of introduction for those intending to journey to Rome. Th ey were freely given to both Catholic and Protestant alike.144 Not all in England were happy with the expanding travel, trade, and rapprochement with Catholic Europe. Some of the Puritans who we re more powerfully represented in the enlarged House of Commons of the 1620s obs erved with mounting indignation what they regarded as the growing papist threat to both th e political security and the reli gious integrity of Gods chosen 140 Gregorio Panzani, Memoir of Gregorio Panzani gi ving an account of his agency in England in the years 1634, 1635, and 1636 (Birmingham: Swinney and Walker, 1793), 215217. 141 Edward Chaney, 42. 142 Edward Chaney, 42. 143 Edward Chaney, 41. 144 Edward Chaney, 41. Numerous references to English travelers and another source of recommendation are to be found in A. S. F., Archivio Mediceo vols. 4189 et. Seq., in the letters of Amerigo Salvetti to the Grand Dukes secretary at Florence. These reveal that Florence was deliberately improving hospitality wh ere British visitors were con cerned. The reason for this was related to the campaign to win the Stuart cour t over to Catholicism, but also for Florence to be involved with the ever-expanding and impor tant English trade.

PAGE 163

163 nation.145 However, most of these were ignorant of the kings immovable loyalty to his Anglican Church and Lauds opposition to Conn and often-fiery denunciations of the Roman party in Privy Council meetings by Laud and others.146 Many of these parliamentary members fed notions of papal takeover of the English Church or imminent conversion of the king to Catholicism. Londons anti-Catholic masses we re ready to believe any conspiracy by the archbishop, the king, or the queen to be involved in any Popish Plot. Anything associated, however remotely, with Rome, or indeed the Cat holic continent in general, was slandered in pamphlet and pulpit with increasing vigor147 during the 1630s. These ferocious attacks also included the art collected a nd produced by the court. Conclusion The use of im age did not have a c ohesive ideology during the re ign of Elizabeth or early reign of James as it did for their contemporaries in the Catholic south. This began to change in the second decade of Jamess rule. Chapter 4 will further document this change. However they both somewhat embraced art, especially portraiture and they collected some art. But no evidence shows that Elizabeth ever collected any religious works or used monume ntal works to express ideology. Iconoclasm was an isolated but real thr eat to the public works of ar t, especially church art, during the late Tudor age and reoccurred even in the Stuart age. This was due in fact to the preaching of Elizabethan bishops and confusing directives from the Crown about the function of images in the Church of England. A controversy of what constituted a graven image was 145 Edward Chaney, 41. 146 Edward Chaney, 41. 147 Edward Chaney, 41.

PAGE 164

164 reflected in the tangled web of legal policy constructed under Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I. Elizabeths injunctions of 1559 were moderate, when compared to Edwards previous injunctions. Visitation articles framed by her leading clergy usually followed the more radical notion that acted in favor of iconoclasm. This line between moderate and radical pos itions was constantly shifting, but we can identify certain crucial points of refere nce in demarcating th e boundaries. Moderates tended to focus on the social function of an image; was it the object of pilgrimage, of offering, or adoration? Ra dicals condemned not only abused images, but images in themselves.148 Moderate homilists of the Elizabethan age recognized a greater danger in sculpture than in flat painting but The radical iconoclast was incr easingly marked by a rejecti on of images less obviously prone to idolatry, such as stained glass windows. Given the disc repancies in the network of ecclesiastical articles and inj unctions, parliamentary statues and royal proclamations, actual practice varied from church to church across the realm, and iconoclasm itself could become nine-tenths of the law.149 Elizabeths own personal use of art was pale in comparison to monarchs such as her father and contemporaries on the continent. Much of this is due to re ligious pressures by advancing Protestantism during her reign. But she took a rather conservative view about the use of art in her own private chapels and was personally not an ic onoclast. Yet Elizabeth did not construct or decorate any major building or monument, cycle of pa intings or reliefs, or statuary that could be construed as proclaiming her as an absolutist or her own tendencies of religious conservatism. 148 Tessa Watt, Cheap Print and Popular Piety 1550-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 132. 149 Tessa Watt, 133-134.

PAGE 165

165 Painting in Elizabethan England was almost completely devoid of religious themes. Tombs built during Elizabeths reign, with the exception of Catholic tombs, were stripped bare of anything that connected with me dieval Catholic iconography. Almost no Christian elements remained in the tombs with the exception of bi blical quotations often in Latin or English. Angels, saints, and instruments of the passion all faded away and did not return with any consistency until the middle part of the reign of Ja mes I. By the end of his reign in 1625 angels, virtues, and other religious sym bols became commonplace. One of the factors that help to revive religious symbols was the official Stuart tomb of Mary Queen of Scots. The incorporation of angels and marks of the passion on the first o fficial tomb of the new dynasty clearly give permission to use, once again, medieval Catholic ornaments on their tombs. A new and more continental mode of collection and patronage em erged in the last decade of Elizabeths reign, but blossome d in the reign of James I because of peace with the Hapsburgs and the ability to travel to the continent safe ly. Those who traveled were likely positively influenced by the tremendous flourishing of art occurring in Italy, France, and Spain during the first days of the Baroque. Charles I was one of these travelers who took advantage of this time of peace and attempted reconciliation. It seems clear that he was positively influenced (as far as image was concerned) by his journey to Spain. However, not all were convinced this time that socialization with Englands tradi tional enemies was positive for England. The fear of anything connected to the old religion, the quality and number of conversions at court, and the scorn for almost all forms of music, masques, plays, sport, dancing, painting, modern architecture, most forms of non-theo logical literature, Arminianism, episcopal government, over high status for women, peace with the Habsburgs, long hair, may-poles,

PAGE 166

166 foreigners in general and fo reign travel in particular150 was of grave concern for many pamphleteers in early modern England and many parliamentarians. The godly Calvinists of London had split English society and prefigured the Pu ritan Revolution to come. It is clear that considerable resentment existed toward the mo re liberal view of society and culture being expounded and contemplated by James and then mo re radically by Charles and a significant number within his court. English society was re ady, for all practical purposes, to divide even before the Scots War and Civil War began. 150 Edward Chaney, The Grand Tour and the Great Rebellion 43.

PAGE 167

167 Figure 3-1. Gerrit Berckheyde, 1650, View of St. Bavos Haarlem National art Gallery, Washington D. C. Photo by author. Figure 3-2. William and Cornelius Cure: Tomb of Queen Elizabeth I and Mary I 1612 Westminster Abby, Lady Chapel. Photo by author.

PAGE 168

168 Figure 3-3. Detail of Sarcophagus lid Tomb of Queen Elizabeth I Photo by author. Figure 3-4. Mary Stuart (died 1607) Our Lady Chapel, Westminster Abby, London Photo by author.

PAGE 169

169 CHAPTER 4 JAMES I: VIRTUE, ART AND POLITICS IN EARL Y STUART ENGLAND Introduction Virtue was a contested and desi rable attribute in the life of the ruler. After publication of Machiavellis The Prince and the use of its less-than-virtuous methods (at least from a Christian perspective), many rulers tried to gain the h igh ground and associate themselves with the virtues of ancient and medieval Christianity as well as classical antiquity. These were often imaged by earlier Christian monarchs. As pres ented in the study of the Catholic monarchies examined in Chapter 1, Catholic rulers often sought to gain reputat ions of virtue through personal writing, enhancement of ancestry, collecti on of art, creation of art and through building or renovation of important dynastic centers or shri nes in an attempt to buttress their theory of Divine Right Rule. Many of these monarchies ma de virtue literally concrete through visual culture. Therefore, virtue was not always an ethe real matter but was laid down in paint or stone and mortar in great buildings and artworks. The kings of the Hapsburg dominions, the French monarchy, and the papacy spent vast sums exto lling their religious and secular virtues as monarchs. This was a continuation of Renaissanc e self-fashioning of rulership. This idea was enhanced in the Baroque Age to new heights of patronage and expression. This self-fashioning was also a repudiation of Machiavellism and its ideal, a ruthless and often anti-Christian prince. James I, in his political writings and in his later experiments with art, connected his own thought processes about art and architecture to earlier and contemporary examples best expressed in Cathol ic Europe. This chapter will be gin with an examination of one of his most important writings, the Basilikon Doron and will end with a discussion of artworks that James had created during his reign within the c ontext of Absolutist art and self-fashioning. Connections and similarities with Catholic though t, iconography and artistic practice will be

PAGE 170

170 made in relationship to the Basilikon Doron, including slightly earli er and contemporary Catholic thought about rulershi p and art, and artworks commi ssioned or endorsed by James. Included in this chapter will be factors that helped to move James toward the use of art in the second half of his rei gn, including memorials for members of his family, marriage plans for Prince Henry, and Jamess vision of an Imperial London to rival other imperial cities on the continent. Following this discussion there will be a brief examination of important thinkers who have been described as English Catholics. These figures were influential in politics, religion and art during the reign of James. Ev idence will be presented that these religious thinkers were not novel, nor did they follo w Calvinist theology. Their spectrum is best described as anti-Calvinist espe cially in their tastes for art, decoration and celebration in the English Church. These church figures were influe ntial in the planning of royal chapels built in the early 1620s, which were a repu diation of Puritan plain style and were controversial at their making. Finally, a monumental sculpture at Oxford will be examined for its importance in the context of Stuart absolutism. Basilikon Doron As an answer to the portrait of rulership envisioned in The Prince and the reality of the timesthat rulership was questioned ever more by religious dissidents, po litical innovations and economic upheavals, along with new political challengesthe Catholic monarchies of this period allied themselves with the theory of ab solutism as a model of government to stabilize their kingdoms. Likewise, James argued for absolutis m in most of his political or theological writings, particularly in The Trew Law of Free Monarchies and Basilikon Doron. Basilikon Doron is a book of practical advice rather than abst ract theory. It portray ed the principles of Trew Law without bothering to prove them through long philosophical argument. Basilikon

PAGE 171

171 Doron took for granted that the king alone made all final decisions on foreign and domestic policy, and it laid particular emphasis upon his supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs.1 The virtuous rule by Gods Lieutenant, the Divine Right of Kings, became the most important political expression, which signifi cant Catholic theologians wrote about as the response to the religious crisis of the day as well as the sh ifting world of religion, knowledge, discovery, and politics. This also led to great works of art, wh ich proclaimed the virtue and right of the king to rule. James initially chose a nother route by expressing his no tion of kingly virtuosity through authorship; eventually he embraced monumental building and image making. Basilikon Doron was primarily a treatise of advice to his sons on government. However, it had a secondary audience in mind, those who had moderate Christian views and were familiar with the tradition of Frstenspiegel or speculum principis This tradition gave guidance to young princes concerning conduct, ethics and discharge of office; these wo rks also dealt with issues of state and society and are rooted in antique, early Christian, and medieval treatises. Erasmus wrote such a work with very similar themes and outcomes, The Education of a Christian Prince .2 The aim of speculum principis tradition works, such as Erasmuss, were to give justification and guidance for m onarchy and examples of just rule. They pulled from the traditions of Greek, Roman and Medieval texts on political discourse as their main sources along with the thought of church fathers. The Ol d Testament, and its lengthy comments on kingship, also influenced this genre. James, like Erasmu s, was trying to influen ce a greater audience than his sons in England with this type of literary work. This literary tradition also had English 1 Johann P. Sommerville, King James VI and I Political Writings xix. 2 Erasmus, The Education of a Christian Prince (ed.,) Lisa Jardine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

PAGE 172

172 examples such as John of Salisburys Policraticus However, because this was written by a father and dedicated to his sons it had more influence on them than a work created by a trusted servant or an author seeking employment. John of Salisbury and his work Policraticus (completed in 1159), was one such work by a bishop for a king. Johns aim was to discuss a ll aspects of ethical and political life. Policraticuss topics vary from whether it is pe rmissible to kill a tyrant or to tell off-color jokes at dinner parties. In the course of deve loping and elaborating his ideas, J ohn rarely develops an explicit argument. Instead, he presents many examples, givi ng various excerpts from classical and sacred authorities. By illustrating that ma ny wise men held an opinion; the rest of us should agree and be led to similar conclusions. Johns imagery was that the state was like th e human body. It was an organic, integrated whole, unified for the good of its members. Each o ffice, or role in the society, is a part of the state. The state can be divided into three ti ers: first, those who exert some governmental authority, second, those who perform government al functions, and third, everyone who is governed but not part of government. The prince is its head, with governors and judges acting as the eyes and mouth, the parliament acts as the heart, and the chur ch the soul. The second tier is officials who make up the bureaucratic machine of government and are compared to internal organs. The flanks are the courtier s. The remainders, or third tier, are the peasants and artisans, rather than any kind of merchant middle class. These peasants are the feet. The prince, not the parliament or church, wiel ds political authority. The parliament has an advisory role, but John had very little to say a bout it except that members should be virtuous and

PAGE 173

173 wise old men.3 What John saw as the relation between c hurch and state is difficult to grasp. The purpose and goals of a just state are not exactly eq ual with those of the church, nor are the goals in conflict; they simply differ. The higher goal is that of the church, salvation. The secular state has its own goals. Between the church and the st ate, John describes a hi erarchy of function, but he does not subordinate stat e to church or church to state. The spiritual authority of the church is higher. It was a more noble form of authority th an the coercive secular authority of the prince, but secular authority is confe rred on the prince by God, not by th e church. The church has not outsourced this function by granting secular authority to the prince. As for the prince, John has a very high sta ndard for his character and conduct. According to the invented Institu tes of Trajan, there ar e four responsibili ties or duties of the prince: to revere God, to love his subjects, to have self-discipline, and to educate his officials.4 The princes love of God and love of his subjects was shown by a subjugation of his will to the will of God for the good of his people.5 However, given that the people or God are not always forthcoming, the prince must be able to read and to reflect on divine law.6 By performing this daily reflection, the prince confor med his will to the divine will. Therefore the prince merely wills what is just. The prince, w hose will is in conformity with th e divine will, can expect to be obeyed.7 As to the power of the church Johns modes of relation between king and priesthood 3 Nederman, Cary J. (tr.) Policraticus [selections]. Cambridge Texts in the History of Political Thought. (Cambridge: Camb ridge University Press, 1990), 81. 4 Cary J. Nederman, (tr.) Policraticus 68. 5 Cary J. Nederman, 40. 6 Cary J. Nederman, 44. 7 Cary J. Nederman, 216.

PAGE 174

174 resists any sort of institutional subjection of the secular government by the visible church. The submission of kings to priests is purely a volunta ry act and the church may best be characterized as acting in an advisory way. Another such work is Grialdus Cambrensiss De Principis Instructione written about 1217. In this work, he noted, it is betterto be loved than to be feared by subjects. Yet it is essential to be feared somewhat provided that the fear is engendere d in admiration and not coercion: for whatever is loved in tender affection must be of consequence also be feared.8 Love became a major theme in the Basilikon Doron In fact, James I echoed this theme in his writings as well as his actions and justifica tions by showering affec tion on favorites. Art followed literary imagery in early seventeenth-c entury English artwor k. Friedrich Polleross noted that examples of relationships between mo dels showed this type of relationship between the patron and subject. For inst ance, The Duke of Buckingham was painted as St. Stephen in a work, which no longer exists and showed a r everence of king James I for his favorite.9 The connection between religion and love seems to have gained particular significance in seventeenth-century England. When criticized by jealous parliamentarians, James defended his relationship to Buckingham by noting, You may be quite sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than any other and it cannot be considered a mistake if Jesus Christ did the same. Christ had his John and I have my George.10 8 Lester Kruger Born, The Perfect Prince: A Study in Thirteenth and ForuteenthCentury Ideals Speculum Vol. 3, No. 4 (Oct. 1928), 470-504, 478. 9 Friedrich Polleross, Between Typology and Psychology: The Role of the Identification Portrait in Updating Old Testament Representations, Artibus et Historiae, Vol. 12, No. 24 (1991), 75-117, 81. 10 Friedrich Polleross, 81.

PAGE 175

175 William Perraults De Eruditione Principum continues with the same themes of these earlier works. Charity is also emphasized by Perrault. The prince should be loved by his subjects and give of his own goods to help them protecting them from oppressions and evils. The prince should realize th at unto the poor was given the Kingdom of Heaven.From such a relation as outlined; there will be mutual faith and dependence between the prince and his subjects.11 Faith is extremely important for the prince as it is with other writ ers in this review. Perrault also emphasized the organic analogy of the pr ince as head and higher than the rest of the body. However, adds that the body after all sustains the head. The prince should often stop to think what his ishe should be of good charactermild, truthful, just in his relations to subjects and content with his income. 12 Clemency makes the difference between a prince and a tyrant but above all the prince should be wi se as to the use of his power. For the greatne ss of power is not in its magnitude, but in its la udable application and the task of the prince is not to burden, but to help his people.13 The final medieval author to be mention is this review is Thomas Occleve. His poem De Regimine Principis which contained over 5000 lines of E nglish verse, was written around 1411. This work, such as the others, argued for a prince that should follow divine laws, be of unquestioned morals and surpass his people in virtue. He should be continent, temperate, self restrained and magnanimousmercifu l but without mercy to tyranny.14 Above all, justice should be the nature of the prince as justice is the nature of God. 11 Lester Kruger Born, 486. 12 Lester Kruger Born, 485. 13 Lester Kruger Born, 485-486. 14 Lester Kruger Born, 500.

PAGE 176

176 Common veins of thought are evident in this tw o-century period of pol itical and religious advice to princes. All authors see an organic analogy which symbolized the interdependence of the king and the governed. Equally important we re the concepts of peace, unity and harmony. Another thing they have in common was that ev ery one of these treati ses were dedicated or written for the prince, not by the prince. For th ese authors, Christian goodness is the one great remedy for the woes of mankind and flawed politi cs. The final theme that connects most of these medieval writers was that the prince was bound by divine law. It was clear the prince must answer for his conduct before the law of God and to God. Another well known work in the tradition of Frstenspiegel or speculum principis already mentioned briefly, is Erasmuss The Education of a Christian Prince This work was written within three years of Machiavellis Prince. Erasmus lived during the Reformation, which led Martin Luther to embark upon Protestantism and reject the authority of the Pope. Meanwhile others remained committed to reforming the Church from within. Erasmus was a reforming Catholic dedicated to the latter cause. He cons istently criticized certain contemporaneous popular Christian beliefs, abuses, and practices. Yet he re mained committed to Catholic doctrines such as that of free will, which Protestant reformers rejected in favor of the doctrine of predestination. This middle road attitude disappointed and even angered many Protestants, such as Luther, as well as some of the more conservative elements in the Catholic Church. While rejecting and attacking abuses of the contemporary Roman Cu ria, such as abuse of power and lack of discipline among the clergy, Erasmus never sided fully with Protestantism and remained a critical, yet faithful Catholic. Erasmus died in Basel in 1536. Unfortunately and rather unfairly,

PAGE 177

177 the Council of Trent placed Eras mus in the first category of he retics, and put all his works on the index of prohibited books.15 Erasmuss Institutio principis Christiani ( Education of a Christian Prince ) (Basel, 1516) was written as advice to the young king Charles of Spain, later Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. Erasmus applied the general prin ciples of honor and sincerity to the special functions of the Prince, whom he represents throughout as the se rvant of the people. This work was opposed to Machiavelli who stated that, to main tain control by political force, it is safer for a prince to be feared than loved. Erasmus preferred that the prince was loved and suggested that the prince needed a well-rounded education in order to govern justly and benevolently and avoid becoming a source of oppression. For Erasmus, like others in this tradition of literature, the tried and true virtues identified by medieval writers were the cure for emerging anti-Machiavellianism. Both works by Erasmus and Machiavelli were written in answer to the moral panic generated by the political instability of the times. However, they came to very different conclusions. Erasmus pointed out that the prince should realize that good deeds are the best means to achieving and maintaining a good reputation. The princes should alwa ys keep this in mind because he is readily imitated by his people. Erasmus wrote: Among the various qualities necessary for the good prince are wisdom and integrity, continence and clemency, devo tion to his people, self-restra int, interest in truth and liberty, freedom from the vices of cruelty and pride and the careful avoidance of flatterers. The prince should be like God in his manners and qualities. He should learn from association with wise men.16 15 Erasmus, The Education of a Christian Prince Lisa Jardine, editor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), xvi. 16 Erasmus, The Education of a Christian Prince (trans.,) Lester K. Born (New York: Columbia University Press, 1936), 13.

PAGE 178

178 Basilikon Doron is very close to Erasmuss work a nd was intended for a general audience of like minded moderate thinkers. Yet an equa lly important audience included his sons Henry and Charles I. Charless name was chosen to hon or the emperor Charles V. This was intended to please and flatter the Spanish monarchs of the day; again, James was re aching out in hope for some kind of political accommodation. Basilikon Dorons Family Context Basilikon Doron was written when James was king of Scotland. The title, Basilikon Doron Greek for royal gift, or imperial gift,17 was written in the form of a private and confidential letter to the kings eldest son, Henry, Duke of Rothesay, born in 1594. After the premature death of Prince Henry, James gave th e letter to his second son, Charles, with no significant revisions. It was first printed in Edinburgh in 1599, later in London in 1603, and again after the death of Prince Henry in 1612; however copies escaped early on. Basilikon Doron repeats the argument for the Divine Right of Kings as set out in the Trew Law of Free Monarchies. The letter warns against Papists a nd Puritans as fanatics, but is much harsher and lengthy in its criticisms of Puritans or Pr esbyterians, who James does not distinguish as separate. These Puritans had cau sed political and religiou s instability for James in Scotland, Catholics had not, a nd in fact, many of his most faithful supporters were the supporters of his mother. When one examines his f ear of the polarized extr emes of the Christian church, more than five times the amount of ink wa s used to warn readers about the iniquities of Puritans compared to the fanaticism of Catholic s. Historians or literary critics have not noted 17 Johann P. Sommerville translates this as royal gift, Florin Curta suggests a more literal translation should be imper ial gift. If Curta is correct, that meant that James was already thinking about imperial titles before he became king of England while writing this in Scotland.

PAGE 179

179 this significant disparity, but they pointed out th at Charles always kept a copy of this work by his bedside. Governance and proper maintenance of th e Church is a recurring theme in the Basilikon Doron James, unlike many of the earlie r writers of this literary genr e differs in his claim to be head and supreme governor in religion. As tim e went on Jamess movement of the English church became more traditional and he defended his ri ght to move the church as he willed as its father. He also moved it toward a more trad itionally pre-reformed polity with emphasis on sacraments, which called for a more magnificent se tting for the English Eucharistic service, and other sacraments. One must note that primarily Puritans objected to th e use of religious or classical arts and not the Roman Catholics of his dominions, nor the Arminians and antiCalvinists or Anglicans, who w ould emerge later to challenge Calvinism. James would deed the English Church to this emerging group by th e time of his death. Scholars note the importance of Basilikon Doron to Charles ideological formation. The Sources for Basilikon Doron The education of James was not in any way a crash course on Absolutism. Scots, whose task was to ingrain in the young monarch his limits as a king, educated him. George Buchanan was his most important tutor. James was fed a different diet of scholarship by George Buchanan than contemporary southern rulers we re. Buchanan was an outspoken critic of royal Absolutism. Andrew Melville, like Buchanan, was a critic who held that James was accountable to the church in religious and moral matters. This was completely rejected by James; therefore, his primary schoolmasters could not be the major sources for Basilikon Doron for Jamess religious or political policies. He certainly did not take their a dvice on governance of the church. After reaching his majority, James consistently and efficiently increased royal power at the

PAGE 180

180 expense of the Presbyterian Church and the nobility of Scotland. This success in directing the Scottish church was due to his skilled political sens e and ability to negotiate strongly with others. Most of the Protestant thinke rs of his day in Scotland objected to the encroachment by the monarchy on the church. Therefore, one must look to Protestant absolutists or to the antiMachiavellian Catholic philosophers and theol ogians on the continent as sources for Jamess thought. (Both the Protestant and Catholic thinkers may have changed sides more than once.) The other sources were the many earlier works on the role of monarchy and virtue in government noted in the review at the be ginning of this chapter. The onl y other possibility, which seems extremely remote, is that James came to these ideas by himself. It is known that Jamess library included the Six Livres de Republique of the French absolutist Jean Bodin. Bodin was a prime ex ample of an early m odern thinker who was sympathetic to Protestantism but who never officia lly left the Catholic Ch urch. They did diverge on matters of religion and a few finer points, bu t James and Bodin plainl y belonged to the same family of thought.18 Both James and Bodin were proponent s of a moderated absolutism. This point is made by Sommerville as he wrote despite the major differences in their political thought, both Hobbes and Locke were able to prai se James, for the king combined absolutist principles with an emphasis upon the monarchs duty to rule according to law and the public good. The kings political philosophy wa s nuanced, moderated absolutism.19 The same general theme expressed in Frstenspiegel or speculum principis literature, which he likely had in his library, was this moderate absolutism, where th e monarch was responsible to God and could not 18 Johann Sommerville, ed., King James VI and I Political Writings (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), xxviii. All quotations from Basilikon Doron are from this text. 19 Johann Sommerville, xv.

PAGE 181

181 rule as a tyrant. It is clear that James was fam iliar with at least one of his contemporary Catholic absolutist writers in that he did reject Christia nized stoicism, one of the premises that Justus Lipsius supported as a way out of Ch ristian sectarianism and violence.20 Many early modern Scottish thi nkers, such as John Knox and Buchanan, taught that kings (and queens as in the case of Ma ry of Scotland) could be and should be deposed for religious reasons or because of tyranny or virtuous def ect. Jamess early experiences in Scotland alienated him from the thinking of such men as Knox and Buchanan. He also vigorously rejected Catholic theories which legitimated the use of force by subjects agai nst their s overeigns.21 These Catholic thinkers believed that the pope had greater powers of jurisdiction than any other sovereign. Therefore, popes could depose an unjus t ruler or one who had lapsed into heresy. Robert Bireley labeled other thi nkers who remained, for the most part, in the Catholic camp as anti-Machiavellians. These intellectuals were abso lutists who disagreed with the papal right of deposition.22 As the earlier authors mentioned, they emphasized the virtuou s life and rule of prince as the best means to heal the politic al and religious breaches of their day. The anti-Machiavellians wrote in mainly Hapsburg territories, but also in Italy and France, and showed respect for the papacy but argued for royal power to stabilize kingdoms. James was influenced by or certainly agreed w ith these earlier and contemporary writers. He 20 Johann Sommerville, 41. Lipsius was a famous humanist and classical scholar who revived stoic thought in his De Constantia of 1594. In Jamess mind, he was inconsistent in that he taught at Calvinist Leiden Univers ity from 1578, yet was re ceived back into the Catholic Church and was a professor at Ca tholic Louvain from 1592 until his death. 21 Johann Sommerville, xvi-xvii. 22 Robert Bireley, The Counter-Reformation Prince: Anti Machiavellianism or Catholic Statecraft in Early Modern Europe (Chapel Hill and London: The Un iversity of North Carolina Press, 1990). This is a common th eme of all the anti-Machiavellia n literature in regards to respect for the papacy, but a denial of the right of deposition.

PAGE 182

182 argued consistently that the greatest defect of Catholicism was papal interference in the sovereign states of Europe. In fact, he rarely de scribed the other defects of the Catholic Church in any of his political writings with the exception of his political and th eological duel with Cardinal Robert Bellarmine over the Oath of A llegiance. The group within Catholicism to which he had a visceral reaction was the Jesuits. The Je suits took a personal oath of loyalty to the pope and mounted a counter-offensive to reclaim En gland and Scotland clandestinely. They, of course, were often close to if not openly sedi tious and they were vociferous proponents of the power of papal deposition. James held that the monarchy possessed a m onopoly of political power within the state, which was derived from God alone. Many Catholic thinkers held this conviction in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Because of this m onopoly of power, any active resistance to a king was always sinful. The only exception to this wa s if one was ordered by the king to disobey the commands of God. Even then, if the king punished the subject for disobedi ence, the subject had to accept the punishment inflicted by the monarch. When Basilikon Doron was published, it was one of the most popular books in early modern Britain. It was also well received on the c ontinent. That a work by a Protestant prince was received well by Catholic monarchs should not be surprising, as it shared much of the agenda of other rulers who admired absolutist theory. However, this work was not always received well by Jamess fellow Protestants. Th e Scotsman Melville drew up a list of eighteen objections to the text. His criticisms were presen ted to the Synod of Fife in 1599, but the text was

PAGE 183

183 never censored, as James intervened and the book went unchallenged in Scotland.23 This was a prime example of his ability to gain control of the church. Basilikon Doron, with its practical advice rather than abstract theory, assumed the major principles of the Trew Law of Free Monarchies without trying to prove them. His advice to Henry and later to Charles was th at the king alone is responsible for final decisions on foreign and domestic policy and has supremacy in all ec clesiastical affairs. This emphasis on the importance of being supreme governor of the ch urch was due to Jamess rather unpleasant experience of Presbyterianism and Puritanism in Scotland. He was to encounter this same spirit of religious independence in disappointed Purita ns after the failure of the Hampton Conference to change the English Church in to a Presbyterian institution. Here James demonstrated that he would not give in on key elements of polity. His famous statement no bishops, no kings came out of his experience at the Hampton Conference. James also contributed to religious controvers ies, with Catholics as well as Puritans, and Presbyterians. After the failed Gunpowder Plot an d the deaths of Henry III and Henry IV at the hands of religious fanatics in France, James concentrated on a debate with other European thinkers and rulers on the power of the papacy to depose kings. Jamess work, Triplici Nodo, Tiplex Cuneus, Or an Apologie for the Oath of Allegiance was answered by Pope Paul V in a breve, which forbade Catholics to take the Oath of Allegiance. The Oath of Allegiance was used to regulate and punish popish recusants who we re seen as seditious. This oath contained a renouncement of the popes claim to be able to de pose kings and to release subjects from loyalty to their sovereigns. James answered the objections of Paul V and Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, who ordered Catholics not to take the oath. Thro ughout most of this give and take, James argued 23 Johann Sommerville, xviii.

PAGE 184

184 in Triplici Nodo and in Premonition of his Maiestie s, to all most Mightie Monarchies, Kings, free Princes and States of Christendom of 1609 that the pope did not have powers to depose. However, even though James did have some objecti ons to some of the el aborate ceremonies, the continued cult of the saints, and some of the s uperstitious aspects of Roman Catholicism, he held that the Roman Church was a true chur ch and the mother Chur ch of his own state churches.24 This was a position that distinguished hi m from most Protestant thinkers, including his own archbishop, Bancroft. Analysis of Basilikon Doron and Influence on Charles I In his relatively short document, (by my own count), James I mentions some form of the word virtue more than seventy times. Virtue showing virtue, teaching virtue, and having his subjects imitate the monarchys virtue in order to achieve a happy and contributive state is one of the strongest themes in this text. Basilikon Doron, like other works of this genre, portrayed James in a good light as a wise ruler who venerated the memory of his mother, Mary Queen of Scots, and to a lesser degree, Queen Elizab eth, and continues their good rule through the Christian virtues. In the pream ble, he affirms that those who supported his mother were so stedfastly trew to me in all my troubles, as these that constantly kept thei r allegiance to her in her time.25 This was primarily a Catholic camp within Scotland and England. James always valued highly those who had been loyal to Marylike S ecretary Maitland, soon to be chancellor; the Seton family, one of whom would be chancello r in the future; and 24 Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought 1600-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). Milton writes that James, to the consternation of Purita ns, often said that Rome was the mother church (141, 264 fn, 276). Milton also documented that Ja mes also allowed for salvation in the Roman Church (136). James had argued this poi nt before Parliament in 1605. (136 fn) 25 Johann Sommerville, 5.

PAGE 185

185 Henry Howard, the future Earl of Northamp ton. And when he had the opportunity to do so, he erected the splendid tomb to her memo ry which now stands ne ar that of Elizabeth in Westminster Abbey.26 For James, one of the most important virtues for kingship was loyalty to ones parents and preservation of good memories; this mirrors th e other works of speculum principis as well. Though Mary was Catholic, James had her memory defended against his former tutors. He had Archbishop Spottiswoode of St. Andrewes, the principal clerical agent in the affairs of the Scottish Church; write an official history where Mary is portrayed in a good light.27 The lesson of family loyalty and upkeep of the i mage was one that Charles understood. This was shown in the careful preservation and continuatio n of his fathers image figuratively and then concretely in the monument to James at Whitehall. Though James does not specifically charge his successors to follow contemporary southern rulers in great building projects or works associated with the upkeep of the Church, he nowhere criticized these wo rks. The virtuous ruler portrayed in th is letter is a man of works, as well as a man of spiritual qualitie s. Virtuous absolutes were to be men of action and leadership, charged by God to run all aspects of government. They were to show their inner virtue through good government and good stewardshi p of the church. Charles cert ainly could have interpreted the idea of the public good in his building pr ojects for St. Pauls and even in the Banqueting House, as it expressed and emphasized the stab ility of the monarchy envisioned by James. One of the major aims of the reign of Charles was to d uplicate and build on his fath ers success. It is a 26 Maurice Lee, Great Britains Solomon: James VI and I in His Three Kingdoms (Urbana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1991), 98. 27 Maurice Lee, 33.

PAGE 186

186 well-known fact, according to Charless biographers, that he often read Basilikon Doron and tried to emulate the ruler his fa ther envisioned. Indeed the way that Charles chose to remember favorably his father was almost hero worship. This was particularly shown in the Banqueting House Ceiling. God Giues Not Kings the Stile of Gods in Vaine In the short introduction of Basilikon James emphasized concepts like labor, honor, proportion, symmetry and harmony.28 These words carry a sense of virtue, but they are words that are also descriptive of ideal s of Renaissance artistic culture These words are often repeated throughout the rest of the document. In the intro duction, he charges his son to keep this work with him always as a reminder of James and as a manual for proper kingship and right action. I haue ouer you, that yee keepe it euer with you, as carefully, as Alexander did the Illiads of Homer. Yee will finde it a iust and impartiall cons ellour; neither flattering you in any vice, nor importuning you at vnmeete times.29 Though this is obviously liter ary rhetoric, Charles seemed to have taken this rather literally according to most accounts. This was a very personal work for Charles that connected him to his father, so mething his biographers suggested he needed desperately. James noted that there was one group he could trust who supported him in Scotland, those who had supported his mother. Many were Catholic. Wherein I doe alledge my owne experience anent the Queene my mother; affirmi ng, that I neuer found any that were of perfit aage the time of her reigne here, so stedfastly trew to me in all my troubles, as these that 28 Johann Sommerville, 2-3. 29 Johann Sommerville, 3.

PAGE 187

187 constantly kept their alle giance to her in her time.30 He reminded his re aders to honor his and Annes memory as he had honored his mothers me mory (by the time this was given to Charles James had already completed the spectacular tomb of Mary Queen of Scots, Figures 1-1, 1-2, 1-3). Jamess actions were in response to the many books written calling into question the virtue of Mary Queen of Scots.31 On pages 5 to 7 in Basilikon Doron, James called into question the loyalty of the Puritans. They are called ignorant, full of moral faults when they contemme the Law and souereine authoritie32 The contempt of the law is especially shown when Puritans question the kings right to rule. He continues to question the Pur itans self-righteousness in their understanding that they are the only ones fit for sacraments.33 Here James lumped Anabaptists with other sects whose greatest crime is to question the authority of kings. James continued with a call for tolerance, fo r an end to argument over less important items such as clerical garb, what form ceremonies should take, and so forth. Like other earlier works of this genre, he aimed to engage moderate read ers and bring them along on his virtuous path. He asked his successor to advance churchmen of learning and comm on sense in religious matters. Men chosen for high-church office must emphasize what is important and essential rather than squabbling about unimportant matters in religion.34 This, besides being ex cellent advice for his sons, also reveals one of the important intentions of this speculum principis work; enticing moderates to search for common ground. 30 Johann Sommerville, 5. 31 Johann Sommerville, 5. 32 Johann Sommerville, 6. 33 Johann Sommerville, 6. 34 Johann Sommerville 7-8.

PAGE 188

188 Here James reveals one of his major political intentions for dynastic unity with a Catholic princess rather subtly. He hopes for a Protestant match for his son, but notes that there are so few Protestant princesses worthy of the match that he most likely will have to settle for a Catholic bride. This revealed one of his l ong-term policies. James wanted to use dynastic marriages to shore up his moderate religious and political policies and to bring dtente to the religious climate of Europe. James, as early as the late sixteenth-cent ury, had his mind set on marriage to Catholic princesses for Henry. For him a match outside the Prot estant faith would be an essential way to heal the religious divide. The next six pages of Basilikon Doron are a discussion of faith and religion and Jamess own view of faith as essentially a gift of G od. However, he believed that in order to be maintained, it must be worked at through prayer.35 He felt prayer should come from the heart, and that talking to God was emo tional (a rather Baroque Catho lic notion found in the Council of Trent). He believed prayer should not be mechani cal, such as the ignorant that merely follow a book. James particularly cautioned readers against the Puritans again, warning that one should avoid the prayer of the vaine Pharisaicall puritanes, that thinke they rule him vpon their fingers: The former way will breede an vncouth coldnesse in you toward him, the other will breede in you a contempt of him.36 James, ever versatile in theology and rath er difficult to classi fy, broke with common Calvinist theology and placed an emphasis on con duct as well as faith for judgment aligning himself with the speculum principis notions of good monarchy. R emember therefore all your 35 Johann Sommerville, 16. 36 Johann Sommerville, 16.

PAGE 189

189 actions, of the great account that yee are one day to make.37 James then continued on, warning of the two extremes: Charles must avoid the Papists, who bowed to the political authority of the pope; and the Anabapists and Puritans, who had th eir own convenient revelations or dreams that allowed them to go astray and ignore royal pr erogatives on religion and matters of state.38 He finished his section on religion, that good rulers should not obsess over outer practices but must balance practice with an interior faith. Howeve r, the ruler was to give public witness to the mysteries of faith through their deeds. The exterior must be a reflection of the virtuous interior. The next section further connects Basilikon Doron to speculum principis texts: Keepe God more sparingly in your mouth, but abundantly in your h eart: be precise in effect, but sociall in shew: kythe more by your deeds than by your wordes, the loue of vertue and hatred of vice: a nd delight more to be godly and vertuous indeed then to be thought and called so; expecting more for your pr aise and reward in heauen, then heere: and apply to all your outward actions Christs command, to pray and giue your almes secretly: So shal ye on the one part be in wardly garnished with trew Christian humilitie, not outwardly (with the proud Pharisie) glor ying in your godlinesse; bu t saying, as Christ commandeth vs all, when we haue done all that we can, Inutiles serui sumus : And on the other part, yee shall eschew outwardly before the world, the suspition of filthie proude hypocrisie, and deceitfull dissimulation.39 In Jamess own words, as well as with the literary tradition of speculum principis, the king must be a genuine example of Christian vi rtue for his people. This is not only a religion of the interior, but also include s the exterior, as long as it does not become a religion of show. The king must set the religious tone and be a heroic moral example for his people. These words of James are appealing to those who are l ooking for Christian virtue to extricate Europe from the excessive confessionalism of the Seve nty Years War. His appeal to antique and 37 Johann Sommerville, 18. 38 Johann Sommerville, 18. 39 Johann Sommerville, 19.

PAGE 190

190 medieval texts, common in the literary tradition of his day, wa s an appeal to moderation and peace. Of a Kings Dvetie in His Office: The Second Booke Like the works of Erasmus or Hoccleve, Ja mes emphasizes loyalty to family and family legacy in Basilikon Doron This was helpful in making claims to hegemony in Great Britain, but was also part of his own personal needs; he was essentially a man without a family until he married. Once again, he brought up this central them e of family in the second part of his work. He repeated to his heirs that they have a respons ibility to protect the legacy of James, as James tried to protect the legacy and the virtue of his mother.40 He reminds readers that those who had served his mother were the most useful a nd trustworthy of any of Jamess servants. 41 Pertinent to this study, the next important topic addressed by James was the rank and ancient Priuiledges of the church. It is clear that James believed that all churches needed to be reformed, including his own. The naturall sicken esse that hath euer troubled, and beene the decay of all the Churches, since the beginning of the world, changing the candlesticke from one to another, as Iohn saith, hath beene Pride, Ambition, and Auarice. 42 Jamess argument was aimed at those who inhabited the mi ddle ground of religious spectrums. Basilikon Doron was a challenge to work towards the reform of all chur ches for religious dtente as well as the way to gain salvation for the greatest number of pe ople. He identifies the fringe groups within Catholicism and Protestantism as the greatest enemies of Christian unity. 40 Johann Sommerville, 23-24. 41 Johann Sommerville, 24. 42 Johann Sommerville, 25.

PAGE 191

191 James justifies the reform against the Roma n Catholic Church as Gods will, but argues that there were problems with the reform in Scotland because it was not accomplished by pious princes but by self-serving men. This is one of his most vigorous attacks on Presbyterianism and Puritanism, and it lasted for almost three pages. Some fierie spirited men in the miniserie, got such a guiding of th e people at the time of confusion, as finding the gust of gouernment sweete, they begouth to fantasie to themselues a Democraticke forme of gouermen t: and hauing (by the iniquitie of time) been ouerwell bated vpon the wracke, first my Grandmother, and next of mine owne mother, and after vsurping the liberitie of th e time in my long minorite, setled themselues so fast vpon imagined Democracie as they fed themselue with hope to become Tribuni plebes : and so in a popular gouernment by lead ing the people by the nose, to beare the sway of all the rule .I was ofttimes calumniated in their populare Sermons, not for any euill or vice in me, but because I was a King, which they thought the highest euill. And because they were ashamed to professe this quarrel, they were busie to look narrowly in all my actions; and I warrant you a mote in my eye, yea a false report, was matter enough for them to worke vpon: and yet for all th eir cunning, whereby they pretended to distinguish the lawfulnesse of the office, from the vice of the person, some of them would sometimes snapper out well grossely with the trewth of their intentions, informing the people, that all Kings and Prin ces were naturally enemies of the libertie of the Church, and could neuer patiently beare the yoke of Christ: 43 Jamess attack on the extremities of Presbyteriani sm and Puritanism continued in this section with advice to his reader. Sufficient prouision for their sustentation, a co mely order in their policie, pride punished, humilitie aduanced, and they so to reuerence their superiours, and their flockes them, as the flourishing of your Church in pietie, peace, and learning, may be one of the chiefe points of your earthly glory, being euer alike wa re with both the extremities; as well as yee represse the vaine Puritane so not to suffer proude Papall Bishops; but as some for their qualities will deserve to bee preferred before others, so chaine them with such bondes as may preserue that estate from creeping corruption.44 Here James also criticized the Roman church, or those who would follow the pride of popery. His major criticism of Cath olicism was its declared indepe ndence from the authority of a 43 Johann Sommerville, 26. 44 Johann Sommerville, 27.

PAGE 192

192 king. In Jamess view, kings had legal authority over church as well as state built upon his interpretation of natural law and scripture as well. The Basilikon Doron continues in this section with a discussion of the noble classes. James encouraged pleasurable sports for the hea lth of his subjects. Sports were not at odds with his understanding of religious practice. He gave a common guide for moderate celebrations that helped to build a more closely-knit co mmunity, and gave a backhanded compliment to Catholics in their emphasis on good fellowship. In respect whereof, and therewith also the more to allure them to a common amitie among themselues, certain dayes in the yeere woul d be appointed, for delighting the people with publicke spectacles of all honest games, and ex ercise of armes: as also for conueening of neighbours, for entertaining fr iendship and heartliness, by hon est feasting and merrinesse: For I cannot see what greater superstition can be in making playes and lawfull games in Maie, and good cheere at Christmas, then in eating fish in Lent, and vpon Fridayes, the Papists well vsing the one as the other: so that alwayes the Sabboths be kept holy, and no vnlawfull pastime be vsed: And as this fo rme of contenting the peoples mindes, hath beene vsed in all well gouerned Republic ks: so will it make you to performe in your gouernment that olde good sentence. Onme tulit punctum, qui miscuit vtile dulci. [From Horace, De arte Poetica, He has won all th e applause who has combined the useful with the pleasurable].45 James sees little harm in celebrating fellowship w ith neighbors. This section is an endorsement of merriment that was part of the fabric of the country during its pre-Reformation past. James even notes that these practices, still part of th e Catholic tradition of his day, were harmless and indeed beneficial to the maintenance of the social fabric for good communities. In Basilikon Doron, James expressed an independent view of the Spanish. Unlike the English, who had a xenophobic outlook on the Hapsburg ruling houses on the continent, James lavished praise on the Spaniard, whose great successe in all his warres, hath onely come 45 Johann Sommerville 6.

PAGE 193

193 through straitnesse of Discipline and order.46 This theme of a disciplined life is mentioned on the same page within the context that virtue and order are more important than armies. But is it not enough to be a good King, by th e scepter of good Lawe s well execute to gouerne, and by force of armes to protect his pe ople; if he ioyne not therewith his virtuous life in his owne person, and in the person of his Court and company; by good example alluring his Subiects to the loue of vertue, and hatred of vi ce. And therefore (my Sonne) sith all people are naturally inclined to follow their Princes example.47 Thus, virtue is to be active a nd visible. James reminds his succ essors that except ye employ them [virtues], and set them on worke, for the weale of them that are committed in your charge: Virtutis enim laus omnis in actione consistit [Cicero: for the whole merit of virtue lies in action].48 It is only through action that the interior of the princes tr ue self can be exposed to his people. Once again, James reminded his sons and the ge neral reader that they should choose for servants those who had served him well, as he chose those who had well served Mary Queen of Scots. James reminded them that one w ould be best served by preferring: Their posteritie before others, as kindliest: so shall ye not onely be best serued, (for if the haters of your parents cannot loue you, as I shewed before, it followeth of necessitie their louers must loue you) but further, ye shall kyth your thankefull me morie of your father, and procure the blessing s of these olde seruants, in not missing their olde master in you; which otherwise would be turned in a pr ayer for me, and a curse for you. Vse them therefore when God shall call me, as the tes timonies of your affection toward me; trusting and aduancing those farthest, whom I found faith fullest: which ye must not discerne by their rewards at my hand (for rewards, as they are called Bona fortunae, so are they subject vnto fortune) but according to the trus t I gaue them; hauing oft-times had better heart then hap to the rewarding of sundry; And on the other part, as I wish you to kyth your constant loue toward them that I loued, so desire I you to kyth in the same measure, your constant hatred to them that I hated: I meane, bring not home, nor restore not such, as ye finde standing banished or fore-faulted by me. The contrary would kyth in your ouer 46 Johann Sommerville, 33. 47 Johann Sommerville, 33-34. 48 Johann Sommerville, 34.

PAGE 194

194 great contempt of me, and light nesse in your owne nature: for how can they be trew to the Sonne that were false to the Father?49 Charles almost followed this advice to the lette r. Toward the end of his reign, James would advance Anglicans, Arminians, and anti-Calvini sts, the exact same group that Charles would continue to advance in the English Church. In addition, Buckingham, first noticed by Anne, would dominate the end of Jamess rei gn and the beginning of Charless reign. Once again, James singled out the Puritans for particular ridicule because of their hubris and false humilities. And what is betwixt th e pride of a glorious Nebuchadnezzar, and the preposterous humilitie of one of the proud Puritanes, claiming to their Paritie, a nd crying, Wee are all but vile wormes, and yet will iudge and giue Law to their King, but will be iudged nor controlled by none? Surely there is more pride vunder such a ones blake bonnet, then vnder Alexander the great his Diademe, as was said of Diogenes in the like case.50 Here James uses literary works of the past to enhance the irony of the Puritanism of his day. Puritans claimed to be sober and obedient to the will and word of God, however, they often were the most political group challenging the status and the power of kings. In this comparison of them to Alexander the Great, he decries them as extremely hypocritical. Jamess final bit of religious caution warns the reader of three distin ct (at least in his mind) religious groups who deny the authority of kings. James then reminded the reader that all virtues are related to statecraft. But aboue all virtues, study to know well your owne craft, which is to rule your people. And when I say this, I bid you know all craf ts: For except ye know euery one, how can yee control euery one, which is your proper o ffice?...all Artes and sciences are linked euery one with other, their greatest principles agreeing in one (which mooued the Poets to faine the nine Muses to be all sisters) studi e them, that out of th eir harmonie, ye may 49 Johann Sommerville, 35-36. 50 Johann Sommerville, 44.

PAGE 195

195 sucke the knowledge of all faculties; and conseq uently be on the counsell of all crafts, that yee may be able to containe them all in order.51 However, the major goal of this passage is to show off his knowledge of classical antiquity and literature. It also reveals the not ion that the king is in charge of all the apparatus of the state and should not cede his authority. Another possible interpreted, by those who were friendly to the fine arts such as his sons, would be the justifi cation for expressing virtue through the arts. Virtue could be expressed in a Culture of Image by the king as a shaper of th e arts. In particular, Charles embraced the arts connect ed with the muses; including music, painting and sculpting. Both of his sons exceeded James in the study, patronage, and collecting of the arts. Continuing on, James reminds his readership th at the king should be completely in control of the church and that the church owed them obedience. Suffer no conuentions nor meetings among Church-men, but by your knowledge and permission.52 In addition, he reminded them to control the text in the pulpit and that they should never allo w the preaching of the Word to be confused with preachers who meddle in that pla ce with the estate or po licie; but punish seuerely the first that presumeth to it [meddle].53 James then moved on to the art of histor y and its necessity for well-educated and enlightened monarchs. Obviously, th is text fit within the scope of such genre. He takes another swipe at Scottish Puritans for their selective histories. 51 Johann Sommerville, 44. 52 Johann Sommerville, 45. 53 Johann Sommerville, 45.

PAGE 196

196 I would haue you to be well versed in authentik histories but specially in our owne histories I meane not of such infamous inuectiues, as Buchanans or Knoxes Chronicles: and if any of these infamous libels remaine vntill your dayes, vse the Law vpon the keepers thereof.54 Discrediting these histories, which looked most unfavorably on the legacy of Mary Queen of Scots and other Stuarts, James recommended the works of antiqui ty, especially the Commentaries of Caesar : Of all the Ethnick Emperors, or great Captaines that euer were, he hath farthest excelled, both in his practice, [of diplomacy] and in his precepts in martiall affaires.55 James also advises, most importantly, his readers that they shou ld not be distracted from the act of ruling. Rule must be something that is not only for show or for study, but action. He quoted the Letter to St. James to remind the r eader, And let not this your knowledge be dead without fruites, as Saint Iames speaketh of Faith: [James 2: 17] but let it appear e in your daily conuersation, and in all the actions of your life.56 Knowledge must be placed into action for the successful monarch. James also advi sed his sons that if he shoul d die before Anne, they should honor her. Honor your mother: set Beersheba in a throne on your right hand: offend her for nothing, much lesse wrong her: remember her and that your flesh and blood is made of hers: and beginne not, like the young lordes and lair ds, your first warres vpon your Mother; but preasse earnestly to deserue her blessing.57 James seemed earnestly concerned with the notion of a family legacy. Not surprisingly, the upbri nging he endured at the hands of unscrupulous Scottish lords denied James any real family life. 54 Johann Sommerville, 46. 55 Johann Sommerville, 46. 56 Johann Sommerville, 47. 57 Johann Sommerville, 47.

PAGE 197

197 Of a Kings Behaviovr in Indifferent Things The third part of Basilikon Doron continued the theme of seeing or expressing a kings virtue. It is a trew old saying, That a king is as one set on a stag e, whose smallest actions and gestures, all the people gazi ngly doe behold: and therefor e although a King be neuer so praecise in the discharging of his Office, the people, who seeth but the outward part, will euer iudge of the substance, by the circumstances; and according to the outward appearance, if his behauiour bee light or di ssolute, will conceiue prae-occupieed conceits of the Kings inward intention: which although with time, (the trier of all trewth,) it will euanish, by the euidence of the contrary effect s, yet interim partitur iustus; and preaiudge conceits will, in the meane time breed contempt the mother of rebellion and disorder either vpon vertue or vice, according as they ar e vsed or ruled: for there is not a middes betwixt them, nor more then betwixt their rewards, heauen and hell.58 James expresses the age-old tension often expressed in mirror of th e prince literary work of the inward intentions of monarchy be ing expressed in outward behavior Ones inner virtue must be reflected in the mirror of public life. Here James emphasized th e outward appearance of kingship for this reason, the interior virtuous quality conne cted with true kingship. Charles I seemed to have taken this outward appearance rather li terally. The constructing of image became an obsession by Jamess successor. The following chapte rs show that Charles crafted the exterior fashioning of monarchy along the lines of the co urts he visited in Spain and France. He developed his own policy of image making, not through literary works such as the speculum principis tradition exhibited here by his father. Instead, it is th rough building, sculpture, and painting that Charles would construct his im age of kingship, with the exception of the Eikon Basilike which defended Charless kingship and re ligion at the time of his regicide. For Charles, art, building and masque was th e most efficient way for him to display his inner virtue. It was his outwar d expos of his inner. Though this may not have been a central 58 Johann Sommerville, 49.

PAGE 198

198 theme or the main intention in Basilikon Doron, a further important example of a visual policy could be implied in the last lines of the Basilikon Doron, and image is emphasized again in the last pages of the document. James argues for a concept of a visual ki ngship. by the outward vsing thereof, to testifie the inward vprightne sse of your heart; and by your behauiour in all indifferent things, to set foorth the viue image of your vertuous disposition; and in respect of the greatnesse and weight of your burthen.59 Here outward, testifiy, behavior, set forth the view-image of your virtuous disposition, seem s to have been taken literally when one examines the staggering evidence of material culture that Charles I created from 1625-1642 before he lost cont rol in the Civil War. This visual theme of the viue image, was readily adapted by Charles. The last few lines of Basilikon Doron are a poetic reminder to reader that th e king must be in charge of all the aspects of government, especia lly in shaping his image. Excudent alij spirantia mollius aera, Credo equidem, & viuos ducent de marmore vultus, Orabunt causas melius, coelique meatus Descri bent radio, & surgentia sydera dicent. Tu, regere imperio pupuos, Romane, memento (Hae tiie erunt artes) pacique imponere morem Parcere subiectis, & delbellare superbos.60 Taken from Virgils Aeneid VI it translates as Others will more pleasingly beat out the breathing bronze (I do Believe), will draw forth living faces from marble; will better plea d cases, will mark the movement of the sky with a rod and proclaim the rising of the stars. You, Roman, be sure to rule peoples by your power (for these will be your arts), to add law to peace, to spare the humble and to subdue the proud.61 Basilikon Doron clearly mirrors the works of Frstenspiegel or speculum principis and may have been about very general principles of kingship, however, Charle s did guide others to beat out breathing bronze and to draw forth li ving Marble in his program for the upgrading 59 Johann Sommerville 59. 60 Johann Sommerville, 61. 61 Johann Sommerville, in footnote, 463.

PAGE 199

199 and renewal of palaces, churches and dynastic ar t. Even though the general audience was fellow Christians who inhabited the middle ground of Chri stianity and who rejected Machiavellianism as a way of rule, Charles seems to have read the work much more literally than James may have intended. One so enchanted by the arts, from the time of his youth as Charles, interpreted the vocabulary and advice of the Basilikon Doron, to support collection, commissions and implementation of building programs. As James was master of the literary ge nre, publishing numerous works from scripture commentary, to poetry, and political works, Charle s chose a different artistic path. The charge by his father to be the master all the arts would be the most skillf ul way that this stammering and shy king could show his right to rule. Charles left a record through the employment of bronze makers, painters and master sculptors, and builder s. The record is quite clear; Charles I was the greatest director, governor, or ruler of the arts in English history. Even while he attempted the virtuous rule laid out in Basilikon Doron, as a divine right monarc h, he employed others to beat out the breathing bronze and draw forth faces in marble and paintings that are still the topic of discussion, argument, and amazement, even if this was not the most literal understanding intended by James I. Contemporary Catholic Thought on Absolutism One of the important assertions in this study is that early mode rn England was more influenced by Catholic sources in art and ideology than historians have realized. Catholic sources influenced a drift and a flirtation by James and th en by Charles to use material culture as an important tool for the display of absolute monarc hy theory. In this drift, art and architecture moved toward the more traditional Catholic position and toward display for specific purpose rather than enjoyment. Individuals and ideologies were tapped to help shore up and consolidate Stuart rule. This movement towa rd a Catholic aesthetic was conscious and was part of the

PAGE 200

200 Stuartss foreign policy, which embraced a notion of a peaceful Europe and a rapprochement with churches, including th e largest and most powerfu l of the day, Catholicism. One figure who helped straddle the Eng lish and Roman communi on was Marco Antonio De Dominis. De Dominis is an important example of an exterior influence that had become an interior influence in early Stua rt England. He lived and worked in England during this period of shift in religious and artisti c thought between 1616 and 1624. Th is era marks the advancement of high-church Arminians and anti -Calvinists to power within the English Church and a shift in decoration and building that echoed what was ha ppening in Catholic Europe. De Dominis was one of the most ardent proponents of the Desi gnation Theory of Absolutism, a theory of Absolutism, which taught that the monarchor bishoponce placed in power could not be removed. He immigrated to England in the middle of the second decade of the seventeenthcentury. An Italian theologian and natural philosopher from Venice, De Dominis was educated by the Jesuits at Loreto and Padua and mi ght have joined their order in 1579.62 It is interesting to note that Venice had been one of the major ar eas where the anti-Machiavellian theory had developed. Historians often try to paint the Catholicism of the late sixteenth and early seventeenth-centuries as monolithic. It appears that there was considerable fluidity and variation of thought on papal authority and a need for continued reformation of church culture, especially its involvement in the political sphere. Here the viewpoint of Venice was often similar to Jamess views about papal supremacy while still maintaini ng its ties within the greater Catholic unity. 62 William B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 220.

PAGE 201

201 Venice also clearly had economic and political reasons to side with England. (It is of interest to note that Venetian works of art were the most sought after by Charles.) De Dominis taught in Verona as a professor of rhetoric, mathematics, and philosophy. He became archbishop in Seni in Dalmatia (still cont rolled by Venice at the time), and was an avid reformer, bringing him into conflict with his suffragan bishops and through them, the papacy. When petitioned by the people of his metropolitan see, the papal courts took the side of the plaintiffs. This was the beginning of the quarrels De Dominis had with the papal court, recounted in his work titled Concilliam profectionis. He explained in his biogr aphy that this negative experience then led him to a deeper study of eccl esiastical law, church history, and dogmatic theology, leading him into a love of the true Catholic Church. In this work, he also condemned the meddling of the papacy in local church affa irs. He was not successful in pressing Rome for a more sympathetic ear for reform, so he resigned his diocese, returned to Venice, and wrote the account of his problems with th e Vatican in September 1616. De Dominis owed his religious, artistic, a nd political views to his country. Venice was fiercely independent, and ye t fiercely Catholic. During the early part of the seventeenth-century, Venice managed to stand up not only to Pope Paul V and his political allies, but also to the Turks. Paolo Sarpi, a friar and chronicler of th is period, records the importance of Englands help in these politically difficult times for Venice.63 As with other Catholic countries of the time, Venice sought to regulate the church within its borders and manage its own affairs while still being in union with the greater church. De Dominis supported Veni ce in its struggle with the papacy. He experienced first-ha nd the way Venice conducted its re lationships between temporal 63 Paolo Sarpi, The History of the Quarrels of Pope Paul V with the State of Venice (London: John Bill, 1626), 117-118, 175-176.

PAGE 202

202 and ecclesiastical personalities. This was a pattern to reform and reunify the international Church,64 which could also possibly create unificati on with like-minded Protestants. In many ways this was the mission he had in mind for his journey to England. De Dominis left Italy by way of Switzerland and the Low Countries, where his journey led him to the court of James I in London. He arrived in December 1616 and was welcomed by the king and the English clergy with great respect. Ac cording to the writings of Arthur Wilson in The History of Grate Britain, De Dominis was old and corpulen t, unfit for travel, being almost at his journeys end by Nature: ye t he began to speak out somewh at vigorously against the faith and the practice of the Church of Rome almo st immediately after hi s arrival to England.65 This clearly endeared him to the court, as most of his rhetoric was a bout the political nature of the Roman Church. He joined the Church of Engla nd in St. Pauls Cathedral and was appointed master of the Savoy in 1618. In 1619, he becam e dean of Windsor. Contemporary English writers do not give a sympathetic account of him, describing him as pretentious, avaricious and fat, however his ability was undoubted and in the theological controversies of his time he soon accepted a celebrated role in England as a trophy convert as a former Catholic Archbishop. His most important work in England was a descri ption of how the church should be governed: De Republic Ecclesiastic contra Primatum Pap This work was published under royal patronage in London in 1617. While there, he publis hed attacks on the papacy, including Papatus Romanus issued anonymously in London in 1617, and Scogli del naufragio Christiano, which 64 William B. Patterson, 223. 65 Arthur Wilson, The History of Great Britain: Being the Life and Reign of King James the First, Relating to What passed from Hi s First Access to the Crown, Till his Death (London: Richard Lownds, 1653), 102.

PAGE 203

203 was preached before the king and published in 1 618. It was translated into English, French, and German. His principle theory, on which rested his enti re system, was the insistence on the divine prerogatives of the Catholic ep iscopates against the encroach ments of papal monarchy. Each bishop was equal and self-governing, and he receive d his status in church independently from the papacy and from God through ordination. This idea of ordination was also central in his notion of absolute monarchy, which he championed in England as well. De Dominis was no Calvinist. Anthony Milton, one of the first to identify De Dominis as an important influence in English thought in the second decade of the 1600s wrote: Essentially, Laudians felt particular animus ag ainst Calvin and Calvinist doctrine because of the de facto authority that they had estab lished in the Elizabetha n and Jacobean Church. Richard Montagues New Gag was composed explicitly in order to achieve what Carrier and Archbishop De Dominis had earlier craved : the removal of Calvinist doctrines from the Church of Englands formal polemic by means of a rigid distinction between the churchs public resolutions and th e private opinions of her members.66 According to Milton, De Dominis was one of the important sources of thought, which was essentially Catholic, for those later called Laudians. Though De Dominis returned to Rome hoping to reconcile with the newly elected Pope Gregory XV, who also happened to be a relative of his, his most important contribution in England was his constant support of the notion of the divine right of kings and bishops and his hope for reunion between the English and Ro man churches. De Dominis provided a vital connection to the theory of th e other anti-Machiavellians who based their theory of rule on natural law and the microcosms reflection of the macrocosm. He was also a great supporter of religious and secular art. 66 Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed 341.

PAGE 204

204 Another important Catholic (and at times Pr otestant) philosopher, who had wide notoriety and influence, was Justus Lipsius. Lipsius is considered one of the most important antiMachiavellians and was equally re vered in his day by Protestants a nd Catholics. His reputation at the time was as legendary as that of his fellow compatriot and humanist scholar a century earlier, Erasmus. Lipsius is of interest in this study because of his many published works on absolutism. But even more importantly, Lipsius had a close relationship with Peter Paul Rubens. Rubens painted the most important statement about kingship in early modern England, the Banqueting House ceiling (Figures 4-1, 4-2, 4-3). Similar to most of the scholars connected with antiMachiavellianism, Lipsius was internationally recognized, and had a vast and very public correspondence with many of the leading figures of Europe. As with Erasmus, Lipsius sought to reconcile Christianity with the classical tradition in a synthesis that would be useful to his contemporaries. Lipsius was a staunch advocate of peace and reconciliation--politically as well as spiritually--between the churches.67 His writings, such as Two Books on Constancy (1584) and Political Advice and Examples (1605), both advocated a strong and unified state as the wa y out of the civil and religious chaos he saw engulfing himself and his world.68 More on Lipsius will be integrated in subsequent chapters in relation to art. Anti-Machiavellians, such as De Dominis and Lipsius, occupied a spectrum in the Catholic Church that did not beli eve that the papacy had any dire ct power or divine mandate to interfere in sovereign European states. This too was an important link to the political reasoning of the Stuarts. As with James, these theol ogians and philosophers were willing to be more 67 Robert Bireley, The Counter-Reformation Prince: Anti-Machiavellianism or Catholic Statecraft in Early Modern Europe (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1990), 7273. 68 Robert Bireley, 72.

PAGE 205

205 flexible on doctrines in the church if the pa pacy would acknowledge the rights of a sovereign to political leadership that incl uded a more direct control of th e church within an independent countrys boundaries. This very theme was taken up in negotiations by bishop Montague during the 1630s. Montague claimed that modera te Caroline bishops we re interested in a Galician-inspired reunion scheme, which would have been a semi-autonomous English Catholic Church, as had been created repeatedly in the la te sixteenth and early se venteenth-centuries in the Eastern Uniate Rites, Rites that were semi-autonomous but still in union with Rome. Milton wrote that moderation by most bishops, ex cept Hall, Morton, and Davenport, established a climate of opinion in which Montag ues plans could develop, with a latitude of belief regarding relations between churches. Montague and others hoped that: The churches could comprehend reunion schemes with little sense of strain. De Dominis 7000 men [De Dominis had claimed that there were that many active churchmen who were friendly with the thought of reunion in England] could at la st lift up their heads. the Roman and Protestant church were a good de al closer to each ot her in their doctrine than the polarized forms of religious contr oversy would suggest. The Doctrine of the Two Churches, the Papal Antichrist, the depict ion of popery as false religionall these arguments sought to create an absolute doc trinal division which would correspond to the physical and political separation of the church es. By rejecting these polemical forms, the Laudians could not help but bring the Roman and English Churches closer together.69 Along with a respect for power, th e anti-Machiavellians, as well as some of the Jacobean and Caroline bishops who worked toward a unified Ch ristianity, were examples of fluidity in religious allegiance and thought in the early modern period. At the center of their writings, the anti-M achiavellians fostered the notion of unity between Catholics and other Chri stian churches as an important characteristic of statecraft.70 Dtente was also a chief goal for James, accord ing to recent research by W. B. Patterson. 69 Anthony Milton, 372-373. 70 Robert Bireley, 230.

PAGE 206

206 Patterson demonstrates that Jamess call for unif ication of the Christian church was indeed sincere. Jamess diplomacy sought the unificatio n of the church with the exception of the extreme Jesuits and Puritans. His plan for dynast ic marriages clearly seems to be a bridging element in this policy of rapprochement and reconciliation.71 One of the important lines of thinking that connected James and the anti-Machiavellians was the notion of civility toward other Christia ns who were not of the same creed. The Stuarts and anti-Machiavellian Catholic s accepted the contemporary consensus that unity of religion was extremely desirable as a bond helping to unite citizen s to a state. They gran ted that heresy should be rooted out if possible, but they also realized that toleration was useful in that further religious strife only led to a barbarization of people. In the end, it undermined all religion and destroyed the state if one side could not tota lly win. Therefore, a limited toleration was an acceptable policy. James and Charles also evidenced proto-tole rance in their consistent softness on the Catholic contingent at court, made necessa ry because of Catholic spouses, the growing international nature of court figures in early m odern England, and the sincere desire for church unity. James had always been ab le to distinguish between Catholics who were loyal and those who were seditious. Those who were loyal were left on their own to practice a discreet Catholicism. Throughout their reigns, James and Charles were consistently attacked in the English press for their toleration of popery. This softness to ward moderate Catholics also allowed the free flow of Catholic ideas a nd art and must be recognized as important. The reaction to this tolerati on was significant. Almost year ly, some author warned about the kings imminent conversion. Note that one of the most inaccura te accusations by 71 W. B. Patterson, 358-364.

PAGE 207

207 parliamentarians was that Charles proved his popery by his toleration of many Catholics in the nobility and the pampering of Henrietta Maria. In many ways, the policie s of James and Charles reflected a growing notion in Europe of the futility of religious war, repressions, especially while working for some kind of middle ground and organi c unity, as James did earnestly, and Charles did tacitly. If Catholics did not plot against the crown, they c ould worship discreetly (as did Queen Anne), as long as they did not make great efforts at conversions outside their numbers. Both Charles and James made limited accommodations for Catholic and Protestant dissenters, as long as they did not interfere with the kings right to rule or try to destabilize th e peace of the country or the peace of the church. This point of view by the Stuarts was rather enlightened, considering Catholic and Protesta nt countries on the continent of ten treated non-conformists with barbarism. Foreign Policy: The Marriage Plans for Prince Henry Before and after the outbreak of the Thirty Years War, at the center of Jamess foreign policy was a rapprochement with the rest of Chri stendom. A crucial part of this policy was his obsession with a Catholic match for his oldest son Henry (and then for Charles after Henrys death). James had already succeeded in re-crea ting the legendary Ancient Empire of Great Britain, made peace with Spain, and by 1609 had halted the long struggle in the Netherlands with the Twelve Years Truce. Others, too, such as Campanella, thought that radical Catholics and radical Protestants could be held at bay. Many moderate thi nkers, attempting to repair the shattered respublica litterarum, had almost messianic hopes that were focused on moderate rulers like Henri IV in France and James I in England. The marriage policy of James should be placed within this understanding of greater hope for European dtente, if not a religious reunion. Dynastic marriage between partners of different faiths was one aspect of attempts to achieve a de facto via media before the holocaust of the

PAGE 208

208 Thirty Years War, and James I was the prime e xponent of this pattern of thought. His insistence on marriage of his two oldest child ren to a Catholic and a Protesta nt remained constant. In this way he [James] saw the Ecclesia Anglicana being both Catholic and reformed, as a bridgehead to theological reconciliation.72 Many historians ignore the fact that the first attempt by James and Anne was not the Spanish Match, but a match to an important Italian princess. Prince Henry was always a peripheral figure in this affair, as he was a minor during all the negotiations with Italians. Though at times eviden ce shows that he protested a Ca tholic match, Henry was deeply enthralled by Italian culture. As a youth, he collected books, pict ures, bronzes, and antique gems and medals, and commissioned a vast palace in cl assical style and a gard en project, patronizing artists as varied as Inigo J ones, Robert Peake, Miereve lt, and Constantino deServi.73 His biographers noted that He nry had an aversion to marrying a Catholic. But as a loyal son, he was willing or at least resigned to meet his fathers demands. The most promising match seemed to be with the duchy of Florence. Grand Duchess Christina sent her confessor to Rome to obtain papal assent. Queen Anne of Denmark, along with the Catholic lords, supported the match. In a letter from Anne of Denmark to the pope, she admitted her Catholicism again and signed humilissima et diligentissima figliuola et serva. She optimistically stated that the marriage could be a means to convert her son.74 After marriage negotiations failed for a prin cess from the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, James and his agents looked to the House of Savoy to one of the daughters of Charles Emmanuel. As 72 Roy Strong, The Tudor and Stuart Monarc hy: Pageantry, Painting, Iconography, vol. 3 of Jacobean and Caroline (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1998), 76. 73 Roy Strong, 76. 74 Roy Strong, 84. Strong quoted a letter found in ASF Miscellanea Medicea 293, inserto 29, no. 2 about the queens support of the Tuscan match and her Catholicism.

PAGE 209

209 with the negotiations with the Medici, complications arose for this marriage, but according to the research of Roy Strong, the marriage would certainly have taken place if Henry had not died before the dowry was sent. Though Henry would have objected to a Catholic bride, according to the documented negotiations, the restrictions on a princess--when it came to practicing and displaying her Catholic faith--would have been minimal on a Venetian, a Medici or a Savoy.75 A much greater Catholic presence would have occurr ed more than a decade earlier in English court if the young prince had not died of typhoid at the age of eighteen. What these wedding negotiations certainly accomplished was to influence considerably English tastes toward southern European ideas about art and religion in the Jacobean period. Almost all scholars of the period note a substantial relaxa tion of Catholic persecution and enforcement of recusant laws during this period due to the po ssibility of a Catholic bride. James, Classicism and Pr otestant Reaction: C lassicism and Catholicism In Basilikon Doron, many examples occur of James looking back toward the Roman past for inspiration and for emulation or as sources of ironic arguments. More than twenty references to Caesar, to Romans, to imperial virtue, or to imperial greatness are found in this document. Historians do not usually give much attention to religious affilia tions regarding English classicism. As with most religious opinion in early modern England, certain camps embraced this continental influence while other camps deri ded it. The usual neutral summation of classical influence is summed up in the thoug hts of one of the founders of th e study of classicism in early modern England, John Ruskin. He argued that cla ssicism was a bookish affair that was slowly introduced into the English mix through education, travel, and exposure to the collections of the 75 Roy Strong, 88-97. Strong documented the ne gotiations that occurred between 1610 and 1612 and concluded that the marriage would have been a reality barring some tragedy, such as the young princes demise.

PAGE 210

210 continent. In this view of cl assicism, English attitude slowly turned away from the Gothic through the importation of foreign artisans due to the aesthetics of the court and of important English collectors. This assu mption seems to reflect a rather seamless and trouble-free acceptance of classicism in early modern Engla nd. Many authors have followed Ruskins line of thinking that the decline of the Gothic had nothing to do with the Reformation76 or that the imposition of classical ideals by the early Stuart s was related to their theory of government. However, evidence can be given to the contrary that the Stuarts adopt ion of artistic vision similar to southern European monarchs may have also seen the introduction of classicism as a religious statement. In general, the Puritans and stricter Calvin ists reactions against ancient paganism were predictable with their claims of false gods and idols, which we re toppled by early Christianity and re-embraced by the Whore of Babylon--the Roman Church. A negative reaction also occurred among like-minded English Protestants to the introduction of classicism as an architectural style that reflected a return to antique paganism, even if it could be justified on aesthetic grounds. After all, had not the papacy led the fifteenth and sixteenth-centuries in the collection and emulation of the cl assic works of art, in the rebuilding of Rome in the classical style, and in the collection of antique art with their sculptural galleries at the Vatican and personal villas.77 Popery would not be a positive model for many Protestants who followed Calvinist thought about art and Calv ins visceral distrust of re ligious sculpture. Many of the 76 John Ruskin, The Works of John Ruskin eds., E. T. Cook and Alexander Wedderburn (London: Allen, 1903-1912), 12: 139. 77 Francis Haskell and Nicholas Penny, Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500-1900 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981), Chapter 2. These authors argued in this chapter fo r a more religious interpretation to be attached to classicism and a closer connection to the Catholic south.

PAGE 211

211 Puritan clergy and their supporters would have gleefully destroyed a ll representations of classical paganism to protect their godly flocks from idolatry. English collectors defended and emulated the classical statues and bu ildings of the Roman heritage. Most of these collectors were Catholic or Catholic sympathizers, such as the Howards or Inigo Jones. The greatest of these collectors was Lord Arunde l, who started and maintained a spectacular collection when he was still Catholic. They positively embraced the classical. Just as it had been in antiquity, the model of perfection of Renai ssance and Baroque architecture embraced the proportions of the human figure as the harmonious and proportionate mathematical perfection. This theory about th e body was legitimized by Catholic theoreticians. It became the basis for the use of classical forms in a Christia n context, which endowed it with a new spiritual meaning.78 With classicisms association with the Catho lic south, it is hardly a surprise that some in Protestant England should also have a le ss than favorable view of classical art and architecture. Numerous monuments survived in southern Europe that had been baptized and used by Christianity. Many temples were converted into churches, such as the Temple of Castor and Pollux in Naples (A-53, A-54), which was studied and drawn by Jones, and several temples in Rome including the Pantheon (Figure 4-1) and Sant a Maria sopra Minerva, Assisi (Figure 4-2); two temples had been converted into churches in the Roman forum. Unsurprisingly, timidity existed in accepting classicism as a model for c hurch and state buildings. The history of England 78 See Rudolf Wittkower and his Architectural Principles in the Age of Humanism (London: Trianti, 1962) and specifically the more recent work by John Onians, Bearers of Meaning: The Classical Orders in Antiqui ty, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance (Princeton: Princeton University Pre ss, 1988), 126-129 and 150-157.

PAGE 212

212 was far removed from the antiquity of the south, and it had long forgo tten the connection with the history, art, and buil ding of Roman Britannia. Another example of distrust of classici sm was that during the implementation of Protestantism in England, reformers were quick to point out that one of th e errors of medieval Catholicism had been its compromise with the pagan past. This was seen, according to the reformers, in the continuity of pagan sacred rites, in the ingredients of the sacramental life heretically created by the medieval church, and particularly in, the love of art expressed in churches throughout England during the Middle Ages. This attit ude was alive well into the seventeenth-century. A member of Parliament in formed the Long Parliament in 1641 (Charles I convened this parliament after the Bishops War to pay for that war), The picture of our Savior in ancient tyme was the picture of Apollo if a heathen should come into the church and see this picture; he might conceive that we are turned heathens.79 Ironically, the culture of Englands Reform ation was dependent somewhat on the legacy of Greece and Rome. While criticizing pagan cultu re, Reformed Protestants such as Calvin admitted that medicine, mathematics, philosophy and the burgeoning science of antiquity were God-given achievements of the human spirit. Th ese sciences and art a ll had their roots in antiquity. However, an anti-clas sical undercurrent dated to the Elizabethan period. Authors such as Richard Lynche wrote in The Fountaine of ancient Fiction that the antiquity of Greece and Rome was primarily a time of superstiti on, blindness and spiritual bankruptcy.80 Another author, Stephan Batman, wrote in 1577: 79 Journal of Sir Simonds DEwes ed. Wallace Notestein (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1923), 458 fn. 80 Richard Lynche, The Fountiane of Ancient Fiction (London, 1599), sig. Diij.

PAGE 213

213 We Christians, now lyuinge in the cleare light of the Gosp els may euidently see with what erroneous trumperies, Antiquitie hath bene nozzled: in what foggy mystes they have long wandered: in what filthye puddles they have bene myered: under what masking visors of clouted religi ons they have bene bewitched: what traditions they have of theyr owne phantstical braynes to themself es forged: & finallye into what Apostacye, Atheisme, Blasphemy, Idolatrye, and Here sie they have plun ged their soules.81 Opposition arose to the foreign and misguided cl assical culture by some of the more Reformed Protestants. This rejection of the Greek and Roman antiquity (and southern European Catholicism by association) was reflected in the works of George Hakewill. In his Apologie (third edition published in 1635) Hakewill listed cruelty, covet ousness, robbery, sacrilege, and gluttony as Roman attributes. Ev en education was under assault when it failed to distance the newly purified Protestant religion from the h eresy of the past. From the beginning of the Reformation in England, a constant pressure arose from Protestants to purg e the curriculum of its more offensively pagan aspects. The Puritan, Th omas Becon, railed against schools wherein nothing is taught but the doctrine of paganism.82 Others lamented at filling schoolboys heads with what William Harrison called vain fables of the false goddess and unchristian education. Even a hatred for the language of the Romans, Latin, was reflected in ma ny of the secretarial writings of the Interregnum (16491660). Some of the secretaries considered Latin the language of the beast.83 The reaction against the classicism or agains t neo-classical Baroque culture was reflected 81 Stephan Batman, The Golden Booke of the Leaden Goddes (London, 1577), Dedication Page. 82 Thomas Becon, The Catechism of Thomas Becon, ed., John Ayre (Cambridge, 1844), 350. 83 Richard Foster Jones, The Triumph of the English Language: A Survey of Opinions Concerning the Vernacular from the Intr oduction of Printing to the Restoration (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1953), 313-21.

PAGE 214

214 in writings that criticized the collection of these artifacts because of their nudity and the possibility of idolatry. Sir Henry Wotton, a love r of architecture, cauti oned readers in his book titled The Elements of Architecture to be careful of the lure of art.84 The antiquarian Randle Holme III considered that it was the return of classical, nude figures on church tombs and monuments that was the main cat alyst that provoked much of the iconoclasm of the Civil War.85 One of the continual criticisms of a classical style was that it was a foreign style and it was being forced on the people of London through proclamations regulating buildings in London. William Harrison lamented that there were so many foreign craftsmen doing works in England that were no more talented than the English craftsmen and that Vitruvi us and his ilk were no better designers than the English.86 Other designers also did not welcome the Italian influence. Thomas Fuller noted that most Ita lians regarded the buildings of Br itain as coarse and Gothic. He answered this criticism with one of his own. Even though th e Italians had advantages with fine material like porphyry and marble, they could learn a thing or two from the English designs, our [Gothic] churches especially.87 The Arminians and anti-Calvinists in particular clung to the notion of sacred space and the medieval Catholic inheritance in church design. In general, they did not oppose the 84 Henry Wotton, The Elements of Architecture (London, 1624; 1903 ed.), 97. 85 Randle Holme, The academy of armory, or, A storehouse of armory and blazon containing the several variety of created beings, and how born in coats of arms, both foreign. 1688, ed., I. H. Jeayes (Roxburghe Club, 1905), vol. 2, 521-522. According to the research of Keith Thomas, Holme was plagiarizing the work Acient Funerall Monuments. page 11, by John Weever who described much of th e artwork done as funeral monuments. 86 William Harrison, The Description of England ed., Georges Edelen (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1968), 199. 87 Thomas Fuller, The History of the Worthies of England ed., John Freeman (London: Allen and Unwin, 1952), 199.

PAGE 215

215 classicizing construction of the Stuarts, w ho would take the country and church toward classicism in imperial building and church architecture. The Ar minians and anti-Calvinists may have been elevated as much for their taste as for their theology. Thei r tastes reflected the preferences of the early Stuart monarchy. Laud, Andrewes, Wren, and others who are identified as Anglicans anti-Calvinists or Armin ians, were supporters of the renewal and redecoration of the churches in this new style, and the especially supported the new faade of St. Pauls. An Imperial City for England The Stuarts left the mark of classicism on London, which was initiated in the middle of reign of James I. A constant feature of the rei gn of James [was a] serious, sustained and partially successful attempt to raise the standards of hygiene and building in London through a series of Royal Proclamations; an impetus given an extra th rust with the creation of the Jacobean Commission for new building in 1618, which soon established itself as an important instrument of social control under th e effective dominance of Inigo Jones.88 The classical ideal of the imperial city was e xpressed in building proj ects reflected in those Royal Proclamations and new architecture and church building. James wanted London to reflect the magnificence of the Catholic capital cities of s outhern Europe. These impe rial cities tried to impose a classical structure on the city streets and on the civil build ings and residences. The idea of London as an Imperial City was a way of continuing his own self-fashioning. James I believed that London had to be clean, hygienic, fire-r esistant, rich and splendid, as a whole series of his proclamations makes abundantly clear.89 The virtue of the monarch was expressed in the 88 David Howarth, Images of Rule: Art and Politics in the English Renaissance, 14851649 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press), 27-28. 89 David Howarth, 28.

PAGE 216

216 control of the visual stimulati on of the citizens in great classi cal vistas and modern forums created in the great cities of the south. This was reflected in one of the portraits of James, who prominently (and fictitiously) placed the Banque ting House outside of his apartments at Whitehall (A-55). Classical arch itecture and harmonious piazzas, which did not exist in London at the time, were prominently displayed in the portrait of Charles I as Prince of Wales (A-56). The emulation of these great cities was expresse d by Jones, the kings master of works, who criticized the Gothic, as well as the mannerist elements of his day, in favor of what he personally experienced during hi s years in Italy. And to saie trew all thes composed orname nts the wch Proceed out of ye aboundance of designers and wear brought in by Michill A ngell and his followers in my oppignion do not well in solid Architecture and ye fasciati of houses, but in gardens loggis stucco or ornaments of chimnies peeces or in the inner parts of houses thos compositions are of necessity to be yoused. For as outwardly ev ery wyse man carrieth a gravity in Publicke Places, whear there is nothing els looked for, yet inwardly hath his immaginacy set on fire, and sumtimes licenciously flying out, as nature hir sealf doeth often tymes stravagantly, to delight, amase us sumtimes moufe us to laugh ter, sometime to contemplation and horror, so in architecture ye outward ornaments of t [ought] to be solid, proporsionable according to the rules, masculine and unaffected.90 Architectural historian James Lubbock wrote th at Jones perceived himself not as the man who merely restored to Britain a cl assical architecture, but as the ma n who restored it in its truest and purest Roman form, purged of all the licentiou s ornament of Michelan gelo and his Mannerist followers.91 But Jones had already seen temples convert ed to churches with strictly classical portals and pediments in Rome and Naples. Jones applied such clas sical values to the context of public buildings in London. For Jones and James I, architecture theory had its roots in 90 James Lubbock, The Tyranny of Taste: The Politic s of Architecture and Design in Britain, 1550-1960 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 164. 91 James Lubbock, 164.

PAGE 217

217 paternalistic and masculine attitudes. Joness above quotation is filled with words like gravity, wisdom, rules, masculinity, straightf orwardness, and solidly. James and Jones envisioned a moral code for the liv ing brick and mortar of the city. However, England was clearly far behind its southern contemporaries. James was the first English monarch to try to implement some type of public uniformity in London. The great palace complex at Whitehall was almost 100 years old and warren-like in comparison to the classicallyinspired palaces already built or being built in It aly, Spain, France, and The Empire. It has been argued that James I had no intere st in art or architecture, bu t that seems to be unfair and inaccurate. Though he did not write any treatise or leave for posterity a particular view of art, he did leave examples of wide-ranging proclamations about what was desirable in architecture. Those proclamations often drew a parallel between James and the Emperor Augustus. The Latin inscription for the Banqueting House, which replaced the first Jacobean Banquet House, destroyed in the fi re of 1619 reads: The genius of the place, the observer-guest. This [building], which strikes the eye by its majesty and Speaks most magnificently of the soul of its Lord, Razed when scarcely previously made of brick, but now the Equal of any marble buildings throughout Europe, JAMES, first monarch of Great Britain, built up from the Ground; intended for festive occasions, for formal spectacles, And for the ceremonials Of the British court; to the eternal glory of his/its name and Of his/its most peaceful empire, he left it for posterity. In the year 1621.92 This marker certainly was advertisement enough to suggest the first monarch of Great Britain had plans for London. London was still in many ways a medieval town with narrow streets and mostly wood buildings. It had no real plan or vision th at would distinguish it as an 92 Dedication stone of the Banqueting House.

PAGE 218

218 imperial city, as was the claim that the St uarts initiated upon thei r ascension to power. One way to remedy this was to make plans during th e Jacobean period for bringing some type of uniformity of street architecture. This unifo rmity was called for in Jamess proclamations regulating the buildings of London, which required a uniformed order and frame in the street fronts of houses.93 Some of his subjects did not welcome this attempt at uniformity. A classical uniformity was challenged in Jamess last Pa rliament, and the House of Commons of 1624 saw it as a great grievance to the fr eedom and state of the subjects.94 Their vision was limited to their own personal costs. A New Vision: Implemented and Planned Works 1619-1624 Building is not the only im portant way that the early Stuarts were planning to express their right to rule as Gods lieu tenants. Building, painting, but also sculpture and tapestry, all were part of the repertoire of regal advertis ements during the earliest years of the Stuart dynasty.95 David Howarth has suggested that James ofte n looked to France when he wanted to take social or economic initiatives, and to judge from a scheme to erect statues of himself and the Prince of Wales in London. It would seem that he had taken notice of the admiration of the equestrian, life-sized bronze statue of Henri IV cast by Pietro T acda, and set up on the Pont Neuf in Paris, following the assassination of Henri in 1610.96 With Jamess approval, Parliament 93 James F. Larkin and Paul L. Hughes, eds., Stuart Royal Proclamations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973), vol. 1, 112, 174. 94 William Cobbert ed., The Parliamentary History of England (London, 1806-1820), 1: cols. 1496-1497. 95 David Howarth, 34. 96 David Howarth, 34.

PAGE 219

219 planned to erect statues in 1621 in honor of the Prince of Wales and James. With James using Arundel to further the project, the House of Lo rds initiated the propos al and plans for the sculptures. These plans went as far as debating th e feasibility of creating each statue of Brasse to the Kyng and prynce out of a general contri bution by us [the House of Lords] to be ericted here in the pa rliament house. Lord Arundel, as a well-known connoisseur who had extensive artistic contacts in Europe, was to w ryte beyonde seas for thess statua to be sett on worke.97 One consideration that hampered Stuart pl ans for artwork and build ing was their relative poverty compared to southern European monarchs. As with Parliaments bronze statues, a list of planned works never came to fruition, such as tombs for Prince Henry and Queen Anne. James had spent 3,500 pounds for four monuments, whic h included tombs for his mother, Queen Elizabeth and two infant da ughters, Sophia, and Mary.98 Henrys tomb was not finished because the marriage of the princess Elizabeth to th e Elector cost an astonishing 13,000 pounds, an expense which crippled the royal finances for years afterwards.99 Unfortunately, the death of Queen Anne also coincided with a financial crisis her funeral was delayed for over two 97 Francis Helen Relf, ed., Notes on the Debate s of the House of Lords, officially taken by Robert Bowyer and Henry Elsing, clerks of the Parliament, 1621, 1625, 1628; edited from the original manuscripts in the Inne r Temple Library, the Bodleian Li brary and the House of Lords, by Frances Helen Relf. (London: Royal Historical Society, 1929), XLII: 48. 98 Francis Helen Relf, 48. 99 Graham Parry, The Golden Age Restord: The Culture of the Stuart Court 1603-42 New York St. Martins Press, 1981), 255. 100 Graham Parry, 255.

PAGE 220

220 months because of the shortage of money.100 Two magnificent Stuart tombs would have been constructed if England had a less-ant iquated way of financing government. The idea of imperial image also came through ex posure to outside forces in theory. One of the most important influences that allowed classi cism to gain footing with the Stuart monarchs was the writing of Juan Bautista Villalpando (w hose book Charles continued to study even up to the eve of his execution). Villalpando wrote that Solomon was the font of classical ideals and that the Temple of Solomon was a Vitruvian building. The connection to a Solomonic age was an important element in the Stuart tradition regarding absolutism. James, as the second Solomon, was sympathetic to Villapandos arguments. Villalpando argued that the five orders of cl assical architecture stemmed from Solomons building. Wittkower wrote that the notion of Villalpandos connection of Solomon to the Catholic Renaissance was an extremely important fact that most historians and art historians have overlooked. This union of classical with Old Testament kingship by Villalpando was a religious vindication of neo-classicism of which we ha ve completely lost sight.101 The religious nature of neoclassicism and its identity with Spanish Catho lic proponents about the religious nature of this style may have been an impor tant influence in the decisions of James and Charles. The first Stuart end eavors in classicism came during the period when Spain was considered a potentially important ally, 1612 to 1624. This experience of art was especially important, as Charles had first-hand experience in Spain, which was the result of Villalpandos 101 Rudolf Wittkower, Federico Zuc cari and John Wood of Bath, in Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes (1943), 221. Also, see Helen Rosenau, Vision of the Temple: Image of the Temple of Jerusalem in Judaism and Christianity (London: Oresko, 1979), 95.

PAGE 221

221 ideology made into stone. The fact that this style began to be identified with Catholic absolutism may also have been a major contributor to the r ejection of classicism by some of the godly. Classicism in the Royal Chapel and Church During the Reign of James I James was the first English monarch to embrace classical architecture by his commissioning of the Banqueting House (Figure 4-3). The importance of this building can be illustrated in several paintings showing him proud ly standing in a window before the great hall, as Caesar would stand in front of his forum (A -55). James, Jones, and Charles in many ways started a tradition in England and a belief in the im portance of architecture as a statement of faith (as in Wrens St. Pauls) or good government that would be embraced later in the century. Sir Roger Pratt, influenced by the Stuart legacy, noted: the example of all good Architecture was originally taken from the Temp le of Solomon, and from the Je ws communicated to the Grecian, from thence to the Romans, and from them to their Provincials.102 Classical architecture could make a religious statement as well as a political one, most evident in the rebirth of Wrens St. Pauls at the end of the seventeenth-century. The notion of classical architecture and its connection with relig ion in early modern England was the imitation of contemporary Catholic art in the royal chapels. In the Chapel Royal, refurbished toward the end of Jamess reign, the architecture emphasized an imperial power over the church in a west end with new additions of classical architecture. The west works were decorated with massi ve wooden structures that fram ed a new closet window with five large columns on pedestals.103 The closet was constructed to imitate marble, and these 102 R. T. Gunther, ed., The Architecture of Sir Roger Pratt (Oxford, 1928), 286. 103 Unfortunately, these chapels have been re modeled, but it is important not to discount the contemporary descriptions of these important and imitated places of worship.

PAGE 222

222 columns were decorated with clusters of hanging fruit over which were placed the prince and the kings coat of arms. These were borne by two boye s [cherubs] with two victories on each side of them.104 This chapel at Greenwich seems to have echoed the faade of the Banqueting House. It was painted white with gold window casements and was a classical, sculptural treatment.105 This classicism was unprecedented in any of the previously created royal chapels. Classicism was definitely foreign in th e churches and palaces of London until James. Church building and decoration in the Jacob ean period has not been thoroughly studied. However, a text that helps to illuminate the times is The survey of London, which described the renovations of English Churches dur ing the latter part of Elizabeths reign a nd the entire reign of James. It gives context to the decorative sche mes of English Churches before the Arminian Counter-Reformation. Munday and Dyson enlarged The survey of London in 1633, giving more information about church repairs and decoration in the London area.106 The text was a parish-byparish description of the repa ir and decoration of churches dating from 1603 to 1633. It gave evidence that is often overlooked by historians who have followed earlier assumptions that little 104 History of the Kings Works, 4: 116. 105 J. Newman, Inigo Jones and the Politics of Architecture, in Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake, Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), 235-236. 106 John Stow, Anthony Munday and others. The survey of London contayning the originall, increase, moderne esta te, and government of that city.... (London: Printed by Elizabeth Purslovv, by Nicholas Bourne, at his shop at the south entrance of th e Royall Exchange, 1633). The work for which Stow was best known is his Survey of London, published in 1598, not only interesting from the quaint simplicity of its styl e and its amusing descriptions and anecdotes, but of unique value from its minute account of the buildings, social conditions, and customs of London in the time of Elizabeth I. A second editi on appeared in his lifetime in 1603, a third with additions by Anthony Munday in 1618, a fourth by Munday and Dyson in 1633. This fourth edition is the one that is pert inent to this study as it records when and where decorations and additions to the churches of the London area we re completed. Especially helpful to this discussion are pages 800-886.

PAGE 223

223 church repair or decoration was accomplished du ring the late Elizabethan period or during the time of James I. Most of the Elizabethan period testifies to a lack of concer n for the churches of London or royal chapels. It has been assumed that after th e seizure of the monastic properties sufficient numbers of churches existed in the capital for mo st of Elizabeths reign, therefore no real need was in place to build or expand churches. Econom ic historians, however, paint a picture of an ever-expanding and vibrant capital at the beginning of the 1590s, a nd show continued growth of the city and economy in the early seventeenth-century due in part to the pacific policies of James I. This then explains the descriptions in The survey of London of much-needed expansion of existing parishes and beatifications of these edifices. The survey of London was dedicated to the Puritan Bishop, John King, bishop of London from 1611 to 1621. King was interested in the docu mentation of church repairs and rebuilding. This new edition of the work seems to be in response to the Roman Catholic polemic that Protestantism led to the neglect of charity a nd good works, as exemplified by the dilapidated state of churches by the end of Elizabeths reign. These same concerns led Andrew Willet, one of the most popular anti-papal writers of the peri od, to compile a catalogue of the many forms of philanthropic donations since th e time of the Reformation.107 Mundays text, showed what was being crea ted and the tastes of the Londoners during this period. The text also showed how most of the London area churches dr amatically differed in aesthetics from the undertakings of James in his own private chapels and the ecclesial works and 107 Andrew Willet, Synopsis papismi, that is, A gene rall vievv of papistrie vvherein the vvhole mysterie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe ( London: Imprinted by Felix Kyngston, for Thomas Man, dwe lling in Pater noster row at the signe of the Talbot, 1600). Willet discusses the additions and th e cost of repairs and decorations of churches on pages 1219 to 1243 in defense of Catholic ac cusations of letting church buildings decay.

PAGE 224

224 commissions undertaken by the royal family during th e time of Charles I. According to the work of J. F. Merritt, who has compared The survey of London with other manuscripts and printed sources, it is possible to determin e that it was not exaggerated a nd was in most cases accurate when depicting the building construction, design, and artworks completed in this period.108 Another reason to trust the accuracy of such polemical works as The survey of London was the fact that exchanges between Roman Catholic an d Protestant adherents were often factually based. Often for no less an important reason than inaccuracy would lead to easy point-scoring by ones enemies. The accuracy of the descriptions in this text could have been easily checked out by simply visiting the churches. The pre-Laudian revival of church decoration and repair in London is important to this study in that it differs strikingl y and gives the historian a view of what was acceptable art and architecture. It offers the vantage point of the ordinary parishioners and the local mostly-Puritan clergy and Bishops before the movement toward an ti-Calvinism. It is not surprising then that no reference exists to new sculptures or religious paintings in Munda ys work in most churches until the latter part of Jamess reign. Mundays desc riptions usually include d creation of scripture texts, painted glass (decorative or plain colored glass, not depictions of saints or scriptural stories told in glass), coats of arms, or refurbishmen t of furnishings. Nothing suggested any significant movement by the majority Puritan or Calvinist cl ergy or parishes toward anything that would be described as Counter-Reformation Catholic Baroque decoration or classici sm. On the contrary, the polemic and tone of much of Protestant writing during this period reflected a preoccupation 108 J. F. Merritt, Puritans, Laudians an d the Phenomenon of Church-Building in Jacobean London, The Historical Journal (1998): 41:4: 935-960, 940.

PAGE 225

225 with physical church edifices and a belief that they had become emblematic of the chief sins of the Roman Church--the pre-Reformati on doctrine of works and idolatry.109 Andrew Willet, the noted moderate Purita n divine, promoted modest reconditioning of London parishes as long as they did not become ove rly ornate or idolatro us. Churches ought to goe comely and decently appareled not tric ked up with the jewels and ornaments of an harlot.110 John Brinsley also emphasized that noth ing was wrong with proper decoration, which is decoration in the Puritan plain tradition. T he decent beautifying of the places of Gods publique worship rather for the eye [the idolatry of Catholicism], ear e indeed all their service is but eye-service.111 Plainness was the rule for the godly. Decorations that furthered the Protesta nt cause, however, were being sponsored throughout the city. Among the most common deco rations found in London before the Arminian Counter-Reformation were memorials dedicated to Queen Elizabeth I. These memorials were painted or wood reliefs that were monuments to the Queen, who became even more popular after her death than during her life. A mythology devel oped during this period in which Elizabeth was viewed as a grand champion of th e Protestant cause. One can see this in Robert Stephensons Allegory of the Defeat of the Armada dated to 1610 (A-57). This work shows the armada in the shape of a dragon, defeated by Gods mysterious plan. Elizabeth is Gods real champion. 109 On polemics of an anti-decorative Puritan mindset, see Margaret Astons Englands Iconoclasts (Oxford, 1988) and Anthony Miltons Catholic and Reformed (Cambridge, 1995), 187-90. 110 Andrew Willet, 486. 111 John Brinsley, Glorie of the latter temple greate r than of the former. Opened in a sermon preached at the consecrati on or restitution of the Parish Church of Flixton in the island of Louingland in the county of Su ffolke; being sometimes the moth er church of the East-Angles. 11. March. 1630 (London: Printed by G. Miller for Robert Bir d, and are to be sold at his shop at the signe of the Bible in Sa int Laurence-lane, 1631), 17-18

PAGE 226

226 Another such work that was dated lo ng after her death is the engraving, Queen Elizabeth as St. George (A-58). Here she slays a seven-headed dra gon (reminiscent of the Seven Hills of Rome) to free an allegorical faith figure from a cave. Works such as these were dedicated to Elizab eth as if she were the last true Protestant champion. The survey of London notes there are more than thir ty of these dedications in the London area alone. One such monument to Eli zabeth was found in St. Michael Querne, dated 1616. Munday records the text. Here lied her Type, who was of late, The prop of Belgia, flay of France, State, Sapines foile, Faiths Shield, and Queene Of Armes, of Learning, Fate and Chance: Inbriefe, of Women never was seen, So great a Prince, so good a Queene.112 Another similar word board singing the praises of Elizabeth was also cite d in Mundays text. It was at St. Mary le Bow, dated 1628, and reads: I have fought a good fight, I have finished My course, I have kept the faith. From henceforth is laid up for me a Crowne Of Righteousnesse, which the Lord, the righteous Iuge shal l give mee at that day; and not me onely, but to them also that love his app earing. 2 Tim. 4-7, 8.113 These decorations extolled the previous monarch. Another important fact to be gleaned from this study is that these decorations were not made shortly after the queens death. The majority recorded by Munday were done in the late second decade of the 1600s and continued through the 1620s and 1630s, even after the death of James. Fe w monuments were done in honor of the first 112 John Stow, Munday, et al., 849. 113 John Stow, Munday, et al., 849.

PAGE 227

227 Stuart king of Great Britain in the 1620s or early 1630s. This is a telling statement about the rejection of the ecumenical policies of the la te king and how unpopular they were after the outbreak of the Thirty Years War. England looke d back to the good old days of Bess, flay of the French and Spanish. The examples of the rebuilding and decorati on of churches in London given in this text tell us that the substantial motivations behind the rebuilding and redecora tion of these churches were based in Protestant pride. They also accepted the challenge of Catholics who criticized the lack of piety in Protestant early modern Engl and. These homage decorations to Queen Elizabeth were in some ways rejections of James and Char less movement of church polity. It was also a criticism of their failure to engage militarily Ca tholicism as Elizabeth had in the good old days. These decorations were sparse and spartan and were within the Calvinistic taste for plainness described in the chapter 3 of th is study. But a few churches af ter 1620 did begin to follow antiCalvinist tastes. (This will be discussed in following chapters.) Some Jacobean church authorities were happy to exhort the revival of church building and decoration. But no evidence exists of the kind of pressure from co mmon parishioners or merchant classes to decorate or to provide the revival in religious art that would follow during the reign of Charles and Arc hbishop Laud. On the contrary, The survey of London testified to an entrenched Calvinistic taste at the parochial level. However, an important text argued against the beatification or popish decorati ons of pre-Reformation churches, and it was regularly read in England from the time of Elizabeth th rough the early Stuart age. It was The second tome of homelyes The second tome of homelyes was a set of homilies to be read on certain important feast

PAGE 228

228 days and was still required throughout the reign of the early Stuarts.114 The two most important homilies in the context of this study dealt with idolatry and with p roper decoration. These homilies were to be read throughout the church year at special feasts. These occasions complemented the spirit or content of the homilies themselves in relation to the feasts celebrated. The second homily in this collection, an Homily against peryll of Idolatry and superfluous bedkyng of Churches, is one of the longest homilies in the text.115 It warned against church decoration that looks like the deco rations put up in the Catholic er a of England and attacked the ceremony, religious statuary, offensive stained glass, and the painti ng of the old religion. The Temple of the Lord, and the house of GO D, and that therefore the due reuerence thereof, is stirred vp in the hearts of th e godly, by the consideration of these true ornaments of the sayd house of GOD, and not by any outward ceremonies or costly and glorious decking of the sayd house or Temple of the Lord, contrary to the which most manifest doctrine of the Scriptures, and contra ry to the vsage of the Primitiue Church the corruption of these latter dayes, hath br ought into the Church infinite multitudes of images, and the same, with other parts of the Temple also, haue decked with gold and siluer, painted with colours, set them with st one and pearle, clothed them with silkes and precious vestures, fancying vntruely that to be the chiefe decking and adorning of the Temple or house of GOD, and that all peop le should bee the more mooued to the due reuerence of the same, if all corners thereo f were glorious, and g listering with gold and precious stones. And the couetous persons, by the same occasion, seeming to worship, and peraduenture worshipping indeed, not onely the images, but also the matter of them, gold and siluer, as that vice is of a ll others in the Scriptures peculiarly called idolatrie or worshipping of images (Ephesi ans 5.5, Colossians 3.5). The reasons and arguments made for the defence of images or idols, and the outragious decking of Temples and Churches, with gold, siluer, pear le, and precious stone, shall be confuted, and so this whole matter concluded likenesse or similitudes of men or other things images, and not idols: yet the Scriptures vse the sayd two words [idols and images] indifferently for one thing alway.116 114 The second tome of homelyes of such matte rs as were promised and intituled in the former part of homelyes set out by the aucthoritie of the Quenes Maiestie, and to be read in euery paryshe churche agreablye (London: by Richard Jugge, and John Cawood, Prynters to the Quenes Maiestie, 1563). 115 The second tome of homelyes 12-84. 116 The second tome of homelye, 13-15.

PAGE 229

229 It is clear from the homily that mo st artwork or images could be perceived as dangerous to the spiritual health of the believer. Calvin is followed lockstep by the author of this text. The author of this homily made no dis tinction between image and i dol. They were the same. An Homily against peryll of Idolatry and superfluous bedkyng of Churches continued by quoting the Old Testament scriptures used for the justification of cleansing the English Church from most of its artistic tradition. Note that the homily in The second tome of homelyes for proper decoration and use of churches, for the repayrynge and kepyng cleane, and comely adournygne of Churches is less than one-twelfth the lengt h of the homily against imprope r images and decoration of churches. Even here, we find a Puritan sparseness in a homily, which charged the listeners with proper upkeep of the church. The difference between Jacobean and Caroline building and decoration was not quantitative but related to the qual ity of subject matter. Ornaments, utensils, lavish decoration of the church, and the renewed use of images were encouraged in the Laudian period.117 These seem to be absent in the descriptions found in Mundays text for use in London churches during the latter part of Elizabeths re ign, however their use came into fashion toward the end of the reign of James. Peter Lake has argued that th e change in Laud--and those who thought like him-was ideologically charged. Lake argued that church fabric and furnishings did have direct doctrinal significance, a holiness derived from the divine presence within a consecrated church rather than simply from the presence of the peopl e of God and a Bible. This was similar if not 117 For the movement on Laudian policies towa rd furnishing and church decoration, see Nicolas Tyackes Anti-Calvinists (Oxford, 1987), especially Chapter 8, and Davies, The Caroline Captivity of the Church, Chapters 2 and 6. Both theses auth ors documented a rather sharp shift back toward the Catholic pre-Reformation tastes in Laudianism.

PAGE 230

230 identical to the viewpoint of Ca tholicism about the sacredness of church buildings before and after the Reformation. For Lake, the ideological move toward the b eauty of holiness, for consecration to Gods worship, and for sanctity to all objects employed in worship made statements about the faith of James and Charles. For Arminians and anti-Calvinists and for James, as he entered the end of his reign, art, decorations, and religious im agery took on more and more importance.118 Charles would emphasize this ideology c onsiderably. The creation of works that followed would extol the divine, sacredness of the monarchy. Richard Hooker and Lancelot Andrew es and the Beauty of Worship That Andrewes was the epitome of Anglicanism is a given by historians. Hooker also was a most creative apologist of the via media Both allowed for and encouraged what has been noted as the beauty of worship. In Nigel Volks Richard Hooker and Reformed Theology Volk argued against the consensus of revisionist historians that Hooke r was a proponent of mainstream Protestantism. Volk, with his examina tion of the later writings of Hooker, argued for a more traditional Hooker, who looked backward and argued for a more pre-reformed view of the English Church as reflected in his criticism of Puritanism. In this view, Hooker emerges as a conservative who paradoxically came to occupy a remarkably individual and innovative position as a founder of an ideology associated with Arminianism. High churchmen looked back to traditionalist precursors who, like Hooker, had ar gued pre-reformation positions on free will, the possibility of losing grace, merit, and the paramount place of episcopal authority. Their views were more closely aligned to the medieval Catholic positions than to the positions of Geneva or 118 Peter Lake, The Laudian style; Order, Uniformity, and th e Pursuit of the Beauty of Holiness in the 1630s, in K. Fincham, ed., The Early Stuart Church 1603-1642 (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), 161-185.

PAGE 231

231 Edinburgh.119 Volk particularly noted the later works of Hooker in which he defended his view of the English Church. Hookers view was under attack, accused of popery because of his more traditional interpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles Volk wrote that this attack came in A Christian Letter,120 which had correctly perceived that Hookers theology in the True Lawes was moving away from the Reformed tradition, particul arly in his view of human nature and the availability of grace for all.121 Unlike Hooker, Lancelot Andrewes has been ab le to withstand the effort by revisionists to change him into a Reformed theologian. Born in 1555, he came from an ancient Suffolk family and was one of the most conservative and Catholic-minded of all the thin kers and bishops during the reigns of Elizabeth and James. He was legendary in his own time at Oxford for his scholarship and took Holy Orders in 1580. Recognized as a great preacher, he was a chaplain to Queen Elizabeth, James I, and Archbishop Whitgif t. Andrewes is widely seen as the first Anglo-Catholic by those who dist inguish an English Catholic movement separate from Roman Catholicism. His Catholicism is evident in a majority of his writings, especially his daily meditations, which were often published, and we re some of the most popular religious devotional works of early modern England. La ud even molded Andrewess sermons in 119Nigel Volk, Richard Hooker and Reformed Theo logy: A Study of Reason, Will and Grace (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003) Chapters 3, 5, and conclusion. Through a careful study of Hookers works, it can be conc luded that he essentially was defending a more traditional viewpoint of human nature, sin, grace, and the importance of works in his theology than seen in the revisionism of the last 25 years. 120 Andrew Willet, A Christian letter of certaine Eng lish Protestants, vnfained fauourers of the present state of religion, authorized . (Middelburg: Printed by Richard Schilders, 1599). 121 Volks conclusion that Willet and othe rs had read Hooker correctly. Hooker represented a view that the Reformation had gone too far.

PAGE 232

232 publication so that they would reflect the traditio n of sermon writing and presentation of sermons established by Pope Leo the Great. In 1598, Andrew es turned down both the dioceses of Ely and Salisbury. He would have been made bishop by Eli zabeth but refused the miter because he felt it was wrong to divert ecclesiastical revenues to the crown. He suppor ted Jamess return of funds to the church and the clergy. During Jamess reign, Andrewess preach ing was legendary about the support of absolutism, love of ceremony, church decoration, and the arts. Andrewes was the first on the list of divines appointed to compile th e Authorized Version of the Bibl e. He took charge of the first books of the Old Testament from Genesis to Sec ond Kings. In a way, he acted as a general editor of the project. In 1605, he was consecrated Bishop of Chichester and made Lord High Almoner.122 Andrewes traveled in 1617 with James to Scotland with a view to persuading the Scots that the episcopacy was preferable to their Presbyterian form of church government.123 He attended the synod of Dort, and was made dean of the Royal Chapel, then translated to Winchester diocese. He was buried by the high al tar at Southwark Cathedral, which at the time was in the diocese of Winchester.124 Andrewes argued that James had the right to use the title Catholic. This was explained in his First Answer to Cardinal Perron Regarding the ceremony and the Eucharist, he was staunch in his defense of the Euch arist and in the beatif ication of churches because of the divine mysteries that were held therein. Only Laud ma y have surpassed his conservative views about 122 Trevor A Owen, Lancelot Andrewes (Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1981), 13. 123 Trevor A. Owen, 14. 124 Trevor A. Owen, 14.

PAGE 233

233 episcopacy, divine right of kings (and bishops), and the importan ce of the use of art. Andrewes said, As to the Real Presence, we are agreed, our controversy [with Rome] is as to the mode of it. As to the mode, we define nothing rashly, nor anxiously investigate, any more than in the Incarnation of Christ we ask how the hum an is united to the divine nature in One Person. There is a real change in the elements we allow ut panis iamconsecratus non sit panis quem natura formavistsed, quem bene dicto cones rvit, et consecrando etiam immutavit .125 James also believed in the real presence as someth ing that was a divine my stery that should not be debated.126 This was particularly an anti-Calvini st view. Andrewes also believed that adoration of the Eucharist was permitted and that the terms sacrifice and altar were consonant with scripture and antiq uity: Christ as sacrificedso, to be slain; a propitiatory sacrifice so, to be eaten.127 These views were diametrically opposed to Calvinism and to the majority of English Protestants. Andrewes was one of Jamess favored preachers, no doubt because of their agreement on Absolutism and church history. His sermons had a loving, positive quality that was often in short supply in an age of aggressive confessionalism. 125 Lancelot Andrewes, Responsio ad Apologiam Card inalis Bellarmini, quam nuper edidit contra praefationem monitoriam Sereni ssimi ac potentissimi principis Iacobi (Londini: Excudebat Robertus Barkerus, serenissae Regiae Maiestatis typographus, Anno 1610), 263. 126 For the most recent views of James on the Eucharist, see W. B. Patterson King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom pages 134, 135 and 323, 324 and 343. Here Patterson presented evidence that Jamess understanding of the Eucharist was much closer to a Roman Catholic understanding than to a Calvinist one. James argued that the English Church had not rejected the ideas of presence of Christ and the sacrifice in th e Eucharist, as du Perron claimed, but held them in the sense that the ancients ha d. Thus the Church of England believed Christs words, This is my body to refer to the bread in the Eucharist, but was not inquisitive about the manner of Christ's presence in the element of bread, holding this to be a sacred mystery, 134135. 127 Peter McCullough, Sermons at Court: Politics and Religion in Elizabethan and Jacobean Preaching (Cambridge: Cambridge Un iversity Press, 1998), 296.

PAGE 234

234 Bishop Andrewes: Tradition and the Royal Chapels From the time he was made a royal chaplain, Andrewes often preached on the most important feast days and commemorations includ ing Christmas, Easter, Holy Thursday, and Ascension Day. Favored royal preachers defended the royal supremacy, as they did during the reign of Elizabeth; however, preachers such as Andrewes grew supportive of divine right and preached in more splendor during the latter part of Jamess reign. One of the reasons James liked this learned and saintly preacher was his co mmitment to monarchy and his anti-Calvinist preaching style, which was rather encouraging in that most of Andrewess sermons portrayed a loving God who would favorably judge those wh o followed the moderate Christianity James championed. Nicholas Tyacke identified Andrewes as one of the most important anti-Calvinists who championed the beauty of worship.128 Andrewes, as one of the most important Jacobean preachers, was constantly called upon by James for service inside and outside of the English Church. James chose Andrewes and Inigo Jones to provide a setting of royal theater in the chapels, which were renovated toward the end of Jamess reign. For James, bishops were part of the governing apparatus he was trying to stre ngthen. Andrewess ecclesiological theory of prayer, ritual, and decoration made him suitable for the tasks of informing these renovations. As a prolific writer, Andrewes was known for his Devotions, which were often opposed to Reformed thinking.129 Some of Andrewess beliefs were certainly pro-Catholic in position, particularly his meditati on on the Virgin Mary in The Preces Privatae of Lancelot Andrewes. In a 128 Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinist: The Rise of English Arminianism 1590-1640 91. 129 It is unclear if Andrewes realized that th is would be published after his death. It is one of the most important works to s how his true theological positions.

PAGE 235

235 decidedly un-Lutheran or Reformed view, he referred to her as t he all holy, immaculate, more than blessed mother of G od and ever virgin Mary.130 The visualization of his Devotions was a logical outcome. One of the major renovations personally taken on by Laud, Andrewess most faithful disciple, was a monumental statue gr oup and new entrance to St. Mary the Virgin Church in Oxford (Figure 4-4). In this gr oup, also known as the Virgin Porch, Solomonic columns flank the life-sized virgin and child with the connotation that Mary is a seat of wisdom. The use of these columns, as noted in Chapte r 2, has Eucharistic implications as well. Andrewes was a bridge to pre-Reformation thinking and to Catholic Counter-Reformation thought. His concerns were with the notion of Apostolic Succession and the importance of tradition as he considered it a necessary fact of human nature. For him, we must in some way trust what has already been proven or believe d. He emphasized the importance of liturgy and prayer, which also de-emphasized the importance of preaching in favor of liturgy.131 Andrewess theology was not novel; it was steeped in admi ration of the early c hurch, its councils and writings. Nicholas Lossky did a careful study of the LXVI Sermons of Andrewes, in which Andrewes in general showed his reverence for church fathers and Christian antiquity. This led him to develop a theological system that wa s reliant on the model of the early church.132 Respect for the early traditions of Roman and Greek fath ers was paramount in his thought. In Losskys analysis of Andrewes, not much linked hi m to reformed traditions. Lossky wrote: 130 Lancelot Andrewes, The Preces Privatae of Lancelot Andrewes, trans. and ed., F. E. Brightman (London, 1903: rpt. New York : Living Age Books, 1961), 85. 131 Maurice F. Reidy, S. J., Lancelot Andrewes: Jacobean Court Preacher (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1995), 217. 132 Nicholas Lossky, Lancelot Andrewes the Preacher (1555-1626), tr. Andrew Louth (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991).

PAGE 236

236 Each sermon, in one way or another, has recourse to the incomprehensible mystery of the emptying of the Second Person of the Trinity, of the taking hold of time by the eternal, of space by the incommensurable. The implication is always the old patristic adage, which Andrewes forcefully reformul ates for his own time: God has become man, that man might become God.133 This notion would have been seen as heretica l if not blasphemous by most that followed the Reformed tradition. Andrewes was thoroughly incar national and believed in the corporal nature of Christs revelation. Beginning in the 1610s, Andrewes preached many sermons that concentrated on the king as the absolute and divinely ordained ruler ov er both church and state. Indeed, his view of deification was helpful for those who believed in Absolutism and easily lent itself to expression in Stuart dynastic artw ork. Deification or the return of all creation to a pristine state also had implications for the beauty of worship or decoration in the church. Through art and architecture, Christian man was to reflect the be auty of the Christian message in his works. Through church art, Christians reflected on the microcosm of Gods macrocosm in heaven. Andrewes rejected the doctri ne of total depravity. His wo rks lacked the notion of the completeness of the corruption of humanity, whic h was expressed by Luther, Calvin, and their supporters. Free will and mans ab ility to participate in the sa lvation process allowed him far more dexterity in thinking about mans contribu tion toward salvation, wh ile still emphasizing the graciousness of God. In review of his extensive wr itings, the beauty of wo rship or the physical expression of beauty would be strongly enc ouraged, and in some ways necessary in his theological system. No doubt, he earned his reputation in history as one of the first English 133 Nicholas Lossky. See pages 32 and 33 wh ere Lossky described the deification process that Andrewes championed.

PAGE 237

237 Catholics due to his more pre-Reformation vi ewpoint and his adherence to early Latin and Greek Christian thought. His theological and spiritual talents were pressed into service in 1621 and 1622 when the Whitehall royal chapel was renovated with an eye toward the Spanish Match. Andrewes, as dean, was involved with this refurbishing, which included repainting the Tudor ceiling and refurbishing a schema of wall pain tings that included human figures.134 Around the same time, a Catholic chapel was begun at St. James in prep aration for receiving the Spanish Infanta if the negotiations were successful.135 The nature of these renovations can be seen in The Solemnization of the Spanish Marriage Treaty (A-59). Both redecorati ons included new mural paintings that were pleasi ng to Catholic aesthetics.136 It is clear in the creation of these chapels that James was open to images and the crucifix for political reasons to mollify his expected daughter-in-law. Tables were moved to positions of altars as in Catholic practice. Fresh murals of saints were placed on the walls. In accommodati ng Catholic tastes for worship in his royal chapel at Whitehall, he also continued to use the ancient west work or closet over the west end in the renovation. James ordered his chaplains to celebrate the royal ceremonies for himself and the court as neared the Romane Forme as can lawfullie be don e for it hasth ever bene my waye to goe with the churche of rome usque ad aras.137 Most historians see this as a political ploy; however, 134 History of the Kings Works, 4: 314. 135 History of the Kings Works 4: 116. 136 History of the Kings Works, 4: 117. 137 A. J. Loomie, S. J., editor, Spain and the Jacobean Catholics 2 vols., Catholic Record Society nos. 64, 68 (1973, 1978), 2: 185-186.

PAGE 238

238 James seems to have grown more genuinely cons ervative toward the end of his life. These renovations might also have been for persona l taste. He certainly did appoint more traditionalist chaplains and bi shops at the end of his life who would have supported such liturgy and decoration. But he did not purify the chapels when the Spanish Match evaporated or when it was under attack from the pr ess or criticism from court figures. The engraving Solemnization of the Spanish Marriage Treaty in the Whitehall Chapel Royal, July 1623 (A-59) shows the composition of the chapel. It is clearly set up altar wise with a side chapel as close to a Catholic altar as po ssible. Behind the main altar are obvious religious paintings that were discussed by contemporaries. A table had been brought in for the solemn signing of the marriage treaty with the Spanish am bassador for the hand of the Spanish Infanta. The crucifix, which was part of Elizabeths person al chapel and had been attacked, was returned to use at this time. Sir Thomas Knyvett remarked in one of his writings that the kings Chappell at Whitehall is curiously painted and all the imag es newe made and a silver crucifix amaking to hange therin, against the spannish Ladys coming.138 Even when the Spanish Lady did not come, the chapel was not returned to its former decoration. Political expediency may have played a larg e role in these decorations. Fincham and Lake wrote that James had to abandon mainstream Calvinism in his effort to secure a marriage settlement with Spain.139 As James aged and knew that his life was ending, the more positive preaching of favorites, such as Andrewes and others, religious works of ar t, and the beauty of ceremony gave comfort to a dying old man. James ha d always been theologically versatile and 138 The Knyvett Letters (1620-1644), ed., Bertram Schofie ld (1949), 56. Birch argued in Court and times of James vol. II, page 400, that the crucifix was in place by 1623. 139 Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, The Ecclesiastical Policy of King James I, Journal of British Studies 24 (April 1985): 201-202.

PAGE 239

239 somewhat open-minded and expansive when it came to religion. He certainly did not turn toward the harsh Calvinism expressed by members of his own family, such as Elizabeth and her husband, The Elector. Even James blamed The Elector for foolis hly provoking the Thirty Years War by his adventure in Bohemia, which included a massive iconoclastic attack on the cathedral in Prague. As an amateur theologian and as one who sought to reconcile most of Christianity during his reign--even moderate Catholics, it would have been a rather s cant heaven for him if Catholics were excluded. This exclusion would have incl uded the two most important women of his life his mother, a militant and unapologetic Catholic to the end, and his wife Anne, who discreetly practiced the faith. As claimed in Basilikon Doron, James could move the church in whichever direction it suited him, for political reasons, or for his ow n personal spirituality, perhaps even both. For whatever reason, it is clear that at the end of his reign James moved the royal chapel toward a Catholic aesthetic. In 1623, he al so put Andrewes in charge of the commissioned renovation of the chapel at Greenwich. The result was to be a work that was an example of the theories of divine right and royal supremacy that had been proclaimed from court pulpits. The Chapel at Greenwich employed the Catholic iconography of Englands preReformation past, and it was completely sympathetic with Catholic Baroque ta stes of the period. As Dean of the Chapter, Bishop Andrewess charge was to cause Greenwich Chapel to be new repaired and gilded, being much decayed, as not having been new furnished since Queen Marys [Tudor] days.140 140 Thomas Birch, ed., The Court and Times of James the First: Illustrated by Authentic and Confidential Letters, from Various Public and Private Collections (London: Henry Colburn, Publisher, 1848), 2: 400.

PAGE 240

240 As master of the kings works, Inigo Jones was in charge of the entire decorative scheme. Andrewes once again acted as a theological overseer.141 These renovations, with their presentation of the communion ta ble as altar-wise, inclusion of religious art, chalices rath er than communion cups, and the re introduction of the crucifix and candles, also clearly mark the unprecedented infl uence of the prelates and preachers who were often closer to Roman Catholicisms polity than to Calvinistic plain style. These anti-Calvinists were initiating something like an Arminian Coun ter-Reformation as early as the late period of Jamess reign, at least in the royal chapels. The chapels provided image to the theory of religious and political Absolutism. They not only joined but also made inseparable this view of absolutism in early Stuart England. The chapel interior, structurally and ichnographically, offered one of the most telling portraits of this union of church and state. In a 1622 sermon, W illiam Laud characterized James as a mediate fountanine of Gods Goodness and bounty streaming to the people.142 Anthony Rudd, Bishop of St. Davids, spoke in the same terms when he imagined the court and pe ers looking up to James as an intercessor like one of the Old Testament kings: Now imagine with me, that Dauid sitting aloft in his Chaire of estate looketh downe to his subiects sa ying, Saluation belongeth vnto the lord; And then casting vppe his eyes to Heaven, by and Apostrophe to God saith thus. And thy blessing is Vppon thy people.143 The ornate decorations of chapel ceilings, like the one which still survived from the time of Henry VIII (d ecorated while Henry was still a Catholic) at 141 History of the Kings Works 4: 116-118. 142 William Laud, A Sermon Preached at Wh ite-hall, on the 24 of March, 1621, 6. 143 Anthony Rudd, A Sermon Preached before the Kings Maiestie at White-hall vpon the Ninth of Februarie, 1605 (1606), sig. A1.

PAGE 241

241 Hampton Court, with its dangling cherubs and angels, blue ceiling, and imitation of stars were imitated by James and Charles in their royal chapels.144 These were literally and figuratively meant to be windows into heaven above to capture a glimpse of the divine in and through the royal presence. As John Donne put it in one of his most important court sermons, Donnes first, as Princes are Gods, so thei r well-governd Courts, are Copies, and representations of Heaven.145 The chapels were not the only place that th e English could glimpse their prince-gods. Something reminiscent of a chapel is seen at the Banqueting House. It ha s been suggested that the Banqueting House imaged royal chapels in that the king presided over the masques from an elevated dais at the far end of the Hall, as he di d with an elevated seat in the rear of the royal chapels. The masques were quasi-religious celebr ations in light of this conformation to royal chapel architecture. Therefore, the Banqueting Hous e was more than a place for state affairs. The theory of James and Charless Absolutism ma de the Banqueting House integral in that it interconnected religious thought to political thought. David Harris Sacks pointed out that the royal chapels had frequently serv ed as theaters during the Henrican times and that the parallel between the chapels and Banqueting Houses may ha ve been platonic, but their functions were religious, and the masques were to court life as the taking of communion was to church life.146 Bishops were part of this re ligious-political dialogue, and they could make their careers by 144 G. D. Heath, Chapel Royal at Hamp ton Court, Borough of Twickenham Local History Society Paper Number 42 (1983), 7. 145 The Sermons of John Donne, 10 vols., eds., George R. Potter and Evelyn M. Simpson (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1953-1962), 1: 233. 146 David Harris Sacks, Searching for C ulture in the English Renaissance, Shakespeare Quarterly (1988), 39: 471.

PAGE 242

242 supporting the view of James on policy. Though Laud is most connected with Charles, it is important to note that James advanced him because Laud tended to support the peaceful foreign policies of James, as well as Absolutism. Jame s was increasingly under at tack for his notion of integrating England more fully into Catholic Europe with the Spanish Match. As the Thirty Years War wore on, James was unde r considerable pressure to intervene in the Palatinate in favor of his daughter and son-in -law. Laud, who had carefully served as royal chaplain since 1611 and who noticeably copied the preaching styl e and the decorative i nnovations of Andrewes, preached a sermon before the king on Jamess birthday, 19 June 1621. Laud took as his text the sixth and seventh verses of Psalm 122: Pray fo r the pece of Ierusalem; let them prosper that loue thee. Peace be within thy walles and prosperity within thy Places.147 This of course praised the kings policies of p eaceful diplomacy, would have irritated those in Parliament and the court that were for military intervention, and an end to any talk of a Catholic princess. Laud preached: cannot bee accounted only the Growne-mans, or the weakemans Prayer [that] it is not cowardize to pray for peace: nor courage to call for troubles.148 Laud was rewarded no less than ten days later with the dio cese of St. Davids after this sermon. The supportive homily was immediately sent to pr ess by royal command. With Jamess dream of a Hapsburg allianc e increasingly being challenged, a continued call rang out for James to intervene on the side of Protestantism. Rather than Jamess expansive and peaceful policy, parliament and critics of th e Stuarts advised a confessional foreign policy with England as the leader of the Protesta nt reaction to Catholicisms advance. James 147 William Laud, The Works of William Laud 6 vols., ed. James Bliss (1843-1857), 3: 135. 148 William Laud, The Works of William Laud 6 vols., ed. James Bliss (1843-1857), 3: 135.

PAGE 243

243 increasingly turned to preachers and prelates whose more traditional pre-Reformation theology allowed them to endorse his foreign policy.149 In their moderate religious views, they also allowed a continued flirtat ion with Catholicism. Pre-Reformation Themes in a Monumental Sculpture in the Reign of James I Courtiers often flattered King James with refe rences to his similarities to Solomon or one of the great Roman rulers. James did not disagree; he relished the comparisons. The Tower of the Orders (Figure 4-5) at Oxford University was built in 1624 and decorated with monumental sculpture. It certainly affords one important example that illustrates the burgeoning affection for the classical Greek and Roman era and style to which James and others at court wanted to connect themselves. Oxfords devotion to th e Stuart monarchy was underlined by a decision taken in 1620 to carve a statue of King James I on the fourth storey150 interior court of the Bodleian library gate. A monumental work joins James with Christian imperial and biblical themes. The classical orders (from bottom to t op)--Tuscan, Doric, Ionic and Corinthian columns-were used to frame the entranceway to one of th e most important libraries in England. On the fourth register is a monumental and over life-sized statue of James as a Roman Emperor/Christ the King figure (Figure 4-6). James, seated be tween an Angel/Virtue a nd a kneeling maiden to his left, presents books symbolically to the un iversity. This work was created to celebrate Jamess gifts of his papers to the library at Oxford. Above the canopy are the words, blessed are the peacemakers in Latin, along with Jamess pers onal coat of arms. Overall, the composition is done in the style of an Annunciation scen e reminiscent of the Renaissance. 149 Kenneth Fincham and Peter Lake, The Ecclesiastical Policy of King James I, Journal of British Studies 24 (1985), 201. 150 Geoffrey Tyack, The Bodleian Library Oxford: A Guide by Geoffrey Tyack (Oxford: Bodleian Library, 2000), 16.

PAGE 244

244 In the late 1500s, Lodovico Dolce, in his Dialogo della pitture, intitolato lAretino and Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo in his Trattato dellarte della pittura, sculturra ed architettura, explained the theory of seeing classical or antiqui ty-inspired portraiture in a closer context with religious art.151 Both Renaissance Italian writers, in partic ular Dolce, defended religious art, and traced the origins of religious art from the appreciation of th e virtuous ancestor in antiquity. Dolces basis of antique hero worship as the foundation for religious art is found in his preface for portraiture, where he maintained that the churchs use of images comes from ancient traditions of heroic political figures. His exampl e was Caesar meditating on Alexander the Great and other ancestral images. Clea rly, the work portraying James at the Bodleian in Oxford is meant to evoke the Great King hero. Lomazzo devot ed one entire chapter in his treatise to the inspirational values of this art form, the portrait. The portrait, whether in st one or paint, therefore preserved the memory of the great ones and pr omoted their imitation a nd reverence. For Dolce and Lomazzo, the portrait validates the Roman C hurchs use of its own ancestral images, the angels and the saints.152 Both Italian writers believed in the value of political portraiture and of the religious example of virtue as a justifica tion of Christian images. For them, classicizing statues of Marcus Aurelius [thought to be Constantin e the Great] and Constantine were props of Christian virtue to equal the crucifix.153 Evidence shows that many of the sa me ideals and theories expressed by 151 Margaret Aston, Gods, Saints, and Reformers: Portraiture and Prot estant England in Albions Classicism: The Vis ual Arts in Britain, 1550-1660 Lucy Gent, ed. (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1995), 201. 152 Mark W. Roskill, Dolces Aretino and Venetian Ar t Theory of the Cinquecento (New York: New York University Press, 1968), 111-114. 153 Margaret Aston, Gods, Saints, and Reformers..., 203.

PAGE 245

245 these Italian art theoreticians were absorbed by those collecting art and traveling in Catholic areas of Europe, especially after James ach ieved peace between England and the Hapsburgs. This notion is evident in the co llections of antiquarians such as Arundel, discussed in Chapter 5, and in his influence on Henry and Charles. What is important about the por trayal of James at Oxford is the imagery from which this statue of James is drawn. When one carefully examines this work, James I giving his published works to the University of Oxford (Figure 4-6), one can see that it is based on imperial images such as Lucas de Heres Philip II as Solomon (A-14) and the central panel on the Sarcophagus of Junius Bassus (Figure 2-3) as well as one of the central Christian images, The Annunciation to Mary. According to Geoffrey Tyack, the statue group was most likely done by the sculptor John Clark, son-in-law of the mason John Akroyd, w ho was responsible for the creation of the tower.154 The inscription beneath the group reads: When the Lord James was reigning, most learned, most munificent, best of kings, th ese structures [were] happily attempted, begun, completed. Glory to God alone.155 On the books presented to th e school held by James are the words in Latin Haec Habeo Quae Scripsi. Haec Habeo Quae Dedi (These things I have which I have written, these things I have which I have given).156 This is not the wisdom of an ordinary man but of Gods anointed. This sculptural group works comple tely with the theories that James had about Absolutismthe king places himself in direct connection and in line with God as an intercessor between his kingdom and God, once again in th e great chain of being. This 154 Geoffrey Tyack, 18. 155 Geoffrey Tyack, 18. 156 Geoffrey Tyack, 18.

PAGE 246

246 theme was repeated often in Basilikon Doron and other works in the Frstenspiegel or speculum principis tradition that provided pr opaganda for kingship. Conclusion As documented in this chapter, James be gan a journey away from the traditions of Calvinism and the example set by Elizabeth in hi s political and religious thoughts expressed in the Basilikon Doron. This was also demonstrated in his sh ift from plain churches and chapels for highly traditional decorative schemes that were si milar in taste and expression to Catholicism. Some of his subjects noti ced his divergence from the status quo. James embraced classical forms in art and architecture in a more positive way. Puritans celebrated Elizabeth as the proper model for monarchy as noted in The Survey of London and often romanticized about her being the true model of a Protestant monarch. James returned to pre-reformed models for his chapel in anticipation of a Spanish princess, fitted out to appear as close to the old religion as possible. Chapter 5 will continue to document his movement and indeed his struggle and infatuation with Catholicism through the legacy of his mother, Ma ry Queen of Scots, and the creation of her magnificent tomb (Figures 1-1, 12, 1-3).

PAGE 247

247 Figure 4-1. Pantheon. In 609, the Byzantine emperor Phocas gave the building to Pope Boniface IV, who converted it into a Christian church and consecrated it to Santa Maria, ad Martyres, now known as Sant a Maria dei Martiri. Photo by author. Figure 4-2. In 1539, Pope Paul III, ma king a visit to Assisi, ordered the Temple of Minerva to be completely restored and dedicated to th e Virgin Mary. The temple then took the name of Santa Maria sopra Minerva. Photo by author.

PAGE 248

248 Figure 4-3. Inigo Jones. West Front of the Banqueting House Whitehall Palace. 1619-1622. Photo by author. Figure 4-4. The Virgin Porch 1637, the High Street entrance to St. Marys, Oxford. The setting up of the scandalous statue of the Virg in and Child was one of the many charges brought against Archbishop Laud in 1641. Photo by author.

PAGE 249

249 Figure 4-5. Tower of the Orders Oxford University, 1624. Photo by author. Figure 4-6. James I giving his published works to the University of Oxford Bodleian Library. Early 1620s. Photo by author.

PAGE 250

250 CHAPTER 5 ART AND CATHOLIC INFLUENCE: THE EARLY YEARS OF CHARLES I Introduction This chapter will examine the key influences on Charles, including the legacy of Mary Queen of Scots, his mother Anne of Denmark, his older brother Henry Prince of Wales, Lords Cecil, Buckingham, and Arundel, and his wife He nrietta Maria. Included in this chapter are discussions of clergymen associat ed with the court and their relig ious and artistic sensibilities. The movement of the English Church toward a Catholic perspective in art and liturgy are essential to an understanding of Charless contributions. All of these figures helped form the artistic direction of the dynast y toward a more conservative re ligious expression of art that supported divine right of kings. Charless display of art aimed to further the cause of absolutism in England. New Direction in the Use and Collection of Art Surprisingly, Charles Stuart frequently as serted that he was Catholic, but not Roman Catholicno more than the Fr ench king was Roman Catholic.1 The art Charles used was borrowed, and only slightly reinterpreted, with most of its Catholic symbolism still intact. It is true that these works of art were put into use for a Protestant regime; however, they were so similar to works produced by Catholic powers on the continent that Puritans found it difficult to distinguish them from works produced in Italy, Spain, the Ca tholic Netherlands, and The Empire. One of the reasons for confusion was th at those who were members of the merchant 1 The papal agent George Con referred to hi s arguments with Charles I over Charless claims to be Catholic. For Ja mes Is Claims of Catholicity s ee Robert Peters, Some Catholic Opinions of King James VI and I in Recusant History 10 (1970): 292-302.

PAGE 251

251 classes, as well as the aristocracy, were now traveling. They saw the wonders created in the Catholic south. They had trouble di fferentiating Catholic works from those of Charless artwork. One reason for the change in the use of art in early modern England was that Englishmen were well received in Catholic Eu rope, where they were exposed to a new artistic world. James re-established embassies in Brussels, Venice, Flor ence, and Madrid after a gap of nearly four decades. These embassies functioned as convenient agencies for art collectors and for some like Carleton, the ambassador to Venice, as channels for royalty such as Prince Henry to acquire his excellent collection. The relative fr eedom of travel also allowed many others to see buildings and art not yet imagined in the British Isles. Dtente was successful during the majority of Charless reign. After Rubenss successful negotiations between Charles and Philip III, a significant number of Englishmen traveled to Europe in the 1630s. Treating the English well wa s a not-so-conspicuous plan by the papacy and other Catholic powers to help urge England back into the Catholic fold, especially for political and economic reasons. This allowed many to collect art, to be impressed by the great collections of princes and other nobles, to see spectacular buildings, and to bring tremendous amounts of previously undesirable relig ious art back to England. Certain English Catholic prie sts were central to this end eavor. The two most important English Catholic priests were noblemen. Most noto rious in this group of converts was the son of the Archbishop of York, Tobie Matthew, and his constant companion George Gage. Matthew and Gage remained in Rome for much of th eir careers, buying Count er-Reformation art and providing art to the nobil ity of England, both Prot estant and Catholic.2 Matthew, and likely 2 Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations since the Renaissance (London and Portland, Oregon: Frank Cass, 1998), 208-210.

PAGE 252

252 Gage, joined the Society of Jesus and were ordain ed by no less a Catholic prelate than Cardinal Bellarmine. Yet James used these unapologetic Catholics as ambassadors to Spain during the negotiations for the hand of th e Infanta in the 1620s. Top-leve l negotiations earned Matthew a knighthood and Gage a royal reward of 375.3 Their Catholicism was extremely advantageous when they negotiated with such painters as Rubens and Van Dyck. It was also invaluable in deals with Italian collectors. Their Jesuit connection especially helped with Van Dyc k, a devout Catholic who had joined a Jesuit confraternity in 1628. Van Dyck, like Gage, had a sister who was a nun in a Flemish convent.4 The Venetian ambassador described Gage as chief of the English Catholics and as the shrewdest connoisseur of his day. Gage was instrumental in recommending Van Dyck as court painter to Charles. Edward Chaney identified important Catholic s and Catholic sympathizers as essential to the development of the collecti on and use of art in early mode rn England. Chaney wrote: It is then no accident that, with the po ssible exceptions of William Petty (part-time Anglican clergyman) and Balthazar Gerbier (w ho was all things to all men), the early Stuart art agents were Roman Catholics. Like Matthew and Gage, Robert Cansfield (cousin of Arundel and companion of Roos), Anthony Tracy (servant of Arundel and brother-in law of the fellow Catholic Wenceslas Hollar), Wa lter Montague (convert son of the Earl of Manchester), Nicholas Lanier (royal musician and artist), David Codner (Benedictine and probably Miltons mysterious Selvaggi), Daniel Nys (French-born art dealer), Peter Fitton (Richard Lasselss friend and fellow priest) and John Price (Anthony Woods greatest critic of this time) were all effectively exiled at one time or another, This rendered them trustworthy in the eyes of the continental hosts whilst keeping them anxious to please their influential compatriot s. A closely related class of occasional art agents were the more respectable royal serv ants, Endymion Porter, Sir Dudley Carleton, Sir William Hamilton, Basil, Lord Fielding and Sir Kenelm Digby, at least three of whom were also portrayed by Van Dyck and were Catholics.5 3 Edward Chaney, 209. 4 Edward Chaney, 209. 5 Edward Chaney, 210.

PAGE 253

253 The influence on art by the men on this list was imm easurable because of their guidance in style, taste, and art usage. But change was not immediate. It was onl y after 1610 that a signi ficant number of collectors began to acquire artwor k on a large scale. Leading courtiers such as Buckingham hired art experts such as Balthazar Gerbier, who collect ed art on his behalf for five years. When the great painter Rubens came to England in 1629, he commented on the magnificent collections of the British aristocracy. This tw enty-year period saw a vast cha nge in art collection, commission, and in the newly appreciated taste for religious art. It also signaled the beginning of the regimes use of art on a grand imperial scale, some thing not seen since pre-Reformation times. The leading figure in this cultural change wa s the eldest son of James and Anne, Prince Henry. Henry established an independent household at Oatlands, and his court soon rivaled his fathers in size and status. The Venetian ambassa dor Foscarini described it as an academy of young nobles.6 Henry pursued his own interests in ar t and politics from an early age and was extremely influential on his younger brother Charles, who worshiped his handsome, intelligent, and altogether dashing older brother. As with Charles, Henry was an innovator from the beginning. He was the first to import Renaissance bronze statues. The prince greatly delighted in all kinds of rare inventions and art in limming and pain ting, carving, in all sorts of excellent and rare Pictures, such he had brought unto him from all countries.7 As Prince of Wales, he purchased fifteen bronzes from Cosimo II in connection with marriage negotiations of 1611. These were most likely the first Italian sc ulptures to reach Engl and since Henry VIIIs 6 Calendar of State Papers Venetian XII (1610-1613), 464. 7 Sir Charles Cornwallis, The Life and Death of Our Late Most Incomparable and Heroiqe prince, Henry, Prince of Wales: A Prin ce (for Valour and Vertue) fit to be Imitated in Succeeding Times (London: printed by Iohn Dawson for Nathanael Butter 1641), 100-101.

PAGE 254

254 break with Rome.8 Art began to take a central place in the culture of early modern England through Henry. Nobles who were attracted to the vibrant court of Henry included Pembroke, Arundel, Northampton, and Lenox.9 Thomas Howard (1585-1646), the Ea rl of Arundel, was particularly instrumental in cultural change. He sent agents throughout Europe, even dispatching some to the Ottoman Empire to search for antiquities. Arun del established the first collection of ancient statues now kept at the Ashmolean museum.10 Other court figures followed. Prince Henry appointed Inigo Jone s as Surveyor of Works in 1610. Though initially discovered and promoted by Anne, Joness connection to the crown prince was extremely important to his elevation in English society. It was through Prince Henry that Arundel and Jones became close associates. Jones traveled with the Arundels on his second trip through most of the important centers of Europe in 1614. His association with them fostered Joness movement toward classical architecture. The Loosening Grip of Calvinism: Cecil, Religion, and Art In this period, the hold of Calvinism on the English cultural mindset was challenged. Historians continue to question the appeal of Puritanism, with its plain churches, a theology, which predestined most people to eternal perd ition, and its long serm ons. As discussed in 8 Jennifer Woodward, The Theater of Death: The Ritual Management of Royal Funerals in Renaissance England, 1570-1625 (Woodbridge, Suffolk, UK: The Boydell Press, 1997), 119. 9 Graham Parry, The Seventeenth-century: The Intellectual and Cultural Context of English Literature 1603-1700, 69, and Roy Strong, Henry Prince of Wales: Englands Lost Renaissance 26-44. These authors described the importa nt links to Henrys court and these important aristocrats. 10 For a study of the influence of Arundel, see Eric Mercer, English Art 1553-1625 237551.

PAGE 255

255 Chapter 3, authors have pointed out that Elizabeth and her hierarchy crushed the Presbyterian/Puritan movement to convert the English Church to a form of Presbyterianism in the 1590s. Arminians or anti-Calvinists slowly took on important roles in the English Church after this defeat of Presbyterianism. With gradual anti-Calvinist ascendancy to important dioceses in England, the use of re ligious art or even Catholic-like decoration of churches gained momentum. It is important to note that nearly to a man the anti-Calvinis ts were supporters of absolutism. By the time of Charles, the use of art by the dynasty for polit ical use also rapidly accelerated. The crown and most of the important courtiers embraced baroque art based on the works of great Catholic artists. Their commissions appeared more similar to Catholic princes or clergymen on the continent than to Elizabeths tradition. James differentiated himself from Elizabet h in other ways. He was generally lax on Catholicism. This was evidenced by his relationshi p with his wife Anne and those he chose as councilors. Queen Anne herself had refused to take part in Anglican Communion even at her coronation. The initial Privy Council included Ca tholics such as Henr y Howard, Earl of Northampton, and Henry Perce, Earl of Northumberland, who was sympathetic to Catholic recusants. These men were actively hostile toward Calvinism.11 Robert Cecil, First Earl of Salisbury, showed his leaning toward Catholic ism by the end of his life by emphasizing the sacraments in his will in 161212 and creating a chapel early on in Jamess reign at Hatfield House, Hertfordshire, which was set up very cl osely to Catholic tast es. Many of his closest 11 David Harris Wilson, King James VI & I (London: Cape, 1950), 156, 178, 221, 156. 12 See Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism 1590-1640 38, and Willson, King James VI & I, 176-178, for anti-Calvinist views of Cecil.

PAGE 256

256 friends were also Catholic. Cecil, proud and powerful, was a force unto himself. He moved between contradictor y groups at will. Cecils chapel was dedicated in 1614, less than two years afte r his death, and completed to his specified design. The fact that it was ev en dedicated showed movement away from Protestant sensibilities. In the absence of any direction from central au thority, patrons were at first uncertain as to what cons tituted a Protestant domestic ch apel whether they were regarded as sacred spaces or not. By the end of Elizabeths reign there is evidence of a revival of interest in the form of the traditional preReformation chapel, culminating in the building of new chapels such as that at Hatfield House.13 The chapel at Hatfield was not doubt created for a high-church patron who was interested in the de signs of the pre-Reformation. However, it was heavily influenced by designs from Italy. Note the Roman arched windows rather than the pointed arches that one would have found in pre-Reformation England (A-60). The gallery retains its original decoration of portraits of Apostles and Evangelists in the roundels under each arch. Cecil had imported these paintings (A-61) from Italy and he commissioned stained-glass windows such as Old Testament Scenes (A-62). These are the orig inal windows. The glass at Hatfield is richly colored, and even though the scenes are taken fr om the Old Testament, they are defined and accompanied by phrases that show a biblical reference or parallel to the New Testament. A good example of window treatment is the Passover Feast linke d with the institution of the Eucharist. These scenes show the Old Testament and avoid depictions of scenes that would be too controversia l, such as the Lords Supper. However, even with the scenes nuanced, 13 Annabel Ricketts, Claire Grapper, and Caroline Knight, Designing for Protestant Worship: the Private Chapels of the Cecil Famil y, in Andrew Spicer and Sarah Hamilton, eds., Defining the Holy Sacred Space in Me dieval and Early Modern Europe (Chippenham, Wiltshire, England: Antony Rowe Ltd., 2005), 116.

PAGE 257

257 the glazing of the chapel was a bold advance, and, in fact, the chapel was distinctively unProtestant for its time. The upper chapel, with its long side gallerie s, looked down onto a communion table set altar-wise and raised on a platform approached by two steps.14 The lower chapel and the gallery ha ve architectural treatments with trompe loeil Ionic pilasters gilded and painted blue. Incorporat ed in blue and gold th roughout the decorative schema of the chapel are winged cherub heads, flaming urns, and Biblebook motifs. There was a great deal of painted decoration, including the ceiling; however, these subjects were not recorded. The chapel ceiling was whitewashed in 1644 due to the iconoclastic tendencies prevalent during the Civil War. The ceiling bur ned completely in the nineteenth century. Important survivals include six prophets painted on the reveals of the east window (three of them seen in A-61) and plaster roundels set into the upp er galleries, which depi ct Christ and some of the Apostles.15 The surviving decoration shows a mix of Old and New Testament themes. These eventually became standard featur es of seventeenth-century sche mes in England after the Civil War. Yet, this was new territory for the early St uart age. Ricketts, Grap per and Knight wrote, If this had been the total extent of the decoration at Hatfield, it would have appeared as a carefully thought-out attempt to revive biblical imagery (i n both glass and paint) which managed to avoid direct reference to the mo st contentious subjects. However, the scheme also includes a series of six paintings of the scenes from the Life of Christ, which are documented as being in the chapel in 1611.16 This was highly unusual for Protestant chapel s during the Elizabethan Age and mirrored the display of Catholic Queen Anne. 14 Annabel Ricketts, Claire Grapper, and Caroline Knight, 133. 15 Annabel Ricketts, Claire Grapper, and Caroline Knight, 133. 16 Annabel Ricketts, Claire Grapper and Caroline Knight, 133.

PAGE 258

258 Curiously, and counter to Eli zabethan piety, the altar table was emphasized with hangings and textiles. At Hatfield a red curtain hung behind the communion table, a nd the table itself was covered with a black velvet cloth embroidere d with vine leaves. The pulpit and reading desk had similar black cloths embroide red with silver and gold thread.17 Communion was at the very least on a par with the preaching ministry and as expressed the will of Robert Cecil. The sacraments were paramount in his last thoughts He may be the first important nobleman to embrace what would come to be known as Arminianism or anti-Calvinism. The Hatfield Chapel was in the vangua rd of chapel design. It was designed for consecration (as it was in 1610) and therefore used not for preaching, but for Holy Communion. Everything about this chapel marks a return to ideas not seen since the days of Mary Tudor. It is more similar to Catholic chapels made during this period than any Pr otestant chapel of its time. Because of the sacred nature an assembly design was clea rly inappropriate, and Roberts scheme at Hatfield demonstrates how a hi gh-church Protestant chapel could adopt preReformation ideas to signal the arrival of a new type of Protestant space: one which emphasized the significance of the Passion a nd the celebration of the sacraments as well as preaching and prayer.18 Robert Cecil created a space that mirrored Counter-Reformation id eology in a uniform decorative scheme. Through artworks consisting of the prophets, apostles, and patriarchs, the Cecil family gathered around the Communion tabl e, focused on the celebration of Christs sacrifice in the sacrament. It was not far from Mass. Robert Cecil is the first significant nobl eman to portray a Laudian taste one full generation before Laud, Charles I, and Richard Neile. Pauline Croft wrote: 17 Annabel Ricketts, Claire Grapper and Caroline Knight, 135. 18 Annabel Ricketts, Claire Grapper and Caroline Knight, 135.

PAGE 259

259 It is possible to piece together a large am ount of information about his [Cecils] spiritual development, and the evidence suggests a gr adual but very significant change of outlook, from orthodox Elizabethan Protestantism to a very more complex position in which both his doctrinal and aesthetic sensibilities were moving in the direction later identified with Laudianism.19 It was also very close to Counter-Reformation Cat holic tastes. This similarity was likely due to the close relationship Cecil had with prominent Catholics at court who continued to fit out Catholic chapels, though it was technically forb idden to do so. The resemblance to contemporary Counter-Reformation taste and the fitting up of Ca tholic chapels are rema rkable regarding the Cecil chapel. Cecils willingness to incorporate these new ideas about chapel design paralleled the quasi-toleration that James allowed, even wi th the complications of the Gunpowder Plot and the Oath of Allegiance controversies. James, as noted in the discussion in Chapter 4, could always tell the difference between a Catholic who was loyal and one who was not. In his relationships, Cecil could also tell the difference. Cecil administered a considerable degree of de facto tolerance to Catholics in public affairs, especially toward the end of his life. He was also equally tolerant of Catholics in his own personal life. His closest friends were Gilbert Talbot, se venth Earl of Shrewsbury; Thomas Howard, Earl of Suffolk; and Edward Somerset, fourth Earl of Worchester. The friendship with the Shrewsburies was evident in a steady stream of letters from the early 1590s, and the correspondence reached a sad climax in 161112 as Gilbert and Mary Shrewsbury sent homemade remedies to their dying friend. Lady Shrewsbury was a cr ypto-papist, and it is apparent from the affectionate ribbing in his letters that whenever she and Salisbury met they discussed religion.20 19 Pauline Croft, The Religion of Robert Cecil, The Historical Journal 34, no. 4 (1991): 773. 20 Pauline Croft, 784-785.

PAGE 260

260 Croft also argues that Salisbury continued to play the role of peacemaker and often showed a remarkable dexterity in religious matters. His godly Protestant upbringing was tempered by an un-dogmatic attitude to foreign policy, together with tolerance toward individual Catholics and distaste for the harsher forms of repressi on against Catholics and Puritans alike.21 Cecil also criticized Henry VIII, the first Protestant king of England as the despoiler of monasteries. I love not to look upon anything Henry VIII did, for he was the child of lust and man of iniquity. This was a rather unusual viewpoint to have about the scourge of popery, Henry VIII.22 The Hatfield House chapel then made concrete the sp iritual drift that Croft and others described in Cecils religious preference. Hatfields chapel was influential in the mi nds of those who wanted to impose CounterReformation tastes in England. The chapel at Hatf ield made it into Lauds defense at trial. Laud appealed to the notion that Cecils chapel, am ong others, was a precedent that showed that he, Laud, was no innovator. When attacked for the embellishment of the chapel at Lambeth, the archbishop pointed to painted im ages retained in the chapels of the Queen and many great men contemporary practice did neither dest roy all coloured windows nor abstain from putting up new, both in her and King James his time.23 A further connection can be made between Laud and the Hatfield Chapel in that he employed the Hatfield glass painter Richard Bucket to repair old glass and put in new glass for Lambeth Chapel. Richard Neile, one of Cecils closest asso ciates, worked on a program of repair and improvement at Westminster Abbey at the sa me time Cecil was working on his chapel. 21 Pauline Croft, 786. 22 Pauline Croft, 786. 23 Margaret Aston, Englands Iconoclasts: Laws Against Images 340-341.

PAGE 261

261 Westminster had effectively changed less than mo st other churches in the Elizabethan reign because of Gabriel Goodman, dean from 1561 to 1601. Goodman presided over ceremonies that retained much of the pre-Reformation character, in cluding the use of vestme nts, altar cloths, altar canopies and other survival s from early Tudor times.24 Lancelot Andrewes held the post of dean from 1601 to 1605. Neile followed. At Westminster, Neile erected prebandal stalls to allow an uncluttered view of the heavily ornate high altar, donated new communi on plates, and improved the churchs music.25 The erected prebandal stalls allo wed for greater vi sibility of the celebration of Holy Communion. As high steward of Westminster, Salisbury came into frequent business contact with Neile as dean. The program of refurbishment at the abbey could not have been carried out without Salisburys approval.26 After its renovations, the Abbey was so High Church that the House of Commons refused to worship there and moved to the adjacent St. Margarets.27 The illuminating list of Cecils anti-Calvi nist preachers includes Lancelot Andrewes. Andrewes disliked the excessive sermonizing of the inherited Elizabethan religion. He urged reverent ceremonies, sacraments, and prayer. He was dedicated to the cycle of the church year established during Catholic times. In his sermons Andrewes vividly evoked the physical nature 24 Julia Merritt, The Cradle of Laudianism? Westminster Abbey 1559-1630, Journal of English History 52: 4 (2001): 627-628. 25 Julia Merritt, 629-631. 26 Pauline Croft, 792. 27 N. E. McClure. The Letters of John Chamberlain 2 vols. (Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1939), 209-211.

PAGE 262

262 of Christs sufferings on the cross and the sa nctification of the sinne r through this suffering.28 He seemed to reflect an almost Ignation (Saint Ignatius of L oyola) flair for dramatic homiletic imagery. Many parallels exist betw een the views of Andrewes and the late religious views of Cecil. There are clear parallels in chapel de sign as well. In 1619, Andrewes remodeled his London-based Winchester House Chapel. He made his own alignment with the ideas of Hooker and Cecil evident. With profound reverence for the Eucharist, he moved the altar to the east end of his chapel, raised it on a pl atform of three steps and create d and railed off the altar area.29 In their approach to chapels, similarities appear in the language of Andrewess preaching and the language of Cecils will. Andr ewess sermons emphasized the need for alms, good works, and sacramentalism, as does the Cecil will. The chapel at Hatfield House in some ways marked a major shift in the relationship of religion and art in early modern England. It is significant in its rearrangement of doctrinal and aesthetic boundaries, which were new aesthetics in England. Englishmen were looking to the Counter-Reformation for influen ce and reintroduction of pre-Re formation decoration. Hatfield Chapel was a break with immediate Protestant practice. Cecils innovation was symptomatic of a movement to undo the artistic havoc wrought by the Reformation on Englands churches. Robert Cecil, along with his cadre of protgs, such as Neile, Ha rsnett, Montaigne, and Andrewes, helped to fuel the movement of a theo logy of grace and doctrinal change in attitudes 28 Peter Lake, Lancelot Andrewes, John Bucker idge and Avant-garde Conformity at the Court of James I, in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court ed. Linda Levy Peck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) Lake discussed the theological views of Andrewes thoroughly in this chapter. 29 William Prynnes Canterburies doome (London: Printed by John Macock for Michael Spark, Senior, 1646). Page 122 gives a di agram and description of Andrewess chapel. Prynne, although a ferocious opponent of the high c hurch, seemed to be an accurate reporter of detail.

PAGE 263

263 with an emphasis on charity, reverent and cere monious style of church manship, and a stress on the role of prayer, public wors hip, and sacraments at the expe nse of preaching. This emphasis on liturgy and physical structures of the church was because the structures by their use were themselves made holy.30 These attitudes were certainly not Protestantism in opposition to popery. The chapel was not the only place religious ideas and old Catholic iconography broke into English tastes. Religious art was found elsewher e in Hatfield. Auerbach and Adams documented in their work, Painting and Sculpture at Hatfield House, an inventory of Sa lisburys collection. It contained such religious scenes as Christ at Emmaus. This was a particularly Catholic theme, with Christ recognized in the Eu charist rather than in Scriptur e: He took bread, pronounced the blessing, then broke the bread and began to distribute it to them With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him; whereupon he vanished from their sight (Luke 24: 30-31). Sir Henry Wotton also sent The Departure of Ab raham, Isaac and Jacob, and many other Italian pictures One of the most provocative was the Passion of Christ which was the most offensive of all depictions in Protestant taste.31 It may have been in the chapel at one time, but that is unclear from the inventory. By the time of his death, Robert Cecil was remarkably avant-garde in his use of Christian imagery and was certainly a non-Calvinist. Th e art at Hatfield House shows that as Cecil grew older, he acquired a remark able appreciation for the visual aspects of the Christian tradition. 30 Peter Lake, The Impact of Early Modern Protestantism, Journal of British Studies XXVIII, 3 (1989): 302. 31 Erna Auerbach and C. Kingsley Adams, Painting and Sculpture at Hatfield House (London: Constable, 1971), 20.

PAGE 264

264 The choice made of chaplains of such an im portant aristocrat also exemplifies a change toward a Counter-Reformation view of religious sensibilities. Five of nine of his chaplains were deeply involved in the anti-Calvinist movement: Richard Neile and Samuel Harsnett, who were leading Arminians, and George Montaigne and John Bowle, w ho leaned in that direction. Richard Meredith, an old friend of Neiles, preache d anti-predestinarian sermons at court as early as 1606.32 It is clear he had a deep concern for sa craments and a fervent depiction of Christs bodily sacrifice, twice explicitly described [in hi s will] as being for all mankind, it strikes what can only have been a consciously non-Calvinist note.33 His tomb also strikes that same note in its obvious debt to tombs ma de on the continent. Nothing like it existed in England before its completion. Cecils tomb (A-42), built by Colt, is a visual expression that strikes a balance between stoicism and sincere religious belief. It was an innovation in English tomb design. Colts only contemporary rival was Cornelius Clure, who executed the tombs for Elizabeth I and Mary Queen of Scots. Colts greatest patron was not Ja mes but Jamess lord treasurer, Robert Cecil. Cecil advanced Colts career in the royal servi ce and employed him privately. Salisburys tomb, erected after his death in Hatfield Parish Church ( c .1614c .1618) must rank as Colts masterpiece, though it probably owes much to Sali sburys own ideas and initiative. The earl is shown recumbent on a slab of black marble supported by life-sized kneeling figures of the cardinal virtues, while below the slab is a skeleton on a rolled straw mat (A-42). It was revolutionary for England as it was not painted in bright colors or embellished with features borrowed from architecture. Instead, it depends fo r its effect on the char acter and disposition of 32 Pauline Croft, 791. 33 Pauline Croft, 791.

PAGE 265

265 the figures and on a simple contra st of black and white marbles. The white marble was Carrara, procured at great expense from Italy by Salisbury. This work is also far from any Protestant restraint or any wariness of images. The life-sized effigy of Cecil, portrayed in fu ll regalia as a Knight of the Garter, holds the white staff of the Lord Treasurer in his right hand. The four cardinal virtues of Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, and Prudence hold up the sla b. Bernini often used the full-sized skeleton on papal tombs, a common device of the late Midd le Ages, revived during the Counter-Reformation as a memento mori. In the Christian context, the memento mori acquires a moralizing purpose. To the Christian, the prospect of death serves to emphasize the emptiness and fleetingness of earthly pleasures, luxuries, and achievements, a nd thus also as an invitation to focus ones thoughts on the prospect of the af terlife. A biblical injuncti on often associated with the memento mori in this context is In omnibus operibus tuis memorare novissima tua, et in aeternum non peccabis (the Vulgates Latin rendering of Ecclesiasticus 7:40: In all thy works be mindful of thy last end and thou wilt never sin). Tombs portraying this device were in fashion for the wealthy in the sixteenth-centu ry. Revived examples during the Counter-Reformation created a stark reminder of the vanity of earthly riches. Cecils to mb was a rare example of memento mori in English tomb art at the time. The choice of Virtues also speaks volumes a bout Cecils duty and works as a Christian servant. As one of the most powerful advisors of Elizabethan and Jacobe an England, Cecil would have administered or in theory should have ex hibited in his office, the cardinal virtues of Temperance, Fortitude, Justice, and Prudence. The prominent position in his monument of devices used in tombs for Counter-Reformation ponti ffs and prelates in Italy (a place with which Cecil seemed enamored) would have reminded the i nhabitants of their impor tance to live a life of

PAGE 266

266 these virtues to receive a good judgment. On Ceci ls tomb, the virtues reminded the viewer in a hopeful way that these were attributes of the Lord Treasurer. Even in deat h, the tastes shared and exhibited by the Stuarts places Cecil among the avant-garde of English aristocracy. Mary Queen of Scots Catholic Legacy: In My End Is My Own Beginning One of the delicate situ ations that the early Stuarts faced was their connection to Mary Queen of Scots, a militant Catholic. If Mary ha d not been Catholic, there would have been no reason for her death or for the perceived or real threat felt by Elizabeth. Yet Mary did die, perhaps even had to die. Mythically, she su rvived for the dynasty, and her own motto was prophetic: In my end is my own beginning. Marys death launched a war between Spain and England that lasted fifteen years. The only c onnection for James and his successors to the English throne was through Mary ; therefore, her legacy had to be cultivated carefully. Historians have viewed he r tragic end and drawn a vari ety of conclusions about its significance for the Stuart legacy. Within the context of Absolutism, James connected his right to rule in England by birth, not by election or parliamentary intrigue which meant he had to defend his mothers legacy. He could not allow for the justice of her execution or parliamentary power for deposition, or the rights of the no bility to choose a new monarch. It seems likely that James could not have any real memories of his mother, though it appears that Marys memory often haunted him. Giovanni Scaramelli observed that James did not let a day pass without lamenting that his mothers head fell, at the third stroke, by a villainous deed, till those who, even by relationship, are stained with that blood grow fearful lest their end be a bloody one.34 James made sure that his mothers memory was revived 34 Giovanni Carlo Scaramelli to the Vene tian Doge and Senate (22 May 1603). Calendar State Papers Venetian, X

PAGE 267

267 through her grandchildren. James christened a daughter Mary in 1605 after his mother.35 In every Stuart generation, one of th e daughters was christened Mary. One portrait that embodies the duplicity of Marys legacy is an imaginary work that places Mary with her son James, Mary Queen of Scots and James VI and I (A-63) painted circa 1585. This work shows the mother and son between a hovering Scottish crown. The iconography of this painting shows Jamess identification with his mother and the tension in the relationship. It portrays both sovereigns in almost identical pose, expression, and garment. Even the hand positions are the same. Mary touches her necklace and James the sword handle. The Scottish crown drifts rather diplomatica lly between the two to suggest th at they share the crown jointly. In a real sense, mother and son are equal, almost one in this portrait. James is shown in mirror image of his mother and this por trait shows that his power deri ved from re-production, literally and figuratively.36 One cannot choose between mother or son; in fact, this portrait allows no choice. The divine right of kings, Jamess politi cal theory, is completely reliant on legitimate bloodline. The complicated and most likely ille gal way that James came to the throne of Scotland, through the misfortune of his mother, pr esented real propaganda problems and political issues that demanded James to feign devotion to Mary. However, in his Protestant realms, Marys Catholicism presented him with the probl em of maintaining some distance. Jayne E. Lewis explored this delicate balancing act in her study of the life and the memory of Mary Queen of Scots. Lewis wrote: 35 Giovanni Carlo Scaramelli, Calendar State Papers Venetian, X, 155. 36 Jonathan Goldberg, Fatherly Authority: The Politics of Stuart Family Images, in Rewriting the Renaissance Ferguson, Quilligan and Vickers, eds. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 5.

PAGE 268

268 James even appeared to be an organic transc ription of Marys physical and psychological selves, and thereby a living sign of the pasts haunting of the present. For one thing, James was continually depicted in terms of what had happened to him before he was born. He was known as the Scottish (later British) So lomon, an epithet more likely to invoke his mother than his own wisdom and probity: one funeral sermon pointed out that, like James, King Solomon is said to be Vgentius Coram Matriae Sua the only son of his mothers and that, just as Solomon began his Reign in the life of a predecessor, [. .] so by the Force and Compulsion of that stat e did our later Sovereign James.37 James and the rest of the Stuarts balanced this memory of a failed Catholic queen who was also an ancestor and their ul timate source of rule. Marys memory was significant in artistic works connected to the dynasty. James had to rectify Marys mistreatment, her imprisonment, a nd her death to proclaim his right to English kingship. This rectifying was done though sculpture, painting, and li terature. This was not helped by her treatment by Elizabeth or by her ignob le death. Marys clumsy treatment by her executioners is well documented. After her behead ing, a beheading that took several strikes, she was hastily rolled in a cloth torn from a billiard ta ble, left unburied six months, and finally buried at Peterborough Cathedral. Her grave bore the epitaph placed ther e by her jailers that pronounces her death a new and unexampled kind of Tomb, wherein the Living are enclosed with the Dead.38 It predicted that the same wicked sent ence, which doomed Mary to a natural death, guaranteed, all surviving kings, being made as Common people, are subjected to a civill Death.39 Elizabeth took this epitaph away for obvi ous reasons. To kill one queen, the heir apparent, for treason might set a precedent for killing another if she got out of hand. Even 37 Jayne Elizabeth Lewis, Mary Queen of Scots: Romance and Nation (London and New York: Routledge, 1998), 71. 38 William Camden, The historie of the life and reigne of the most renowmed [sic] and victorious Princesse Elizabeth, late Queene of England containing (London: Printed for Benjamin Fisher, 1635), 385. 39 William Camden, 385.

PAGE 269

269 for Elizabeth, Marys memory and death sent mixe d signals. Elizabeth denied that she had really intended to have Mary executed. This is doubtful but her denial of any real culpability in Marys death was politically usef ul and distanced her from the na sty charge of regicide. This denial also gave James enough leew ay not to invade England afte r the regicide of his mother. After six months, Mary was finally interred with some dignity, and for the next twentyfive years, she was left in a relatively unmarked grave. This changed with the ascension of her son. Marys tomb was sumptuously made and remark able for its time. From the ignoble burial at Peterborough, nobles took her with great honor and placed Mary at Westminster Abbey, though curiously at night. Ironically, Jame s was not present, still distant. James could not handle death or its rituals; especially for those he loved the most. He was absent from the funeral of his beloved Prince Henry, and even fr om the funeral of his wife, of Queen Anne. While extolling his mother with a magnificent tomb, he still kept hi s distance. Cornelius Cure and William Cure the Younger sculpted this monument, which cost 100, a huge amount (Figures 1-1, 1-2, 1-3). Six years in the making, begun in 1606, the gilt a nd alabaster handiwork was sumptuous. It was beautifully rendered, more so than Elizabeth s companion piece. Four grand unicorns, the symbol of Scotland but also an iconological image connect ed with Christ, death, and resurrection, stand on the four co rners at the top of the archit rave (Figure 1-2). The unicorn present on this monument had multi-layered meaning. It was a political stat ement of Marys rank as Queen of Scotland, but also a theological statement a bout her ultimate victory and resurrection. Marys survival in memory, as well as through he r child and grandchildren, was important. In particular, the alabaster cover for the sarcophagus portr ays her as a sleeping, serene, saintly figure wi th hands in prayer.

PAGE 270

270 References are given in the Old Testament in Numbers 23: 24 and 24: 8 to the unicorn, a mythical beast often portrayed as a white horse with a single horn protru ding from its forehead (as portrayed on Marys tomb). J ob and the Psalms also mention th e unicorn. In ancient Christian context, as well as the Middle Ages, the unicorn was connected to Christs incarnation. The unicorn was portrayed throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, often having the horn dipped in water (as at the baptis try at Pisa). The dipping was to nullify the poison of sin and was especially potent in nullifying the poison from serpents. Obvious connections were made with the serpent in Genesis, and the symbol of th e woman who crushed the serpents head found in the book of Revelations. Catholic writers, allowing the traditionally pagan symbolism of the unicorn to become acceptable within religious doctrine, have long identified the unicorn as a symbol of Christ. Some Catholic writings interpreted the unicorn and its death as the Passion of Christ. The original myths refer to a beast with one hor n that can only be tamed by a virgin maiden; subsequently, some Catholic scholars translated th is into an allegory for Christs relationship with the Virgin Mary. The unicorns symbolized Christs purification of the world from sin. According to mythology, only a virgin could tame the unicorn, and it became a natural association with the Virgin Mary and the Incarnation. The unicorn was chosen as a symbol of Scotland while the country was one of the most devout adherents to Catholicism. The unicorn on Mary Queen of Scots tomb had a doubl e meaning: resurrection and motherhood.40 There are multiple layers of meaning for this tomb. Mary is the primogenitor of the dynasty, the root of the 40 Peter and Linda Murray, The Oxford Companion to Christian Art and Architecture (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 551.

PAGE 271

271 claim of the Stuarts. With the emphasis on her motherliness, she is worthy of redemption, especially considering her status as a martyr for monarchy and he r staunch and unrepentant faith. Much of this tombs symbolis m was read through the notion of imprese, which was at the height of its popularity at the end of the sixteenth-century. An impresa permitted the conflation, often the equation, of classical and Christian symbolism. It enabled one to imply claims that one might hesitate to proclaim and to deliver orations with a maximum of ec onomy and a minimum of responsibility; interpretation of the message was left to th e beholders imagination and learning. Imprese could embody within their diminutive format extremely elaborate ideas expressed in the sparest of hieroglyphs, complicated visual and verbal puns a nd interplay between the two, and a polite display of erudition. The best imprese offered, in addition, the structural satisfaction of a well-designed building, the elegance of an a phorism, and the refinement worthy of the goldsmith. All th ese qualities appealed enorm ously to the taste of the times.41 Seeing this tomb within the realm of possibilities expresse d in Renaissance notions of imprese allows us to value also its iconography as a statemen t of politics. The tomb can also be read in a theologically complex way. As well-educated Renaissance men, James and Cornelius Clure certainly would have used the design of this monument for its most far-reaching impact. Its creation was by its very nature a multi-layered, multi-purposed work that would express the importance of Marys life and death and her role as imperial mother. Her Catholicism could not be ignored, even if James had wanted to. Ca tholicism was too central to Marys legacy. Of considerable importance is the presence of angels on this tomb. Historians have noted that by the end of the second d ecade of the 1600s, angels came into vogue in England. They fail to make the connection with the building of the Tomb of Mary Qu een of Scots (Figure 1-2). This statement of the dynasty was completed and in place by 1612. The theological message was sent by the inclusion of angels on this tomb. Angels were messengers between the spiritual world and 41 Bernice F. Davidson, Pope Paul IIIs Addi tions to Raphaels Logge: His Imprese in the Logge, The Art Bulletin 61, no. 3 (1979): 396.

PAGE 272

272 this world. They were appropriate accessories, intermediaries between the death of this woman and the throne of G od. Angels were thought to direct and speed up prayer. They were everywhere in Catholic Counter-Reformation art. Hooker and Andrewes, in preaching and devotions, wrote at great length about angels divine ministry.42 Laud would later include angels, especially cherubs, were a favorite Laudian accessory. Literature of the day expressed another impor tant reason for the construction of the tomb. Jamess Roman Catholic subjects we re grieved when they sa w no memory at all made of so memorable a mother either in word or in work; she lying obscurely in that place where her enemies cast her after cutting off her head.43 Jamess Roman Catholic favorite, the Earl of Northampton, mused and complained about her obscurity. He commented on her interment at Westminster as dead roseleaves are preserve d, whence the liqueur that makes the kingdom sweet has been distilled She is buried with honor.44 Through her physical move to London, Mary had become part of Englands body politic. With the ascension of James to England, Mary s image proliferated. Catholic observers reported that the minute Elizabeth was dead, Eliz abeths picture was hidden everywhere and Mary Stuarts shown instead with the declaration that she suffered for no cause other than her religion.45 Northampton hung a picture of Mary direc tly opposite a passion of Christ in his 42 Richard Hooker, The Laws of Ecclesiastical Politie Book I, section 4. Andrewess recollections upon angels occurr ed in his Nativity Sermons. 43 John Gerard, A Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot in The Condition of the Catholics under James I ed. John Morris, S. J. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1871), 21. 44 Jayne Elizabeth Lewis, 66. Here the quotations of Northampton are found in the 10 October 1612, Calendar State Papers, Domestic, IX, 90. Northamptons epitaph was so fervently devoted to Mary that they recall the mart yrologies of the late sixteenth-century. 45 Giovanni Carlo Scaramelli, Calendar State Papers Venetian, X, 9-10.

PAGE 273

273 bedroom.46 Many sources point to the immediate prol iferation of paintings of Mary Queen of Scots. One such work, which was produced by her ladies in waiting, Mary Queen of Scots Memorial Portrait (A-64), gives us an example of these works that emerged from the shadows in the early seventeenth-century. The notion of the martyrdom of Mary Stuart was expressed in this portrait. Elizabeth Curle, who was in the close confidence of the queen, commissioned the portrait shortly after her death. Elizabeth was for eight years in attenda nce on the queen in captiv ity. Marys Catholic faith is evident in this painting. Details are borrowed from continental martyrologies, which appeared immediately after her death. Included in this painting is an execution in miniature immediately below her right arm, which holds a crucifix and Latin inscriptions, which confirm the Queen of Scots as a true daughter of the Roman Church. Her ladies -in-waiting are seen diminutively behind her to the left. The issue of Marys religion could not be ignored with so many Catholic peers prominent in Jamess court, al so one knew for sure at the beginning of the seventeenth-century how many Catholics remained in England. The ambivalent gestures regarding the memo ry of Jamess mother created tensions in these types of works. Jayne Lewis wrote, the y fuse reflexive distan ce and furtive intimacyand as they betray Marys visceral intrusion upon a present reluctant to include herthese early memorials weave the inconsistent desires of th e living into the fixed visage of the dead.47 Lewis also pointed out that in their disregard for historical distan ce and in the variable boundaries that they established between a feeling subject and the object of its passion, such incoherent images capture exactly the undesirable Mary Queen of Scots who would with consequent and 46 Jayne Elizabeth Lewis, 66. 47 Jayne Elizabeth Lewis, 66.

PAGE 274

274 eerie vitality reappear again and again throughout the reigns of James VI/I and his descendants.48 Looking at the evidence left by James and Char les, one can almost see an allegory in the relationship between Mary and the Catholic C hurch. At times, they bot h repudiated the Roman Church while negotiating with it an d its supporters. Both kings init iated traditions that could be perceived as Counter-Reformation or pre-Refo rmation, but which cert ainly paralled the Catholicism of their day. This initiation is rema rkable considering that a significant number of Englands populace seemed to be heading toward a more radically Protestant religious path. At times, James and Charles even called themselves C atholic: As noted in earlier chapters, their like-minded clergymen such as Laud and Andrewes ar gued that they had the right to such a title. This attraction and repulsion concerning both Mary Queen of Scots and the Roman Church could be an entirely separate topic fo r research in Stuart studies. A Convert: Ann of Denmark and Church Papists Many of his Protestant subjects did not shar e Jamess inclination toward toleration for Catholics. James took an independent view of the Catholic Church from many Protestant polemicists of his time. James remarked to Parliament in 1604, I acknowledge the Romane Church to be our mother church, although de filed with some infirmities and corruptions.49 The 48 Jayne Elizabeth Lewis, 67. 49 The anonymous translator of Edmond Richers De Ecclesiastic et Politica Potestate compared the Gallican and the English Churches in the English edition that appeared in 1612. The editor noted, as with many other contemporary writers, that King James had acknowledged the Church of Rome to be our mother church. James proclaimed this in no less august a venue than a speech to Parliament. This can be found in A Speech, as it was Delivered in the Vupper Hovse of the Parliament to The Lords Spiritvall and Temporall, and to the Knights, Citizens and Burgesses there assembled, on Mvnday the XIX. Day of March 1603. Being The First Day Of the first Parliament. In Johann P. Sommervilles King James VI and I: Political Writings p. 139.

PAGE 275

275 reality of Annes Catholicism, along with Jame ss pacific foreign policy, made it necessary for James to take a more centrist position about the validity of the Catholic Church. James even made it clear that he believed one could find salvation in the Church of Rome. And therefore doe we iustly confesse, that ma ny Papists, especially our forefathers, laying their onely trust vpon CHRIST and his Merits at their last breath, may be, and often times are saued; detesting in that point, and thinking the crueltie of Puritanes worthy of fire, that will admit no saluation to any Papist. I theref ore thus doe conclude this point, That as vpon the one part many honest men, seduced with some errors of Popery, may yet remaine good and faithfull Subiects.50 James made a distinction between those Cathol ics who were quiet, well-mannered, peaceable subjects and those who were seditious and dist urbers of the commonwealth. Jamess foreign policy, if irenic statements are to be believe d, made some kind of accommodation of Catholicism inevitable. Though penal laws were enacted, these laws were not regularly enforced and hardly enforced at all after 1612. In f act, after 1618, no Catholics were put to death for the remainder of his reign. James left the Catholic minority at pe ace while their numbers modestly increased. The passivity of most of his Catholic subjects shoul d be noted. In fact, af ter the Gunpowder Plot, no significant Catholic rebellions or conspiracies occurred in England. Extreme Protestantism would be the real threat to their vision of m onarchy. James, as noted in his writing, and Charles, both recognized this threat. It is difficult to demonstrate in detail how many Catholics were in England at the ascension of James. The only reliable known gr oup studied was the aristocracy. Records for merchant or lower classes are scattered at best Authors have gained information by studying the pressure from the central government through the enforcement of penal laws and their influence 50 James I, The Political Works of James I ed. Charles Howard McIlwain (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1918), 285.

PAGE 276

276 on the aristocracy. It appears that private arrangements between known Catholics and the government occurred and allowed much variety in the enforcement of recusancy laws.51 This softness on Catholicism during the second half of Jamess reign and the reign of Charles is exemplified in the number of Catholic priests in England and their ratio to the estimated Catholic population in the 1630s. It reached a level not equaled again until the 1850s.52 This increase in numbers--allowed church papists, those who attended A nglican services--to receive sacraments in the Catholic rite secretly at home or discree tly in public places such as the Catholic queens chapels or foreign embassies. The resurgence of Catholicism among peers and gentry in the early Stuart era helps explain the political fears that it evoked. The quality that separated this movement from Protestant dissenters, especially with all Stuart queens as adherent s to the Catholic faith, was its closeness to the crown. It was al so in its very nature. Roman Catholicism made demands on its adherents. English aristocrats, as members of the political elite in England, were also, as Roman Catholics, part of an internat ional religion. In days when nonconformity carried some threat to person and property, church-papist families kept the option of Catholicism alive, but still were fearful, knowing that Protestants thought that th ey could be foreign agents because of their Catholicism. Aveling, who researched the survival of Catholicism in England, wrote: It was the 51 E. Elliot Rose, Cases of Conscience: Alternatives Open to Recusants and Puritans under Elizabeth and James I (Cambridge: Cambridge Universi ty Press, 1976). Rose examined this point on pages 111-113. Here he makes a case for local and often sporadic imposition of recusant penal laws. Local officials often consider ed their relationship to the gentry and granted allowances. 52 John Bossy, The English Catholic Community: 1570-1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976), 442.

PAGE 277

277 Church-papists who saved the Catholic community.53 Often compliance went so far as double baptism and church marriages for Catholics even though Catholic priests opposed this. Carolyn M. Hibbard reevaluate d the pressures on Catholicism in the early Stuart period and offers some relevant conclusions: What becomes of the traditional picture of a heroic Catholic remnant forced out of the mainstream of English life by relentless and ubiquitous legal and social pressure?...First, the pressure was intermitte nt and often easily evaded. Second, from the communitys point of view, the process may be seen as Bossy describes it as one of deliberate withdrawala series of positive and purifying d ecisions rather than a disordered retreat. But there is also a third perspective on se paration. Viewed from Rome, or even from across the Channel, it was a rescue operati on designed to yank Cat holic souls from the jaws of the Protestant hell In short, when lay Catholics were told they must choose, it was as often by their clergy as by their government.54 Hibbard also added: The precise nature of Cathol ic persistence and separation was not, then, predetermined, but evolved gradually out of a welter of c onflicting opinions among la ity and clergy. If we accept this, it is easier to understand the inc onsistency between the draconian anti-Catholic legislation and its lax enforcement. Few in th e Protestant political classes could view longterm religious pluralism as safe or tolerable. The reiterated demands in Parliament for stricter enforcement of the recusancy laws were more that political rhetoric. At the same time, it was not a priori clear how far honest Catholic gen tlemen were prepared to go in separating themselves from the rest of the community.55 A final factor added to the maintenance and sli ght growth in Catholicism in the early Stuart period. There seemed to be no general expectation of a bloodbath for Catholic laity as seen in 53 J. C. H. Aveling, The Handle and the Axe: The Catholic Recusants in England from the Reformation to Emancipation (London: Bond and Briggs, 1976), 126. 54 Caroline M. Hibbard, Early Stuart Cathol icism: Revisions and Re-Revisions, in The Journal of Modern History 52, no. 1 (1980): 19. 55 Caroline M. Hibbard, 19.

PAGE 278

278 other Protestant areas; indeed treason legislati on was rarely employed agai nst Catholics in early Stuart England.56 One of the reasons for thei r ability to move between a public and private faith was necessity. Though the Catholic clergy often dema nded a recusant to re nounce their political loyalty to the sovereign as ordered by the Pap acy, the great majority of English Catholics refused to make a choice and continued to live in an uneasy but sincere conflict of loyalties.57 The first two Stuart kings attitudes towa rd Catholicism were convoluted. The political actions of James and Charles proved to be contra dictory and at cross-purpos es if elimination of Catholicism in England was their goal. James, in his negotiations for a Catholic bride for Charles, allowed the future queen to bring clergy, even bishops, as part of her entourage. Charles confirmed this and extended to a Catholic bishop the tacit toleration denied to Jesuits.58 The Oath of Allegiance remained the most important focus of tension between the crown and the papacy for over 50 years. However, numerous atte mpts were made to find a mutually satisfactory solution. The fact that most of the Roman clergy re fused the oath and that most of the laity, when pressed, took the oath, testifies to the ability of the Catholic community to survive within both identities. 56 Caroline M. Hibbard, 20. Hibbard cited th e research of important scholars of Catholicism in footnote 53, page 20. During this pe riod, authors, such as E. Elliott Rose, J. A. Hilton, and Aveling, argued that re cusant trials for treason ofte n were complicated and involved other issues besides Catholicism. They also added that even though some were convicted, they often escaped unpunished. 57 Caroline M. Hibbard, 21. 58 F. F. Allison, Richard Smith, Richelie u and the French Marriage 1624, Recusant History 7 (1963): 148-211 and Martin Havran, Catholics in Caroline England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962), 84-89.

PAGE 279

279 The marriage of Charles to Henrietta Maria made the Oath of Allegiance palatable for Catholics. After Charless marriag e, France openly competed with Spain for the clientage of the English Catholics, and a significant French camp was at court. The outside influence of the continent, either French or Spanish, should not be underestimat ed. The Catholic gentry of England had largely rejected Catholicisms politi cal aspirations, but could not reject the priests themselves. Unlike English homegrown Protesta nt deviations from Anglican orthodoxy, the Catholics were dependent on the ministry of fore ign-trained priests. No other English religious group was tied to an umbili cal cord to the continent.59 This provided multiple umbilici for Counter-Reformation culture. Popular belief in the international power of European Catholics isolated Catholics from other nonconformists an d made them peculiarly vulnerable to political hysteria in that others might deviate from the royal supremacy, however, they seldom were ferreted out for subversion or took an oath of alliance to the crown.60 One of the important consider ations often overlooked by histor ians is that Catholics were perhaps unique in their collec tive dependence on communications with Europe. They belonged to a communion, an ecclesiastical viewpoint, which was part of a world that was often wider than that of England. A pan-national approach to rec onsidering the influence of Catholicism in its various forms in England helps to explain its vitality. Catholicism, when placed within the context of a peerage of twenty percent, was vita l as a cultural influenc e during the reigns of James and Charles. English Catholicism, with its wider political context, explains the quantity and the inventories of many gentlemen and ladies libraries and the exis tence of Catholic books, 59 John Aveling, Jesuit History, Ampleforth Journal 70 (1965): 163-170. 60 Charles I in 1639 imposed an oath on th e Scots in England and Ireland who used religion as a pretense for rebellion. No evid ence exists that any earlier oath, though it was obviously needed, was composed by James or Charles for Protestants.

PAGE 280

280 paintings, and theological works, which poured into England through ar istocratic Catholic gentry. The degree of Catholic influence regarding culture is now more important, according to several recent historians. In part icular, Catholic texts were produ ced and distributed secretly in England or smuggled in from Europe. This litera ture is often unknown to historians, and only of interest to political historians such as T. H. Clancy, who wrote Papist Pamphleteers .61 The destruction and seizure of much of the Cathol ic writings and illustrated pamphlets means they are lost to historical examination. However, Clancys research showed that Catholic pamphleteers reached a peak in the 1630s.62 This literature was aimed not only at disputing Protestantism, but also at keeping Catholics with in the papal fold. Along with a steady influx of pamphlets, works of art with Catholic themes were important as part of the propaganda that steadied and maintained the old religion. Both liter ature and artworks fulfilled the same purpose, keeping Catholics within their tradition. Anne of Denmark had such literature and artworks in her possession. Her rank as queen made her the mo st important and influential church papist in England. Anne of Denmark: Patron and Influence on Charles I English historiography has underappreciated Anne. Early scholars saw her as vain, extravagant, relatively unimportant, and somewhat of an albatross for James. However, this viewpoint is beginning to change. Recent scholar ship has argued for her as an important 61 Thomas H. Clancy, Papist Pamphleteers: The Allen-Parsons Party and the Political Thought of the Counter-Reformation in England 1572-1615 (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1964). 62 Thomas H. Clancy, English Catholic Books 1641-1700: A Bibliography (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1974), xiv.

PAGE 281

281 influence in early modern England. A more evolve d view has emerged about the character of the relationship between James and his wife. Consensu s has emerged that Jamess relationship with Anne was affable yet often complicated. There is a paper trail of letters exchanged between them, which depict an often cord ial and newsy liaison. James father ed nine children with her. Three survived until adulthood: He nry, Elizabeth, and Charles. Ho wever, they lived apart after the death of their final child, whic h indicates Annes reluctance to become pregnant as her health deteriorated. The relationship of James and Anne was not an equal one in the male-dominated world of England. Yet Anne often struggled to remain within the official loop of power. She managed to make herself important and necessary in the Eng lish court by creating a rival to her husbands court that was in many ways artistically superior.63 In fact, the center of power in England during the early reign of James was distributed between three courts: Anne (died 1619), Henry (died 1612) and James (died 1624). It is clear that James spelled out a rigid patriarchal notion of ma rriage and kingship in Basilikon Doron. He advised his heir Prince Henry a bout a queens marital subordination and exclusion from political influence. 63 For information on the relationships of men and women during the Renaissance, see Joan Kelly-Gadol, Did Women Have a Renaissance? in Becoming Visible: Women in European History eds. Renate Bridenthal and Claudi a Koonz (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1977), 137-164; Susan Dwyer Amussen, An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England (Oxford: Blackwell, 1988); and Margaret Ferguson, Maureen Quilligan, and Nancy J. Vickers, eds., Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986). For a study of the letters and the relationship between James and Anne, see Letters to King James the Sixth from the Queen, Prince Henry, Prince Charles, the Princess Elizabeth and her husband Frederick King of Bohemia, and from their son Prince Frederick Henry. From the Originals in the Library of Advocates, edited by Alexander Macdonald (Edinburgh, 1835).

PAGE 282

282 And for your behauiour to your Wife, the Scripture can best giue you counsel therein: Treat her as your owne flesh, command her as her Lord, cherish her as your helper, rule her as your pupil, and please her in all things r easonable; but teach her not to be curious in things that belong her not: You are the head, shee is your body; It is your office to command, and hers to obey; but yet with such a sweet harmonie, as shee should be as ready to obey, as ye to command; as willing to follow, as ye to go before; your loue being wholly knit vnto her, and all her affec tions louingly bent to follow your will.64 However, it is clear that James did not manage to impose these rather rest rictive and controlling ideas on his own queen. James may have been th e bodys head, but in many ways Anne was the neck of the body that moved the cultural head She was also a strong voice in England on foreign policy and served as a channel for foreign embassies, particular ly Catholic embassies. From the outset of their marriage, Anne s howed herself to be independent. She fostered cultural myths and practices particularly in he r masques, which enhanced her own dignity and power. She was not the frivolous lightweight, as portrayed until recently by historians. Anne came from a sophisticated court. Her father, Fr ederic II of Denmark, was a sponsor of Tycho Brahe; her mother Sophie studied science, patronized artists a nd scholars, and retained some power at court during her sons minority.65 Anne, raised to be st rong and outspoken, expressed this characteristic almost immediately when she reached Scotland. From her arrival in 1589, she involved herself in political, cultura l, and religious issues. In Sco tland, she helped to procure the aid of Catholic Lards to come to Jamess aid on more than one occasion. In Scotland, Anne converted from Lutheranism to the Roman Catholic faith. The insular parochialism and Puritanism of the Scottish Kirk did not attr act Anne as a sophisticated Europeanist and conservative Lutheran. Scholars have decided An ne converted to Catholicism around the year 64 Johann P. Sommerville, 42. 65 Leeds Barroll, The Court of the First Stuart Queen, in The Mental World of the Jacobean Court ed. Linda Levy Peck (Cambridge; Camb ridge University Press, 1991), 191-208.

PAGE 283

283 1600, before Jamess ascension to the English throne.66 Anne assured Pope Clement in 1602 that she pledged her alle giance to the Catholic faith and that Jamess was fair to his Catholic subjects.67 Anne involved herself immediately in the arts. This involvement was a statement of her politics and self-mythologizing. Masques, art collect ion, and entertainments were indications that had broader ramifications than simple amusement. Her court, though never quite an equal rival, provided an alternative center that was influentia l in advancing such figures as Jones, Arundel, and Buckingham. Annes court was important as a political channel, especially regarding the marital strategies James envisioned for their children. Some entertainments emphasized her i ndependent worth and importance through her family relations as a daughter of a king, sister of a king, and queen by marriage andmost importantlyas Queen Mother. This is expresse d in Jonsons Kings Entertainment for the coronation in London in 1604: And here she comes that is no less a part In this days greatness, than in my glad heart. Glory of Queens, and glory of your Name, Whose Graces do as far out-speak your Fame, You Daughter, Sister, Wife of Several Kings: Besides Allyance, and the stile of Mother, In which one Title you drown all your other. 68 66 For evidence of Annes Catholicism, see Albert J. Loomie, King James Is Catholic Consort, Huntington Library Quarterly 34 (1971): 303-316. The foundation for her conversion to Catholicism was most likely her relationship to th e countess of Huntley in the early 1590s. She was a moderate, un-dogmatic Cat holic who also attended Protestant services with her husband. However, according to the Venetian ambassador, she did not take communion even at her husbands coronation in England. 67 W. B Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), 39.

PAGE 284

284 Motherhood was a particularly effective arena for Anne to use her influence, and she seems to have had extensive sway in the lives of her sons and daughter. George Chapman praised Anne as the most important foundation for Prince Henrys virtue. Sole Empress of Beautie, and Vertue With whatsoever H onor wee adorne/Your Roya ll Issue; wee must gratulate yow/ Imperiall Sovera igne. Who of you is borne, /Is you. One Tree, make both the Bole and Bow.69 Most modern historians take the notori ous lack of personal virtue of James, his homosexual dallying, and drinking as canon. Though Anne was fond of drink and the theater, she seemed to have been a more stable source of ar tistic patronage, virtue, and piety, perhaps in two religions. Though she never took communion in the A nglican Church, she did favor some of the greatest court preachers, such as Dunne, and atte nded word services often, more often than did James. One of the poets who dedicated her works to Anne was Aemilia Layner, who constructed Annes persona in expansive associations. She saw Anne as the conduit and embodiment of the female virtues and powers. Layner expanded her mate rnal role, inviting Anne to see herself as a nurturer of artists, judge of biblical exegesis, and defender of women. Renowned Empresse, and great Britanes Queene, Most gratioius Mother of succeeding Kings; Vouchsafe to view that which is seldome seene, A Woman writing of divinest things: From Juno you have State and Dignities, From warlike Pallas, Wisdome, Fortitude; And from faire Venus all her Excellencies, 68 John B. Nichols, The Progress, Processions and Magnificent Festivities, of King James the First, his Royal Consort, Family, and Court (London, J. B. Nichols, 1828) 4 vols. I: 386-387. 69 George Chapman, The Iliads of Homer prince of poets: Neuer before in any languag truely translated. With a co[m]ment vppon some of his chiefe places; donne according to the Greeke by Geo: Chapman (London: Printed by Richard Field fo r Nathaniell Butter, 1611), sig. A 7.

PAGE 285

285 With their best parts your Highnesses is indud: The Muses doe attend upon your Throne, With all the Artists at your becke and call.70 This could also to a certain degree sum up A nnes sense of self. She often resisted Jamess policies and continued to work for what she thought was best for her children and England. Her strongest resistance centered on her children, the household, her Ro man Catholic religion, court appointments, and theater patronage. Anne tied al l these efforts together with adroit political maneuvering. She would have made a fine Byzantine princess. Often Anne would insist on more control ov er her children than James liked. She achieved that influence on a regular basis. The well-know n account of demanding the presence of Prince Henry in England before she would come to the coronation is well documented. Anne clearly won that battle.71 Contrary to precedence, she involved herself in her childrens lives to the point that they all had great esteem for her. Ch arles stayed for months with her as her health deteriorated, and the warm relationship she ha d with her daughter Elizabeth is documented through their correspondence. She was extremely close to Henry and much of the joy left her life when he died. In the end, only two of nine children outlived her. Annes Catholicism often involved political machinations during her English period. She wrote Pope Clement VIII in 1601 and 1604 and again in 1609 regarding her status as a Catholic, and they exchanged gifts and letters at these tim es. The letter in 1609 regarded plans for Prince 70 Aemelia Lanyer, Salue deus rex iudorum: contai ning, 1. The passion of Christ, 2. Eues apologie in defence of women, 3. The te ares of the daughters of Ierusalem, 4. The salutation and sorrow of the Virgine Marie: with diuers other things not vnfit to be read written by Mistris milia Lanyer (London: Printed by Valentine Simmes for Richard Bonian, and are to be sold at his shop in Paules Churchyard, Anno 1611), sigs. A3-A 4. 71 See the description of this along with other descriptions of Annes ability to influence family as well as political polic y in Barbara Kiefer Lewalskis Writing Women in Jacobean England (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993), 20-22.

PAGE 286

286 Henry to marry an Italian Catholic princess This letter suggested that it could be a way to bring England back into the Catholic fold. One of th e gifts Anne accepted from the pope was a rosary. When former intelligencer Sir Anthony Standen was discovered bringing Anne the rosary from Pope Clement VIII in 1603, James imprisoned him in the tower for ten months. Anne protested her annoyance at the gift, but eventually secured Standens release for his kindness.72 The marriage plans for Prince Henry initially elicited support for a pro-Spanish policy and then later a pro-Medici policy from Anne. She also supported, at the same time, the notion of marriage for Princess Elizabeth to the recently widowed Phillip III of Spain and at first opposed the Protestant Elector of the Palatine. (Her judgme nt here was wiser than Jamess, for the Elector exemplified rashness.) For more than ten years, Annes blatant favoring of the Spanish was a complaint that the French ambassador often expressed to James.73 Annes Roman Catholicism made her an independent center of intrigue at co urt. Native and foreign Catholic priests attended to her spiritual needs.74 Although this was an embarrassment for James at home, it was politically useful internationally. It bolstered his claim that he was fair to his Catholic population. Annes religion was a source of Catholic influence on several levels. Anne favored entertainments that were reminiscent of the Catholic sensibilities rather than the Protestant severity found in England, especially regarding the theater. Be sides importing Catholic artists and Catholic artwork, she imported Catholic books of poetry and devotions, including Dialogues 72 Ethel Carleton Williams, Anne of Denmark, Wife of James VI of Scotland, James I of England (London: Longman, 1970), 112. 73 Barbara Kiefer Lewalski, 21. 74 Barbara Kiefer Lewalski, 21.

PAGE 287

287 of S. Gregorie .75 Artwork, books, and other worship aids were distributed to her favorites, and James did little to stop he r in these endeavors. Annes choices of favorites form a list of so me of the most important politicians, religious thinkers, and poets of early modern England. To ward the end of her lif e the Catholic Howards and their associates were promoted, however she also patronized and associated with the EssexSidney faction of interna tionalist Protestants. These Protestants were optimistic about Prince Henrys ability as a Protestant champion in the mold of James. All these factions had one point in common: They were major patrons of literature and the arts and most of them were kin to her favorite and most influential c ourtier, Lucy the Countess of Be dford. However, Anne disliked Robert Carr (Somerset) and helped promote Geor ge Villiers (Buckingham) who would dominate James and Charless policies until Buckinghams death in 1628. It was the promotion of Villiers that would influence both kings and shape the fo reign policy that ultimately continued English dialogue with Catholic powers, though the emphasis turned from Spain to France. Villiers was no Puritan. He nearly converted to Catholic ism in the early 1620s, saved by William Lauds preaching for Anglicanism. According to Ethel Carleton Williams, Anne b ecame more earnest in her Catholic practice as her death approached, and kept priests at Hampton Court. Sh e also beautifully decorated a chapel at Oatlands that was friendly to Cat holic service, according to its descriptions.76 Jones, a gifted architect steeped in the latest European taste, designed the Queens House at Greenwich (Figure 5-1) for Anne. It was one of the first true Palladian buildings in England.77 The first 75 Barbara Kiefer Lewalski, 22. 76 Ethel Carleton Williams, Anne of Denmark (London: Longman, 1970), 201. 77 Pauline Croft, King James (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003), 3.

PAGE 288

288 floor was finished at Annes death.78 The Dutch inventor Salomon de Caus laid out her gardens at Greenwich and Somerset House. Anne also commissi oned artists, such as Paul van Somer, Isaac Oliver, and Daniel Mytens, who led Engl ish taste in visual arts for a generation.79 Under Anne, the Royal Collection began once more to expand, a policy that continued and blossomed under Annes two sons Henry and Charles.80 Historian Alan Stewart suggested that many of the phenomena now seen as peculiarly Jacobean should be more cl osely associated with Annes patronage rather than with James, who fell as leep during some of Englands most celebrated plays.81 Annes own discreet Catholicism seems to have been no significant handicap for James, and her broad-mindedness was a major asset. She publicly kept her own Protestant chapel with its many clever preachers, headed by the great En glish poets, such as the Divine John Donne (a former Catholic). This would be in strident cont rast to the Catholicism of her sons French wife Henrietta Maria. No evidence shows that Anne ever took communion in the English Church. Accounts of her death bed convers ion are doubtful at best and seem to be apocryphal polemics for the Anglicans of her day. As discussed in Chapter 4, James struggled with granting some kind of tolerance to Catholicism, and his wife must have influenced this decision. If you were a good citizen, were 78 Ethel Carleton Williams, 181. 79 Pauline Croft, 56. 80 J. Leeds Barroll, Anna of Denmark, Queen of England: A Cultural Biography (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2001), 58. 81 Alan Stewart, The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & I (London: Chatto and Windus, 2003), 183. Williams also noted this tendency of James to sleep during plays and masques, p. 106.

PAGE 289

289 willing to pay extra taxes, and did not plot, you could practice the old faith. In a speech before Parliament, James argued, Force never helped in religious matters and th at gallant men should not be forced to die as martyrs. 82 This policy of softness towa rd Catholicism was a problem. Jamess attempt at a limited toleration was not understood or accepted by the Pope; it would, however, remain the basis of his policy for recusants for the rest of his reign. The toleration which the Pope could not see nor understand, Jamess Puritan subjects did see, and they also could not understand it.83 The marriage of religious difference may have work ed in a limited way at the English court, but politicians inside and outside of England had difficulty understanding this nuanced dtente of religions that James managed to create with Anne, as well as his vision of dtente for both of his sons in marriage. Annes attendance at her husbands Protesta nt services and sermons was a form of religious dissimulation widely practiced in England and Scotla nd by church papists. Routine compliance with the Church of England and committed Catholicism were not always mutually exclusive. The number of Catholics who complied may have been far greater than previously estimated.84 One notes that the practice of confor mity or church papistry was an option practiced by laity and tacitly allowed by the Catho lic mission on a greater scale than the official Roman Catholic propaganda might suggest.85 This practice was part of the official policy of the 82 Wallace Notestein, The House of Commons, 1604-1610 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), 281. 83 John J. LaRocca, Who Cant Pray With Me, Cant Love Me: Toleration and the Early Jacobean Recusancy Policy, The Journal of British Studies 23, no. 2 (1984): 35. 84 Alexandra Walsham, Church Papists: Catholicism, Conformity and Confessional Polemic in Early Modern England (Rochester, New York: Boydell Press, 1993), 77. 85 Alexandra Walsham. See Chapter 3 in her te xt, which displays much evidence of widescale church papistry in the early Stuart Age.

PAGE 290

290 Scottish Jesuit mission and its superior, Robert Abercrombie. He required his priests to allow Catholics to attend Protestant sermons as a sign of conformity.86 Some scholarship has focused on the militant Protestant nature of many of Annes chaplains. However, Peter McCullough does not doubt her commitment to Romanism. He wrote To assume so [that Anne was a Protestant] requires discrediting A nnes own professions of a Roman faith. Rather, affi nity, kinship, and patronage ties often transcended religious differences between Anne and her preachers, just as they did the differences between herself and her inner circle. More impor tantly, the queen, like so many conforming Catholics, opted for conformity to the rout ine non-Eucharistic services of the [English] church instead of the staunch recusanc y urged by Catholic missionary propaganda.87 As for Anne not receiving comm union publicly, McCullough wrote, Annes not descending to the body of the chapel royal for communion on Christmas, Whitsun, or Easter was no proof [for Protestant observers] that she had not received a lawful communion in the seclus ion of her private closet; and, of course, the privy closet would have provided the perfect place for cl andestine celebration of the mass. Annes Catholicism, whether devout or dabbling, was a matter of private fa ith, and she seems to have decided early in her marriage that she would not make it a factional issue.88 Her ability to move between all religious camps likely made her an important asset for James. Ambassadors noticed Annes influence in politics. A Venetian ambassador described Anne as follows: She is like a daughter, sister and wife of a king who cannot be said of any other. She claims her virtues come from God. She is pa tiently attached to her brother the king of Denmark. Anne also has a political mind. [A ccording to several Venetian ambassadors] she was very anxious for the marriage to a Span ish infanta. She hates the idea of a French 86 Albert J. Loomie, King James Is Catholic Consort, Huntington Library Quarterly 34 (1971): 305. 87 Peter E. McCullough, Sermons at Court: Politics and Religion in Elizabethan and Jacobean Preaching (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 174. 88 Peter E. McCullough, 174.

PAGE 291

291 marriage and opposes it openly at court speaking against even the legitimacy of the king of France. She was also a great a supporter of Mr. Villiers and he depends upon her. She was well disposed to Venice.89 The writings of ambassadors show considerable evidence of her importance in diplomacy as a back door channel for James because of her discreet Catholicism. One place where Anne decidedly situated her Catholicism front and center was in art and architecture. No evidence exists of any Calvinis t influence in Annes ar tistic taste. Anne was instrumental in advancing Catho lic artists, poets, and architects. Some Puritans at court did not always share her enthusiasm for art. An exam ple the much resistance to the innovations of Baroque art comes from a contemporary Calvin ist writer, Richard Bernard. Bernard was a Calvinist Puritan, but a moderate one.90 Bernard advocated a joyful approach to life, instead of the more strict, serious, and pious disposition that was encouraged at the time by many Puritans. However, he flirted with nonconformity with the Anglican Church when he was first preaching. He lost his job over his dissent on March 15, 1605. For a short time, he formed his own congregation of about one hundred members in 1606 in a separatist church, but then returned to his parish post in 1607. However, he still refused to make the sign of th e cross during baptisms. Th e cross, symbolically or pictorially, was the most offensive to many E nglish Protestants. Nonconformity led to Bernard being brought before church courts again in 1608 and 1611. Throughout most of his career, 89 Anne is a frequent subject of the Venetia n ambassadors writing back to the Doge and the Parliament of Venice. She seemed to be highly respected and we ll thought of by several ambassadors, and they noted her friendliness to the Catholic cause. Vene tian writers document this notion throughout the Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affairs, Existing in the Arch ives and Collections of Venice, vols. XIV-XVI. 90 Daniel W. Doerksen, Milton and th e Jacobean Church of England, Early Modern Literary Studies 1, no. 1 (1995), 5.

PAGE 292

292 Bernard was an example of those godly Protesta nts who practiced as much nonconformity as they could within the establishe d church. They yielded to author ity as necessary but willing to work with those bishops who a ppreciated his marked commitment to elevating the piety of parishioners through preaching and catechiz ing. A prolific author, Bernard, published Contemplative pictures with wholesome precepts Tellingly, no pictures or images of any kind appear in Contemplative pictures with wholesome precepts, despite the title. In fact, he railed against pictorial representation of any traditional religious subjects. Bernard explained in his work which was dedicated to Lord Edmund Sheffield, knight of the Garter and Lord President of the North: Heere therefore (Right Honovrable, Right Worshi pfull,) of all these are certain pictures [mental images of Goodness, Heaven: God, th e Saints or the Devil, Hell and Evil] not Popish and sensible for superstition, but ment all, for Divine contemplation whereto are added wholesome Precepts for direction after godlie meditation. Gods Picture, to behold him is so good; to admire his excellencie, to feare his Maisestie, to praise his bountie, The Diuels portraiture, that he may be seene, that is so euill, to wonder at his wickednesse, To loath his vilenesse, to detest his wretchednesse and to beware of his deceitfulnesse. Good is set forth to behold the comelie beautie of celestiall grace, to embrace it with loue.91 Bernards rejection of sensible im age as Catholic is undeniable. He repudiated such images as clearly breaking the second commandment, on which Calvin placed such a distinct emphasis. For authors such as Bernard, it was impossible to differentiate be tween images and idols. The inability to differentiate was in stark contrast to Annes love of religious images and her contemporary patronage of religious painters. In reality, religious painting came into vogue at precisely the same time that Anne became Queen of England. This is likely not a coincidence. 91 Richard Bernard, Contemplative pictures with whol esome precepts. The first part: Of God. Of the diuell. Of goodnesse. Of badnesse. Of heauen: and of hell (London: Printed by William Hall for William Welbie, 1610), 6-7.

PAGE 293

293 One of the most important artists Anne fi rst employed was Isaac Oliver. He was also the first painter to revive religi ous iconography in England. Born in France, Oliver moved to England in 1568 with his goldsmith father. He became a naturalized citizen in 1606. Oliver studied under Hilliard and bega n a rival practice to his ment or in 1590. Oliver was the only English painter of his generation from England to have traveled to Italy.92 He was in Venice in 1596, where he reproduced Renaissance paintings in miniatures. While Hilliard retained the attention of King James I, Oliver began working for Queen Anne and also worked for Henry, Prince of Wales. Henry began orde ring commissions from him in 1604. His thoroughly un-English miniatures of Head of Christ (A-65) and of The Returned Prodigal were for Anne. Jill Finstens research o ffered a view of Olivers sophisticated internationalism and the fine quality of his pa intings. These works, intended for the Catholic Queen Anne, were progressive and precocious.93 Before his death, Oliver did drawings and painted numerous miniatures and larger paintings of religious subjects for the queen. These works in oil and pen are closer to Counter-Reformation tastes than anything else previously seen in England. More than fifty survive and are documented by Jill Finsten.94 Among these were Madonna and Child in Glory (A-66), which was inspired by Rubenss Madonna at Santa Maria 92 Patrick Collinson, From Iconoclasm to Iconophobia: The Cultu ral Impact of the Second English Reformation, in Peter Marshal, ed., The Impact of the English Reformation 1500-1640 (London: Arnold, 1997), 195. 93 Jill Finsten, Isaac Oliver: Art at the Courts of Elizabeth I and James I, 2 vol. (New York: Garland Publishing, 1981), vol. I, 137. 94 For the documentation of religious wo rks, see Volume II of Jill Finsten, Isaac Oliver: Art at the Courts of Elizabeth I and James, 1981. This is the most recent complete study of Oliver and is a catalogue raisonne of his existing works, new attributions, and lost works.

PAGE 294

294 in Valicella,95 Moses Strikes the Rock (A-67) and The Entombment (A-68), finished by Olivers son Peter for Charles in the 1630s. One of the most controversial paintings in Annes collection was titled Crucifixion. This work by Oliver (A-69) surviv es only as a copy by an unknown artist. Other lost large canvases included St. John the Baptist Holding a Cross and a Holy Family described in inventories by Ge orge Vertue, an art critic of post-Restoration times. Vertue (1684) was an English engraver and antiquary, whose notebooks on British art of the first half of the 18th century ar e a valuable source for previous periods.96 He described these lost works of Oliver as perfectly finished equal I think to any of those masters of that time of day. Vertues opinion of th e quality of Olivers work wa s highlighted by his purchase of St. John the Baptist .97 With Oliver the official painter to Queen Anne and to Prince Henry, his works took on more value and importance as models for othe r artists and aristocrat s. These commissioned works, especially religious works, made an impression on those allowed to see them, even if they were for personal devotion. Annes possession of and commissioning of religious works would have been understood as a tacit permission among the aristocracy for the collection and creation of such subjects. Anne built up an excellent collection of pictures at Somerset House and Oatlands.98 Charles, as with his mother A nne, commissioned religious art not seen since the first Tudor king, 95 Jill Finsten, vol. I, 137. 96 Jill Finsten, vol. II, 197. 97 George Vertue, Notebooks, in Walpole Society quoted in Jill Finsten vol. II, page 196. 98 Oliver Millar, The Age of Charles I: Painting in England 1620-1649 (London: Balding and Mansell Ltd., 1972), 9.

PAGE 295

295 his great-great grandfather Henry VII. The Entombment (A-68) begun in 1616 by Isaac Oliver and completed by his son Peter by 1636, was one of Charless prized possessions and speaks of Charless piety as well as his sentimental conne ction to his mother. This piece is undoubtedly the much-prized cabinet miniature described by Van de Dort in the inventories of the collections of Chares I.99 It was left unfinished at the death of Is aac Oliver, and was originally intended for Anne of Denmark as a devotional piece. It was so well loved by Charles, no doubt because of the connection to his mother, that he gave the younger Oliver a yearly 200 stipend upon its completion.100 Peter Oliver used the drawing of the Lamentation Over the Dead Christ by his father (A-70) as a primary drawing for many of the figures. The Entombment shows a greater clarity of purpose and a familiari ty with emerging Baroque Italian art. The purpose for this type of cabinetwork was personal devotio n / private altar, akin to a book of hours used in the Middle Ages, and still in use by nobility in the contemporary Catholic worl d of Charles. It has already been noted in Chapter 4 that James took along such religious works as aids for prayer on trips to Scotland and on progresses. This was one of Charless such devotional pieces. Works such as these, produced by both Oliver elder and younger, had CounterReformation stylistic quality. As noted in Chap ter 2, the Council of Trent called for clarity, drama, realism, and emotion as essential qualities for effective religious works. Oliver, though a Protestant, painted with these Catholic sensibil ities for a Catholic quee n. His son Peter painted according to his fathers lead and his patrons ta ste. This is an important example of Charles following his mothers connoisseurship and tast es in art, particularly religious art. 99 Karen Hearn, Dynasties, Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630 (New York: Rizzoli, 1995), 157. 100 Karen Hearn, 157.

PAGE 296

296 With the tragic death of Prince Henry in 1612, Anne led the dynasty in advancing important cultural figures for the remainder of the decade. She was particularly influential in the advancement of Inigo Jones, who created for her the Queens House (Figure 5-1) in Greenwich. It was begun for Anne and--l ittle change in design-fi nished for Henrietta Maria.101 The chapel at Greenwich, enriched by Charles with some of the finest decorative commissions from artists in Europe,102 would be a point of contention for radical Protestants and Puritans and would be a place of iconoclastic destruction during the Civil Wa r. Jones also renovated for Anne a chapel at Whitehall, which no longer exists; it was destroye d in a fire. Jones also designed the magnificent chapel (A-71) for Henrietta Maria at St. James s Palace, with its plain exterior yet exquisite interior with vaulted and compartmente d roof, like that of the Pantheon. Annes last days are evocativ e of the closeness of Anne and Charles. James visited Anne only three times during her last illness,103 though Prince Charles often slept in th e adjoining bedroom at Hampton Court Palace and was at her bedside during her last days, when she lost her sight. 104 Queen Anne died at age 44 on March 2, 1619, of a dangerous form of dropsy. Despite 101 Michael Leapman, Inigo: The Troubled Life of Inigo Jones, Architect of the English Renaissance (London: Review, 2003), 361. 102 Oliver Millar, 9. 103 Pauline Croft. King James (Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003). David Harris Wilson in King James VI & I. (London: Jonathan Cape Ltd., 1963), page 100, said that James visited her twice a week until he m oved to Newmarket in February; both James, through messengers, and Charles were anxious that Anne make a will. Jame s distrusted Charless interest in the matter, f earing Anne might make him her only heir. Wilson, 198-200. 104 Alan Stewart, The Cradle King: A Life of James VI & I (London: Chatto and Windus, 2003), 300.

PAGE 297

297 his neglect of Anne, James was em otionally distraught over her death.105 He could not visit her during her dying days or even attend her fune ral, being overwrought himself. His symptoms, according to Sir Theodore de Mayerne, included fainting, sighing, dread, incredible sadness 106 For all his bravado, swagger, and hunting prowess, James could not handle illness or death in those who were close to him. After a prol onged delay, Anne was fina lly buried in King Henry VIIs Our Lady Chapel, Westminster Abbey, on 13 May 1619. Maximilian Colt designed a magnificent temporary catafalque, placed over her grav e. Unfortunately, as with so much Stuart culture, iconoclasts destroye d it during the Civil War.107 Henry, Prince of Wales The most recent and thorough treatment of the life of Henry Stuart, Prince of Wales, was written by Roy Strong.108 Strong lamented the loss of a possibly great king of England throughout his work and pointed to the importance of the young r oyal for much advancement in the arts through his short yet impressive life. Painters, archite cts, and designers took central stage and were respected as contribu tors to intellectual endeavors during the brief but influential period of Prince Henry. Henry received an advanced classical education; he was intelligent, brave, and athletic. He established his own household in 1610 at the age of 16. He died at age 18, probably from typhoid 105 Pauline Croft, 10. James also fell serious ly ill when Prince Henry was dying. (Wilson, 285.) 106 David Harris Wilson, 403. 107 David Harris Wilson, 219. 108 Roy Strong, Henry Prince of Wales and Englands Lost Renaissance (London: Thames and Hudson, 1986). For a thorough discussion of Henrys artistic ta stes and collection habits, see Chapter 5, The Princes Collections, 184-219.

PAGE 298

298 fever. At Richmond Palace, Henry laid out elabor ate gardens in the Italian style. He amassed a fine collection of works of art, including pictures, sculptures, and medals from classical antiquity and the Renaissance. He favored art from the Netherlands and Ve nice, on biblical or mythological themes. Henry, according to Strong, wa s most of all an Italophile. Henry appointed Robert Peake and Isaac Oliver as official cour t painter and miniaturist, respectively. Ben Jonson and Inigo Jones produced for him many elaborat e Jacobean masques. These were about the promise of his future kingship, which never came to fruition. Two Catholic courts formed the intellect ual context for Henry s collection and court composition. Roy Strong wrote that the importan ce attached to artists can only be understood within a European context, and it is late Me dicean Florence and Rudolfi ne Prague which will give us an essential point of refe rence. Both courts were of inte rest to the Prince and from both he recruited members for his own household.109 Visual arts played a greatly enhanced role in his court. The visual characters of Catholic Fl orence and Prague were a break from Elizabethan and early Jacobean court practice. Neither Jame s nor Elizabeths court offered the place of prestige to the artist that Henry, the Medici, or the Hapsburgs did. Stylistically England was a backwater, for Glorianas reign had been a rock ag ainst change. It had almo st glorified in its own insularity, producing during its la st two decades a unique and arch aic visual culture which had little to do with the mainstream Renaissance art.110 Constantino de Servi was a vital link to that Renaissance mainstream as his career took him from Rome, to Florence, th en Prague, and finally England.111 De Servi came to England 109 Roy Strong, 86. 110 Roy Strong, 88. 111 Roy Strong, 90-91.

PAGE 299

299 with the permission of the Grand Duke of Tusca ny to work initially for two years for Prince Henry in 1610.112 De Servi was particularly friendly w ith Sir Edward Cecil, a strong promoter of a match between Prince Henr y and the house of Medici. De Servi also imported some books on intermezzi, masques, and architecture from It aly, which were available to other aficionados. As a Catholic connected to bot h the Medici and the Hapsburgs, de Servi embodied continental tastes and iconography then in use in the areas he visited. Accordi ng to Strong, artists, architects, and designers such as de Servi and Isaac Oliv er, who reflected Italia n, Hapsburg and French court tastes, were influences th at shaped burgeoning tastes in E ngland. Strong observed that with the death of Henry, There can be no doubt that th e course of visual arts would have run in a different way had the St. Jamess court not been dissolved at the close of 1612.113 The impact of Henrys death in England wa s enormous. Henry was often described as austere, withdrawn and slow of speech. He too was a model of Christian virtue.114 He often heard his chaplains se rmon and then heard on the same day a sermon by one of his parents priests. Human emotion for him found its outlet in his devotion to his mother and above all in his passion for his sister and brother.115 His relationship with Charle s was strong and loving to the end. While in the process of dying, he found time to play cards with little Charles and to examine and to play with, once again, the splendid bronze fi gures collected from Florence at the behest of Charles.116 By all accounts, Charles adored his da shing, athletic, intelligent, and impetuous 112 Roy Strong, 92. 113 Roy Strong, 136. 114 Roy Strong, 221. 115 Roy Strong, 220-221. 116 Roy Strong, 220.

PAGE 300

300 brother, who teased him unmerc ifully. This only endeared him more to the future king, who named his final surviving son after him (Henry Stuart, Duke of Gloucester). Henry, Prince of Wales emerges as one of the Earliest instances of the sp ell exerted over the cold Protesta nt north by the warm Catholic south. Although he cast himself as a forerunne r of Gustavus Adolphus, leading the troops of Protestant chivalry to vi ctory over Catholicism and the Ha psburgs, there are elements in his make-up which recall the Swedish Kings daughter, Christina, whose surrender to the lure of the south led to the abandonment of a kingdom and her faith and the great journey to Italy.117 Roy Strong also added that one catches glimpses of the court at St. James during Henrys brief spring, which resembled that of a Counter-Reforma tion ruler of an Italian state rather than one of a Protestant champion.118 If Henry had survived and marri ed either Spanish or an Italian princess in 1612, Catholic influen ce, artistic style, or religious presence would have been in England more than a decade earlier than its appe arance with the arrival of Henrietta Maria in 1625. The negotiations secured in Henrys marriage pl ans were friendlier to Catholics than those upon Henriettas arrival, due to the Thirty Years War. George Villiers: Duke of Buckingham Another important politician, court favorite, and collector was the Duke of Buckingham, George Villiers, who rose rapidl y in the court of King James. As with Arundel and Jones, Anne was the first to notice him. In 1615 he was a ppointed Cupbearer; by 1618 he was Marques and in 1624 he was raised to the Dukedom. He held many of the great offices of state.119 He built up a wonderful collection at York House in a very short period, pr incipally with the advice and 117 Roy Strong, 221-222. 118 Roy Strong, 222. 119 Oliver Millar, 17.

PAGE 301

301 help of Balthazar Gerbier. Gerbier told his patr on that of all the amateurs, princes, and kings, there is not one who has collected in forty years as many pictures as your Excellency has collected in five.120 Buckingham loved the Venetian paintings of the sixteenth-century in which he followed the tastes of Robert Cecil and the Earl of Somerset, predecessors in Jamess affections. Buckingham also helped to form young Prince Charless tastes in painting.121 Buckingham had Gerbier collect works in Venice, which included Titians Ecce Homo (A-72). By 1615, in a reversal of the Elizabethan practi ce, the royals and thei r favorites now freely collected and displayed religious art. The duke s collection of Venetian works most likely influenced Van Dyck during his 1620-1621 visi t to England, when Buckingham gave him several commissions.122 Buckingham went to Spain with Charles for the hand of the Infanta. He also acquired other religious wo rks, like Giovanni da Bolognas Samson and the Philistine (A73), which is currently in the Victoria and Albert Museum.123 King Philip IV gave this religious statue to the Prince of Wales when he was visiting Spain on the quest for a Spanish Match. Charles later passed it to his traveling compan ion and favorite, the Duke of Buckingham, who had it shipped to England via Santander. This work portrays Samson defeating one of his philistine enemies. This masterpiece of Giambologna was the first biblically-based, life-sized statue that had been brought to and displayed in England since the beginning of the Reformation. Many of the works collected by Buckingha m were also religious in nature. As Buckingham acquired houses and residences and fill ed them with one of the finest collections 120 Oliver Millar, 17. 121 Oliver Millar, 17. 122 Oliver Millar, 18. 123 Oliver Millar, 18.

PAGE 302

302 amassed before his tragic death, he took his place at the forefront of a group of collectors at Whitehall.124 One of his crowning achievements and one that led to his ultimate undoing was his elevation in military matters. He was appointed by James as Lord High Admiral in 1623 and was for all practical purposes the unnamed chief minist er by the end of James Is reign. He retained this influence during the initial part of Charles s reign. This of course invited jealousy, and after his bungled diplomatic dealings with the great powers of Europe, Buckingham led England into war. Ironically, this war was called for by popul ar demand through the press and was supported by Protestants as a way to right the wronged Elizabeth Stuart and the Elector Frederick, the Winter King and Queen, the central figures of the Th irty Years War. When battles went in favor of the Imperial or French armies, Buckingha m became extremely unpopular with many in the government, but not with the king. A disgrunt led military officer assassinated him in 1628. Charles was devastated and remembered him as a combination of father, brother, and saint. Queen Henrietta Maria only gained any real influe nce after the departure of George Villiers from the scene. Buckingham was especially significant for his excellent collecti on and patronage of architecture as well as antiquities. Next to Anne, he was the second most important influence on Charles. Villierss collection was fu ll of important religious artworks. This abundance of religious images, this repe tition and inescapable presence in public and private chambers alike, may be due to a va riety of factors. Fash ions in collecting, the hazards of availability and the vagaries of taste certainly played a role; the religious affiliations of the family may have done too, and it is possible that individual works were displayed, or hanging schemes devised, to tran smit messages. The religious element in the 124 G. P. V. Akrigg, Jacobean Pageant, or The Court of King James I (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963), 222.

PAGE 303

303 collection was well enough known to be speci fically targeted by the Parliamentarians during the Civil War.125 Philip McEvansoneya suggested a significant growth in religious commissions and in the collection of religious art after 1620. He noted that taste for religious subjects may have developed in this period because of greater religious freedom, or as a reaction to earlier iconoclasm, and the movement of art from Italy to England was facilita ted by comparative peace in the period after 1604.126 McEvansoneyas study included th e collections of the Earl of Leicester, Lord Lumley, and the Earl of Nort hampton, the Duke of Buckingham, the Earl of Arundel, and the Earl of Northumberland. One of the criteria for this study and the reason for including these patrons of the arts was their fi rm inventories. Buckinghams collection had the largest group of religious works,127 and Buckingham teetered clos e to conversion to the Roman Church for much of this period. The collection contained works that were most scandalous to iconoclasts and many Puritans, as they contained Christ in many subject matters and included depictions of crucifixions. Buckinghams collect ion has the largest proportion of New Testament subjects, but Arundels collection also had larg e numbers of such works. To find the Virgin and Saints in these collections should not be startling, as Ca tholics were members of both families. To find these religious works in the other collections is rather telling. The monarchy in the early 1620s had been building Catholic chapels and renovating their own Protestant chapels, and religious 125 Philip McEvansoneya, Italian Paintings in the Buckingham Collection, in Edward Chaneys The Evolution of English Collecting: Recepti ons of Italian Art in the Tudor and Stuart Periods (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 2003), 328. 126 Philip McEvansoneya, 328. 127 Philip McEvansoneya, 328.

PAGE 304

304 decoration and painting was present in bot h. Pre-Reformation and Counter-Reformation iconography was being reflected in the collections of courtiers--C atholic and Protestant alike. The visual world was now being expresse d as it had been before the Reform. Diplomacy, Collectors, and Aristocracy The ascension of James I to the English thro ne meant an influx of portraits of overseas rulers, popes, relatives, and hopeful allies. It al so meant renewed ties to Europe on a scale not seen since Henry VIII and Mary I. These ties creat ed particularly fruitful opportunities for other monarchs through their embassies sent to Engl and. New works flooded into England from the Catholic south as gifts from these courts. One such work is a gift to James from Philip III of Spain: a portrait of his favorit e daughter, the Archduc hess Isabella Clara E ugenie, and her Dwarf (A-74). Isabella was the ruler of the Spanish Netherlands. This type of spectacular Hapsburg portrait influenced state artwork for James and hi s family. The Archduchess Isabella is depicted in a magnificent pearl-encrusted gown lined with fur and embroidered with linked rings, fleursde-lis, anemones, and pansies. This portrait depict s Isabella in the height of Spanish fashion. The flowers portrayed also point out her impre ssive bloodlinesFrench, Spanish, and English. The portrait of Isabella, along w ith other notables, such as Henr i IV of France, Philip II of Spain, and his queen, were on view at Whiteha ll after the rapprochement with Spain began.128 Along with other such exchanges, this influx of paintings influenced the local artists and certainly would have influenced James, Char les, Anne, and Henry in a move toward the sensibilities of the south. Th ese artworks also proclaimed an absolutist attitude. 128 Karen Hearn, Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630 (New York: Rizzoli, 1995), 182.

PAGE 305

305 Another work that came about due to the influx of diplomatic influence is Anne of Denmark (A-75). In this painting, a Ro man arch figures prominently as one of the major sources of light in the background. Gheer aerts painted Anne in a dress that is as elaborate as the Archduchesss dress. It is portrayed with em broidered flowers and peacock feathers. These were appropriate symbols for the Queen, as this bi rd was sacred to Juno, wife of the King of the Roman gods, Jupiter. In Scotland, James had writte n a poem to Anne as our earthlie Juno and our Gratious Queen.129 Anne wears some of the family jewelry given to her by her brother King Christian IV of Denmark, including a C4 jewel. Suspended from her bodice is a large double cross. The Italian inscription she chose fo r her motto is translated as, My Greatness comes from God.130 Anne rather independently claims in this motto that her greatness comes not from her association with James alone, but from her own royal status and from her faith.131 Jamess outward-looking foreign policies, fo llowing the treaty of 1604, brought to an end the comparative isolation of E lizabeths final twenty years. This new attitude allowed more Britons to travel. Works never previously impor ted came into the country via the Netherlands, Italy, and even Spain. They now poured into Engl and at an unprecedented rate. So did foreign artists. Enthusiasm for collecting works of art an d antiquities was seen by the aristocracy as a mark of cultivation and political awareness. Henry Prince of Waless advisers inculcated in him a real enthusiasm for continental art. Anne of Denmark, the Earl and Countess of Arundel, and Jamess earliest favorite, Robert Kerr, also formed collections. Other notable aristocrats were the 129 Karen Hearn, 192. 130 Karen Hearn, 192. 131 Karen Hearn, 192.

PAGE 306

306 Countess of Bedford, the second Marquis of Hamilton and the kings last and undoubtedly favorite favorite, James Villiers. With the e phemeral masques, a traditional form of court entertainment and instruction, th e amount of money spent upon the arts by these aristocrats and royals was staggering, dwarfing the inve stment of the Elizabethan years. In addition, a new and robust painting class of native-born talents began to emerge with the advent of the Stuarts. As mentioned earlier, Isaac Oliver had secured the patronage of Anne. Oliver was a painter who helped to resurrect re ligious painting in E ngland. No known religious painters were working in E ngland during the reign of Elizabeth I. Another painter who contributed to the rebirth of re ligious painting was the English pa inter Rowland Buckett. He was commissioned by Robert Cecil to decorate the Ha tfield House Chapel with traditional Christian themes. One such work for the chapel was Bucketts The Angel Appearing to the Shepherds (A76). Rowland Buckett also painted Christ and the Apostles as part of a ceiling design for Cecils chapel. Unfortunately, these were destroyed by a fire later in the century. However, surviving decoration shows a fixed scheme to revive religious painting in English chapels.132 This scheme includes six paintings of the life of Christ documented in the chapel by 1611. It was extraordinary for English chapels after the Reformation.133 Two of these Buckett paintings that have survived and are still at Hatfield are Bucketts Annunciation and the Angels Appearing to the Shepherds. Hatfield House Chapel (Figures 5-2, 53) showed an important counter-example to the contemporaneous Protestant ta stes noted in such works as the Survey of London and the 132 Andrew Spicer and Sarah Hamilton, eds., Defining the Holy: Sacred Space in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (Burlington, Vermont: Ashgate Publishing, 2005), 133. 133 Andrew Spicer and Sarah Hamilton, 134.

PAGE 307

307 starkness of the churches, built and decorated in London in the early seventeenth-century until the coming of the Laudians. Painting re-emerged in the early Stuart peri od with some genuine English masters such as Oliver, who painted in the Renai ssance manner. He was greatly infl uenced by the continent, with complicated religious and philo sophical undertones. One such example is the painting of Edward Herbert, First Baron of Cherbury (A-77) in which classical de tail and emphasis on Renaissance learning and poetry are exemplified. Connotations of religious traditionalism also include some medieval-revival notions of the contemplative lif e. Edward Herbert, the brother of George Herbert, was a philosopher an important metaphysical poet, and a diplomat. He belonged to the group of English noblemen who traveled widely in Europe.134 Oliver presented Herbert in the dual role of a poet/philosophe r and a chivalrous knight.135 He rests on the ground while holding his shield. Coupled with the shady tree and the trick ling brook, contemporaries would immediately have recognized his attitude as that of the poet-philosopher. The motto on his shield, Magica Sympathia (referring to the doctrine of sympathetic magic discussed in his philosophical treatise De Veritate ) and the impresa a heart emerging from wings or flames with sparks rising from itcontinues the theme.136 Strong suggested that this symbolism repres ented divine rays of inspiration, signifying those desires by which the reasonable soul aspire s and attempts to climb to the mysteries and knowledge of the sublime. The smoke or sparks co ming from the heart and fire emblem are seen as divine aid in the creative process, whereby the poets or ph ilosophers are elevated above the common mind. The castle in the background is also part of this symbolism of divine 134 Karen Hearn, 139. 135 Karen Hearn, 139. 136 Karen Hearn, 139.

PAGE 308

308 ascendance.137 What is striking is the realism of the landscape, perhaps inspired by Dutch or contemporary Italian works, emphasizing the phy sical beauty and elegance of the patron. Ambassadors such as Herbert act ed as art agents. They beca me the model for connections made in the Jacobean and Caroline courts. These ambassador/collectors facilitated the tremendous additions to the royal collections, and the collections of other prominent court figures in Jacobean England. Sir Dudley Carleton was a particularly im portant contact as the ambassador to Venice, another cour t that had strained relations w ith the Hapsburgs and Rome in the early seventeenth-century. By the time Carleton arrived in July 1610, it was already expected that foreign ambassadors would cont ract with art dealers as agents and collectors for royals and courtiers at the English court.138 Regrettably, the identity a nd the history of the paintings acquired by Carleton from his appoi ntment to Venice from 1612 to 1622 are scant. However, it is known that he did acquire Venetian masters for the collections of Arundel, Pembroke, the second Marquis of Hamilton, and the Duke of Buckingham.139 Carleton regarded Arundel as the most important collector in the 1610s for gaining new acquisitions.140 As one of the wealthiest couples in England, the Arundels spent vast sums of money on their collections. As with Anne of Denmark, women courtiers could also exhibit some important influence in the Jacobean and Carolinian court. The Countess of Arundel, Alatheia Talbot, was a collector and a committed Catholic. She certainly wa s no church papist. Countess Arundel and her 137 Karen Hearn, 139. 138 Robert Hill, The Ambassador as Art Agent: Sir Dudley Carleton and Jacobean Collecting in The Evolution of English Collecting: Receptions of Italian Art in the Tudor and Stuart Period s, ed., Edward Chaney (New Haven & L ondon: Yale University Press, 2003), 241. 139 Robert Hill. 241. 140 Robert Hill, 241.

PAGE 309

309 husband often acted in official capacity as amba ssadors. Her famous family provided her with many models for cultural, religious, and architectu ral patronage plus a vast inheritance. Bess of Hardwick, Elizabeth Hardwick, the renowned build er of Hardwick Hall, was her grandmother. Mary Cavendish Talbot was her mother who built the second court of St. Johns College, Cambridge. Alatheia came from deep pockets. Lady Arundels wealth helped to finance the Arundels trip to Italy with Inigo Jones 1613 to 1614. The first major art purchases for the Arundel family date from this journey.141 Before this trip, the Arundels escorted Princess Elizabeth to Germany. Oddly, Eng lish Catholics made sure that their princess would reach the hands of the most influential Prot estant prince of the time, the Elector Palatinate. James believed in dtente. Lady Arundels control of capital gave he r a high degree of autonomy, as did her connections to Queen Anne. Her Catholicism did not seem to hamper her efforts at court until the time of the Civil War. Besides traveling to Italy, she also traveled to Spain and Antwerp, and was the initiate for the discussion for the purchase of the Gonzaga art collections in Mantua for Charles when he was still Prince of Wales.142 The Arundel house was next door to the queens palace, Somerset House, located between the Strand and the Thames in a grouping of mansions of many of the high-ranking nobles. Here the co uple cultivated an academy for connoisseurs, scholars, and artists who were drawn to the fa mous collections of paintings, the library, 141 For discussions of the Arundels first fo rays into collection, see Jonathan Brown, Kings & Connoisseurs: Collecting Ar t in Seventeenth-Century Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), 17-23. 142 David Howarth, Mantua Pieces: Charles I and the Gonzaga Collections, in David Chambers and Jane Martineau, eds., Splendors of the Gonzaga exh. Cat. (London: Faber & Faber, 1982), 95.

PAGE 310

310 drawings, Greek and Roman statues, gems, cameos, coins, and antique inscriptions.143 Arundel kept his extensive collection of drawings by such important ar tists as Raphael, Leonardo, and Michelangelo. The Arundel House was on the itinerary of an extremely wide range of guests and visitors, including the papal nuncios Panzan i and Conn, who seemed to be often welcomed at the villa.144 At least twice, the Arundels entertained Queen Henrietta Maria and King Charles I in their galleries (A-78, A-79).145 In Daniel Mytenss Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel (Figure A78), Arundel points to noble ancestors in the gallery. Peacock observed: The precious antique statues, to which their noble owner points mean ingfully with his staff, became a symbol of antiquity of lineage, superseding the literal narrative of a glorious ances try made by the merely old-fashioned portraits in the lower gallery146 of their manor. Howards traditionalism, love of antiquity, and family lineage are reflected in his collections. The largest numbers of works on display at Howards sculptural gallery were of philosophers or Roman patricians or were Hellenistic copies of Greek originals. The purpose of the collection was to assist in el evating the stature of the Howard family and to show Arundel as a major collector and patron of the fine arts. Most of his collecti on can still be seen at Oxford University at the Ashmolean Museum. Arundel, with his austerity and grandeur, a strange 143 Christopher White, Anthony Van Dyck: Thomas Howard, The Earl of Arundel (Los Angeles: Getty Publications, 1995), 16-18. 144 Mary F. S. Hervey, The Life, Correspondence, and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel (Cambridge: University Press, 1921), 398-99. 145 The king and queen were first entertained in 1628 and then later in 1637. Mary F. S. Hervey, 264, 399-400. 146 John Peacock, The Politics of Portraiture in Kevin Sharpe and Peter Lake, eds., Culture and Politics in Early Stuart England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993), 221.

PAGE 311

311 combination, was influential with Prince Henry and was involved with the growth of his collections: he performed in masques and wa s closely associated with Inigo Jones.147 Arundel was the most significant and influe ntial patron during the time of James I.148 He favored Daniel Mytens as a painter during the same period as did the royal family. His status is proclaimed in Mytenss Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel (A-78). Arundel is shown with a staff of office, flaunti ng his post as Earl Marshal. He wear s the blue ribbon, Lesser George and garter of the Order of the Garter. Beyond the grea t arched doorway, an id ealized version of his sculpture gallery is shown in the Arundel H ouse on the Strand, which overlooked the Thames. The river is visible th rough the far end doorway. These sculpt ures are also important elements that testified to Arundels connoisse urship, social standi ng, and wealth. He was a true aristocrat and would have inherited the only surviving English dukedom, if it had not been for the treason of both his Catholic father and grandfather. Though Arundel would ultimately convert to the Church of England on 25 December 1625, he was reconciled before his death to Catholicism. But his choice for religious art and his respect for his Catholic ancestry (which included a Catholic saint) never seems to have wavered. Before his Protestant conversi on, Arundel as a Catholic could freely travel to Germany, France, the Low Countries, and Italy. A tr ip that lasted from 1613 to 1615 included Inigo Jones in his party. The beginning of this journey was an im portant diplomatic mission where the Arundels along with Jones helped to escort Princess Elizabeth to her husband s principality of the Palatine. Arundel, a trusted servant, also escorted the daughter of Charles and He nrietta Maria, Princess 147 Oliver Millar, The Age of Charles I: Painting in England 1620-1649 (London: Balding and Mansell Ltd., 1972), 11. 148 Oliver Millar, 11.

PAGE 312

312 Mary, to her new husband, William of Orange. Arunde l spent his final years living as a Royalist exile, first in Antwerp and then in Italy. Research by Edward Chaney suggested th at little doubt that Arundel died a Roman Catholic. Once again, we have an example of flui dity in religious affiliation in early modern England. D. Jaffe wrote that Arundels heart was buried in the wall of St. Anthony in Padua as a symbol of his hearts return to the old faith.149 Burial of ones heart wa s a Catholic tradition that many, including popes, practiced du ring the early modern period as a supreme statement of loyalty to the church. Many of the Renaissance and Baroque popes had their hearts buried separately in St. Vincents n ear the Trevi fountain in Rome.150 The Howards, during the reigns of Elizabeth, James, and Charles, are a case study for the fluidity of religious sentiments. Philip Howard (a Catholic saint), the father of Thomas Howard, was born during the time that Philip II was King of England. King Philip II was his godfather. Baptized a Catholic, his father Thomas, Duke of Norfolk, conformed to the state religion, educated Philip partly under John Foxe, the Protestant marytrologist, and Philip was sent to Cambridge, the strongest Protestant university in England. Philips wife Anne, who converted to Catholicism sometime in the 1580s, lived unt il 1630. Philip was executed, rather unfairly according to recent scholarship, during the hysteria of the Spanish Armada in 1588. Philip was first sentenced to a fine of 10,000 pounds and imprisoned at the qu eens pleasure. He was tried for having favored the excommunication of the queen; however, this was impossible since the 149 D. Jaffe, The Barberini Circle, Journal of the History of Collecting 1, no. 2, 1989, 119-147, 35. 150 On a visit to Padova, I saw a plaque of dedication still present in the church.

PAGE 313

313 Bull of Excommunication had never been published be fore his arrest. He died in the tower, and his family remained in disgrace until the Stuarts came to the throne. The Howards continued to vacillate between Catholicism and Anglicanism. One reason that Arundel may have felt more comfortable in hi s conversion to the English Church in the mid1620s was that his journey toward Anglican conversion coincided w ith the arrival of Archbishop De Dominis. As noted in Chapter 4, this wa s a period of a directio nal turn toward preReformation and Counter-Reformation ideology fo r the English Church. Howards conversion coincided with the advancement of the Arminians and anti-Calvinists in the middle of the third decade of the seventeenth-century. As the new friendliness toward Cathol ic religious art and a more traditional emphasis on liturgical practi ce emerged in the English Church, English Protestantism was made palat able for Howard. It also helped him become even more indispensable to Charles. Even though Arundel often played with political fire at court, he was a major influence on James, Anne, Henry, and Charles. The major cont roversy that Arundel became embroiled in with the royal family centered on his opposition, at times, to Buckingha m and on his sons ill-advised marriage to a relative of Charles I against Charless will. Howe ver, Arundel regained the royal familys confidence after the death of Buckingham. Eventually, he became an ambassador to several states for Charles, including one of th e most important posts, the embassy to the Holy Roman Emperor Ferdin and II at Vienna. Lady Arundels Catholicism never wavered. Her faith was proclaimed in her portrait (A79), a counterpoint to her husband s portrait. This painting by My tens showed her before the portrait gallery. Instead of the marks of political power shown in her husbands painting, she is shown with marks of piety and wealth that were appropriate for such a grand aristocratic woman.

PAGE 314

314 Dressed in sober black, as her husband, she w ears an obviously expensive dress. She is magnificently jeweled. The most remarkable jewelry is her diamond brooch, which forms the letters IHS, which she al so wears in Van Dycks Madagascar Portrait The letters IHS represent Jesus Hominum Salvator, Jesus the savior of man. This Christogram was featured in the seal of the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). Consistently used by the Je suits throughout the late sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, this symbol was one of their most prominent and recognized statements of militant Catholicism. This Brooch, so prominent in her portraiture, is in keeping with her avowed Catholicism. Unlike her husband, she never became an Anglican, and embarrassed him by expressing her hopes for the re-conversion of England to Catholicism.151 Inigo Jones also featured this Christogram in a working draft for the faade of St. Pauls Cathedral (A-80). This and other drafts are featured in discu ssions of the renovations of St. Pauls in the next chapter. The IHSs presence in proposed plans and disp lay at court speaks of Stuart attitudes of tolerance a nd of Catholic influence creepin g into supposedly Protestant design. The picture gallery in the background of the painting of Lady Arundel is portrayed in classical idealization as in the painting of Lord Arundels sculpture gallery. The large paintings in uniform dark frames with gilt edges seem to have been the portraits of many Arundel and Fitzalan relatives. As was traditional in Catholic picture galleries, these ancestral paintings were placed to inspire their descenda nts to perform noble deeds and were also intermixed with religious works. It is impossible from the position of the paintings to determine which ancestors are placed there. 151 Karen Hearn, 210.

PAGE 315

315 Countess Arundel traveled with her husband to Italy and France on numerous occasions. She had impressed Queen Marie de Medici so much that the Queen gave he r etiquette privileges normally reserved for only French Duchesses.152 The Countess traveled again to Venice in 1620, where she took her sons for furthe r education. It is most likely th at the group sat for a portrait by Peter Paul Rubens while they were on the trip. Lady Arundel and Her Entourage (A-81) contains symbolism representing and confirming her ardent Ca tholic faith as in her early portrait. Behind her flutters a banner with her familys coat of arms suspended from four magnificent Solomonic columns. These columns were connected not only with wisdom but also the true religion and in particular devotion to the Eucharist. Accord ing to legends, Constantine brought back the Solomonic columns from the Holy of Holies th at stood on the high altar of St. Peters in Rome, holding up the ancient baldachin. (This point will be developed in much detail in Chapter 6, which deals with Charles I and the commi ssions surrounding Rubens and the Banqueting House.) The dog, though maybe a family pet, also symbolizes faithfulness and nuzzles the enthroned countess gently, pointing to her as a symbol of unmova ble Catholic faith. According to Rubens, in a letter dated to 1620, he stressed the importance of the Arundels patronage in the early seventeenth-century. He ca lled Lord Arundel one of the four evangelists and a supporter of our art.153 The Arundels also groomed Van Dyck as an artist for England. Van Dyck joined Alatheia in Venice sometime in the early 1620s, where they shared a taste for the paintings of Titian. In 1622, a biography of Titian, Breve compendio della vita del fam. Titano Vecelli de Cadore was dedicated to Alatheia as a lib eral patron of the art of learning by 152 Karen Hearn, 210. 153 Karen Hearn, 210.

PAGE 316

316 its author Tizianello.154 It is through Alatheia that in 1623 the Grand Chancellor of Mantua made approaches to Charles I regarding the kings possible purchase of the Mantua art collection. The Mantua Collection wa s the single most impressive collection Charles was to buy. The closeness and trust the Arundels gained with the Stuarts, even with occasional problems, was emphasized by their mission to escort back to France Marie de Medici after the beginning of the political troubles in the late 1630s. The dowager queen had been visiting her daughter Queen Henrietta Maria in the early 1640s Yet, religious tensions occasionally wore on the Arundels. From the time of his Anglican co nversion, Arundel became more unwilling to be involved with religious issues so that by 1637 the papal agen t in England, George Conn, reported to Cardinal Francesco Barberini in Ro me that Arundel was given to pictures and statues rather than to controversies at court.155 Another painting created during this peri od, which emphasized some of the religious qualities and the blending of classicism due to the Arundels artistic influence, is Charles I as Prince of Wales (Figure 4-19) by Hendricks Van Steenwijk the Younger. In this work, Charles is wearing the robes of the Prince of Wales. Seated on a throne w ith sphinxes as armrests, holding a staff of authority, he gazes intently at the vi ewer. One third of the painting shows a classical interior with Doric columns on a porch that overlooks a classical piazza. Once again, a dog that might have been a household pet symbolizes th e faithfulness of this future monarch. These canines were frequently put in Dutch paintings during the Renaissance as symbols of religious faith and commitment, including the renowned Arnolfini Wedding of Jan Van Eyck. With the influence of Buckingham and Arundel and the histor y of Prince Henrys in terest in classical 154 Karen Hearn, 210. 155 Mary F. S Hervey, 398.

PAGE 317

317 architecture and Renaissance painting, it seemed Charles was destined for the great role as initiator of a stylistic revolution. His destiny was tied to Catholic ra ther than Protestant tastes for religious art and display. Absolutis m in England would have a Cat holic, not Protestant flavor. Inigo Jones as a Catholic Influence W ithout Inigo Jones, the splendors of the Stuart court would have been inconceivable. He was Englands universal man--architect, mechan ic, mathematician, artist, designer of sets and costumes, antiquary ad connoisseur. His ta lents realized the architectural ambitions and theatrical fantasies of the monarchy and of leading aristocrats from the death of Elizabeth through to the Civil Wars, and in ma ny ways he was responsible for the forms that those ambitions took, for he was virtuall y alone in his knowledge of the modern arts of design, and his genius was almost the sole channel by which these arts were communicated to the British Court. In the in sular world of Great Br itain at the beginning of the seventeenth-century, ex cluded as it was from Europe by religious differences, there were few men who had had the opportunity of cultured travel on the continent.156 The seventeenth-century was a period of transition for English soci ety, and the world of architecture was no exception. At the beginning of the century, responsibility for design of architecture lay primarily in the hands of pract ical men. By the end of the century, a new brand of individual emerged: the professional architect This development was due in great part to Inigo Jones. Jones held the post of the Surveyor -General of the Kings Works for much of this period. Jones was a man who was urbane and well traveled and was largely an uncompromising Italophile. Vitruvius and Palladio were his inspiration. It was from them that Jones imported a system of classical design in which most deta ils were subject to the controlling mind of the architect. Jones was no revolutiona ry in the political sense, and the English Civil War, thwarted his influence. It was not until the age of Wre n, precipitated by the great fire of London of 1666, that the classical tradit ion took firm root in the English bui lding world as a whole. However, Inigo Jones had planted the seed brought back from Italy. 156 Graham Parry, The Golden Age Restord (New York: St. Martins Press, 1981), 146.

PAGE 318

318 Jones explored the influences of Italian clas sicism and mannerism th at were the heritage of Michelangelo and other great artists of the sixteenth-century. This Renaissance style passed through the lenses of Palladio to England thr ough Jones. Much of his style was based on the Catholic classical humanist revival of the It alian Renaissance. Joness ideas came into a medieval community suspicious of the new style. This community often had a difficult time adjusting to the complicated confessional world of early seventeenth-century England. England particularly was still somewhat iconoclastic an d inward looking at the ascension of James I. However, both James I and Charles I were much fr iendlier to the urbane continental expressions of architecture. Tapping the tale nt of their Surveyor of Work s, the Stuart monarchy--and in particular their queen co nsorts--used Joness significant talent to advertise thei r power and right to rule through magnificent architecture, stages, chapels, and display. Jones helped to express Englands ever-shifting and unique brand of Christianity thro ugh chapel renovations. However, Jones used templates almost exclusively from It alian and French Catholicism, not continental Calvinist, Huguenot, or Lutheran sources. One area of disagreement among scholars abou t Jones is his religious affiliation. Roy Strong, one of the most influential historians dealing with Jones and his architecture, argued: This architectural revolution was seen as Protes tant and British and that any reading of it by way of Italianate crypto-Ca tholicism is wholly wrong.157 He based this on the fact that Jones was, in his view, a staunch Puritan and theref ore a discernable Anglican and Protestant character appeared in the works he designed and created. Other scholar ship challenges this notion, and the testimony of J ohn Webb disputed this notion. We bb, Joness closest associate, friend, and figurative son testified th at he lived and died a Catholic. 157 Roy Strong, 105.

PAGE 319

319 What is indisputable is th at Jones came from a Catholic family. Though he was from an affluent merchant class family, Jones never atte nded university. One of his earliest biographers, Alan Cunningham, suggested his Catholicism wa s the reason he did not attend college in England during the eclipse of the Elizabethan age.158 Attendance at a university in England during this period would have been extremely difficult, if not im possible, for a Roman Catholic. This is also the view of Joness most importa nt twentieth-century biographer, J. Alfred Gotch.159 In addition, The Dictionary of National Biograph y confidently claimed that Jones and his father were Catholics. His associations al so testify to this statement. Jones was extremely friendly in his youth w ith notorious and una pologetic Catholics such as Edmund Bolton and Tobie Matthew, c onverts to the faith as young men who both stubbornly refused to abandon it. He also had a long and intense friendshi p with the Earl of Arundel, Thomas Howard, initiated long before Ho wards conversion to A nglicanism. If Jones was Catholic, much of Strongs argument for inte rpreting Joness architecture as an expression of Joness militant and innovative Protestant architecture is wrong. Jones as a Roman Catholic also helps to explain his extremely close a ssociation with Queen Anne, who was his first important royal patron, and the particularly chummy relations hip Jones had with Henrietta Maria, as well as with the other Catholic arti sts who worked for and with him on many of the important projects of the regime. His silence on religious matters also argues for Romanism. If he were indeed a committed Puritan, no evidence has been found in his own words. In fact, the military junta persecuted him for his assumed Catholicism. 158 Peter Cunningham, Inigo Jones: A Life of the Architect (London: Shakespeare Society, 1848), 71. 159 J. Alfred Gotch, Inigo Jones (London: Methuen, 1928), 43.

PAGE 320

320 Strongs only important evidence for Jones s Protestantism is a note in which Gregorio Panzani, the popes legate in London, described J ones in a dispatch as Puritanisssimo Fiero. However, that phrase need not be taken too l iterally. Panzani clearly disliked Inigos proud manner and may have been using the word as a gene ralized term for abuser, in the same sense as a contemporary writer, Barnaby Rich, who describe d somebody as a puritan, a precise fool, not fit to hold a gentleman company.160 More than likely, Ini go belonged to the group whose members did not declare their relig ious affiliations publicly, especia lly if they wanted to remain popular and employed at a court of divers e religious affiliations and divisions. Jones spent his youth in Italy le arning his artistic trade and tr aveling rather than at school in England. Vicenza, Rome, and Naples laid their ancient glories before Jones with Palladio as the guide.161 Inigo is an English corruption of Ignatius, which certainly ties him to the Counter-Reformation saint; he may have visite d Spain around the turn of the seventeenthcentury.162 With the ancient buildings and newly created splendors of the Counter-Reformation laid before him, it is no wonder that Joness arch itectural treatises and wo rks are a reflection of 160 Michael Leapman, Inigo: The Troubled Life of Inigo Jones, Architect of the English Renaissance (London: Review, 2003), 18. 161Joan Sumner Smith, The Italian Sources of Inigo Joness Style, The Burlington Magazine 94, no. 592 (1952): 200-204. Smith also disc ussed the existence of an annotated Palladio book for the importance of that master on Joness own style. Also mentioned is one of Joness sketchbooks, which did not show a distinct preference fo r one particular painter. His choice seemed to have been decide d by the nature of the material ra ther than by the artist, and as would be expected of a professional designer, by those studies which would further his skill as a draftsman. His method appeared to have been to make a close copy from the original and then to make repeated drawings to perfect the work. 162 Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations Since the Renaissance (London: Frank Cass, 1998), 168.

PAGE 321

321 the works of Palladio, the theory of Vitruvius, and the contemporary and ancient art he saw in his multiple visits to Italy. These informed his na tural talent for modera te innovation in design. Jones traveled extensively with Catholic fa milies, such as the Howards, during his second visit to Europe. This party included cosmopolitan Catholics, such as Arundels cousin Robert Cransfield, Thomas Coke, a great favorite of Lady Arundels father, and Lord Shrewsbury.163 From Vicenza, where the Arundel Party stayed fo r a few days, and the study of Palladios own interpretation of classical architecture, it was for Jones an obvious step to the antique remains in Rome.164 Michael Leapman traced his itinerary (A -82). Again, Jones saw the wonders of the newly constructed Jesuit Churches, IL Gesu (F igure 5-2), San Ambrogio in Genoa (A-83), and the almost-finished St. Peters and the Lateran Palace (A-5). The Lateran Palace was an important influence and inspiration for the Banqueting House. Immediately upon his election, Sixtus V employed the architect Domenico Fontana, who was engaged in alterations to the ba silica at the same time, to remake the Lateran Palace. Fontanas strong restrained style was influenced by Gi acomo Vignola and modeled upon Palazzo Farnese for its regular and harmonious faade. His sound engineering basis and po wer of coordinating a complicated architectural program on a tightly c onstrained site, which Sixtus urged forward at top speed, were remarkable. A notice on 29 August 1589 announced that the work was finished: A great palace in Piazza Lateranese has been brought to completion by Sixtus V.165 Fontana reapplied motifs of the Lateran Palace (A-5) to other papal works in Rome. The importance of 163 Edward Chaney, 172. 164 Joan Sumner Smith, 203. 165 Ludwig von Pastor, History of the Popes From th e Close of the Middle Ages trans. Ralph Francis Kerr (London: Kegan Paul, 1908), 616.

PAGE 322

322 this renewed edifice to Joness designs is especially evident when it is compared to the Banqueting House. Jones also devoured the antiquity he saw in Italy. On his last vi sit to Italy with the Arundels, Jones recorded the itinerary. Th ey stopped in every major cultural center.166 This relationship between the Earl of Arundel and Jones is extremely im portant for their contributions to classical art and architecture in England and must be emphasized, as well as Arundels connection to the Catholic Church until 1625.167 Jones, as a member of a Catholic party, was able to move about Italy freely. He saw classical churches, such as the Temple Minerva in Assisi, re-dedicated to the Virgin Mary in 1539 (Figure 4-2). The classi cism and the splendid portico of the Saint Mary of the Martyrs and the Pantheon (Figure 4-1) ce rtainly would have been on his itinerary. In Rome, Jones visited the Temple of Antoninus and Faustina This was an ancient temple in Rome adapted into the church of Sa n Lorenzo in Miranda. The remains of the temple, converted into a church in the seventh or eighth century, explains its splendid conservation. The Baroque pediment behind the colonnade dates to th e late sixteenthearly seventeenth centuries. This temple lies in the Forum Romanum, on the Via Sacra, opposite the Regia. The ten monolithic Corinthian columns of its pronaos are seventeen meters tall and are likely the inspiration for the porch portion for the renovations of St. Pauls in London (Figure 5-22). The 166 Jonathan Brown, Kings and Connoisseurs: Collecting Art in Seventeenth-Century Europe (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 18. 167 Jonathan Brown, 18. Arundels father Ph ilip, a Catholic, differed with Queen Elizabeth and was sentenced to life impri sonment in the Tower of London. Arundel was deprived of a father and raised in a household of most modest means. The Howards were one of the most important English Catholic families of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Arundel left England during the Civil War a nd reconverted to Catholicism.

PAGE 323

323 roof for the portico of the temple had been re moved by that time, thus taking on the appearance of a porch. The notion of turning classica l architecture into churches had a profound effect on Jones. Jones commented on such churches at great leng th as he annotated the texts he brought along with him on his Italian trips. Jones annotated the reproduction of the Te mple of Castor and Pollux (A-53) in his copy of Palladios Quattro Libri The Spanish-dominated city of Naples seems to have had a profound consequence, along with the Church of S. Paolo Maggiore (Temple of Castor and Pollux), in his tour of 1614. He stayed in Naples an unusual amount of time with his patrons, the Arundels. Before the earthquake of 1688, which severely damaged the church, it looked like a Roman temp le. Jones, having visited the c onverted church at least three times, noted it in his copy of Quattro Libri as one of the Best things that I have seen.168 Monumental sculpture, like that added to th e porch of St. Paul, was inspired by Joness Italian visits. Chaney wrote: When Jones thoug ht of monumental scul pture placed on pedestals above a classical pediment, he thought of the Temple of Castor and Pollux in Naples.169 This is surely true; however, this would not have been the only source for Jones. The popes by this time had managed to surmount most pre-Christian monume nts with statues of Chri st or the saints in Rome. Decoration with monument al sculpture on and in churches was common by the time Jones visited Italy. Traveling with a Catholic party gave him free re in to visit such newly created spaces. Reflected in his work and designs wa s the fusion of antiquity and Renaissance 168 Edward Chaney, The Evolution of the Grand Tour 168. 169 Edward Chaney, 193.

PAGE 324

324 architecture in his application to the architectural problems of his day in domestic, public, and religious themes.170 Italian Sources Reflected in the Banqueting House In early seventeenth-century England, many of the proponents of architectura l classicism used the forms of inevitability and antiquity to promote its significance, using the vocabulary associated with masculine values.171 Christy Anderson argued th at a small but important group of members of court attr ibuted these values to classicism. Th is was true despite the widespread preferences of patrons, architects, and the public in general for th e more traditional architecture that was based on the Gothic or native form s that existed in early modern England.172 Among these important individuals were both James an d Charles. Anderson argued that classical and Latin architectural forms in the minds of these individuals, including the kings, helped to attach England to the continent, to its history and im portantly to the Roman r oots of England. It was also an expression of a masculine architecture and a more catholic and universal expression of Englands place in the universe. The commitment to classical architecture and art helped to encourage and celebrate the reputa tion of England as an independe nt kingdom, and showed that it was not provincial but connected and e qual to the great cultures of Europe.173 Building was an effort to enhance the reputation of the early Stuart princes abroad as well as at home. 170 F. Hartt, History of Italian Renaissance Art; Painting, Sculpture, Architecture (New York: Harry N. Abrams Publishers, Inc., 4th Ed., 1994), 625. 171 Christy Anderson, 48. 172 Christy Anderson, 48. 173 Christy Anderson, 48.

PAGE 325

325 The conscious use of classical motifs says something about the use of a masculine architecture as the choice for the Stuart dynast y versus the more femi nine--light and airy -decorative Gothic. It is important to note that the previous dynasty ended with a feminine punctuation, an heirless Elizabet h. Jones made specific connections between the masculine and classical architecture in a note written after he returned from his second trip to Italy: As in designed first on Studies the partes of the boddy of man [m ale gender] as eyees noses mouthes Eares and so the rest to bee parcticke in the partes sepperate ear on comm. To put them toggethear to maak a hole figur e and cloath yet and consequently a hole Storry with all ye ornamentes.174 It has long been noted that the male body was the template for early modern architectural design. This is something that was commonly connected with the resurgence of classical architecture since Leon Battista Albertis treatises on archite cture received its wide printing. Jones had Albertis treatises in his collection.175 The introduction of this style met with opposition. The Banqueting House and the faade of St. Pauls was not a popular innovation for Londoners. The choice of th e site for Charles Is executiondirectly in front of the Banqueting Hous eis noteworthy. The choice of this site for regicide makes a statement against the lofty id eology of kingship the complex symbolized. Note that this building was not used until the return of the dynasty el even years later. No greater renunciation of James and Charless espousal of the new style and their views on divine right could be made than the execution of Charles in fr ont of Joness architectural masterpiece with its 174 Christy Anderson. (Anderson used as her source for this insight Inigo Jones, Roman Sketchbook. Fol. 76v. Now in the Devonshire Collection, Chatsworth. John Peacock cites and discussed this passage in Harris and Higgott, Inigo Jones, p. 285.) 175 Christy Anderson, 50.

PAGE 326

326 semi-religious interior decorations about absolute monarc hy. This building was unique in London at this time. The Banqueting House, Whitehall, (Figure 4-3) is one of t hose architectural masterworks that hold a special place in Eng lish art and cultural history. It marks a comple te change in taste and begins a distinct phase of English architec tural history. Joan Sumner Smith summed up the importance of the Banqueting House. The result of the enlightened patronage of Whitehall in the early years of the seventeenthcentury is a reminder of the brillia nt gathering of writers, artists, and cognoscenti in the Stuart court, and in its incompleteness as the interrupted scheme for a huge palace by the sudden ending of that life with the outbreak of Civil War.176 At the center of Stuart court life was the masque. The Tudor break with the papacy and most of Catholic Europe had--until the early se venteenth-century--cut England off from some of the principal examples of the Italian arts. Howe ver, literature had not suffered in a similar way.177 Jones used much of the great literature of Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, and others for some of his inspiration. Many of the plays and masques we re set either in antiqu ity or in Renaissance Italy. With the destruction of the first Banqueting House (of a Gothic design) by a fire in 1619, it was natural to set up the stages and the great Banqueting House w ith a classical style in mind. This was an appropriate setting for masques in which court and king took an active part. The masques performed in this period had more classical themes than ever before. They were reshaped and polished in the brilliance of Jons ons language, and [were] partly novel with new 176 Joan Sumner Smith, 200. 177 Joan Sumner Smith, 200.

PAGE 327

327 devices of a visual nature for whic h the Kings Surveyor was responsible.178 However, little was truly innovative about the de sign of the Banqueting House. Joness trips to Italy were im portant not only from an architec tural point of view, but also for what he learned about theater and art collecting from several important Italian courts. His travels included Mantua and Florence in the middle of the second decade of the seventeenthcentury, where he saw elaborate performances of pageantry.179 These types of performances were displayed in similar grand setting back in England in the Banqueting H ouse five years later. It is obvious that these Catholic courts had influence in the di rection that Joness architecture took. The sumptuous pageantry witnessed in thes e important courts ha d a profound influence on him as one accustomed to the make-shifts of the Elizabethan stage.180 From these influences, Jones introduced classically de signed court scenery. He provided England for the first time the proscenium arch, movable scenery, settings and costumes from the Italian stage.181 For the House of Stuart, the Banqueting Hous e was not just for idle play or redundant ceremony. The importance of the Banqueting House in St uart affairs cannot be overstated. Although today it sits modestly in Whitehall, oversha dowed by monumental build ings of a later age, it was then the very nucleus of royal activity; what St. Pauls and the Houses of Parliament were to Church and State, so the Banqueting House was to Monarchy.182 178 Joan Sumner Smith, 203. 179 Joan Sumner Smith, 203. 180 Joan Sumner Smith, 207. 181 Joan Sumner Smith, 207. 182 Graham Parry, 153.

PAGE 328

328 Graham Parry noted that the rebuilding of the Banqueting House was not only necessary, but also crucial: When it [the Banqueting House] burnt down in January 1619, its rebuilding was imperative, for it was the King's hall of stat e, his audience chambe r and his place of judgment; the masques were held here, as was that other ceremony that testified to the King's divinity, the Service of Healing. Banqueting was the leas t of its functions. The need for a new hall provided Jones with the opportunity to give permanent expression to those monarchical qualities, wh ich hitherto had been much proclaimed but only transiently displayed. This Banqueting House would definitively establish James I as an Augustus exercising imper ial sway, as a Solomon presiding in judgment; it would be a symbol of his peace and of the harmony of his rule, and it would be the Temple of th e Stuart Kings. Inigo Jones therefore planned a Roman basilica, which carried imperial, judicial and religious associations, and based his design on a scheme in Vitruvius modified by Palladios. The interior is a gigantic double cube, 110 feet by 55, but that stark fact cannot convey the nobility of these dimensions or the grandeur that radiates from the immaculately controlled order of the parts. Jones transformed the traditional apse of the basilica into a great coffered niche where the King sat in majesty, somewhat in the fashion which Rubens portrayed in the painting on the ceiling above.183 Political and dynastic reasons were also appa rent for the importance and the grandeur of the Banqueting House. The speed with which th e Banqueting House was rebuilt after the fire underscores the urgency with whic h James viewed this project.184 Per Palme was the first to suggest that the major reason fo r the speed of the project was an alliance with Spain and the marriage of a Spanish princess to Charles. These events were ways to place James in the center of European affairs with allegiances to both Catholic and Protestant powers.185 If this happened, James would soon be recei ving a Hapsburg princess at his court, and he would have achieved his ambition of becoming a pi votal figure in European politics.186 Jamess position as 183 Graham Parry, 153. 184 Graham Parry, 154. 185 In Triumph of Peace Per Palme noted that the political and dynastic factors motivated the Stuarts toward a policy of peace. Pages 10-33 explain this policy.

PAGE 329

329 Grandfather to Europe would place him front and center to broker peace between warring churches. As noted in previous chapters, James wish ed to place his court and an equal in the mainstream of politics and cultu re alongside the Catholic absolutists. The emphasis on majesty and display of monarchical power was reflected in Rome as well as London. One of the most celebrated works in Rome which Jones would ha ve seen on trips, as well as through the engravings, was the renewed Lateran Palace begu n by Sixtus V and finished by the summer of 1589 (A-5). If one looks closely at the Banqueting House and this edifice, the first two registers window designs are inverted in the plan of the Banqueting House. The only significant design change by Jones was the regularly spaced Iconic and Corinthian columns. The window treatments themselves at Whitehall are al most identical to th e papal palace. One other building of note for inspirat ion of the Banqueting House was St. Peters Basilica in Rome. Carlo Maderno designed this faade. Here Jones repeated some of the design, though slightly modified in his Elevation of the Penultimate Design of the Banqueting House (A84). Looking closely at the central portion of the faade of St. Peters (figure 5-3) and this design for the Banqueting House, the similarities are striking. Though Jones divided his building into two registers, the basic structure of engaged co lumns with a pediment are extremely similar. Jones was obviously indebted to this church for some of his ideas. Even the angels holding the papal cartouche in the pediment sculpture of St. Peters wa s imitated in Joness design. The 1622 Banqueting House at Whitehall, with its masterful double-cube interior (Figure 5-4), astounded most everyone in its classical beauty. It makes the same proclamation about the position and power of the Stuarts as divine-right monarchs just as St. Peters, on a grander scale, 186 Graham Parry, 154.

PAGE 330

330 makes a statement about the papacy. The Ba nqueting House was a complete innovation for Londoners, who were accustomed to the warren-l ike Elizabethan apartments of the surrounding Whitehall Palace. With its rhythmic subtly ar ticulated marble faade, the Banqueting House clashed with the eclectic and Gothic-inspired exteriors of neighboring buildings. Joness innovations were foreign and idio syncratic. Contemporary English architects hesitated for years before adopting his methods and the Baroque style. Today, as in Joness time, the full nature of his new classicism has yet to be completely understood. Joness syncreti sm of architecture, animated by both literature and previous arch itecture, responded to antique and Italian Renaissance prototypes, and provi ded a philosophically tempered aesthetic standard. Catholic Italy, however, was his major source. Ro me was the center of influence. The interior of the building was a new a nd novel work in England. The Banqueting House, which was the site for the Stuart masques, great plays, and liturgies to extol the virtue of the monarchy, made a masque a combination of a ball, an amateur theatrical, a liturgy, a play and a fancy dress party. However, the purpose of th e Stuart masque was certainly not only for entertainment. The rationale was to demonstrate the Stuart concept of kingship and to deliver messages about royal authority. Almost every mas que demonstrated that this authority came from God. These masques were also about the res ponsibility and privileges that came with being part of the aristocracy. This building emphasized the Great Chain of Being. Puritan critics of the regime frowned upon masques. They also critic ized the foreignness of the new building. This building was not the last of this type proposed by the dynasty. However, the most important aspect that kept Jone s and the Stuarts from being majo r building rivals to European royalty was not the lack of sc ope or planning, but the lack of funds. Jones designed a proposed new Star Chamber along with extensive additions and reworking at the Palace at Whitehall. Had

PAGE 331

331 it not been for his financial and political troubles, the cultured Ch arles would have furthered the employment of his Master of Works, Jones. B ut for these factors we might have had a Royal Palace in Westminster which would have rivaled the Louvre and the Escorial.187 Jones was inextricably connected with the Stuart building program to his own detriment during the English Civil War. The disapproval of Jones and his bu ilding can be seen in his rough treatment by the Long Parliament. They fined hi m some 1000 pounds as a mark of their displeasure with his Catholicism and his inability to distance himself from the Stuart regime.188 He was lucky to escape with only the fine and very few future commissions after Charless fall. Sculptural Designs by Jones As noted earlier in this chapter, considerable relaxation arose in the us e of Catholic themes in art previously out of style or even attacked during the intermittent iconoclastic events of the Elizabethan period. Often art was destroyed in churches and the Elizabethan Coat of Arms was painted over medieval masterpieces. The Crucifix ion was particularly targeted, and other scenes of religious expression were not exempt. One such example of this common practice was at St. Margarets Church, Tivetshall (A -85). Placed above the altar area of the church in the Middle Ages was a Last Judgment The destruction of Christian art had tacit royal approval here. Even royal tombs and art were not immune to those attacks during the reign of Jamess predecessor. 189 However, an appreciation for previously attacked Christian art began rath er abruptly during the reign of James, and Jones was a prime contributor to this shift. A prime example of this stylistic change, though never completed as Jones firs t envisioned the tomb, was the design for the Tomb 187 Ramsey Stanley, Inigo Jones (New York: Charles Scribners Sons, 1924), 27. 188 Ramsey Stanley, 27. 189 See Chapter 3 of Ramsey Stanleys Inigo Jones.

PAGE 332

332 of Lady Cotton at St. Chads (A-86). This small drawing is the only example that still exists of Joness designs for monumental tombs. It was no t the only tomb designed by him. He had plans for a tomb for James and for Prince Henry, but tim e and money saw these projects left unfinished and the mockups for the tombs no longer exist. In Lady Cottons tomb (A-86), Jones envisioned a beautifully Baroque work with angels holding th e family emblem. It owes its design to earlier Counter-Reformation examples of tomb cons truction. Prominently displayed are putti, a hallmark of Jesuit Baroque works in Italy, Fr ance, and Spain during the Counter-Reformation period. Joness tomb design commemorated Lady Cotton, who died in childbirth in 1606.190 The shroud covers Lady Cottons legs and begins to slip off her body. The classical type of sarcophagus would have been unlike anything else constructed in the England of that period.191 Also in attendance were two beautifully posed an d classic angels. Behind the angels are columns that frame the outer regions of the proposed to mb. In addition, common conve ntions of Italianate tombs were the harpy and heavy fruit swags. These were unknown in English tomb chests until this time; therefore, Jones must have brought this idea with him from Italy. Angels were not decorative on the continen t. They provided an imprimatur, a sign that Gods action was here through his mediators and messengers, the angels. The columns also are an implied symbol of the church triumphant in this period. John Newman has shown that these almost cer tainly represent the two pillars Joachim and Boaz, which stood in the porch of the Temple of Solomon (II Kings, 7: 15-22). In the 190 John Harris and Gordon Higgott, Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Drawings (London: A. Zwemmer Ltd., 1989), 42. 191 Jennifer Woodward, 120.

PAGE 333

333 early seventeenth-century the Temple was equa ted with the Church of Christ, so in this context they would signify that the lady [Lady Cotton] had entered Heaven.192 Jones showed Lady Cotton semi-reclining, as if rising from her sleep. The cartouche directly above Lady Cottons figure holds a poem that suggests resurrecti on. The plaque reads that she resigned Her mortall weedes and finds eterni tye. Tombs in post-Reformation England rarely portrayed any overt signs of electi on or of resurrection in Elizabet han works. Jones turned to an engraving by Angelo Falcone of the Tomb of a Young Man, afte r a design by Parmigianino for his design and inspiration.193 Catholic tombs are the major source for this work and the plan was only minimally changed. No attempt to Protestantise its designs occurred. Another sculptural work--and one of the most important examples of how CounterReformation Papal Rome influen ced Jones--is his design for the Catafalque for James I (A-6). James died at Theobalds on March 27, 1625. The cat afalque is a decorated platform on which a coffin rests in state during a funeral for view ing the body of a monarch. It was a standard sculptural form used during the Renaissance and Baroque for monarch and pope alike. This hearse carried twelve statues of Virtues in mourning, eight around the drum and four at the angles of the podium. The French sculptor, Hubert Le Sueur, execu ted these in plaster of Paris. Unfortunately, they were destroyed during the Ci vil War. The inspiration for Joness design is noted by John Peacock. Peacock argued that papal pr esidents directly inspir ed Jones, especially the catafalque for Paul V Borghese a nd the catafalque for Sixtus V (A-7).194 Joness design draws on a recent tradition of Tempietto -catafalques, and is particularly close to that designed 192 John Harris and Gordon Higgott, Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Drawings 42. 193 John Harris and Gordon Higgott, 44. 194 John Peacock, Inigo Joness Catafalque for James I, Architectural History, 25 (1982): 1-5, 134-135.

PAGE 334

334 by Domenico Fontana in 1591 for the obsequies of Sixtus V.195 Also of significance is this Tempietto type, which was a kind of a funerary monument, since it commemorates the martyrdom of St. Peter.196 Jones certainly would have seen this famous chapel, the Tempietto, on his visit to Rome. He also had texts explaining th e practice of using this type of monument for commanding funerals. This text was the De Rebus Praeclare Gestis a Sixto V authored by Bordino and presented to Jones by Edmund Bolton.197 De Rebus Praeclare Gestis a Sixto V touted the considerable works achieved by Sixtus in his reign. The theme of papal self-glorification, through both of the catafalques produced for these pontiffs, dominated this text and similar ones that were easily available at the time. Bordinos book helped to inform Jones on designs for the catafalque of James and the celebration of Jame ss allegorical achievements, displayed on the catafalque. Jones transfor med this monument to his sovereig n into a classical understanding of the achievements or the th eoretical achievements of the kings reign, just as Bramante had in his Tempietto for Julius II, Sergio Venture fo r Paul V, and Fontana for Sixtus V. Jones simplified the Italian works he used as templates into their more classical elements. However, Joness drawing copied the statuary on these monuments faithfully. He even kept Religion and Justice (portrayed in Figure 2-7) in the same place as on the Fontana catafalque. John Williams, in his sermon Great Britains Salomon identified the four statues standing 195 John Peacock, 1. 196 John Peacock, 1. 197 J. A. Gotch, Inigo Jones 251.

PAGE 335

335 around the catafalque as Religion, Justice, War and Peace.198 This is very similar to Baldo Catanis explanation of the iconogr aphy of Sixtus Vs catafalque. Baldo Catani, the author of Sixtus Vs funeral book, expl ains the concetto of the catafalque: it is a work of architecture in it self whose crowning storey either incorporates or refers to all the celebra ted architectural projects undertak en by the Pope and Fontana: so it incorporates the dome of St. Peters which Sixtus completed, the columns of Trajan and Antoninus which he restored, and the f our obelisks which he erected; and it carries pictures of the Lateran Palace, the Sistin e Chapel in St. Maria Maggiore, and other works.199 Jamess catafalque had to be more abstract. Hi s only major architectural achievement was the Banqueting House. Nevertheless, th e ideological comparisons to Solomon and the Virtues could be repeated in relation to James. Jones did alter the statuary slightly. Religion in the Catholic monume nt holds a crucifix, books, and a church, while Joness statue carrie s an altar with a flam e upon it, a well-known symbol of religion used by Catholics. The use of the same symbol was a sign that James and the popes were defenders of true reli gion in their respective denominations. This flaming altar will also be seen in the Banqueting House ceiling (Fig ure 5-5, detail, Apotheosis of James I ) and in other works by Rubens including Louis XIII Comes of Age (A-87), done earlier for Marie d Medici. As we have seen from the evidence offere d in this chapter, the catafalque of James is another example of the artistic influence of the Catholic south on Pr otestant England. 198 John Williams, Great Britains Salomon. A Serm on Preached at the Magnificent Funerall, of the Most High and Mighty King, James (1625), 45. 199 John Peacock, 2.

PAGE 336

336 Figure 5-1. Inigo Jones, Queens House, Greenwich. Photo by author.

PAGE 337

337 Figure 5-2 Il Gesu Completion in 1577. Note the prominent IHS monogram above the central door. Photo by author.

PAGE 338

338 Figure 5-3. Carlo Maderno. Faade of St Peters Basilica. Photo by author.

PAGE 339

339 Figure 5-4. Interior Banqueti ng House. Photo by author.

PAGE 340

340 Figure 5-5. Peter Pa ul Rubens, Detail, Apotheosis of James I, Banqueting House Cycle photo author. Here we see the allegory of re ligion, which holds a flaming altar directly to the back and right of the King. Photo by author.

PAGE 341

341 CHAPTER 6 THE MOVEMENT TOWARD CATHOLIC ART AND IC ONOGRAPHY IN THE EARLY REIGN OF CHARLES I James Howell, The weather was suitable to the condition wherin he finds the kingdom, which is cloudy; for his is left engaged in a war with a poten t Prince, the People by long Desuetude unapt for Arms, the Fleet-Royal in quarter Repair, hims elf without a Queen, hi s Sister withouyt a Country, the Crown pitifully laden with Debts and the Purse of the State lightly balusted. Epistolae Ho Eliannae the entrance of Charles into London to become king. Introduction Not all was so gloomy. Charles I was the most important constructer of Image that English royalty had ever produced. As with his father, Charles actively looked to engage the rest of Europe--Catholic or Protestant. Though Charles was seen, until recently, as inept at politics, Kevin Sharpe argued that the policies enacted during his years of pers onal rule were quite efficient and overall it was a time of prosperity and peace.1 Charless vision was essentially the same as his fathers. At the center of Stuart po licy was dtente with the rest of Christianity. Perhaps even the creation of a greater catholic church in which the Catholic Church of Rome and the English Church could reside. The most important bargaining chip Rome could have offered was some kind of autonomy, some form of direct political contro l of the English Church. Spain, France, and Venice, while remaining Catholic, had achieved so me local control of th e church. In addition, new autonomous Eastern Rites had achieved union with Rome while keeping local control. Unfortunately, Vatican diplomats ne ver made this kind of offer. 1 For a thorough discussion of the personal rule of Charles I, see Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1992).

PAGE 342

342 However, the relationship between England and the papacy warmed up considerably in the 1620s and 1630s. Charles used this to his advantage to amass the greatest collection of art that England would ever see. This chapter will furthe r explore the Catholic iconography in purchased and created works during the rule of Charles I. It will note the importance of like-minded clergymen in this program. The importance of Henrietta Maria and other Catholic influences are also presented. This chapter will include evid ence for more Catholic iconography in the Banqueting House, evidence not consider ed by most previous scholarship. The Divines of Charle s I and Their Agenda In Stuart England, the church was extremel y important as a wing in the kings plan for governance. After 1618, James gradually planned fo r the renewed care of the church and its buildings. Charles implemented the plans when he became king. These buildings and decorations were in themselves controversial. John Morri ll argued that by the 1630s men cared more about their religion than any other subject. But disagreement arose a bout what was considered true Christianity, as evidenced by Morrills study of pamphlets and a war of words preceding the Civil War.2 These pamphlets were directed often to freedom of worship and religion. More often than not, they accused contemporary high church men of popery. King James and his family were not immune. In particular, Queen Henrietta Maria was under attack. However, this did not detour the High Church fac tion of the Caroline period. 2 J. S. Morrill, in The Religious Contex t of the English Civil War, Trans. Royal History. Soc., 5th series, 34 (1984): 55-78, and in his The Attack on the Church of England in the Long Parliament, 140-42 in D. Beales and D. G. Best, eds., History, Society and the Churches: Essays in Honour of Owen Chadwick (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 105-24. In these two works, Morrill examines the vast numbers of works dedicated to the notion of freedom of religion. His study suggested that the churches of the realm were controversial as they became more traditional and pre-reform ation in character after the essentials of the plans of Laud and Charles were implemented.

PAGE 343

343 One of the key figures who called for the ar tistic renewal of the English Church, along with the churches decoration, was Lancelot Andrewes. Though Andrewes died as Charles assumed the imperial throne of Great Britain, he continued to be one of the most important religious influences through the publication of his preaching and spiritual writings. Andrewes was one of the most significant figures in th e promotion of like-minded clergy and bishops, especially after he became Dean of Winsor in 1618. Andrewes was a prelate who st arted his career with moderate reformed views. However, his religious view grew into a great appreciation of the early c hurch and its Catholic medieval heritage. It is almost axiomatic that the later ye ars of Jamess reign were a time of relative peace and quiet for Catholics. In fact, the extant narra tives of the later Jacob ean period do not mention English Catholics much, even while Jamess proj ects for a Catholic marriage for Prince Charles were causing all sorts of polit ical difficulties for the Crown.3 This was the period of Andrewess most Catholic thought, and he became increasingly important at court. An example of his importance was that James called for his old fri end upon his deathbed; Andrewes, however, was too sick to travel.4 Andrewess love of the ancient church and his particularly conser vative viewpoints lent itself to the program of Charles and his Ar chbishop of Canterbury, William Laud. Archbishop Laud used many of Andrewess sermons with a High-Church agenda in mind. They made especially good propaganda for the beatification of the English Churches and conservative Counter-Reformation liturgies. Chan ges in the English Churchs pol ity made infinite sense to 3 Michael. C. Questier, Catholicism and Community in Ea rly Modern England: Politics, Aristocratic Patronage and Religion c. 1550-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 387. 4 Pauline Gregg. King Charles I. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981), 110.

PAGE 344

344 Laud and to the new king, who looked toward Baroque Europe for inspiration. Both were impressed with the sacredness of the Tridentine mass and the order of Catholicism. The splendid worship offered in the Catholic countries, the gains made by France on the mainland, and more consistent arguments that the English Church was a true part of a greater catholic church tradition, helped form some of the ideas at the center of Charless ecclesial movement. Charles and his bishops emphasized a c onvention of worship that gave an illusion of religious connection with the greatest powers of the continent; France, Spain, and Austria. Bishop Neile, another important Counter-Reformation Protestant was effective in clerical patronage and managed to advance a whole group of clerics as bishops.5 The Durham House group, which included such notables as Matthew Wren, Laud, Andrewes, and many others, were disposed to a theological position that had more in common with Roman Catholicism than with Calvinist Protestantism. An illustration of this movements propagand a was Lauds circulation of the sermons of Lancelot Andrewes in forms that fit the Laudian program of liturgical, patristic, and ecumenical council-based Christianity. These attitudes connect ed the Laudian movement with traditions that predated Reformation ideology and theology. The Laudians vision of church agreed with the rhetoric of Andrewes contained in XCVI sermons, published in the late 1620s and 1630s. This allowed Laud to skillfully choose Andrewess sermons as proof-texts for rolling back the Reformation in certain areas. These homilies included parochial sermons Of the Worshiping of Imaginations a trenchant critique of the idols of Puritanism, Of the Power of Absolution, often cited in the 1630s for its sacerdotalism and endorsement of auricular confession, Of Iustification in Christs Name a careful engagement with Bellarmine on justification sola fide, Of the giving 5 Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists 123.

PAGE 345

345 Caesar his due, a forthright defense of subsidies and Of the doing of the Word one of Andrewess most scathing attacks on sermon-centered piety.6 McCullough noted that Laud and Buckeridge set up the presentation of Andrewess sermons to mirror the works of early church fathers. One of the most noted fathers in Andrewess homilies, even though he was a pope was Gregory the Great, whose ninety-six sermons were presented in a collection. Gregory th e Great was the first to defend images against the criticism of his day. He argued that images we re orthodox and legal. Gregory maintained that images were essential in the education and edific ation of the church members, an obvious fact that Laud, Buckeridge, and Andrewes also endorsed, as well as Charles. It is at the very least a remarkable coincidence that Laud and Bucker idge, acting as the official publishers of Andrewess works, settled on the exact same number of sermons included in this edition, ninetysix, as in Gregory the Greats set of sermons.7 The majority of the sermons in Lauds editi on of Andrewess homilies are set to liturgical feasts, just as Gregorys epistles and sermons were. These sermons insisted on the importance of outward observance of religious custom s in the cycle of feasts and fasts.8 Clearly, the Church of England, was shaped in the 1620s and 1630s, to l ook more and more like the church that the godly saw as the Whore of Babylon,--Rome. Evidence suggests that minister s, such as Alexander Read a nd Bishop Robert Skinner, (the bishop of Bristol), used this work just as Laud and Buckeridge intended. Skinner would go so far as to suggest a reading list of orthodox works for his clergy. Read and Skinner were fulfilling 6 Peter McCullough, Making Dead Men Speak: Laudianism, Print, and the Works of Lancelot Andrewes, 1626-1642, The Historical Journal 42, no. 2 (1998): 412-413. 7 Peter McCullough, 413-414. 8 Peter McCullough, 414.

PAGE 346

346 Laud and Buckeridges stated hopes for public use of XCVI sermons The Andrewes sermons were to serve a pedagogical function as mode ls for imitation by the nations preachers.9 This was an act of canonization, nicely captured not only in Bishop Skinners reading list, but also by Charles Is commendation of three books to his children on the eve of his execution: Hookers Laws Lauds Conference with Fisher and Andrewess XCVI sermons .10 Though Charles allowed Lauds head to fall, by his recommenda tion of Lauds works at his own end, it appears that Charles was repentant over the deat h of his old friend and co-religionist. McCullough wrote: The endorsement of authors that smell of th e lamp of Antiquity articulated a crucial aspect of Andrewess thought that became a ground-base of Laudian churchmanship: the concern to limit interpretation of both Gods word and the churchs laws to a highly educated ecclesiastical elite whose own guides were patristic divinity and church custom.11 Other preachers at the time who took the Laudian tack were Thomas Lawrence, master of Balliol College, Oxford, and Edward Boughen, a rector in Kent. Both presciently realized that a completely f ree laity would be the undoing of any real church in England. They recognized the threat that sectariani sm posed to the Crown and to the church. Boughen preached a sermon in 1630 at Pauls Cr oss, a site that would be a center of iconoclasm during the Civil War. This sermon stated: We must not presently appeal to the Script ures, nor make our tryall by themsince in and by them onely the victory will bee none, or ve ry uncertain there be many in the world, 9 Peter McCullough, 415. 10 Reliquiae sacrae Carolina. Or the works of that great monarch and glorious martyr King Charles the I. Collected together, and digested in order, according to their several subjects, civil and sacred. The contents appear in the ensuing pages ( Hague and London: Printed by Samuel Browne for R. Royston, 1657), 88. 11 Peter McCullough, 416.

PAGE 347

347 that never saluted either Vniversity, and have no tongue, but what their mothers taught them, that hold the Scripture every mans profe ssionally. But this is well knowen to be the Anabapitsticall tenet, and is the way to banish all learning out of the Church12 Conservative religion began to doubt a church built on Sola Scriptura without reasoned learning and tradition. The Development of a Ceremonial Royal Religion Historians credit or demonize Charles for the Arminian takeover of the Church of England.13 However much of the rise of the Arminian party must be credited to James I. Whatever his own personal opinions were about religion, it is undisput able that James was favorable to the Arminian party at the end of his reign. The anti-Calvinists and Arminians were useful because they were proponents of strong monarchical government. James first appointed these anti-Calvinists and Charles elevated them.14 Peter Sharpe argued th at Charles took the words and the writings of James I literally, even though this text was from the literary tradition of the speculum principis James left the Basilikon Doron as my testament and your counselor, urging his son to keep it by him as had Alexander the Iliad of Homer.15 In Basilikon Doron James enjoins the prince to be a loving nourishing father to the Church, to be a benefactor to the ministry and to punish the enemies of the churchthe Puritansin case they 12 Edward Boughen, Tvvo sermons the first, preached at Canterbury, at the visitation of the Lord Archbishops peculiars, in Saint Margarets Church, April 14, 1635: the second, preached at Saint Paul's Cr osse, the eighteenth of April, 1630 / by Edward Boughen (London: Printed by R.B., 1635), 25-27. 13 For this opinion, look to Nicholas Tyack, Conrad Russell, and Peter White. 14 Sheila Lambert, Richard Montag ue, Arminianism and Censorship, Past and Present No. 124 (1989), 38. 15 Kevin Sharpe, Private Conscience and Pub lic Duty in the Writings of Charles I, The Historical Journal 40, no. 3 (1997): 643-665.

PAGE 348

348 refuse to obey the law.16 Charles took this admonition to heart as his demand for church discipline. Charles supported bishops, such as the Archbishop of York, Matthew Wren, who praised Charles as a protector of the church.17 In his own writings, Charles continued this theme of fatherly advice to his son: The chiefest duty of a King is to main tain the true religion.18 Basilikon Doron also called upon Charles to fulfill his obligation to work for Gods cause.19 For all their differences in style--C harles a strict and reserved man and James an open and bawdy fellow--Charles often followed his fathers advice in the words and works James left to him to complete.20 The influence of his father is expressed in Charless championing of Absolutism as expressed throughout Basilikon Doron. As the initial theological underpinning of E nglish reform, Calvinism guided and instructed much of the iconoclasm of Henry, the extremity of the iconoclasm of Edward VI, and the periodic destruction of religious images in the Elizabethan age. English Protestantism, until the Stuarts, had a mistrust of images. As the Chur ch of England moved between two poles, Calvins view of Protestantism and its pre-Reformation Catholic tradition, anti-Calvinists and Arminians like Laud tapped into earlier curre nts of thought. They c ontemporaneously, along with Roman Catholics, expre ssed evolving currents about images and ceremony. These bishops laid claim to the pre-Reformation political in fluence and sacerdotal o ffice that the clergy had 16 Kevin Sharpe, Private Conscience .. 17 Kevin Sharpe, Private Conscience . 645. 18 J. O. Halliwell-Phillips, Letters of the Kings of England, now first collected from the originals in royal archives, and from other authentic sources, private as well as public (London, H. Colburn, 1846) vol. 2, 417. 19 Johann Sommerville Basilikon Doron, 54. 20 Kevin Sharpe, Private Conscience . 647.

PAGE 349

349 enjoyed during the Catholic period. Theological cu rrents like these aligned the direction of the English Church under Charles and his chosen religi ous leaders toward Cat holic aesthetics in use and taste in art and architecture. Late Ja cobean and Caroline prel ates supported a program that would dignify churches again with prope r decoration, including re ligious statuary and paintings of religious scenes. These attitudes were completely contrary to a Puritan understanding of the use of art. Articles of Indictment were laid before the Archbi shop of York against six learned clerks of the cathedral church of Durham because of their popery. Inveigled and begiled, by your popish baits and allurements of glorious pictures, and Babalonish vesturs, a nd excessive number of wax-ca ndles burning at one tyme, and especially the horrible profanation of both the sacram ents with all manner of musick, both instromentall and vocall, so lowed that the Ministers could not be heard, what they said, as if Becchanalia, the feasts of Bacchus, or the AEgiptians Isis, or the Phrygian Cybele, cum multifloris tibias, et crepitanibus sistris; with fluits, and bag-pipes; with tymbrells and tabors, and not the Death and Passion of our Saviour Christ were celebrated.21 At the heart of these accusations was John Cosin, then canon, and later bishop of Durham after the Restoration. On ordination, Co sin was secretary to Bishop Overall of Litchfield, and then chaplain to Richard Neile, Bishop of Durham. In 1627, Cosin published a Collection of Private Devotions. It was prepared at the command of Charles for the use of Queen Henrietta Marias maids of honor. This book, along with his insisten ce on ritual in the cathedral church and his friendship with William Laud, exposed Cosin to the hostility of the Puritans. Collections of Private Devotions was criticized by William Prynne and Henry Burton for its popery. In 1628, Cosin took part in the pros ecution of a prebendary, Peter Smart, for a 21George Ornsby, ed., The Correspondence of John Cosin, D.D., Lord Bishop of Durham: Together with Other Papers Illust rative of his Life and Times. Parts I-II, (Durham, London and Edinburgh: Surtees Society, 1872) 52, 55.

PAGE 350

350 sermon Smart preached against high-church practices. Smart wa s deprived of his benefices. Smart took his revenge at the begi nning of the Civil War and peti tioned for redress. In early 1641, Cosin was sequestered from his benefices. Ar ticles of impeachment were presented against him two months later for sending the university plate to the king in support of the royal cause. The treatment of Cosin is a prime exampl e of the hostility the Laudian liturgical movement drew from Puritans and other di ssenters. Arminians and anti-Calvinists like Andrewes, Laud, Wren, Cosin, King Charles, and other like-minded clergy and bishops attempted what some historians have called the Arminian Counter-Reformation.22 They were at the center of a movement that thought the Reformation had gone too far. The Arminians and conservatives differed from the Puritans in the essential quality of the church: Where is the church located? What were its historical root s? How does one express faith? How should the power of the church be expressed in society in general? They thought that the church should be part of the state apparatus, as the Stuarts a nd other contemporary thinke rs did, and as did many Catholic anti-Machiavellians. Basic theological disagreements between th e Puritans and conservative Arminians and anti-Calvinists were central in disagreements about the use of art to express religious and religiously political concepts. Could creative effort reflect and join in creation in the works of art done to image the spiritual world? Could art be used to show the relationship between divine kingship and those who were governed? The answ er to these questions for Charles, the 22 Graham Parry, The Arts of the Anglican Counter-Reformation: Glory, Laud and Honour (Woodbridge: Boydell and Brewer, 2006). Pa rrys theme was the zeal with which Laudians sought to create an appropriately splend id setting in which to worship God. For the anti-Calvinists, the Puritans were wrong to ha ve swept away the material magnificence of the medieval English Church in the mistaken belief that they were cleansing it of pernicious popery. Also, for the notion of an Arminian C ounter-Reformation, see Hugh Trevor-Ropers From Counter-Reformation to Glorious Revolution.

PAGE 351

351 Arminians, and anti-Calvinists was a resounding yes. Most Puritans (with a few exceptions) would answer no, as had Calvin. For anti-Calvinists, the for m of the church was essent ial. Bishops, the Eucharist, sacraments, art, music, and celebration were as important in this C ounter-Reformation mindset as scripture. If the church was to be of service to the state, then order, obedience to authority, and conforming to the legal and spiritual norms of th e church were paramount. This form of church was rejected as unacceptable to Puritanism as onl y half-reformed or worse, veiled popery. The power of the Puritan religion lay in its spiritual emphasis and the Bible. The inner man was what it sought. It was a bout the recovery and recognition of Gods Elect, not about an outward observance of ritual or of conform ity. Radical Puritans and even many conforming Calvinists saw high-church qualitie s as worldly at best or popery at worst. The rituals and even the remaining sacraments of baptism and the Eu charist had no power to save or truly produce any real change in the believer. Election was solely a gift. Calvinism, with its essential importance on the preaching of the word, was in di rect competition with the more conservative philosophy that once again argued for outward observance. Arminianism argued for care of the dilapidated churches, for a beauty in worship, and a sincere love of the created material order. Celebration, in its fullest meaning, described th e essence of the Arminian and anti-Calvinist viewpoint while reluctance or reserv ation was the view of Calvinism. The Calvinist grip on the church for most of Jamess reign resulted in Arminians defining themselves against Calvinism. This redefinition led to frequent confrontations over ceremonies and clerical vestments, as well as church d ecoration and ecclesial government. The Archbishop of York, Richard Neile, and Laud began to make significant changes by moving communion

PAGE 352

352 tables back to altar positions, introducing decorative sacramental props, such as communion chalices, at St. Johns College, Oxford, and adding previously out-of-favor Christian art.23 Re-legitimization of religious imagery in England mirrored the powerful Catholic Counter-Reformation tide. But Pu ritans assiduously avoided images. Diaries, pamphlets, and sermons rarely included visual detail, and medita tion on images was anathema in Puritan circles. The Catholic Church actively encouraged the deve lopment of images as aids to piety, religious growth, and right rule. Laud, in a similar way, argued that the sensual experience could play an essential role in the conversion of the soul and the reception of grace.24 Nobility began to build chapels with this in mind. Lord Maynart at Easton Lodge built a chapel with a glass picture of Christs crucifixion. In addition, as noted in the previous chapter, such notables as Lord Cecil built chapels that could easily accommodate the needs of a Catholic mass. Spiritual symbolism began to reappear in p ublic locations, such as tombs, parish churches, and chapels. Arminianisms aesthetics moved in to the universities, demonstrated by sermons, such as one preached by William Lucy at Cambridge in 1622.25 Lucy championed these antiCalvinist ideas. A second impetus for the conservative move ment by Charles and Laud had an important rationale, Christian unity, as reflec ted in their interest in one of the great dreams of James I. For Charles and Laud, history, precedent, and church di scipline were the logical path to any real 23 Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism 1590-1640 71, 116-18. Neile had also been Robe rt Cecils chaplain and went on to become the organizing genius of English Arminianism (Tyacke, 12). 24 R. Malcolm Smuts, Court Culture and the Origins of the Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart England 229, 234. H. Outram Evenett, The Sprit of the Counter-Reformation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 47-49. 25 Nicholas Tyacke, 46-47.

PAGE 353

353 Christian unity. W. J. Tighe noted in his study th at Lauds own condition for a true church had to be one with an apostolic succession, not an evangelical one. In other words, most Protestant churches were not true churches in Lauds view unless legitima te bishops were installed and ruling these churches. Lack of bishops would explain why Laud did not work harder for union with the Dutch, Germans, and others who had ab andoned the traditional episcopate. They were more open to the Swedish Lutherans and Galician Catholics who, in his view, maintained a true episcopal succession.26 Charles demonstrated his conservative em pathy with anti-Calvinism well before his accession to the throne The demise of Calvinism as the centr al polity in the English Church was predictable with the promoti on of men such as Wren and Laud. Mathew Wren and other Arminians accompanied Charles to Spain for his marriage negotiations in 1623. Charles elevated Wren. Charles chose Laud to preach at the op ening of Parliament in 1625 and 1626. Laud drew up the coronation service in February 1626. According to Tyacke and Lockyer, the main Calvinist element was excluded from most of the committees appointed early on in Charless reign because Archbishop Abbot was virtually cut off from ecclesiastical jurisdiction in 1627.27 Charles perceived the Calvinists as obstructio nists to his religious and political policies. The Stuart vision of kingship and Arminian isms Counter-Reformation attitude suited one another. Charless support of the ecclesiastical in novation of Laud and Lauds active defense of divine-right kingship were symbio tic. The idea that royal preroga tive was derived from eternal principles was supported mainly by anti-Calvinis ts. Absolutisms ecclesial supporters dismissed 26 W. J. Tighe, William Laud and the Reunion of the Churches: Some Evidence from 1637 and 1638, The Historical Journal vol. 30, no. 3 (1987), 719-721. 27 Roger Lockyer, The Early Stuarts: A Political History of England 1603-1642, 311 and Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism 1590-1640 8, 166-167.

PAGE 354

354 as blasphemous arguments that kingship was purely historical rather than divinely inspired. This attitude served both James and Charless purposes.28 Smuts wrote: In the 1620s and 1630s, the courts Arminian theology and sensual approach to religious mysteries began to color the political theology of l oyalist clergy, who tr eated the king, in a very literal way, as the living image of God on earth. The splendor of his court, the reverence accorded him, and the majesty of his authority all became part of a distinctive spirituality.29 James himself had once said before parliament that Kings are justly called Gods for they exercise a manner of resemblance of Divine power upon earth: if you will c onsider the attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a king.30 The Stuarts used art to explain the relationship between the ruler and the divine already expr essed in language. Contemporary churchmen, including many of the bishops, including Matthew Wren, preached sermons that emphasized the lofty status of the monarchy. If any man say I fear God and feareth not the King, he is a liar. It is impossible for hi m that feareth not the King, whom he hath seen, to fear God, whom he hath not seen. Because the Image of Godis upon Kings.31 It was not difficult for Charles to take such preaching seriously. He welcomed such rhetoric, and interpreted it by ha ving it rendered in painting, sculpture, and building to glorify his own majesty, as well as his divi ne wife. Under Charles, the powe r of kings and visual splendor became almost indistinguishable. 28 Johann P. Sommerville, Politics and Ideology in England, 1603-1640 455 and R. Malcolm Smuts, Court Culture and the Origins of the Royalist Tradition in Early Stuart England, 231-33. 29 R. Malcolm Smuts, 230. 30 Charles Howard McIlwain, ed., The Political Works of James I (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1918), 307. 31 Matthew Wren, A Sermon Preached Before His Majesty (Cambridge, 1627), p. 25, cited by R. Malcolm Smuts, 325.

PAGE 355

355 For a time, Catholicism in England was to benefit from the conservative nature of Laudianism. Catholics feared a clampdown on th eir religious freedoms because of the initial policies of Charles during the in fluence of Buckingham. But they indeed prospered as attitudes toward Spain relaxed around 1630. Even during the initial war-like qualities of the Caroline period with its initial zest for Protestant zeal in the Thirty Years War, Charles appointed Catholics and crypto-Catho lics to power. This lax attitude to ward Catholicism fueled Calvinist suspicions of a Catholic conspiracy, especially with increased toleration of Catholics, which was a hallmark of his reign.32 Francis Cottington was an example of this attitude. He was secretary to Charles as Prince of Wales and later was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Cottington was sympathetic to Catholic activity at court.33 Henrietta Maria also proved central to Catholic court activity by including a Catholic ecclesiastical hierarchy with a Catholic bishop. By the 1630s, Catholicism had become fashionable at court. So was the popes envoy. No t since the days of Mary Tudor had a papal envoy been so welcome at an English court.34 The attitude of Charles on art, church polity, and royal pretensions also facilitated Catholic influence. As with James, Charles also hoped fo r the reunion of churches. Some of the most important bishops and clergy of the court openly preached for reconciliation with Catholicism. Laud and Wren introduced Catholic devotional practices into th e Chapel Royal. Fears were elevated among many committed Calvinis ts that the king would convert. 32 Roger Lockyer, 25-26. 33 Conrad Russell, The Crisis of Parliaments: English History 1590-1660 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1971, reprint 1984), 310-311. 34 Roger Lockyer, 297-298 and R. Malcolm Smuts, 226-227.

PAGE 356

356 Many feared that Charles would follow the pa th of the French King Henry IV, conversion to Rome. Marie de Medici, Henry s wife, helped to stabilize hi s conversion. English Protestant fears centered on Maries daughter Henrietta Maria and the obvi ous pressure she maintained toward that end. In this framework of quasi-tolera tion of Catholic art, ritual, and attitudes, one can easily understand the Calvinists distress. The St uarts religious policy ga ve signals that were confusing to many. Calvinists who did not accept th e Stuart notion of the union of politics and religion saw popery afoot. This was one of the rallying cries expressed by the parliamentarians in the Civil War. The art commissioned by Char les was even more proof for their fears. Henrietta Marias Artistic Influence on Charles I Charles loved everything Ita lian, especially his half-Italian wife. His relationship with his wife was used to advantage by those around him to gain favor through gifts of Italian artworks. Those who treated the queen well gained access to Charles through her. The queen, as a devout Roman Catholic, was naturally fond of paintings, but especially of religious paintings. She was involved in establishing in London most major ar tists connected to th e regime, including Van Dyck, Rubens, Orazio Gentileschi, and his daughter Artemisia.35 Henrietta Maria was familiar with Gentileschi because he worked for her mother in Paris for two years.36 In 1626, the Pisan-born painter and major intern ational figure, Orazio Gentileschi, came to London. Gentileschi was one of the major interpreters of Caravaggi os style of tenebrism. His painting, The Finding of Moses (A-88), was another of the religious works commissioned by 35 Oliver Millar, The Age of Charles I: Painting in England 1620-1649 (London: Balding and Mansell Ltd., 1972), 60. 36 Oliver Millar, 60. 37 Oliver Millar, 60.

PAGE 357

357 Charles. Guido Reni, who merged the Baroque with Baroque Classicism, in fluenced it. It is a prime example of the Catholic aesthetic in religi ous-themed art at the court. This work shows the drama of the discovery of Moses by the daughter of the king of Egypt. The figures, bathed in light, are in stark contrast to a dark and subdued background. This muted tenebrism allows for a more emotional rendition, clarity, and illumination of the story. Besides religious commissions for the king, Gentileschi was one of the major history painters to be employed. His daughter also became involved in these hist ory paintings and allegories. By 1638, Artemisia was in residence at th e court of Charles and Henrietta Maria. Artemisia served the king for two or three years, and for the first time in seventeen years, she worked with her father. She was in England to collaborate with her father in painting the ceiling of Queens House at Greenwic h. The Gentiles chi duo painted Allegory of Peace and the Arts under the English Crown (A-89) to express Charless patron age and control of the arts during his reign. The arts come alive as classical muses in this allego ry, each with responsibility for their own discipline. The roya l couple continued to pre ss for more Italian works. Papal Flirtation with England When Maffeo Barberini was elected Pope Urban VIII in 1623, and after Charless marriage to Henrietta Maria two years later, effo rts were made by Cardinal Francesco Barberini, the popes nephew, to charm Engla nd back into the Catholic fold.37 Negotiations were carried out by the papal agent in London unde r the auspices of conversations about art and the exchange of presents of pictures and ot her import artifacts from Italy. Ev entually this diplomacy led to gifts from the papacy. One of the most famous groups of paintings exchanged was A group of pictures, which was sent to the king and queen in 1635, [including] works by Albani, Turchi,

PAGE 358

358 Stella and possibly Romanelli.38 Such exchanges of culture and artworks delighted Charles. Subtle negotiations as these were to ma ke England friendlier toward Catholicism. The attitude toward the old religion was so ftening. Charless tolerance of the queen allowed her to install a fully developed Baroque setting for the mass for the first time in England in the late 1620s. This influenced and reinforced the Arminian drift toward Catholic ideals in the English Church. Catholic artwork was displayed bl atantly in chapels and royal residences for the first time since Mary Tudor. Cardinal Barberini helped Henrietta Maria receive religious commissions from Guido Reni. Barberini also authorized Be rnini to carve the magnificent marble bust of Charles to the queen and kings delight.39 These fruitful, cordial connections between Whitehall and the Vatican were important f actors in the broadsheet attacks of Puritans such as William Prynne. William Prynne (1600-1669) was a seventeenth-c entury English author, polemicist, and political figure. He was a prominent Puritan opp onent of the church policy of William Laud. As with many Puritans, he was strongly opposed to stage plays and he included in his Histriomastix (1632) a denunciation of actresses. This was widely seen as an attack on Queen Henrietta Maria. Prynne also verbally attacked the papal nuncio for his attempts to corrupt the chief men at court and to seduce the king himself with pictures, an tiquities, images, and other vanities brought from Rome.40 The Star Chamber in 1633 tried Prynne and sentenced him to imprisonment, a 5000 fine, and the removal of parts of his ears. He continued his ac tivities from prison. 38 Oliver Millar, 60. 39 Oliver Millar, 60. 40 Michael. Levey, The Later Italian Pictures in th e Collection of H. M. The Queen (London: Phaidon, 1964), 10-19.

PAGE 359

359 In 1637, Prynne and cohorts John Bastwick a nd Henry Burton were sentenced to have their ears removed. They were branded with the lett ers S L (seditious libeller). Prynne wrote that in fact these letters stood for stigmata Laudis (marks of Laud). Released by the Long Parliament in 1640, Prynne was one of the major ini tiators of the parliament ary cause in the Civil War. He oversaw the trial of William Laud, whic h eventually ended in Lauds execution. In the rapidly shifting climate of opinion of the time, Prynne, was at the forefront of radical opposition. He found himself a conservative figure, defendi ng Presbyterianism against the Independents favored by Oliver Cromwell and the army. He fell from favor and was expelled from Parliament in 1648 during Prides Purge. Prynne and others detested Henrietta Maria for achieving a greater place for the arts in English life, for her moderating effect on Charles, and particularly for her Catholicism. This moderation was exemplified in one the most im portant policies for Charles in the late 1620s, peace with Spain. On June 6, 1629, Peter Paul Rubens attended an audience at the queens residence at Greenwich with Charles.41 At this Catholic site with a Catholic envoy, negotiations were made easier. Charles used the queens re sidences to meet Catholic diplomats in a friendlier atmosphere. Charles used his wifes Catholicism as a m eans to help smooth relationships with the ambassador of Archduchess Isabella and her ne phew, the King of Spain. Rubens, the astute diplomat, and Charles, who preferred peace to wa r as his father had, successfully negotiated a treaty within a few months. The peace was proclaimed on 15 December 1629. In the patent which Charles I sent over to Rubens he praised his skill in restoring good understanding between 41 Oliver Millar, 37.

PAGE 360

360 the two kingdoms42 and at Whitehall on March 3, 1630, the king knighted Rubens. With peace restored between England and Spain, Rubens was av ailable to work on the most important Stuart propaganda piece, the Banqueting House ceiling. This project was suggested to Rubens in the early 1620s. However, with the conflict existing then between Rubenss masters and the English, this project had not been possible. One of the most hospitable atmospheres for visiting Catholic delega tions were the three chapels given to Henrietta Maria for her personal use and for he r entourage. Court members saw the queens increasing influence, which may expl ain the number of important Catholic converts from the aristocracy during 1630s. In addition, the obvious conservative movement of the English Church was to blame for the fuzzy lines between confessions at court. Charles and Laud were most assuredly supporters of the English Church, but they consis tently moved it toward Catholic imagery in art and ceremony. This move ment was counter to what was occurring in most Protestant churches outside of England. Protestantism continued to move in a differe nt direction in Europe. It downplayed the importance of art, clergy, order, and obedience to superiors, as England moved in the opposite direction. Many Protestants were concerned with the recent ga ins Catholicism had made in France, Poland, and parts of southern Germany, and Eastern Europe. To some, it looked as if England was readied once again (as it had during the time of Mary Tudor) for a radical religious shift back to Rome. The great fanfare and money spent on Henriettas chapels seemed to confirm this shift. In addition, the change in the Chapel Royal gave this impression. 42 Oliver Millar, 37.

PAGE 361

361 Historians have recognized the central impor tance of the Chapel Royal as a template for the Church of England.43 From 1619 until the death of Charles in 1649, James and Charles developed the chapel architectur ally and liturgically according to a vision of ceremonious Anglicanism. These changes became confused and entwined with the liturg ical and architectural changes championed by a Catholic queen consort. In the minds of the godly opponents of the Stuart regime, royal chapels thus became a powerful symbol of popery and target for destruction.44 From 1619 until the end of Charless pe rsonal rule, there was a not so subtle change occurred in the structure and functions of the Chapel Royal, such as the reordering of ecclesiastical space, the so-called beauty of Holiness. Liturgy and mu sical settings were integrated into the functions surrounding the monarchy. Royal Deans, beginning with Lancelot Andrewes, began a series of changes. The cap ital also was being ordered and beautified. Though the beautificatio n in London started by James may have been due to the desire to present a splendid front for the intended marriage of his son to a Spanish princess, this does not explain the concurrent expansion of a wider program of the same attitude in Scotland. This movement in Jamess other kingdom proclaimed his support of ceremonious Anglicanism as more than merely a show for a future prin cess in London. In Scotland in 1617, James had plans for improvements of the chapels at Edinburgh Ca stle at Holyroodhouse. They included works done in England by Nicholas Stone and the painte r Matthew Goodrich done in the English style 43 Simon Thurley, The Stuart Kings, Oliver Cromwell and the Chapel Royal 16181685, Architectural History 45 (2002): 238. 44 Simon Thurley, 238.

PAGE 362

362 with figures of saints and apostles for the roya l closet. In addition, a glorious altar was set up with Bibles, candles, and a new organ so that the English service could be said daily.45 As noted earlier, even though the Spanish ma tch failed, it did produce two new chapels for Roman Catholic worship, Somerset House and St. James, both created from 1623 to 1625. The chapel at St. James was a double cube without transepts, and it incor porated a first floor closet or royal pew at the west end. This chap el fit the faith of Charles, as well as that of his bride. Unlike Jamess faith, which was founded on theological underpinnings and disputation, Charless faith was founded on devotions and on the proper orde ring of the place of worship, along with the ceremonialist notions found in the beauty of holiness.46 As with his father, Charles also ordered embellishment to his chapels in Scotland. For his Scottish coronation, Charles saw to the renovation of his Scottish chapels. This was to satisfy his own needs and to set an example for his subjects. The coronation in 1633 took place in the Abbey at Holyroodhouse, which was repaired, redecorated, and set like an English Church with the altar in the east end. It was set in front of a tapestry depicting a crucifix. The Ar chbishop of St. Andrews presided in accordance with the Anglican rite. To the dismay of his Scottish subjects, he left Edinburgh and moved to Falklands, where the chapel was set up according th e practice of the English Church. This move left little doubt in the minds of his Scottish subjects about his religi ous preferences or which direction he was taking hi s religious settlement.47 45 Simon Thurley, 241. 46 Kenneth Fincham, ed., The Early Stuart Church 1603-42 (London, 1993), 161-165. 47 Deborah Howard, The Architectural History of Scotland (Edinburgh, 1995), 42-43. Also, see Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I, 778-81.

PAGE 363

363 In the Chapel Royal, bowing to the altar wa s encouraged, crucifixes were set up for holy week, and altars in the east e nd of the chapel replaced comm union tables. The king began to attend and take part in the liturgies rather than gathering at sermon time as in the Elizabethan and most of the Jacobean period. Music became prominent again in worship. As with Matthew Wren, Laud, and others, Charles saw these innovations as the re -establishment of the true Elizabethan settlement. For them, the canons of 1640 continued the preservation of rituals, which were preserved from time immemorial in the true catholic church an d within the Chapels Royal.48 Unfortunately, the iconoclasm of the Co mmonwealth swept away the chance to visualize the majesty of the la te Caroline royal chapels. Some evidence does remain of this movement toward image, toward visual culture during the reign of Charles. The chapel at Peterhouse, Cambridge, was constructed between 1628 and 1632 while Matthew Wren was Master there. The beauty of holiness was seen here in a magnificent marble frontispiece for the altar. Windows were filled with painted glass and frescoes were added. Two London churches of this period stand out as examples of royal and Laudian tastes proclaimed in parish churches. St Giles-in-the-fields (1628 -31) and St. Katharine Cree in London, constructed during the same period and whose embellishment survives, were lavishly decorated (Figure 6-1). The research of John Newman and Julia Merritt demonstrated that the royal chapels were not is olated beautifications. These aut hors identified a shift in parish church building and beautification during this brief period.49 48 Julian Davies, The Caroline Captivity of the Chur ch: Charles I and the Remolding of Anglicanism 1625-1641 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992), 20. 49 For a complete study of these buildings see John Newman, Laudian Literature and the Interpretation of Carolin e Church in London, in Art and Patronage in the Caroline Courts. Essays in Honor of Sir Oliver Miller ed. David Howarth (Cambri dge, 1993) and J. F. Merritt,

PAGE 364

364 St. Katharine is a category by itself. Built in the brief period wh en Laud was bishop of London, it was a restoration and en richment of the depredations of the Tudor Reform. Laud consecrated the church on 31 January 1631. His gr eat enemy Prynne recorded this with derision. Like the Chapel Royal--the private chapel of a royal consort--the queens chapel at Somerset House was a building of enormous liturgical a nd architectural signifi cance. The tastes of Henrietta Maria were expressed in her chapels. The similarities to Laudian taste and the emerging Catholic presence should not be underestimated. Catholic chapels, such as Somerset Hous e designed by Jones in 1632, the chapel at St. James (A-71), and an oratory at Whitehall, we re splendid. We have a notion of how these chapels were fitted out in an engraving made during the restoration (A-90). These chapels were not only popular with Catholics but were frequented by high-c hurch Anglicans. Guaranteed freedom of worship in her own chapel by treat y, Henrietta Maria set the standard for royal chapels, both architecturally and liturgically. In all these chapels, altars and rails were provided in lavish marble or gilded wood, were repainted with her arms and badges. The Somerset chapel had transepts with radiating chapels. The first mass there was a spectacle not seen in England for nearly a cen tury, and it was deliberat ely designed to impress the court. It set a standard. Charles visited these chapels more than once, which could have done nothing positive for his reputation among the godly. Pere Cyprian Gamache, a Capuchin monk, part of the household of the queen, descri bed the chapel at the east end of Somerset House. He related what the worshiper experienced. A paradise of glory, about 40 feet in hei ght. There was a great arch, supported by two pillars, about 5-1/2 feet from the two side walls of the chapel. The spaces between the Puritans, Laudians and the phenomenon of Church Building in Jacobean England, Historical Journal 41(4) (1998): 935-960.

PAGE 365

365 pillars and the wall served for passages between the sacristy and the altar, and the choir, with the organ and other instruments, was on either side over these vacant places. The altar stood outside the arch, and there were si x steps leading up to it. Behind the altar was a dove holding the Blessed Sacrament, and forming the centre of a series of separate oval frames painted with angels seated on clouds, most ingeniously contri ved, with the aid of perspective hidden lights, so to deceive the eye and to produce the illusion of a considerable space occupied by a great number of figures. There were seven of these ovalsover the outer and large ones consisting of angels playing on musical instruments, the central ones of angels vested as d eacons, and carrying censo rs, and the inner ones with child angels in various attitudes of devotion. Immediately round the dove were cherubim and seraphim in glory, surrounded by rays of light.50 Franois Dieussart designed this splendor of Baroque art for wo rship of the Eucharist and for amazement. Dieussart hid the heavenly hos t on clouds behind a curtain. When the congregation entered at the cruc ial moment, he drew the curtai ns aside. Reputedly, the queen wept with joy and Charles was so fascinated th at he spent an hour and a half looking over the mysteries after Mass.51 It was the best of the Baroque in its clarity, its emotion, and its ability to make an impact on the viewer and engage the worshiper. Charles was indeed one of the most impressed. In the works of the 1630s, he tried to emulate this Catho lic splendor. It was a splendor of order, dignit y, and classical beauty. The queens chapel and household were considered centers for the hope of English Catholics and fear of Purita ns. The chapel was a magnet fo r Catholic worshippers. This scandalized some at court. Some authors s uggested it also scandalized the king and Laud. 50Joanna H. Harting, Catholic London Missions from th e Reformation to the Year 1850 (London: Sands, 1903), 9. 51 Thomas Birch, The Court and times of Charles the First illustrated by authentic and confidential letters, from va rious public and private collectio ns; including Memoirs of the mission in England of the Capuchin friars in the service of Queen Henrietta Maria. By Cyprien de Gamache, Capuchin Preacher and Missionary to the Queen edited, with an introduction and notes, by the author of Memoi rs of Sophia Dorothea, Consort of George I, The court and times of James I (London: H. Colburn, 1848), 311-14. Also see M. Whinney, Sculpture in Britain 1530-1830 (Harmondsworth, 1964), 37-38.

PAGE 366

366 Perhaps the enthusiasm of the Catholics did, but no evidence indicates that the decorations bothered them. There were unsuccessful attempts to curtail attendance at the queens chapel. However, these seem to have been halfhearted attempts considering the number of high-profile conversions to Catholicis m in the queens circle.52 For many at court, it was difficult to distinguish between works for the queen, the ki ngs adornment of his own chapels, and Lauds substantial resolve to re-order the parishes of England. Search for Order in Court Life At the beginning of his reign, Charles moved quickly to change the informality and disarray, which was a hallmark of the less formal court of James. Henrie tta, with her formal French/Italian upbringing, was instrumental for the importation of propriety. As in France and Spain, Charles ordered stricter access in the court to his royal presence. This stricter access was something he saw at the Spanish court and at He nrietta Marias court in Paris. The Venetian ambassador noted that Charles obs erves a rule of great decorum.53 He made it clear that he was not to be pestered. Charles va lued his privacy and barred most from some of the innermost rooms of the palace to instill decency fit for a king. Charles was trying to turn a new page at court. It was one with a new emphasis and a tone of order, formality, and decorum.54 This meant a change in the palace structure at Whiteha ll. Charles contemplated plans to change the 52 Kevin Sharpe, Personal Rule 304-307. 53 Kevin Sharpe, The Image of Virtue: Th e Court and Household of Charles, 1625-42, in David Starkey, ed., The English Court: From the Wars of the Roses to the Civil War (London, 1987), 228. 54 Kevin Sharpe, 229.

PAGE 367

367 physical environs by rebuilding the palace along more rational, classical ordered lines.55 Charles also wanted to rebuild the m onarchy and state along these rational lines. The ambassador of Venice reported in hi s correspondence that Charles had drawn up rules for himself, dividing the day from his very early rising, for prayers, exercises, audiences, business, eating and sleeping.56 Charles was not just a personalit y who tried to control himself; he wished to influence others by the example of his personal virtue. Sharpe noted that Charles tried to impose this desirable quality on others In Charless most im portant pursuits, We may discern that striving for, that obsession with ordering was the dominant feature of Charles as man and monarch.57 Though Sharpe denies Charles as an au thoritarian, he admits that he was a believer in Jamess top down vision of absolutism. Order and orders came from above, according to his fathers political thoughts. Reality was expected to conform to theory. This was also the logical continuati on of Jamess political thought. Charles sought to establish a well-regulated court as a shri ne of virtue and decorum.58 He tried to make the court a microcosm of what he wanted his kingdoms to be in the larger macrocosm. Charles wanted a virtuous comm onwealth that was under his paternal and beneficent rule. However, not everyone was ready to make a pilgrimage to the shrine he was building. Charles, obsessed with a world of order, was not always cognizant of the realities on the ground. This is commendable, but it also raised some questions about his ability to live in the 55 Kevin Sharpe, 230. 56 Kevin Sharpe, 228. 57 Kevin Sharpe, Personal Rule 193-194. 58 Kevin Sharpe, The Image of Virtue: Th e Court and Household of Charles, 1625-42, 236.

PAGE 368

368 real world. Sharpe reminded us that Charles s at scrutinizing plans for a place at Whitehall twice the size of the Escorial59 even when he was a prisoner in his own kingdom. The Authority of Images An important illustration of Charless em bracing art for political purpose is Gerrit van Hunthorsts Apollo and Diana of 1628 (A-91). Apollo and Dian a are enthroned at the top left. Apollo has the features of Charles and Diana t hose of Henrietta Maria. Below is Mercury, who introduces the liberal arts, led by Grammar hol ding a book. The two figures who introduce the arts are the Duke and Duchess of Buckingha m. Logic, Rhetoric, Geometry, Astronomy, Arithmetic, and Music banish vices such as I gnorance, Envy and Lust. Th ey flee in the lower left-hand corner before the Virt ues. Charles most assuredly s ought to be a grand patron of all seven arts and thought he could forge the ki ngdom in his cultural revolution through example and what he saw as enlightenment. Charless fondness and promotion of such arts, particularly painting and masques, which increased during his personal rule, received consid erable critique during the early part of his reign. William Prynne used harsh words, going so far as to include Henrietta Maria in the category of women actors, notorious whores.60 Authors such as Peter Lake, Steven Orgel, and Roy Strong recorded even Ben Jonsons reservations about court entertainm ent as being close to idolatry when the focus was on the royal person.61 59 Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule 213. 60 Paul Kleber Monod, The Power of Kings: Monarchy and Religion in Europe 15891715 (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1999), 104. 61 See Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong, Inigo Jones: The Theater of the Stuart Court (Berkeley, 1973) vol. 2, 1-75; R. M. Smuts, 162-168; and Martin Butler, Theater and Crisis, 1632-1642 (Cambridge, 1984), Ch. 5. All these historia ns agree that there was major resentment among the godly in the way that the masques portr ayed the royalty of England as semi-divine.

PAGE 369

369 Charles disregarded these criti ques. Art was to extol the virt ue of the prince and to show his special relationship to the divi ne in the natural order. Masques, then artwork seemed to James and Anne, and also Charles and Henrietta Mari a a natural way to accomplish their goals. These monarchs embraced the divine right of kings; kings hip was at the center of the natural order of their world. The king was a refl ection of God and was the chie f intermediary for the kingdom, nowhere better expressed than in the Banqueting House Cycle. It wa s also central to the artistic vocabulary of the earlier works of the Spanish Cour t, the French Court, and the Italian princely courts. The ideal image of the prince represented hi m as the virtuous hero and father of his people, the image of God. This notion was an integral feature of the Counter-Reformation and the culture of the Baroque.62 Through analysis of the major arti stic commissions of Charles, a Catholic aesthetic permeates much of these works, especially true in scale. Traditionally, English historians argued that these work s were a new kind of Protes tant art and ideology that was innovated by the Stuarts. However, in comparison to other contemporary works and cycles in Catholic countries, the iconography of these work s can be read within the context of earlier Catholic portrayals of kingship or religion. Therefore, their Eng lishness or Protestant character looses some of its novelty. An element of ambiguity shows through thes e works of art. Possibly, this ambiguity was intended to help unite those va rious poles found within Englis h society. This blurring of This was linked with Henrietta Marias Catholicism and the fear of Charles Is imminent conversion to popery. 62 Robert Bireley, The Counter-Reformation Prince: Anti-Machiavellianism or Catholic Statecraft in Early Modern Europe (Chapel Hill and London: The Un iversity of North Carolina Press, 1990), 217.

PAGE 370

370 confessional lines would make sense, as Stuarts claimed to preside over a national church which was a via media both Catholic and Reformed. This am biguity, if successful, would stretch across the spectrums of the Church of England and the English court to embrace perhaps even Catholics. However, the most difficult groups to please were the Pu ritans and separatist groups, who seemed unlikely to be pleased with any artistic program showing compromise with the greater European Catholic culture. Protestant innovation may have been intend ed in these symbols. However, many of the courtiers present, who were indoc trinated with works of art, often perceived these as cryptoCatholic in nature. The great writer Milton was a prime example of the intended audience of these Baroque masterpieces of painting, architec ture, and sculpture. Milton, a member of the minor nobility, rejected these works as anti-Chris tian and popery. These artistic statements had the opposite of their intende d effect if they were anti-Catho lic polemics in that they rallied Protestant critics to the cause of Civil War. This meant that these works either were misunderstood or that the message the monarchy was sending was rejected. In either case, Puritans used works such as the Banqueting House as evidence of the popery of Charles before, during, and after the English Civil War. Banqueting House as a Religious Monum ent: James, the Papacy, and Solomon The English kings were not the first to look back to history to bi blical personages for emulation. Catholic kings and emperors had b een doing this throughout the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Charles V and his son Philip II reju venated the notion of the divine right of kings during this period. Many of the same heroes--al ready celebrated in the Catholic Middle Ages-were used to reinterpret and i nvent a new Protestant history, and they were only slightly repackaged. The English preferred Old Testament kings rather than Catholic heroes, such as Constantine the Great and Charlema gne, yet they used them from time to time. They also looked

PAGE 371

371 back at Britains mythical past in the Roman period and at a genealogy that included the Trojans (just as the genealogies of the Hapsburgs some twenty-five years earlie r). The pre-Reformation and Counter-Reformation Catholic rulers first used the iconography of the English monarchy.63 One such example was Sixtus IV. Sixtus IV, a founder or restorer of important institutions and a major patron of arts and letters, established (or re-established) the Vatican Library and new hospitals and built two of the most important churches in Rome, Santa Maria del Popolo and Santa Maria della Pace. His most important acco mplishment was building his personal chapel, which would become the private chapel of the po pes, the Sistine. In his building schemes, he commissioned such great artists as An tonio Del Pollaiuolo and Sandro Botticelli. The writings of the Old Testament gave the dimensions of the temple. The chapel was shaped as a double cubed space in imita tion of Solomons fabled building.64 Sixtuss connection with a revival of learning and his building sche mes naturally led to a comparison to Solomon as the great builder and reformer of the people of Is rael. According to his co ntemporaries, this was a connection Sixtus relished and encouraged. His importance in the resurrection of Rome was paramount in changing it from a sleepy provincia l city to the center of the Renaissance. His nephew, Pope Julius II, would be the pope to complete the decoration of the Sistine Chapel with the cycle painted by Michelangelo on the ceiling (between 1508 and 1512). 63 As noted in Chapter 2 of this study, the pa pacy, the kings, and the princes of Catholic Europe were far out in front of the English monarc hy in the use of histori cal and biblical persons, places, and images. When it came to claims of em ulation or connection to the most important saint/heroes of English Protestantism, King So lomon, Constantine the Great, and Saint George, England followed the continent. 64 Vittorio Giudici, The Sistine Chapel: Its History and Masterpieces (Milano: Ufficio Vendita Pubbicazioni, 1998), 10.

PAGE 372

372 The Arch of Constantine was painted in the Sistine Chapel in two of the most important scenes from the fresco cycle painted in the 1480s fifty years before the use of similar images in England. From Henry VIII through James and Charles, temporary or permanent arches were constructed to celebrate various events in the monarchs lives. Botticelli used this symbol of Constantine in The Punishment of Korah and in the background of Peruginos Christ Giving the Keys to St. Peter. This triumphal arch alludes to the (fictitious) imperial grant of temporal power by Constantine to the Western church through the auspices of the papacy. Nevertheless, it also celebrates the importance of the first Christian emperor. Sixtus IV illustrated through this remembrance the position of the papacy as a successor of the Old Testament, New Testament, and Roman Empire. His assertion through building and art was a restating of the view that the pope was th e true and legitimate successor to sacred history. Evoking the Temple of Solomon in the dimensi ons of the Sistine and the good government of Constantine helped to illustrate the p opes claim over both church and state. Other popes continued to make this compar ison. This association with Solomon and the papacy would reach its peak during the reign of Pope Urban VIII. Urban, as with many of his predecessors, relished the notion th at the pope was the true successor of princely virtue. After all, the papacy continued to call itsel f the Prince of the Apostles. From early medieval times popes emulated, some more successfully than others, th e notion that they were Solomonic rulers and advocates of learning and reform. It was no accid ent that Gianlorenzo Bernini created several monuments with Solomonic themes during Urba ns papacy. These were constructed throughout the last years of James I, and duri ng and beyond the reign of Charles I. Urban VIII in many ways completed the circle begun by Sixtus IV in the claim to papal pre-eminence and the establishment of papal s upremacy in Italy. Urban was the last pope to

PAGE 373

373 extend the papal territory and the last to build on such a grand scale. Urbans long pontificate from August 1623 through July 1644 was marked w ith spectacular artwork. As the patron of architects and sculptors, the likes of Bernini a nd Borromini, and painters such as Claude Lorrain, Rubens, and Nicholas Poussin, he shaped his image. These artists aggrandized the papacy in general but specifically Urban VIII. His pontificate, which covered twenty-one years of the Thirty Years War, was eventful in that he care d at times more for the enhancement of his family and his personal control of central Italy than about the restorat ion of Catholicism in northern Europe. But he did try through back channe ls to warm up relations with England. Like his contemporary English, French and Spanish monarchs (and the English Parliament), his self-interest of ten trumped wider political and spiritual efforts. Urban fought fellow Catholics just as the Engl ish fought fellow Protestants when it suited political needs. Like James and Charles, Urban worked more for an ad justment of the balance of parties that would best favor his own strength and independence. Also like James and Charles, Urban clearly missed excellent opportunities for reconciliation both in the Catholic Church and in the realm of politics. Because of Urbans cynicism, the papacy was left out of the Tr eaty of Westphalia in 1648. Like Charles, it was to be in art that he ha d a lasting contribution to western culture. He commissioned many theological/political works for St. Peters. The interior was largely finished under Urban. The most important work was the high altar area where Bernini built the magnificent Catholic statement about faith and po litics in the baldacchino over the grave of St. Peter (Figure 6-2). The majority of the themes found in this work derived from the legacy of Constantine and Solomon, but particul arly from the Solomonic Temple.

PAGE 374

374 A major monument had been over the grave of Peter. In the original fourth century church built by Constantine, Both tomb and altar were enshrined in a ciborium of Solomonic columns, so-called because of their lege ndary importation by the emperor65 from the ruins of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem. Accord ing to tradition, these columns a dorned the Holy of Holies, or Tabernacle of the Most High.66 Authentic or not, Solomonic columns have been connected with Christs Passion and the Eucharist since their use during the C onstantinian period. In order to achieve an ae sthetic desirable for the proj ect emphasizing the connection between the papacy and legitimate religion of the past, Bernini imitated the Solomonic columns and greatly magnified them in size. The dark bronze medium highlighted with gilt provides a contrast of bright colors in c ontrast to the cool whites of the marble walls. Bernini used the original columns to embellish works framing the holiest relics in the Vatican collection, such as the Relief of the Holy Lance (Figure 6-3). Berninis work also made further connections to the mission and role of the papacy as successor to the Old Testament, Christ, and the history of Christian antiquity. Work began in the summer of 1624, severa l years before the commission of the Banqueting House paintings by Rubens. News of this work spread throughout Europe because of the scale and the scope of what was intended. The Holy Year of 1625 also helped to spread the importance and rumors of this commission from Urban. The ambitious plans for the main decoration of the Basilica enhanced Berninis reputation, making him a much sought-after superstar. The plans were too momentous to co mplete. Originally, the top was to be crowned 65 Charles Scribner III, Gian Lorenzo Bernini (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., 1991), 70. 66 Charles Scribner III, 70.

PAGE 375

375 with a huge bronze Christ Risen in Majesty But the large figure could not be put into place, as the delicate construction could not hold the enormous weight of such a bronze figure. Berninis program was a symbolic concett o, which would be a tripartite drama for the crossing of Saint Peters. He w ould tell the story of the triumph of Christ and emphasize the true religion preserved in Catholic Rome in the high a ltar of the popes. This drama consisted of the sacrifice on the altar (crucifi x), through his resurre ction (statue), and culminating in his heavenly enthronement as Judge (dome mosaic).67 As the weight of the statute was unsupportable, a globe surmounted by a Latin cross symbolizing Christs ultimate and universal victory substituted as the crowning feature on the baldacchino. Through the power of his symbolic architecture Bernini transferred Jerusalemthe site of both the Jewish Temple and Christian salvationto Rome.68 It appears that Rubens had this same notion a few years later in his design for the Banqueting House. In the ceilin g of the Banqueting House was a transfer of legitimacy in Peter Paul Rubenss allegory of Ja mes I as Solomon and as a New Constantine, a spiritual and temporal ruler of a renewed British Empire. Like Urban and Bernini before him, Charles and Rubens made a singular dynastic st atement about the divine nature of Stuart kingship through the expression s of Rubenss canvasses. Charles and Urban used these same symbols of virtuous and divinely installed rulership for the same reasons: legitimacy, virtue, and tr ue religion. However, it is clear that Latin Catholicism used Constantine a nd Solomon extensively in the past and continuously throughout the Renaissance and Baroque. Rubens also used the vocabulary of Baroque Catholic art in the Banqueting House cycle as the language of re ligion, virtue, and politics. Though the works 67 Charles Scribner III, 70. 68 Charles Scribner III, 70.

PAGE 376

376 completed for Charles I in the 1620s and 1630s were done for a Protestant monarch, these works are best understood within the contex t of a Counter-Reformation tradition. This is especially true that James a nd Charles also made claims to their own catholic status. Bernini had the enhancement of his master in mind. Berninis genius and inspired solution to the problem of architecture, sculpture, mosaic, and painting in the ba ldacchino schema was to create a hybrid out of a traditional (permanent) columned ciborium and a festive (ephemeral) baldachin of gold cloth.69 The fusion of sculptural architecture was a triumph of necessary illusion, as this work rises to a height of a mode rn eight-story building. The cost of the work was enormous. The vast sums for beeswax needed for the casting were twice the expense of the gold for the gilding. The pope, as Solomons success or at St. Peters, wa s celebrated by the proclamation of the glory of this baldacchino. Of all Urbans commissions none so epitomized the aspirations of his reign as this dynamically soaring towe r of energy, a bronze emblem of papal power that seemingly triumphs over th e laws of nature and suspends gravity.70 The baldacchino, and in particular the Solom onic columns, were full of Christian imagery as well as Antique Roman and Old Testament iconogr aphy. In particular, the ancient Solomonic design had become, over the Christian centuries, associated with the Eucharist.71 Images of cherubs and animals playing throughout the vege tation enhanced the vine-and-branches imagery found on the original columns. This is also part of the peripheral design of the Banqueting House ceiling as angels, putti, and cherubs lead animal s through vegetation on large bands at the outside 69 Charles Scribner III, 70. 70 Charles Scribner III, 70. 71 W. Chandler Kirwin, Powers Matchless: The Pontificate of Urban VIII, the Baldachin, and Gian Lorenzo Bernini (New York: Peter Lang, 1997), 120.

PAGE 377

377 of the design of Rubenss Apotheosis of James I Flanked by Two Panels of Precessions of Putti Caring Garlands, Torches, and Cornucopias (A-10). Eucharistic imagery was emphasized by the reuse of the original Solomonic columns. These we re used in the niches at the corners of the crossing in proximity to the most sacred relics stored at the Vatican and connected to the Passion of Christ.72 The only major change in design for the columns created by Bernini for the baldacchino was to incorporate laur el branches instead of the grape tendrils as on the originals. This substitution did not change the essential iconography. The angels on top of the baldacchino hold laurel crowns triumphantly for the assembly of martyrs below [the floor of Saint Peters]: an ever-present symbol of their ultimate triumph and victory.73 The change of the laurel for the grapevin e and bees for other animals playing in the vegetation, as in the original columns, was for the enjoyment of Urban, as both of these symbols appear in his coat of arms. To be sure, the laurel is a Barberini device, but the incorporation of the laurel on the columns were directly dictated by the signi ficance of the site as a martyriumThe sacramental reference is continued in the select ion of the tripartite shaft for the Baldachin. The decision to reposition eight of the origin al ten marble Solomonic columns with their quadripartite shafts form the apsidal screen to the upper reliquary ni ches precipitated the plan to decorate the Baldachins columns with Laurel boughs Nothing was lost; rather a richer and more resonant series of associat ion was thereby established and the primacy of the entire crossing as a house and crow n of martyrs was brilliantly affected.74 The putto holding a laurel crown was a majo r leitmotif not only of the shafts decoration but also of the other places, bind ing together the most sacred lo cations in the basilica with the 72 W. Chandler Kirwin, 120. 73 W. Chandler Kirwin, 120. 74 W. Chandler Kirwin, 313.

PAGE 378

378 symbol of martyrdom.75 All this decoration was perfectly sy mbolic of Christs martyrdom for the good of the many, and the overall stress on Eucharist symbolism is undoubted. This was a statement of Catholic supremacy both politically, with the inclusi on of Constantines legacy and the good government of Solomon. The crossing decorations at St. Peters emphasized the legitimate and true faith as seen by the Cathol ic world through the synthesis of Eucharistic symbolism and princely power. Themes of Iconography in the Banqueting House We now focus specifically on the subject of the Banqueting House cycle. This work was important for the Stuart monarchy as a center for what was to be their political authority and their religious authority. Peter Pa ul Rubens, who was in Rome often in the early part of the 1600s, was extremely familiar with the work of Bernini, Paulo Veronese, and Raphael, who all used throughout their commissions the iconography of Solomonic columns kept at St. Peters. These columns were inspirations and religious symbols of the Eucharis t, martyrdom, right authority, and wisdom. Rubens had copies of Ve roneses works using the columns, as well as a copy of Raphaels tapestry cartoon for The Healing of the Lame Man which Rubens copied with extreme care when he was in Genoa.76 Rubens repeatedly used the storied column s in works. His treatment usually emphasized their power to evoke true religion, the power of kings, or the importance of the subject matter. He often used the motif of Solomonic columns w ith works that had a Eucharistic theme. In any of the works Rubens designed, incorporated Solomonic columns, the columns never carry 75 W. Chandler Kirwin, 135. 76 John Shearman, Raphaels Cartoons in the Collec tion of Her Majesty the Queen and the Tapestries for the Sistine Chapel (London: Phaidon, 1972), 147.

PAGE 379

379 weight, which is inconsistent with for purpose of a column. Consequently, they are monuments themselves rather than elements of arch itecture. In Rubenss own designs for the Triumph of the Eucharist over Pagan Sacrifice (A-92), he used these columns for such a purpose. Completed a decade before the design and implementation of the Banqueting House ceiling, Rubenss Solomonic columns frame both sides of this desig n. In these tapestries, he used the Solomonic columns as perfect devices to frame theological statements about the Eucharist due to traditional use of the columns and their as sociation with true religion. Rubens engaged this iconography just as Bernini would a few years la ter in the baldacchino at St. Peters. Rubens made the columns of Solomon central in his statement about James I in one of the panels in the Banqueting House. He re Rubens apotheosized Charles s father in what is not only a statement about good government, but also a statemen t about the head of the English Church. It is important to note the changing emphasis on th e Eucharist in England during this period. The Banqueting House cycle was crea ted precisely at the time English Counter-Reformation movement gained control. They offered a co mplicated and beautiful worship, and one that included the Eucharist at its ce nter, rather than preaching. English historians such as Roy Strong emphasized the importance of Inigo Jones in the design of the Banqueting House ceiling,77 but recent research poin ts to collaboration between Rubens and Charles as the most likely s cenario for the iconography of the design.78 Eucharistic 77 Roy Strong argued that Inigo Jones primar ily did the design of the Banqueting House ceiling in his work BritanniaTriumphans: Inigo Jones, Rubens, and Whitehall Palace, published in 1980. 78 Mark Morford in his Stoics and Neostoics: Rubens and the Circle of Lipsius (Princeton: Princeton Univers ity Press, 1991) argued that Ru bens primarily designed the Banqueting House ceiling (A-9) and that these works were essentially influenced by neostoicism and Rubenss strong Catholic faith.

PAGE 380

380 themes would have been most acceptable to Char les, and he would have understood the use of Solomons columns by his chosen artist in this manner. Many others had used these columns in the same way in the past, including Raphael in his famous work, which was part of Charless vast collection of Cat holic religious art. The Prince-Hero: Peter Paul Rubens and Justus Lipsius, Bernini and Charles I One of the most important connections to th e British court and Catholic thought about art was Justus Lipsius, through his close association with the Rubens brothers. The choice of Peter Paul Rubens, as decorator for the ceiling of the Banqueting House, was important for the demonstration of the legacy of James I as The New Solomon and the founder of a dynasty that had re-created a Great Britain again. It was indeed a grand coup for Charles to engage Rubens, one of the most important painters, di plomats, and intellectually qualified individuals, for this work. To have the most important act ively-working painter take on this commission was to show the rest of Europe that England had arrived. Charles tried to lure Rubens into being his court painter. For Rubens, this would have b een a downgrade from the Spanish courts and French courts, which steadily employed him. As a diplomat, he learned to appreciate hi s opponents and often became friends with them, as he had with Charles. He seems to have ha d a dexterity learned from his association with Lipsius. Lipsius, as with most other anti-Mach iavellians, was a theologi an who skirted both the Catholic and the Protestant world. He is a prime example of the fluidity of thought that flowed between the poles of extreme Catholicism and extreme Protestantism and that desperately searched for a middle way, as did the Stuarts. Lipsius was one of the bestknown scholars at the turn of th e seventeenth century. Born in Overyssche, a village near Brussels and Louvain, he studied first with Jesuits in Cologne and then at the Catholic University of Louvain. He also visited Rome where he stayed for two years

PAGE 381

381 to study the ancient monuments and to explore the libraries of clas sical literature at the Vatican. Lipsius left during the Civil War in the Low Coun tries and applied for a position at the Lutheran University of Jena. This was the first of a number of moves that required Lipsius to change his publicly professed faith. The colle agues at Jena always remained skeptical of his radical transformation, and he left Jena af ter two years to return to Cologne. In 1576, Lipsius returned to Catholic Louvain only to leave after Spanish troops looted his property in the Netherlands a second time during th e Civil War. He then went to the Calvinist University of Leiden. He was in Leiden for thirte en years where he wrote two of his most famous books, De Constantia Libri Duo in 1584 and Politicorum, siue Ciuilis doctrinae in 1589. These works were important in that th ey discussed the importance of th e prince as an absolute monarch and were extremely important as sources for th e idea of a virtuous pr ince-hero. However, Lipsius eventually return ed home and sought reconciliation with his Catholic roots, disappointed with Calvinism. One thing is certain, Lipsius wa s no iconoclast. It is likely th at both of his conversions to Protestantism, one Lutheran and the other Calvinist, may have had more to do with obtaining important teaching positions in relatively peaceful loca tions. This shift in religious affiliation was made possible because of his moderate p roto-ecumenical outlook. His conversions were always considered suspect by his Protestant co-relig ionists, but his genius and skill as a scholar made up for his lack of Protestant zeal. Lipsius returned to Louvain and accepted th e Chair of Latin History and Literature. His return to Catholicism enhanced his reputation in the Roman religi on as one of the great humanist

PAGE 382

382 philosophers of his time.79 Lipsius is once again an important example of how fluid religious connections were in the Early Modern Period. He is a prime example of someone who had a successful career in all three denominations. But most scholars would argue that stoicism and his Catholic roots were the most importa nt influences in his writings. Among Lipsiuss friends and close associates were the famous printer Christopher Plantin and Philip Rubens, Lipsiuss favorite student and brother of Peter Paul Rubens. Rubens portrayed Lipsius, after his death, along with Philip and himself in The Four Philosophers (A93). This connection was especially influential in the intellectual development of Peter Paul Rubens. In many ways, Rubens who put the vision of the prince-hero sketched out in Lipsiuss writings into paint. In Politicorum, siue Ciuilis doctrinae Lipsius drew on a wide ra nge of classical works with emphasis upon Tacitus. The treatise was concer ned with the creation of a civil life in which everyone should profit with mutual benef it. This work divides into six books: Book 1 is an analysis of the conditions of virtue and prudence. Here he argued that vi rtue requires piety and goodness and that prudence is dependent upon use and memory. Book Two stated that government is necessary for any civil life and the be st form of government is a principality. Here civil concord requires all to submit to the will of only one principality. This is for the good of all. The rest of Book 2 deals with the themes of justice and clemency as private princely virtues. Book 3 focused upon princely prudence, the major theme for the rest of his work. Two types of 79 Mark Morford, xxi-xv. The life and works of Lipsius are well known, as is his return to Catholicism.

PAGE 383

383 prudence are emphasizedthe innate, God-given pr udence of the prince, and the advice of the councilors.80 Lipsius clearly pre-empted Hobbes in sa ying that order and peace far outweigh civil liberties and personal freedom. Order and peace became major themes in Basilikon Doron and were consistent themes in the masques done for the Stuarts. These themes are emphasized in the paintings done for the Banqueting House. Lipsius liv ed in and out of civil war for almost twenty years. For him, political rights were of little consolation when surrounded by violence and anarchy. Therefore, the first priority in poli tics was to secure peace and establish a safe environment for commerce and prosperity. Lipsius believed that to achieve this security in statecraft, it was best for power to be concentrated in one indi vidual, the absolute monarch. Lipsiuss influence is found in the works of Peter Paul Rubens and his brothers writings. Rubens gives a divine quality to the royals he pa ints. Interestingly, James I also read Lipsius. In Basilikon Doron James argued that one should not put too much emphasis on a revived stoicism.81 However, much of the thought of Basilikon Doron was not opposed to the general shared outcomes of a revived Christianized stoici sm, as envisioned by Lipsius. Christian stoicism was the life of balance often portray ed in Rubenss religious works. The Four Philosophers (A-93) is an excellent example. It is a celebration of the life of Lipsius and his most important disc iples. Here the great scholar is portrayed in an academic robe with fur trim. It was bequeathed be cause of its great value to the church of Notre Dame at Halle 80 Justus Lipsius, Politicorum, siue, Ciuilis doctrinae libri sex, qui ad principatum maxim spectant (Londini: Typis Georgii Bi shop, 1590). More than 30 translations of the works of Lipsius were printed in London before 1630. Lipsius would have been an important link between Catholic and Protestant thought in that he was associated with Lutheran, Calvinist, and Catholic scholarship thro ughout most of his life. 81 See Chapter 3 of this study and its discussion of Basilikon Doron

PAGE 384

384 (a bequest that was criticized with sarcasm by Protestants so much that Woverius published a pamphlet that defended the sincerity of the donation by Lipsius in Woveriuss Lipsiani Donari Assertio ).82 Lipsius and his students, Philip Rubens a nd Woverius, are the focus of this painting, but three other figures are shown in this work : Peter Paul Rubens, Seneca, and Lipsiuss dog Mopsus. Mopsus was the scholars favorite dog, and was included to show the virtues of vigilance, loyalty, and intelligen ce associated with dogs in Renaissance paintings. Philip Rubens on the right holds a pen as if to take down the words of his ma ster, and Woverius on the left holds an open book. Peter Paul Rubens on the far right looks directly at the viewer of the painting, inviting one to be part of the conversat ion. Seneca is placed in a classical niche with a vase of tulips. Two tulips are open, symbolizing the completed lives of Lipsius and Philip, who both had recently died, and two tulips are still cl osed, symbolizing the co ntinuing lives of Peter Paul and Woverius. Lipsius points to what is mo st likely his translation of Seneca, therefore continuing to play the role of the teacher. Pe ter Paul Rubens owned the bust of Seneca, and it appeared in several of his draw ings, engravings, and other works.83 An illustration of the importance of his brother and of Lipsius in Rubenss life is that he did another version of the Four Philosophers called Portrait with Friends (A-94). In this work, the Catholic roots of both Rubens brothers and of Lipsius and Woverius are emphasized. It too commemorates the death of Lipsius in 1605. The three living friends, Woverius and the two brothers (Phillip was still alive at this time), occupy the center, a nd Lipsius is seen in profile on 82 Johannes Woverius, Assertio Lipsiani donari adversus gelastorum sugillationes (Antwerp: Joannes Moretus, 1607). 83 Mark Morford, 5.

PAGE 385

385 the right.84 One sees at the left two other unidentified colleagues. In the background at the center of the painting, is a scene of the Burial of the Virgin (a magnifying glass would be useful to see this clearly) and a boat crossing the water toward the religious scene.85 The theme shows that even in death Lipsius continues to infl uence their lives. The inclusion of the Burial of the Virgin is an emphasis on eternity and resurrection. Mary, through her assumption into heaven, is the first born of the dead after Ch rist (in Catholic and Orthodox th eology), a notion established as early as the sixth century. She wa s included as a hopeful sign to all the friends for eternal life and redemption. According to Mark Morford, this is also a sign that the love of friends amor post mortem durans conquers death. Therefore, the living continue their live s influenced by their rich associations with the dearly departed.86 This notion of amor post mortem duran s should also be included in a reappraisal of the Banqueting H ouse Ceiling. For Charles, the departed James certainly would belong to the category of the beloved dead who are to be remembered, honored, emulated, and communed with. Thus, the ceiling at Wh itehall is also a cenotaph. The influence of Lipsius on Rubens was fe lt in many of Rubenss religious works or works about virtue. Lipsiuss philosophical presence is found in the Banqueting House Ceiling. This coincides with the aesthetic of Charles I, whose interest in the visu al arts not only skirted the aesthetic boundaries of Englis h Protestantism, but also clea rly crossed the line of the Calvinist religious divide. Commissions such as the Banqueting House Ceiling and other 84 Mark Morford, 13. 85 Mark Morford, 13. 86 Mark Morford, 13.

PAGE 386

386 paintings produced by Rubens, Van Dyck, and other noted artists clearly emulate a Catholic spirituality rather than Calvinist. Rubens first expressed interest in the ceiling for the Banqueting House in 1621, when he was working on the Medici Cycle and while the building was under construction by Inigo Jones.87 However, it was not until Rubens wa s in England from June 1629 until March 1630, acting as a diplomat, that real action took place for his employment on the massive project. Rubens had an audience with Charles at the queen s residence at Greenwich. This was an astute setting for a diplomatic mission to help negot iate a peace between the Netherlands, Spain, and England.88 The queens palace, surrounded with He nrietta Marias court and Catholic coreligionists, was proof that Ch arles showed moderation towa rd the Catholic faith. This tolerance of Rubenss faith was something he test ified to in his letters back to his Catholic masters. Rubens and Charles I had an extremely close relationship. Both genuinely seemed to like each other. Their love of art was at the center of this mutual admiration. Charles invited him to stay in England as court painter, and knighted Rubens for his helpfu lness in bringing peace between England and Spain. However, Rubens le ft England and finished the paintings in Antwerp by August 1634, but they were not sent to England until the following year in December 1635.89 87 Mark Morford, 204. 88 Oliver Millar, The Age of Charles I: Painting in England 1620-1649 (London: Balding & Mansell Ltd., 1972), 37. 89 Mark Morford, 204.

PAGE 387

387 The significance of the Whitehall paintings (A-9, A-10) can hardly be overestimated. These works are the crowning glory of the fai re Palladian building in which Jones displayed the architectural ideals, which revolutionized the development of English architecture. It is a paradox that the great(est) pa inter of the Counter-Reformation should have produced for a heretic sovereign the only one of these decora tive schemes which survives in its original setting.90 These paintings glorify th e reign of James and theref ore indirectly glorify his successor Charles as one who c ontinues Jamess good rule. Ironica lly, as well, they emphasize the works of a sovereign. This emphasis on wo rk is a theme that seems to fit a more traditional if not Catholic theological outlook rather than th e predominant Calvinist theology of justification or election by faith alone. Depicted in the central panel is the concept of Jamess reward for a job well done. Here James, taken up to heaven, receives his just judgment for good kingshi p (figure 5-5). Justice carrying the scales was a frequently used ic onography about Gods judgment in Catholicism. This highlights a notion of good j udgment for works as well as faith, a Catholic notion adopted by the Arminians. The artist provided the viewer with the outcome of Jamess kingly works, redemption. Through the allegories of Jamess reign of peace over war, plenty over poverty, and other ancillary works, which surround the three main canvasses devoted to James, Rubens also made a theological statement. As with Solomon, and indeed like Christ, Jamess reign was that of a prince of peace. This work evolved through a se ries of preliminary drawings by Rubens at the height of his powers, displaying the virtue of the early Stuart s as he had previously done for the Bourbons, Medici, Hapsburgs, and Gonzagas. His knowledge of classical allegory and his ability to design 90 Oliver Millar, 37.

PAGE 388

388 on a huge and magnificent scale were steeped in the traditions of Titian, Veronese, and Tintoretto. The works particularly delighted King Charles. Here Ch arless lavish taste, meant to proclaim his own chivalric virtue and manlin ess before an admiring audience of courtiers,91 was proclaimed. These ideas were essential to the cour t culture of the Caroline and Jacobean courts. Reflected in contemporary writi ng and also in the masques, this notion was never better displayed than on the ceiling. As with the intellectual underp innings of the court masques, the Whitehall paintings were consistent with Catholic, Arminian, and anti-Cal vinist thought rather than with Presbyterianism, Calvinism, or Puritanism. The high drama of th e ceiling reflected the masques brought to life by Joness works on stages. The intell ect behind the masques signified a return to the grand theater of the Latin mass, which was lost in the si mplified liturgy prominent at the turn of the seventeenth century.92 Indeed, Joness stages often resembled altars, which were fenced off from the congregation at the masques, like comm union rails. A complicated play is also proclaimed in the ceiling panels. As religious historians point out, the anti-Calvinists and Arminians were trying to put more theater in the celebrations of the English Church. As decorated by Rubens, this room looked more like a Counter-Reformation church interior celebrating the life of a saint, as much as the life of a king. The ceili ng panels emphasized the supremacy of the king, his support of religion, hi s connection with an idyllic past, and the promise of good rule for those who keep to th e charted plans of the dynasty. These decorations 91 Kevin Sharpe, The Image of Virtue: Th e Court and Household of Charles I, 16251642, in Politics and Ideas in Early Stuart England (London, 1989), 147-173. 92 See chapter five of Kevin Sharpes Criticism and Compliment: The Politics of Literature in the England of Charles I (Cambridge, 1987). Orgel and Strong in Inigo Jones vol. 1, page 13, make the same argument for the masque as anti-Calvinistic in tenor and taste.

PAGE 389

389 are also a gauntlet, a challenge thrown down to the loyal subject by the king to support good government by support of the monarchy. The imagery of good government illustrated in th is work included the English Church as a wing of this government. Solomonic columns infe rred this political/rel igious connection. For Rubens, they were intertwined with religion a nd the Eucharist throughout Christian history. Until this study, historians have not noticed this alte rnative interpretation of this iconography for the Solomonic columns used at Whitehall in the Ba nqueting House. This is surprising in that the official church policy at the e nd of Jamess rule and for the entire rule of Charles before the outbreak of Civil War emphasized the sacramenta l nature of Holy Comm union and a return to the use of altars rather than wood tables. Eucharistic theater once again triumphed over stark word services. Rubenss repeated use of Solomonic column s in works, which celebrated the queen of the sacraments, is undisputed. He used them earlie r in the statements of religious and political authority. At the same time, Bernini used them in a supreme statement about Urban VIII in Rome with the planning and construction of th e baldacchino, which enshrined the altar at St. Peters for the Eucharist. The Arminians were atte mpting to move the English Church in the same direction from the middle of Jamess reign toward a sacramental piety rather than a preaching one. Clearly, renewed sacramentalism in English piety must be taken into account when looking at the prominence of the Solomonic connection in this cycle. Other similarities to works done for Catholic monarchs are noticeable. The scenes in the Banqueting House are related thema tically to the Medici cycle. The first important panel of comparison is The Apotheosis of Henry IV and the Proc lamation of the Regency of Marie de Medici on May 14, 1610 (A-95), painted and installed be tween 1623 and 1625. This dates ten

PAGE 390

390 years earlier than the work Rubens did for the Stuart s. It is interesting to note that Charles was in Paris for part of this time. Knowing the princes propensity for art, he would have examined the progress of the installation. There are slight differences between the Stuart and Medici cycles. In the Medici cycle, the life and martyrdom of Henry IV dominate the canvas. Christ, not angels, br ings Henry to heaven because of his martyrdom. However, even with this difference, these paintings have much in common. This French cycle was about the ideal Renaissance prince formed by the theological underpinning of Rubens and his associates along w ith Marie de Medici. Both works need to be seen as a whole rather than in parts. The whole is greater than the part. Thus the glory of the individual prince, James, is s ubordinate to the general idea of the benefits of good government, and the program is consistent with the universal doctrines of Lipsiuss Politica .93 The notion of the good ruler is universally present in the work at the Banqueting House: Sapientia and prudentia are apparent everywhere in this painting cycle. Rubens shows Protestant James is as much the ideal prince as Catholic Henry,94 perhaps more so. One of the figures executed in the Ba nqueting House was the seven-headed hydra, representing, according to Roy Strong, the triumph of Protestantism over the papacy.95 However, this seems unlikely. Rubens came to Engla nd as part of an attempt to diffuse religious war and to testify to Stuart tolerance. No Catholic was executed after 1619 for breaking Englands religious laws. From the early 1620s, Jame ss direct orders to preachers made it clear 93 Mark Morford, 205. 94 Mark Morford, 205. 95 Roy Strong, The Tudor and Stuart Monarchy: P ageantry, Painting, Iconography, Vol. III, Jacobean and Caroline (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1998), 144.

PAGE 391

391 that priests should not preach against Puritans or Catholics in any way that would cause further rancor about religion. Charles had the same gene ral attitude. James also ceased calling the pope the anti-Christ during this peri od, and courted a cordial relati onship with Vatican officials through English Catholic priests in Rome. In a ddition, the notion that Rubens would have been ignorant of what he was doing in representing the hydra as the papal anti-Christ (according to Strong) seems implausible. It a ppears more realistic to see the hydra along with other dragons, as representative of darkness and ev il, and a more general interpreta tion of this figure standing for evil reviled in the Book of Revelations. A previo us example appears in one of Rubenss works for Charles, where a virtuous king/knight conquer s evil. This would make James another George, the Leader of the Knights of the Garter. Evidence for this interpretation is in Rubenss earlier work, Landscape with St. George and the Dragon (A-96). In this painting, Rubens depicts Charles precisely this way, as a destroyer of dragons (darkness and evil) alongside his Catholic queen in an idyllic landscape of peace. The overall themes in the Banqueting Hous e Ceiling were virtue over chaos, peace over war, temperance over intemperance. Making such a provocative statement about Catholicism when the Queen was Catholic also seems unlikely. The Banqueting House Ceiling placed an emphasis on the supremacy of wisdom, the union of the crowns of Great Britain, the king as a source of justice and the supporte r of religion, and the divine au thority of the king. These are personifications of ideals sketched out in Basilikon Doron and are in the speculum principis tradition. As noted in Chapter 4, which dealt with the influence of Basilikon Doron on Charles, James spent much time describing the task of th e prince, whose responsib ility is to govern and encourage the church. Therefore, religion, too, is an important theme of Stuart kingship.

PAGE 392

392 The Banqueting House ceiling emphasized the horrors of discord and war while emphasizing the blessings of concord and peace established by the Stuarts. Rubens was especially interested in these themes because he genuinely admired the Stuarts. He admired what they accomplished, a peaceful and prosperous state. He wrote to ambassador Dupuy in August of 1629, This island, for example seems to me to be a spectacle worthy of interest of every gentleman, not only for the beauty of the count ryside and the charm of the nation; not only for the splendor of the outward culture, which seems to be extreme, as of a people rich and happy in the lap of peace, but also for the incredible quantity of excellent pictures, statues and ancient inscriptions which are to be found in this Court.96 As a diplomat, he noted what seemed to be a st able country with a stead y religious settlement that was thriving during while he wa s there, Charless Personal Rule. Another reason to doubt Strongs interpretati on was that Charles of ten flirted with the papacy through diplomatic channels especially through his wife, as noted in Chapter 5. Such a depiction of Catholicism and the papacy seems unlikely during the 1630s, even though it would have pleased radical Protes tants at the time. Charles obvious ly reckoned that these radical Protestants were the genuine thr eat to his rule after parliame ntary setbacks in the late 1620s. Catholicism was a secondary problem, and evid ence shows that he tried to encourage a relationship with the papacy rather than inflame it. The Banqueting House Ceiling is a work about balance and harmony, no t conflict. Figures chosen by Rubens in the Apotheosis are particularly important to understanding the iconography of this work. Justice holds a flaming sword on scal es and holds up Jamess left arm. To his right, the figure of Religion holds a patera (the paten, also used for th e holding the bread at Mass) in 96 Ruth Saunders Magurn, The Letters of Peter Paul Rubens ed., R. S. Magurn (Cambridge: Harvard Univ ersity Press, 1955), 320.

PAGE 393

393 her right hand, a broad, shallow dish used in a ri tual context to show Jamess piety. In her left hand, Religion embraces an altar with a flame. Rube ns explained these images in a design for the title page to Jakob Bidermanns Heroum Epistolae The altar, the libation dish, and the jug symbolize religion and sacred ritual; the lyre and the ivy wreath [,] poetry. Thus James in the Apotheosis is flanked by Justice and Piety.97 Sacred ritual therefore should be read as the sacraments of the church. This in terpretation adds context to the central panel in relation to the Solomonic columns in the Peaceful Reign of King James which was displayed next to the apse where the king sat. Other parallels can be found with the ancien t theme of the Solomonic columns, sacred ritual, and Eucharist in the Banqueting House work s of art. Flanked by processions of putti, who carry garlands, cornucopias, and torches, there are chario ts drawn by various animals. 98 These themes represent, in the view of the dynasty, the near perfect ideal times of happiness, bounty, and good peace brought on by the reign of the Stuarts.99 These panels also portray the fruits of the Redemption in the theme of children/putti pla ying with wild beasts. These figures would are reminiscent one of the scripture verse about th e return to the Garden of Eden spelled out in the Book of Isaiah. Note that a king ushers in th is biblical paradise. Is aiah, Chapter 11, speaks about the King Immanuel where the wolf shall be a guest of the lamb, and the leopard shall lie 97 Mark Morford, 205. Morford rightly identified th is as an altar. Such scholars as Held and Strong have previously understood it as an urn. However, Held and Strong must not have been aware of Rubenss own de scription in Jakob Bidermanns Heroum Epistolae, Epigrammate & Herodial (Antwerp: Mortus, 1633). 98 Mark Morford, 204. 99 J. S. Held, The Oil Sketches of Peter Paul Rubens: A Critical Catalogue 2 volumes (Princeton: Princeton Univ ersity Press, 1980), 217-218.

PAGE 394

394 down with the kid; the calf and the young lion shall browse together with a little child to guide them.100 A further connection with children/putti is also noteworthy. One of the features of the legendary Solomonic columns at St. Peters Bas ilica was their original iconography. Two of the columns believed to be from Solomons Temple f eatured garlands of grapevines with putti and various animals frolicking in an apocalyptic vision of peace and plenty. Rubens was familiar with these columns and underst ood their iconographic significance. The two outer panels that surround the Apotheosis of James (A-50) form this same type of a garland motif. However, rather than encircling the paintings these paintin gs act as frames. In these outer rectangular panels, putti dance through the procession of idyllic vegetation. One side is drawn toward the throne; the other goes in the oppos ite direction. One panel depicts a triumphal chariot laden with corn drawn by a ram and wolf harnessed together. The second panel depicts a chariot in which a cornucopia is emptied and drawn by a lion and a b ear. A putto tames a tiger, another tickles the ear of the tiger. These putti celebrate plenty a nd peace throughout the work, and can be read as God providing daily bread for the just man and a promise of eternal peace for the redeemed, as in the original Solomonic columns at St. Peters. Returning to the central panel, James is taken into heaven like a Counter-Reformation saint. Justice, holding scales, concludes that Ja mes is just. He therefore ascends to heaven, judged worthy by his works as king.101 Strong is representative of a group of historians and art historians who argued that the panels were a thoroughly Protestant depiction of religion.102 He 100 The New American Bible (Cleveland, Ohio: Collins World, 1970), 806. 101 See Chapter 4 and the analysis of Jamess Basilikon Doron 102 Roy Strong, 149-50.

PAGE 395

395 cited Ripa as the originator of this iconogra phy and Per Palme as the originator of this interpretation. However, they do not have answers for the most provocative and CounterReformation features of this central pane l: Religion holds an a ltar, not a Bible. The altar was now being emphasized in th e Church of England. Lauds teaching echoed Andrewes and other anti-Calvinist s. Their maxim of Christ found most present on the altar was very much within the pre-Reformation and Count er-Reformation Catholic tradition. This was not the sermon-based piety of Protestantism. If th is was not veiled Roman Catholicism, it clearly signaled a birth of an English Catholicism a nd a Counter-Reformation proclamation of faith rather than further movement toward biblically-based Protestantism. It seems almost heretical from a Calvinistic/Protestant viewpoint for Relig ion to hold an Altar rather than the Bible, especially if the intention was to proclaim a particularly P rotestant iconography. This is especially true as one of Jamess greatest accomplishments was the translation and publishing of a New English Bible, the vers ion authorized by King James. One of the most important minds in the A nglican Church, who informed the Laudians and who emphasized the importance of the altar a nd the sacrament of the altar, was Lancelot Andrewes. His influence is seen in Charless ac ceptance of the iconographical use of an altar in this cycle. Andrewess Devotions one of the most popular books of the 1620s and 1630s, was full of Eucharistic devotion and was one of Charless favorite books. Andrewes writes: Now the bread which we break, is it not the partaking of the body, of the flesh, of Jesus Christ? [1 Corinthians 10: 16] It is sure ly, and by it and by nothing more are we made partakers of this most blessed union. A little before he said, Because the children were partakers of flesh and blood, He also would take part with them [Hebrews 2: 14]may not we say the same? Because he hath so done, taken ours of us, we also ensuing His steps will participate with Him and with His flesh whic h He hath taken of us. It is most kindly to take part with Him in that which He took part in with us, and that to no other end but that He might make the receiving of it by us a m eans whereby He might dwell in us, and we in Him; He taking our flesh, and we receiving Hi s Spirit; by His flesh which He took of us receiving His Spirit which he impart eth to us; that, as He by ours became consors humanae

PAGE 396

396 naturae so we by His might become consortes divinae naturae partakers of the divine nature. [2 Peter 1: 4] Verily, it is the most straight and perfect taking hold that is. No union so knitteth as it. Not consanguinity; bret hren fall out. Not marriage; man and wife are severed. But that which is nourished, and the nourishment wherewith, they never are, never can be severed, but remain one forever. With this act then of mutual taking, taking of His flesh as He has taken ours, let us seal our duty to Him.103 With this kind of rhetoric being preached and wr itten on a regular basis in the late Jacobean and Caroline courts, it is no wonder th at an altar was used to symbo lize true religion. This truly was not far from popery. The importance of the altar in Religions ha nd is also emphasized in the Medici cycle. Rubens showed the transfer of power from mother to son in the allegorical scene Louis XIII Comes of Age (A-87).104 Marie hands the reins of government to her son and ends her regency. The ship represents the state, now operated by Louis as he steers the vessel. Emblematic shields on the outside of the ship identify each of the rowers as virtues. The second rowers shield depicts a flaming altar with four sphinxes, a coiling serpent and an open eye that looks downward. The second rower is Religion. Religion, along with the other virtues, empowered the state, and Marie wanted Louis to embody Cat holicism. Louis XIII was the king that placed France finally and firmly in the Catholic camp. The ship of state is portrayed as a parade boat. Rubens references Horaces boat, adorned with a dragon on the front and dolphins on the ster n. Louis looks to his mother for guidance as he guides the ship. The four rowing figures personify Force, Religion, Justice and Concord. Force is recognizable by extending her oar, with the shield emblem of the lion and column. She is paired 103 J. P. Wilson and James Bliss, eds., The Works of Lancelot Andrewes 11 vols. (Oxford: J. H. Parker, 1841-54), vol. 1, 16-17. 104 Ronald Millen and Robert Erich Wolf, Heroic Deeds and Mystic Figures: A New Reading of Rubenss Life of Maria De Medici (Princeton University Press, 1989), 170.

PAGE 397

397 with Marie by hair color, and similarly L ouis is paired with Religion by hair color.105 In both works, the Apotheosis of James I (A-10) and Rubenss earlier work, Louis XIII Comes of Age (A87), Religions iden tifying iconography is a flaming altar. Conclusion The importance of the religious themes, dear to Charles and to Rubens in the Banqueting House Ceiling has been understated. These themes, drawn from Catholic iconographical sources, are indebted to Lipsius, papal works, and wo rks done for Catholic monarchs. They reflected absolutism and its intersection with religion. A more Christian context for the Banqueting House ceiling also helped the paintings at Whitehall serve as a cenotaph for James, a religious reminder and a statement about the founder of the dynasty. Charles certainly saw the Banqueting House cycle as such a memorial, not only to kingship but also to his father, just as the Rubens canvasses in France celebrated a decade earlie r the father of his bride, Henrietta Maria. The Medici works provided a lasting memorial to a revered mart yred king. The Stuart works did the same for Englands Solomon. 105 Sarah R Cohen, Rubens France: Gender and Personification in the Marie de Medicis Cycle Art Bulletin 85: 490-522 (2003): 490-491.

PAGE 398

398 Figure 6-1. St. Katharine Cree East End of the Nave show ing the Rose window with IHS monogram and Corinthian Columns in the redoes. Both date from the Laudian decorations. Photo by author.

PAGE 399

399 Figure 6-2. Bernini, Baldacchino 1624-33, Bronze on Marble Pedestals, height 93'6" Saint Peter's, Rome. Photo by author.

PAGE 400

400 Figure 6-3. Gianlorenzo Bernini. Relief of Holy Lance, Fr amed by Solomonic columns. 163040. Marble. St. Peter's, Rome. Photo by author.

PAGE 401

401 CHAPTER 7 CATHOLIC INFLUENCE AND ICONOGRAPHY IN ABSOLUTIST ART IN CAROLINE ENGLAND Introduction This chapter presents evidence regarding Catholic influence and reac tion to it in building and sculptural programs between 1618 and 1649. The analysis includes the major renovations at St. Pauls Cathedral and a study of the renewal, in cluding altar screens and other programs of art employed in various churches, cathedrals, and pub lic displays. In addition, an examination of the royal image in sculpture and painting is expl ored, along with the infl uences and purposes for such programs. This chapter concludes with an analysis of proposed plans for a project in London that was remarkably similar to the Escorial in Madrid. The Restoration of St. Paul s and Catholic Influence For almost 30, years the restoration of St. Pauls was at the center of the Stuarts plans for a renovated London. This project wa s a result of three surveys: the first in 1608, another in 1620, and a final one in 1633. Each testified to the abuse and physical disr epair of St. Pauls.1 St. Pauls renovation was of symbolic importance for James and Charles who attached religious authority to the old cathedral. The contemporary writer Dugdale wrote that St. Pauls was one of the principall ornaments of the Realm.2 He also added that St. Pa uls was the impriall seat of this Realme.3 Even the Puritan Bishop John King, in a 1620 sermon, pointed out the 1 Vaughan Hart, Art and Magic in the Court of the Stuarts (London and New York: Routledge, 1994), 44. 2 William Dugdale, The history of St. Pauls Cathed ral in London from its foundation untill these times extracted out of origina ll charters, records, leiger books, and other manuscripts: beautified with s undry prospects of the church, figures of tombes and monument (London: Printed by Tho. Warren, 1658), 135. 3 W. Dugdale, 138.

PAGE 402

402 importance for the Stuart legacy of James s proposed building program. His sermon noted a change in his attitude about bu ilding and decoration of churches. As pointed out in Chapter 3, in the 1610s, Bishop King criticized Laud for his magnificent decorative plans as dean. The evolution of Bishop King, in A sermon at Paules Crosse, on beha lfe of Paules Church, March 2, 1620, gives an example of the changing mindset of clergy. King reflected in his sermon the policy of the Stuarts, which had moved toward the beauty of holiness. Bishop King had, to a certain degree, abandoned his Puritan tastes. Your Citty hath beene anciently stiled Augusta . Not weary mine eyes wandring and roving after private, but to fixe upon public ke alone . your Royall Exchange for Merchants, your Halls for Companies, your ga tes for defence, your markets for victual, your aquaeducts for water, your granaries for provision, your Hospitalls for the poore, your Bridewells for the idle, your Chambe r for Orphans, and your Churches for holy Assemblies: I cannot denie them to be magnifi cent workes, and your Citty to deserve the name of an Agustious and majesticall Citty.4 Priorities had changed in Stuart England. During the time of Elizabeth, cathedrals and churches had become dilapidated and were often used for secular purposes, their religious significance minimized. The Stuarts reversed this trend. The cathedral proj ect, though cut short by the Civil War, would be the most important statement of St uart politics and theological polity made by the dynasty. The repair or actually the conversion of th e old cathedral was also the most important commission offered to Inigo Jones. It was steep ed in monarchical ambition and proclamations about how the Stuarts were transforming the Eng lish nation and faith. The renovations planned at St. Pauls announced that the Stuarts had aspira tions as defenders of the faith, as well as emperors of Great Britain. Vaughan Hart wrote that this work was for proclaiming the imperial 4 John King, A sermon at Paules Crosse, on behalfe of Paules Church, March 26. 1620. By the B. of London. Both preached and published by his Majesties commandment (London: Printed by Edward Griffin for Elizabeth Adams, 1620), 45-46.

PAGE 403

403 concept of Great Britain and the medieval myth of the British king as heirs of the French throne.5 He also added: Indeed, the portico in scription itself praised Charles for his restoration of the cathedral in fulfillment of his role as Defender of the Faith.6 This work was on a grand scale. In many wa ys, the project was as significant as the building of the Escorial. The Escorial was a st atement of spiritual renewal under Philip II and was an imperial statement. As with Philip II, the Stuarts tried to express in St. Pauls, as well as in the thwarted plans for Whitehall, an imitation and what they viewed as improvement of the Spanish work. The Whitehall plans, discussed at the end of this chapte r, showed the same intentions as the Spanish had already created in Charless own plans for a Temple of Solomon in London. The plans included a massive royal chap el at its center, as did the Escorial. The monarchy had a confirmed ally with the elevation of William Laud, Bishop Kings successor, for St. Pauls renewal. As bishop of London, William Laud helped to inaugurate the long-needed repair of St. Pauls Cathedral in 1631 (Figures 7-1, 7-2). A determined fund-raising campaign was sustained even after Laud translated to Canterbury. He brought in more than ,000, and enabled the repair of the whole ex terior of the cathedral from 1633 to 1641. Charles I paid for the reconstruction of the west front. Jones was appointed surveyor in February 1633 and waived his fee. All three men sensed the importance of this work as a statement about the British empire rising in the west. The fifteen volumes of detailed accounts kept by John Webb as clerk of record noted the repairs of the project. Unfortunately, the building itself fell victim to the great fire of 1666. 5 Vaughan Hart, 44. 6 Vaughan Hart, 45.

PAGE 404

404 Laud was a renovator from the start. Installe d as Archbishop of Ca nterbury on September 19, 1633, he launched a restoration and redecorati on of the chapel of Lambeth Palace. As a pastor, he had already begun renovations in othe r churches, which had put him at odds with Puritan bishops during the second decade of the 1600s. As archbishop, he was free to express his ideals of the beauty of holiness championed by the anti-Calvinist faction from the beginning of Jamess reign. The renewal of Lambeth Chapel was to provi de an example and template for others to follow. The renovations were also a necessity. La ud found the chapel in a neglected condition, as was St. Pauls. George Abbots primacy was a time of protracted decline in the maintenance of the church. Lauds biographer, Peter Heylyn, repo rted that when Laud first came to Lambeth House he found the Chappel lye so nastily th at he was much ashamed to see it, and could not resort unto it without disdain.7 Heylyn also reported that th e windows were defaced and all features were in disarray. Laud changed the chap el at Lambeth Palace into a place of beauty and dignity. Windows were reglazed and a new comm union table was ordered and placed shadowed overhead with a very fair Frieze, and fenced with a decent and costly Rail e, the guilding of the one, and the curious workmanship of the other, together with the Table itself, amounting to 33 pounds and upwards.8 Laud added rich altar-cloths, ne w communion plate, copes, and other vestments available to the chaplains. The or gan repaired, Laud then borrowed men from the 7 Peter Heylyn, Cyprianus anglicus, or, The history of the life and death of the Most Reverend and renowned prelate William, by divine providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury . containing also the eccles iastical history of the thr ee kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Ireland from his first rising till his death (London: Printed for A. Seile, 1668), 292. 8 Peter Heylyn, 292.

PAGE 405

405 royal choir to accompany services.9 The chapel for the primate of the English Church was to reflect splendor, beauty in musi c, art, and dignity, along with a restored sacredness to worship. Both those who admired the changes and those w ho held them in disdain noticed the splendor. Prynne noted in Canterburies Doome the furnishings and la yout, though his purpose was not to document Lauds work or magnificent cere mony but to expose his popery. Yet, we are indebted to this work as it gi ves a detailed explanation of the sources for the decoration of the chapel. The windows of the refurbished chapel de scribed by Prynne included a crucifixion, with instruments of the passion, Abraham and Isaac, Christ as Judge of the world, Solomon, and David as judge. It also included windows with the Holy Ghost descending as a dove, Solomon with the queen of Sheba adoring him paired wi th the Wise Men adoring the Virgin and Child, and the Last Supper. The most idolatrous of all for Prynne was an unusual scene from Numbers where God was imaged as an old man who struck Miriam with leprosy.10 The passion windows at the east end of the chapel we re taken from the great Roman Missal or Mass Book and were identified by Prynne along with many other Catholic books taken from the library after Lauds arrest.11 Laud used the Roman Missal and its illustrati ons as a template for images used in these windows. Knowing that he possessed such texts as the Missal, the similarity of his style of worship to Romes style is more than coincide ntal. The beauty and emphasis of the priestly ministry of the Tridentine Mass no doubt inspir ed Laud through its poetry, ceremony, reverence, and the expressed and imaged theological bea uty. Prynnes discovery of this text and many 9 Peter Heylyn, 292. 10 All details of the windows at Lamb eth Chapel can be gleaned from Canterburies Doome, pages 59-62. 11 Prynne used these books as evidence of Lauds popery at his trial.

PAGE 406

406 other Catholic devotionals confirms the grow ing tendency of High Church Anglicans in the 1620s and 1630s to turn to Cat holic works for inspiration. Lambeth was a prelude to the greater ambitions of Laud. The restoration of St. Pauls to a living cathedral again was his lifelong pursuit. As the most prominent building in the city of London, its renovation occupied Lauds life for more than ten years. As with Lambeth Palace, St. Pauls was nearly in ruins. The Gothic spire was destroyed by lightning in 1561 and not rebuilt. It was in such poor condition, and so encroached with secular life, that its religious use was nearly obliterated. It was comprehensively neglec ted in Elizabeths reign, as church fabric had been neglected during her rule. As early as 1608, James made a halfhearte d appeal for repairs and then again, with more purpose in 1620, as it appeared a Spanish princess would be moving to London. However, like much of the Jacobean period, this was also left for Jamess successor to implement.12 In 1633, Charles wrote to Laud promising to pay for the entire west front himself, over and above his existing gifts.13 Laud himself spent over ,200.14 He and many other Arminians and anti-Calvinists, like the Catholic Church, valued such effort s as good works. They could be a means to salvation. Bishop Gyles Fleming urged the support of the project as an important 12 John Harris and Gordon Higgott, Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Drawings (New York: The Drawing Center, 1989), 238. 13 John Harris and Gordon Higgott, 238. 14 William Laud, William Laud: The history of the troubles and tryal of the Most Reverend Father in God and blessed martyr, William Laud, Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury wrote by himself during his imprisonment in the To wer ; to which is prefixed the diary of his own life, faithfully and entirely published from the original copy ; and subjoined, a supplement to the preceding history, the Arch-Bishop's last will, his large answer to the Lord Say's speech concerning liturgies, his annual accounts of his province deliver ed to the king, and some other things relating to the history (London: Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls Churchyard, 1695), 244.

PAGE 407

407 opportunity for salvation by works, which showed ones faith.15 This attitude was anathema for Puritans. One of the previous bishops of London, George Montaigne was a most important ally for church decoration in that he encouraged the adoration and erection of images in churches. He preached this subject at St. Pauls Cross and c ontributed a large sum of money for the Portland stone used in the new construc tion. In contrast, Puritans and parishes controlled by Puritan ministers did little toward repair Because the vocabulary used by the Laudians was so similar to, if not indistinguishable from, Catholicism. In the stages of the planned restoration, Ro man Catholic influence can be seen in the unexecuted design for the west front of St. Pauls, where Jones incorporated angels and saints. The saints were most likely the patrons of th e church, Peter and Paul. This design used a prominent IHS monogram (A-84). This monogram was most offensive to the Puritans. Jesus Hominum Salvator was the most prominent Jesuit sym bol of the Counter-Reformation. George Henderson pointed out that Laud owned Bible illu strations, which incorpor ated the IHS sunburst that ultimately proved grounds for Puritan censure.16 Indeed, the arch-Puritan William Prynne saw the IHS monogram as but an undoubted Badge and Character of a P opish, and Jesuiticall Booke: of an Idolatrous and Romish Devotion.17 The use of such a symbol prominently on a 15 G. Fleming, Magnificence Exemplified: And The Repai re of Saint Pauls exhorted (London: Printed by Richard Badger for Thomas Alchorn, 1634), 24-26. For further example of this notion, see Trevor-Roper, Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans (1987), 57. 16 George Henderson. Bible Illust rations in the age of Laud, Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society vol. 8, part 2, (1982):179. 17 William Prynne, A briefe suruay and censure of Mr Cozens his couzening deuotions Prouing both the forme and matter of Mr Cozens hi s booke of priuate deuotions, or the houres of prayer, lately published, to be meerely popish: to differ from the priuate prayers authorized by Queene Elizabeth 1560. to be transcribed out of popish authors, with which they are here paralelled: and to be scandalous and preiudicia ll to our Church, and aduantagious onely to the

PAGE 408

408 Protestant cathedral was meant to celebrate a coming together of E ngland and her possible Catholic political allies. Per Palme demonstrat ed that the Banqueting House was built in the early 1620s because of Jamess inclinations toward a Spanish match.18 This earlier design of St. Pauls also fit this political effort. If the Infanta had come to London, as proposed in the early 1620s, the use of a Jesuit symbol on the cathedral would have been a comforting sight for the Spanish. As we now know, the visit never happened and the project was put off for more than ten more years. Though the Jesuit IHS in starburst was not used, it is re markable that the use of such a symbol was contemplated at all. The religi ous polity of the court was clearly moving away from further reform and toward the dominant reli gious and artistic sensibi lities of the time in Europe--Catholicism. The renovations finally came to fruition. The project began with four cornerstones laid in 1633, and an ecumenical feel could be seen to th e dedication. Four officials took part in the laying of these symbols of th e cathedrals resurrection. The said Bishoplayd the first stone at the Ea st end therof: The s econd stone being then layd by Sir Francis Windibank Knight, one of his Majesties principall Se cretaries of State; the third by Sir Henry Martin, then judge of the Perogative Court; and the fourth by the before specified Inigo Jones, Surveyor generall of this work.19 Church of Rome. By William Prynne Gent. Hospitij Lincolniens (London: Thomas Cotes, 1628), 4. 18 Per Palmes argument, set up in his chap ter Preparations for a Goddess, 7-39 in Triumph of Peace: A study of the Whitehall Banqueting House. This chapter clearly explained the purpose of the Banqueting House as a way to celebrate Jamess proposed Anglo-Catholic alliance with Spain. Ambitions to ward a religious unity were e xpressed in the harmony of the orders used at the new hall. 19 William Dugdale, The history of St. Pauls Cathed ral in London from its foundation untill these times extracted out of origina ll charters, records, leiger books, and other manuscripts : beautified with s undry prospects of the church, fi gures of tombes and monuments (London: Tho. Warren, 1658), 139.

PAGE 409

409 Two people laying the cornerstones at the cathedral were Catholics, Inigo Jones and Francis Windibank,20 whose son Edward died at the Battle of the Boyne in 1690 on the side of King James II.21 The ecumenical influence of Laud is reflec ted in the ornamentation of the cathedral, including the colored glass. Much of the stained glass from the Catholic period of the cathedral still existed, and the Ja cobeans improved it. John Stow noted that in 1620 James examined three great Windowes newly glazed, in rich col ours, with the story of Saint Paul.22 Stow also noticed that the interior was painted with rich colours in Oyle.23 Dugdale relayed that the interior was decorated in 1633, before the outside. Sir Paul Pinder having at his own charge, first repaired the decays of that goodly partition, made at the West end of the Quire; adorning the font thereof, outwards, with fair Pillars of black Marble, and Statues of those Saxon Kings, which had been Founders, or Benefactors to the Church; beautified the inne r part thereof, with figures of Angells; and all the wainscote work of the Quire, with excellent carving; viz of Cherubins and other Imagery, richly gilded; adding costly su its of Hangings for the upper end therof.24 According to Dugdale, most of this decoration was for the enhancement and replacement of the choir screen, which featured the Catholic Saxon kings. 20 Vaughan Hart, Imperial Seat or Ecumeni cal Temple? On Inigo Joness Use of Decorum at St. Pauls Cathedral, Architectura 5 no. 2 (1995): 207. 21 Horace Walpole and the majority of Jone ss biographers stated he was a Roman Catholic. This comes from George Virtues no tebooks: Dr Harwood from S. Christ. Wren says that Inigo Dyd at Somerset House in the Strand, a Roman Catholick, that he was put apprentice to a joiner in Pauls church yard. See Walpole Society Publ ications, vol. 18; Vertue Note Books, vol. I, (1930): 105. 22 John Stow, Survey of London 1033. 23 John Stow, 767. 24 William Dugdale, 140.

PAGE 410

410 The rejuvenation of the choir scene at St. Pa uls gave evidence to a changing theological climate in Stuart England with a renewed emphasi s on the Eucharist. In the Laudian service, the altar replaced the Calvinist pulpit as the focal point of worship.25 From the existing plans left by Hollar, the altar was against th e east wall and rose up four steps (A-97). Laud replaced the old altar pulled down during the icono clasm of the 1550s. This change not only argued for but also demonstrated the importance and sanctity of the altar positioned at the eas t end of the cathedral. It appealed to pre-Reformation tradition. Laud insisted that th e Garter Knights continue the custom of reverence toward the altar at the orders ceremonies, a leftover from the Catholic period.26 He also revived the custom of reverence for the Eucharist in other services. The repositioning of the altar in the sanctuary also enhanced processions. These changes were made earlier at Durham Cathedral, which was also a ce remonial template for Lauds liturgies. In many respects, Laud was trying to outdo the papi sts in a show of veneration and respect.27 So the question remains: What were La ud and Charless greater inten tions for these enhanced and Romish services and decorations in churches and cathedrals? The King and Archbishop were trying to rival the magnificence of Rome, Madrid, and Paris. However, they were also trying to restor e the beauty and dignity to the Church of England that had been missing, to a certain extent, afte r the reform. Beauty of worship, decoration, and the dignity and position of the clergy had been under attack in England from the beginning of the 25 Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists: The Rise of English Arminianism 1590-1640 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 264. 26 G.W.O Addleshaw and Frederick Etchells, The Architectural Setting of Anglican Worship. An Inquiry into the Arrangeme nts for Public Worship in the Church of England from the Reformation to the Present Day (London: Faber and Faber, 1948), 140. 27 H. Trevor-Roper, Catholics, Anglicans and Puritans, 71, 89-90.

PAGE 411

411 Reformation. These attacks came ironically and often from other clergy. Laud and Charles read the history of British Christianity, as well as European Christianity, quite differently from extreme Calvinist Protestants. This program then necessitated a reestablished link to traditions that were also linked to Catholicism. To this end, both king and bishop adopted the notion of imperial monarchy in relation to the ancient and medieval church, hence the inclusion of Catholic Saxon kings in the decorative design of altar screens. This was allowable because the Laudians general view of history was in essence conciliatory to the Church of Rome. It stressed a common inheritance from primitive Christianity onward through the middle ages. Jame s and Charles, their most supportive bishops, Andrewes and Laud, and the other anti-Calvinists, hoped that a common history and similar practice could provide a fertile foundation for unification of Christianity, even with Rome. Most Laudians, as with both Stuart monarchs, believed that Rome had equal status as a true church. This was especially noted in Bishop Richard Mo ntagues attitude. Mont ague described Charles in 1636 as renewing, restoring, and repa iring ancient rites to the church.28 Church reunification was not central in any way to Calvinis ms theological core doctrines. Calvinist doctrine stressed historical opposition to Rome and its demonic domination by bishops and popes. Most Puritan clergy and adherent s defended a distinctly different concept of church from that of the Laudians. They were the heirs of Foxe and Jewel, and a group of reformers who traced the true church through medieval heretics like the Waldensians and Albigensians. For the Puritan clergy and elect th e papacy was the anti-Christ predicted in the Book of Revelations. The pope was absolute evil, a modern reincarnation of the serpent in the garden who seduced people through liturgies, art, and all magical trickery and lies. 28 Nicholas Tyacke, 239.

PAGE 412

412 On the other hand, Charles, Laud, and the anti -Calvinists views of history were quite different. Laud and others with like minds were heirs to Hooker and Andrewes. The church was a continuous institution, vindicated by tradition and reason. The Roman Church, even in its present corruption, was a true part of the entire church. Laud, Andrewes, and most of the other anti-Calvinists had no use for Jewe l or Foxe and their view of th e history of Christianity. This was history of, by, and through hereti cs. The anti-Calvinists celebrat ed the church fathers, Latin and Greek, along with the traditi ons of the Middle Ages. These tr aditions were what Laud sought to revive as a legitimate Christian inheritance.29 Certainly, Laud and Charles would have known and acknowledged that England had even produced a pope, Adrian IV, who essentially gave Ireland to the English Crown in the 1150s. Much was to be es teemed in the common ground of the past with Roman Catholicism. It is true that some of the Laudians were anti-papist, but they did not believe the pope to be the devil incarnate. They felt he was in error, especially about the nature of royal government. Laudians were almost to a man supporters of r oyal Absolutism; however, they did not believe that the king had any priestly authority. James did allow an antipopery rhetoric dur ing his reign, which was useful for James until his obsession with a Catholic match became the center of his foreign policy. Unfortunately, the short-term ga ins of anti-popery in Jamess political and religious inconsistency helped to further the di vide in the English Church during his reign and served as a basis for much of the anti-Catholic propaganda and anti-Laudian resentment, which emerged during the reign of Charles.30 29 Hugh Trevor-Roper, 143. 30Anthony Milton, Catholic and Reformed: The Roman and Protestant Churches in English Protestant Thought 1600-1640 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995). A

PAGE 413

413 St. Pauls was a concrete embodiment of Laudianisms appeal to the Catholic past. Moderate Laudians, such as the Lincol nshire priest Gyles Fleming, who wrote Magnificence Exemplified: and the Repair of Saint Pauls exhorted unto (1634), continued to emphasize a connection to the Catholic past. This sermon ex emplified the Laudian policy toward beauty in holiness and was in all its aspects propag anda for the repair of the cathedral.31 Fleming exhorted his congregation to donate to St. Pauls because it is the mother of Cathedrals in England. Once again, attachment to the pastexemplified by ornamentation on the interior as well as the exteriorestablished an anti-Pur itan view of the churchs pa st and its future. Hugh TrevorRoper wrote: The restoration of St. Pauls, even if, consid ering the design according to which it was to be restored, it cannot be called beautificati onwas a striking instan ce in the aesthetic sphere of the Catholic culture, which Charle s I and Laud were seeking to impose, as a stabilizing mould, upon a society suffering from the disintegrating effects of change. The motives which inspired them were not iden tical, for Laud look upon the arts in a more utilitarian sprit, as the ex ternal forms by which men were drawn to support of a given system, but they operated in the same direc tion It was not because Laud himself had artistic tastes that he fostered some of the arts, nor because he was himself an Orientalist that he patronized Oriental studies; but, like the statesman who founded libraries and academies, he understood the social value of these things.32 Jones also showed this social value in the design of th e outer cathedral. As noted earlier, the social va lue and connection of the art in the interior and exterior of the cathedral was designed for not only edificat ion, but also education. According to a drawing based on the original plans by William Kent, the great portico was to have the most important chapter 1 and 2 of Miltons work described th ese opposing ideas about the place of Rome and the revival of Catholic-influenced worship. 31 Gyles Fleming, Magnificence exemplified: and, the repaire of Saint Pauls exhorted 42-44. 32 Hugh Trevor-Roper, Archbishop Laud 1573-1645 (London: Phoenix Press, 2000), 125-26.

PAGE 414

414 kings of England standing on the entrance to the cathedral on the portico.33 However, the west front of the Cathedral ended up with only statues of Charles and James. The front of the portico, inscribed in Latin, CAROLU S D.G MAGNAE BRITANNIAE HIBERNIAE FRANCIAE REX F.D. TEMPULUM SANCTI PAULI V ETUSTATE CONSUMPTUM RESTITUIT ET PORTICUM FECIT, proclaims Charles as the rest orer of St. Pauls and the builder of the portico. Charles is connected fu ll circle to the Catholic Saxon kings on the screen inside the church and Charles is the noble successor of the past, kingship, and true piety. The similarities to Catholic precursors in It aly for St. Pauls design are undeniable. The walls of the Romanesque transepts and nave were re-cased to a new, classical design, and at the west end Jones constructed an entirely new ten-column Corinthian portico. The re-cased walls were completely rusticated. Fenestration cons isted of oculi above round-head windows, and pineapples capped pilaster buttresses. The cornice was of a quasi-Doric design, apparently derived from Hieronymus Cocks reconstruction of the baths of Diocletian (1558) which Jones saw in Rome. The transept doorways were Ionic, and the Corinthian portico completed the gamut of the orders. Jones relied heav ily on Counter-Reformation buildings favored by Jesuits. Such churches as San Ambrogio, Genoa (A-83) and Il Gesu, the mother church of the Jesuits in Rome, with its prominent IHS monogram (Figure 5-2), were inspirations in preliminary drawings and in the final design. The decision to resurface St. Pauls with a classical faade was an expression of the dismissal of the Gothic by Jones and the Stuart s. Henry Wotton echoed Gi orgio Vasaris famous criticism of Gothic as barbaric. Gothic ought to bee exiled from judicious eyes, and left to their 33 See John Harris and Gordon Higgott, page 238, for Kents drawing.

PAGE 415

415 first inventors, the Gothes or Lumbards, am ongst other Reliques of that barbarous Age.34 Clearly, Laud and Charles approved of the use of classical vocabulary. The classic portico type, a full-width colonnade carrying not a pediment but a balustraded platform, was once again familiar to Jones from Palladios illustrations of antique temples, specifically, the temple of Venus and in Rome the temple of Peace (Basi lica of Maxentius-Constantine). His annotations in his copy of Palladio showed how Jones thought such a struct ure could embody what he called the Romain Greatnes. He also saw the Pantheon, dedicated as Santa Maria dei martiri (Figure 4-1), a church converted from the so-called Temple of Castor, Pollux in Naples (A-54), and The Temple of Antoninus and Faustina (Figure 7-3) with massive Corinthian columns on their porticoes. Webb noted the magnificence of the restoration was to be a religious statement of purpose to show to the world that the Envy of a ll Christendom upon our Nation, for a Piece of Architecture, not to be paralleld in these last Ages of the World.35 Dugdale also hailed the portico as a celebration of Catho lic royalty, internati onal as well as national Christian virtue.36 The function of the portico, according to William Dugdale, was to be an ambulatory for such, as usually by walking in the body of the Church disturbed the solemn service in the 34 Henry Wotton, The Elements of Architecture ed. Frederick Har d, (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1968), 51. See R. Wittkower, Gothic vs. Classic: Architectural Projects in Seventeenth Century Italy (New York: George Braziller, 1974). For Vasaris outlook on Gothic, see page 19. 35 John Webb, A vindication of Stone-Heng restored in which th e orders and rules of architecture observed by the ancient Romans ar e discussed: together with the customs and manners of several nations of the world in matter s of building of greatest antiquity: as also, an historical narration of the most memor able actions of the Danes in England. (London: by James Bettenham for G. Conyers, J. and B. Sprint, B. Lintot, D. Browne junior, J. Woodman and D. Lyon, 1725), 27. 36 William Dugdale, 140.

PAGE 416

416 Quire.37 The church was to return to a tradit ional sacred space ra ther than a place of commerce. Before Lauds time it was noted, The noise in it is like that of bees, a st range humming or buzz mixed of walking tongues and feet: it is a kind of still roar it is the thieves sanctuary, which rob more safely in a crowd than in a wilderness It is the ot her expense of the day, af ter plays, tavern and bawdy-house; and men have still some oaths left to swear here.38 People used Pauls Walk, as it was called, to gossip, display fashions, and do business. As far as the king and Laud were concerned, this was going to end, and the cathedral was to become a place of dignity once more for sacred purpose. For many Puritans, St. Pauls was only a building connected with the heretical Catholic past. It was suitable only for doing business or stabling horses, which they did during the Civil War. Sculpture and the Use of Catholic Sources for Political Propaganda Though not rebuilt like St. Pa uls, Westminster Abbey was a steady contributor in the development of ceremonialism and royal propa ganda. It was a special repository of antiCalvinist and Laudian values. Julia Merritt, in her publication on polity a nd practice in the abbey after the Reformation, noted that it wa s indeed the cradle of Laudianism.39 The abbey, as the site of the burial of kings and of coronati ons, had exceptional status as a royal peculiar, completely under the control of the monarch. Thus, it was a showcase for the crowns theological and political programs. However, unlik e the royal chapel, it was a much more public building, open to all. Merritt no ted the crown appointed the dean s and they were conservative. Gabriel Goodman (dean, 1561-1601) is the first ex ample given. He was educated during Queen 37 William Dugdale, 106. 38 John Earle, Microcosmography ed. P. Bliss (London, 1818), 117-118. 39 Julia Merritt, The Cradle of Laudianism? Westminster Abbey 1558-1630, Journal of Ecclesiastical History (2001), 623-646.

PAGE 417

417 Mary Is reign, and it seems his conservative nature was the only reason he was continually passed up for vacant Dioceses during Elizabeths reign. During his tenure as dean, the abbey missed a whole generation of the zealous Elizab ethan Calvinist reform. Goodman presided over services that were pre-Reformation in thei r high degree of cerem ony, including the use of vestments, canopies, plate, and altar cloths.40 Due to his stewardship, tapestries survived which told the life of Christ through the life of Edward the Confe ssor. In addition, the statues at the abbey were left alone, unlike those in many other sanctuaries that endured periodic iconoclasm. The followers of Goodman were all influentia l contributors to the beauty of holiness. Lancelot Andrewes was dean from 1601 to 1605, then Richard Neile from 1605 to 1610, followed by George Montaigne. Finally, John Williams took over the position from 1620 until the Civil War. Andrewes improved the choir and en sured the services followed the entire liturgy of the Prayer Book. Neile repaired the high altar and inner fabric.41 Williams was the most energetic. He restored the interior and rebuilt th e buttresses outside which he beautified with elegant Statues including one of the final abbot before the dissolution of the monastery, Islip. Williams himself spent 4500 pounds to beautify this edifice, but did so anonymously.42 The services during Williams tenure were also extremely formal and reflected a High Church mentality. Noted earlier in this study was the significance of the royal tombs. The abbey was also the most important place for new memorials to othe r Stuart nobility. At Westminster Abbey, royal 40 Julia Merritt, 627-628. 41 Julia Merritt, 631. 42 John Hacket, Scrinia Reserata: a Memorial . of John Williams D.D (1693), vol. I, 46.

PAGE 418

418 chapels, tombs, and artwork were maintained in excellent condition, unlike the considerable decay of such items in many churches and cathe drals. These tombs were placed at the eastern end of the abbey in the Lady Chapel. As was tr adition, the eastern end was the most sacred part of the church, close to its sacramental center. James chose to be buried in a relatively unmarked grave almost directly under the High Alta r near his Catholic ancestor Henry VII. Most of the images the Stuarts produced at We stminster, with its stone virtues, angels, and cherubs, were distasteful to Puritans. The combin ation of royal tombs and elaborate services in the newly beautified choir and exterior gave evidence of continuity with pre-Reformation traditions and the abbeys Catholic history. It sh ould be noted that the artwork and liturgies performed in the abbey were in step with Cat holic Counter-Reformation contemporary practice. In the abbey, James was the first king since Henry VII to combine state portraiture with religious symbolism in his memorial to his mother Mary Queen of Scots. Charles continued this practice in such works as the Banqueting House. For many Calvinist critics of the regime, it clearly crossed that line and seemed closer to popery than to godly religion. Puritans preferred Elizabeths propaganda to that of th e Stuarts. This replaced the oldest Christian symbol, the crucifix in many chur ches with the Queens coat of arms. Stuart Kings went one-step further. They placed their statues on the altar sc reen, where statues of Christ, the Madonna, and saints had once stood. This placing of the monarchs at center of worship space was exemplified in another very public cons truction of a new screen at Winchester Cathedral. Jones designed a new choir screen for Winc hester Cathedral that showed the close link between the church and crown. This construction was suggested after Charles visited the church in progress during 1636. He commen ted on the state of decay of the cathedral, especially the screen, pulpit and other important furnishings seemingly left to rot. Laud, with the help of

PAGE 419

419 Matthew Wren, bishop of Ely, who informed Laud of the kings remarks, persuaded the dean and chapter to replace the ruined scre en with one worthy of a cathedral. One of the main reasons for attention to this specific cathe dral was that many Saxon kings we re buried at Winchester. This had been a royal abbey before the Reformation. Joness screen, designed from 1637 to 1638, is notable as an exampl e of other screens built during the Laudian period. These screens were intended to sanctify the chancel and to form a barrier that created a church within a church. The interior was for the sacrament and the nave for sermonizing.43 Hollars plans for St. Pauls (A97, A-98, A-99) recorded steps up to the chancel, which further distinguished the nave from the chancel. This was intended to emphasize the sacramental, sacred, and pries tly nature of the sanctuary. The statues of the Stuart kings at Winchester Cathedral were placed on either side of the opening to the chancel (A-100, A-101), similar to statues placed at the entrance of the abbey church in the Escorial. At the Escorial, in the entrance to the basi lica of San Lorenzo, Pompeo Leoni made bronze statues of the Hapsburgs. These effigies show Charles V and Family on the Gospel side and Philip II and Family on the Epistle side (A-15). Though too ma ssive to be attached to an altar screen, the statues that Charle s saw at the Escorial served the same function. They reminded those who came to the Basilica church at Escorial of the kings piety and connections to the church as protectors of religion. Jones seemed to have had the same idea in mind with the installation of large stat ues on the screen (A-100) designed by Le Sueur. The church was not the only place for disp lay. Charles I brought monumental imperial sculpture to England for the first time in an over life-sized equestrian statue by Le Sueur (Figure 7-1). This was an imitation of great statuary a nd painting Charles saw in Paris and in Madrid. A 43 G. Addleshaw and F. Etchells, 42.

PAGE 420

420 prime example of this is the Titian painting of Charles V on Horseback (A-102). Charles Stuart was one of the most energetic monarchs in his use of statuary during the 1630s. Contrary to what earlier historians have st ated, he also displayed art, in partic ular sculpture, in many public places. This display of quasi-religious artwork was part of his program to bolster his right to rule and command respect. Previous or contemporary examples of this type of display were in Catholic countries. Charles used this art as a template for display. In the 1620s and 1630s, Charles went on an extensive program of buying and commissioning sculptures. Charle ss love of sculpture dates to his childhood. In 1611, Henry Prince of Wales was presented with examples of fashionable sculpture. These included fifteen table bronzes from the workshop of Giambologn a and were part of the negotiations for a marriage between Henry and Catherina de Medici, sister of Cosmo II.44 These child-sized bronzes were critical in awakening the a ppreciation of sculpture in the future king.45 Even before he became king, Charles was a moving figure in approaching Pietro Tacca to cast the planned bronze equestrian monument to James I.46 It was never realized, but the intention was to put the Stuart s on the same level as the Medici and the Bourbons, who already had such images of their monarchs. Only a few years after the project to get Tacca to cast the equestrian work of James I, Charles acquired vi rtually all the statues of the Mantua Court. 44 For Prince Henrys bronze st atuettes, see Charles Avery, Studies in European Sculpture (London, Christies, 1981), 95-114. 45 Charles Avery, 103. 46 Charles Avery and Katharine Watson, Med ici and Stuart: A Grand Ducal gift of Giovanni Bologna bronzes for Henry Prince of Wales (1612) in Averys Studies in European Sculpture (London: Christies, 1981), 98.

PAGE 421

421 Mantua was famous for its patronage of the visual arts and especially its collection of great religious paintings. For Charles, co llecting was not an end in itself. As king, Charles was not only a connoisseur, bu t also an iconic entrepreneur. One of the disadvantages of the splendid and eloquent pain tings he collected or commissioned was their inability to be displayed outside for a more genera l audience. In contrast, his sculptures could be and were displayed in very public places. During a time when access to royal palaces was confined to the highborn, privileged or rich (many who were for the most part also collectors of art), the kings sculptures could be used outside of his personal sphere as an extension of his presence. Sculpture could expose the idea of the king, to rich and poor, sympathetic and disaffected alike. This may be why Charles valu ed the works of second-rate sculptors as highly as he did the works of consummate masters. Sculpture had a propaganda value that paintings could never have. The rhetoric of sculpture was useful to Charles. The rituals of the English coronation rite enhanced the deistic message and image of th e king. For Charles, sculpture was an art of eloquence and proportion that supported this message of divinely inspired monarchy. It was also for him a means of persuasion in a society in ways that are difficult for us to grasp in our modern and relatively art-free world, at least free of art whose direct intent is to communicate something universal about anything in particular. In this light, Henry Wottons thought about art, sculpture in particular, reminds todays viewer of the intended audience. Monuments were not a bare and transitory entertainment of the EyeBut had also a secret and strong influen ce, even into the Adva ncement of the Monarchy, by continual representation of virtuous examples, so as in that point, Art became a piece of

PAGE 422

422 state.47 This was something Charles counted on bei ng true and readable by his people, in his building programs, decoration of churches, and sculpture. Charless collections were also availabl e to those who wanted to study them. The sculptures from Mantua pa rticularly affected local sculptors. Nicholas Stone became involved as restorer as soon as they were unloaded. Stone restored some marble pieces damaged in the crossing. Undertaking the re storation work of these statues allo wed for a close contact with these classical and Catholic religious sculptures.48 The Mantuan works were the nucleus of the royal collection. They had a profound effect on the deve lopment of Charless taste and his notion of what sculpture could do to propagandize his absolutist notions. This collection inspired and challenged him. Charles became the most active of royal pa trons using sculpture in Europe during the 1630s. He became even more absorbed by works in Italy, which were not for sale, though this did not stop him from trying to purchase them. Charless appreciation and awareness of the propaganda value of these works le d to attempts to acquire the most famous statues in Rome. When attempts to purchase failed, he sent Gage. This Catholic exile then returned as papal legate a few years later. A reengagement with Rome allowed Le Sueur to go to Rome to cast moulds of famous works, such as the Borghese Gladiator.49 These reproductions then were brought back to London and elsewhere for display. Le Sueur copied some famous works, including the Antinoos of Belvedere the Farnese Hercules, the Borghese Gladiator and Spinario These virtuous ruler archetypes of antiquity 47 Per Palme, Triumph of Peace 267. 48 M. Whinney and O. Millar, English Art: 1625-1714 (Oxford, 1957), 110. 49 Charles Avery, 149.

PAGE 423

423 were displayed outside the Stuart palaces in their gardens and pub lic places to enhance the notion that Charles was an equal of the great royalty of Europe.50 Even in this display, Charles was indebted to Catholic royalty, such as the Medici, Hapsburgs Bourbons, and the papacy, who would not part with their preci ous pieces, but allowed Charles to have them copied. Second-rate reproductions made by Le Sueur, with the permission of Catholic monarchs, sufficed. Even though Le Sueurs copies were not exceptional, he made many. Le Sueur had fifty commissions alone in less than twenty years. Though Le Sueurs works could rarely inspire, as did the works of Bernini, he was adequate for Charless prop aganda purposes. In addition, he was reliable, and Le Sueurs output was continuous, reaching a climax in the late 1630s. By the early 1630s, Charles and Henrietta Maria were active patrons of sculptors, possibly the most active at this time.51 During this period, Henrietta Maria had grand reredos in stone and paint done by Francois Dieussart. These Glories of Angels were plac ed in her chapel at Denmark House.52 At the same time, Stone and Le Sueu r made two separate fountains crowned by statues of Arethusa and Mercury for the gardens at Denmark House.53 These works are related to the Honthorst painting of Apollo and Diana (A-91) in which Buckingham was Mercury, who led the seven liberal arts to pay homage to the king and queen. 50 Charles Avery, 149. 51 Art historians should conduct a study to s ee what the sculpture output of Charles and Henrietta Maria was during the personal rule, comparing the output to other contemporary courts. It would allow a comparison of the enorm ous number of commissions of Charles to other significant monarchies in the 1630s. 52 T. Birch, The Court and Times of Charles I ed. R. R. Williams, (London, 1848), 225227. 53 W. L. Spiers, The Note-Book and Account Book of Nicholas Stone, Walpole Society 7 (1918-19), 105.

PAGE 424

424 The most constant demand on sculptors, and in particular on Le Sueur, was for royal busts and full-sized statues. These are somewhat monot onous, but reveal attitudes about sculpture and the prototypes Charles preferred. Many busts included significant iconography, which spoke of Charless intentions. Charles was often in an anti que helmet, some with dragon crests, as Charles had been portrayed in St. George by Rubens (A-96). Most busts showed the king in armor and were displayed in public places. Portsmouth, where Charles landed after return ing from the Spanish marriage debacle in 1623, was privileged to have one of the kings images. Chichester was another place for a display of a Le Sueur bust. St. Pauls Hammer smith also displayed a bust of Charles I by Le Sueur. Two busts by Le Sueur were at the Banque ting House, one of Charles installed above the door and a colossal bust of James I placed ou tside the entrance, opposite Charless bust. 54 More importantly were full-sized statues of Ch arles, often paired with James I or Henrietta Maria. Laud inspired one famous pair. In 1636, Laud was at the summit of his prosperity as Archbishop and Chancellor of Oxford. He placed full-length Le Sueur statues of Charles and Henrietta Maria in niches on the east-west axis wall of the Canterbury Quadrangle at Oxford.55 Charles, shortly after seeing these works in pr ogress, commissioned Le Sueur to make several more life-sized bronzes of himself, James and He nrietta Maria. These were placed in prominent positions in London and Westminster. Many were destroyed after the kings execution. 54 David Howarth, Charles I, Sculpture and Sc ulptors in The Late Kings Goods: Collections, Possessions and Patronage of Charle s I in the Light of the commonwealth Sale Inventories ed. Arthur MacGregor, (L ondon and Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1989), 91-92. 55 Howard Colvin, The Canterbury Quadrangle St. Johns College Oxford (Oxford, 1988), 27.

PAGE 425

425 The most conspicuous was a statue of Charle s that was paired with James I at the Royal Exchange. This statue was decapitated in a macab re and symbolic re-run of his execution by the order of Parliament.56 The order read that the bronze of the king was to be demolished, by having the head taken off, and the scepter out of his hand, and this inscrip tion to be written Exit tyrannus Regum ultimus, anno primo restitutae lib ertatis Angliae 1648, and this to be done between this and Saturday next.57 This order, carried out, made a poignant statement, which remained during the Commonwealth. Other full-sized statues were in Covent Gard en. St. Pauls Covent Garden was the first completely new church built on a new site afte r the Reformation. It therefore demanded the presence of the Defender of the Faith. Statues of the king and queen stood before what to some was the only true Protestant church in London, and in front of the most elegant and commodious square in his kingdom.58 Less friendly gentry, including Lord Bedford, controlled the Covent Garden works project. By putting his statue there in the complex, Charles made his presence felt. Bedford, one of the prominent Puritan Lords, did not associate with Charles or the court because Bedford suspected the kings motives and particul arly the kings religi on. Martin Butler noted: It [the Covent Garden development] was also a challenge to Lauds conforming ministry. The Covent Garden church was the firs t church to be built in London since the Reformation and the puritan earl reserved the patronage to himself, resisting the attempts of the vicar of St. Martin-in-the-Fields to control the living.59 56 David Howarth, Charles I, Sculpture and Sculptors, 92. 57 Public Record Office, State Papers, Counc il of State, Days Proceedings, vol. IX, 7, 31 July 1650. 58 David Howarth, Charles I, Sculpture and Sculptors, 92. 59 Martin Butler, Theater and Crisis 1632-1642 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 147-148.

PAGE 426

426 Charles wanted to have his presence felt in a di sloyal and alien environment, making a statement, that toleration of Puritanism went only so fa r. The king was king--even here. Other important areas of London, such as Queen Street, received full-length statues of the king and queen. Queen Street was one of the most fashionable areas of the capital and was inhabited by courtiers who included Sir Kenelm Digby and the Earl of Northumberland.60 Iconoclasts destroyed these statues, too, perhaps because of the wellknown influence Henrietta Maria had on these decorative programs. In the past, too little scholarly attention ha s been given to the considerable influence Henrietta Maria had on design at cour t. For instance, Henrietta Maria, rather than Charles, is now credited with using the royal gardens as theat ers for sculpture. Andre Mollet was brought over to work at St. Jamess Palace through Henriett a Marias connection with her family in France.61 Mollets father, Claude the Elde r, had created the celebrated gardens for Henri IV, which had a distinctly French taste to what Henrietta Maria had the Younger Mollet construct in London.62 A French nobleman noted the similarities to Italia nate gardens and displa y in London on a visit. The Sieur de la Serre, who was in the entourage of Marie de Medici in 1637, noted that the gardens of London were where one may see the rare st wonders of Italy in great number of stone and bronze.63 60 David Howarth, Charles I, Sculpture and Sculptors, 93. 61 Roy Strong, The Renaissance Garden in England (London: Thames and Hudson, 1979), 188-97. 62 Roy Strong, 83-84, 187-188. 63 Roy Strong, 188.

PAGE 427

427 The sheer number of statues displayed in London and other royal residences and public places during the Caroline period are staggering. The manuscript copies of the sale inventories do not exactly tell one where these statues were displayed, however, they testify to enormous numbers produced, bought, and displayed by Charle s and his wife. There were 177 statues, 227 busts, of which twenty seven were Le Sueurs br onze philosophers, eight reliefs, six terms, one urn, twenty-one loose pedestals, six blocks of marble, one fragment and of broken figure 6 of plaster 4 of wax.64 These were only a portion of statue s from the king and queens possessions that went on sale after the demise of Charles. The first monumental bronze mentioned in this chapter was Charles I on Horseback by Le Sueur (Figure 7-1). This figure and the bronze at the exchange would become symbols of the return of the monarchy. By the spring of 1660, almost universal sympathy arose toward the martyred figure of Charles I. In March 1660, Ma jor Henshaw informed the Earl of Clarendon last evening the detestable motto on the Exch ange under the last king s statue was expunged by the city painter.65 A poem by Edmund Waller expresse d a reverence again found for the monarchy. This poem was an ironic commentary upon the kings love of sculpture. It muses about the equestrian work by Le Sueur. That the first Charles do es here in triumph ride, See his son reign where he a martyr died, And people pay that re verence as they pass, (Which then he wanted!) to the sacred brass, Is not the effect of gratitude alone, To which we owe the statue and the stone; But heaven this lasting monument has wrought, That mortals may eternally be taught Rebellion, though successful, is but vain, 64 David Howarth, Charles I, Sculpture and Sculptors, 105. 65 David Howarth, 108.

PAGE 428

428 And kings so killed rise conquerors again. This truth the royal image does proclaim, Loud as the trumpet of surviving fame.66 This poem was written only a few years afte r the restoration. The poet Edmund Waller understood what Charles I was trying to achie ve for the monarchy through art: respect, reverence, and cooperation, but too late. Image of Catholic Monarchy: Gi anlorenz o Bernini and Charles I Gianlorenzo Bernini was one of the most sought-after and important artists of the Baroque. This giant of Italian design, sculpt ure, and painting worked for seven popes and numerous kings, queens, and prin ces throughout the Catholic world. One of the most celebrated episodes in Berninis career was his work for Charles I. The English commission was realized only through the papal connection through Fran ce and in particular because of the good relationship of the papal c ourt with Henrietta Maria. 67 Charless bust was the first bust Bernini executed for someone outside the orbit of Rome. This bust made Charles I the first ruler to have himself immortalized by the worlds dominant artistic figure from the worlds artistic capital. Eventually, Cardinal Richelieu, Duke Francesco I dEste, and Louis XIV would follow Charless lead in engaging Bernini for such a portrait bust. It st ruck admirers as having the same kind of energy and originality as Rubenss wo rks, already on display at court. Berninis fame had already come to England. One of his designed works was in the queens collection. English cognosce nti saw this example of Bernin is brilliance in a reliquary, designed and installed in one of the queens chapels one year be fore the bust arrived. Executed 66 George A. E. Parfitt, ed., Silver Poets of the Seventeenth Century (London: Dent, 1974), 41. 67 Charles Avery, Bernini Genius of the Baroque (London: Thames and Hudson), 1997, 225.

PAGE 429

429 by Francesco Spagna, but designed by Bernini, the reliquary contained relics of St. Helena. George Conn brought it from Rome in the summer of 1636 as a gift for Henrietta Maria from the pope.68 Bernini fashioned for Charles in his bust an ideal of a Catholic mona rch: divine, virtuous, and imperious, attributes Bernini already had done for the papacy. Charles I wanted the artists talents used for the same reasons. He wanted an image by the great artist to display at court, which would rival other images fashioned for kings, popes, and important churchmen. Having Berninis work would announce that England was one of the greatest courts in Europe. One of the most important art historia ns of the twentieth century, Irving Lavin, demonstrated that celebrated rule r portraits by Bernini s hould be regarded as related to the early modern political theory of anti-Machiavelliani sm, which countered Machiavellis self-serving advice to rulers with Christian political theory.69 The intent of princes and prelates alike was to portray themselves as noble Christian monarchs and models of rule. Lavin noted the current scholarship about anti-Machiavel lianism, but also Lavin looks to earlier scholars such as Friedrich Meinecke and Rodolfo De Matte.70 Lavin argued that Bernini purposefully translated 68 David Howarth, Charles I Sculpture and Sculptors, 95. 69 Irving Lavin, Berninis image of the Ideal Christian Monarch in The Jesuits: Cultures, Sciences, and the Arts 1540-1773 ed. John W. OMalley, S. J. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1999), 442. 70 An entire school of thought exists on this subject. Major scholars are indebted to the writings of Friedrich Meinecke, Machiavellianism: The Doctrine of Raison dEtat and its Place in Modern History, 1927. Most important in this study is the work of Robert Bireley, The Counter-Reformation Prince (Raleigh, N. C. 1990). He summed up the main ideas and scholarship in this work that support the notion that during the Counter-Reformation many princes tried to change the now commonly-held views of the co rruption of monarchy and church by portraying the prince and prelate as noble, virtuous, anti-Machiavellian figures.

PAGE 430

430 this Catholic theology into stone and paint. When one sees the similar connection that Rubens had with noted Catholic anti-Mach iavellians such as Lipsius, La vins argument is strengthened. Lavin pointed out that Jesuits were among th e strongest opponents of Machiavellis view of the prince. The Jesuits sought to provide an a lternative to Mach iavellis model of a world that was unscrupulous and cynical in statecraft (though at times some Jesuits certainly lapsed into Machiavellis model). Since the mid-sixteenth century, a veritable flood of anti-Machiavellian literature defended the relevance of Christian mo ral principles not only to utopian visions of domestic rule and foreign diplomacy, but also to practical and su ccessful statesmanship71 were produced. In addition, a flood of Baroque ar t by Jesuits and other religious patrons filled churches, palaces, and government buildings th roughout the Catholic world. These extolled the virtuous life of the saints and rulers of the past and of contemporary rulers as CounterReformation remedies for Machiavellis ideas. Many Catholic theologians argued that the be st form of government was a monarch with an almost unlimited power to rule so to stabilize the political a nd religious settlements made a reality by the Reformation. While ultimately re sponsible to God, the monarchs power to a certain extent was based on the original consen t of the people. Once the people had given the power, the monarch had this power irrevocably unless he demonstrat ed that he was a despot. One of the tools at the disposal of the monarch to increase his reputation, and therefore, enhanced his powers to rule was displa yed virtue and nobility.72 Painting, sculpture, and building magnified the monarchs image. 71 Irving Lavin, Berninis Image of the Ideal Christian Monarch, 446. 72 On the concept of reputation, see Robert Bireley, The Counter Reformation Prince (Raleigh, N. C., 1990). This concept is demonstr ated well in his research and evidence.

PAGE 431

431 Lavins contribution to the expansion of scholarship about anti-Machiavellianism and the art world of Catholic Europe shoul d also be expanded to the mental world and the artistic realm of early modern England. As noted in earlier chapters, theories about governing--expressed in the words and deeds of James and Charles--were similar if not identical to the theory of government that the Catholic abso lutists constituted during this sa me era. The expanded use of art for such a purpose by the St uarts, from the beginning of th eir rule in England until the outbreak of the Civil War, is significant evidence of their mimicking the great Catholic powers in display. The design of the Banqueting House and the works Charles collected and commissioned certainly testify to this no tion of political-religious ar t to enhance reputation. The notion of the Catholic prince-hero and the heros qualities are important in understanding the political use of ar t by Charles I. The elements of the prince-hero were given by Giovanni Batista Pigna, who worked in the second half of the sixteenth century mainly for the court of the DEste dukes of Ferrara. He was at court as a professor and secretary. As a priestauthor and one of the prominent Italian anti-Machiavellians, Pigna was virtually possessed by the idea of the hero. He published two works in 1561, a treatise, Il Principe, dedicated to Duke Emmanuelle Filiberto of Savoy, but written for Alfonzo II of Ferrara, and an epic poem entitled Gli heroic dedicated to Alfonso: a nd in 1570 a massive history of the dEste princes.73 According to Lavin, Giovanni Battista Pigna be st articulated this th eory of prince-hero developed by Catholic anti-Machia vellians in a clear and deliber ate manner around the last third of sixteenth century.74 It was a political theo ry ready to be fashioned in stone and paint. 73Giovanni Battista Pignas, Il Principe was published in Venice in 1561 along with Gli heroici in the same year. Historia de principi di Este was published in Ferrara in 1570. The connection with Venice is extremely important. Venice was a major stopping point for the English visits during this period of the Grand Tour. 74 Irving Lavin, 450.

PAGE 432

432 Pigna developed elaborate theories about th e virtuous prince. He ar gued that the prince was superior to those he governed and had hosts of higher angels as guardians. This seems odd to us today but seemed reasonable in a culture defi ned by social order. The prince was closer to God as Gods chosen, therefore th e prince received special graces.75 Pigna, who died in 1575, taught that the prince needed mo re divine guidance than ordinary men. Monarchs elevated status in the great chain of being meant that others depended on them and their good government. The prince thus had a divine nature. Each link in the great chain might be further divided into its component parts. In Renaissance society, the king was at the top, followed by the aristocratic lords, and then the peasants below them. Solidif ying the kings position at the top of humanitys social order became standard for those who suppor ted the divine right of kings theory. The king was like a father in a family--the father-head of the household; below him was his wife; below her, their children. The children subdivided so th at the males were one link above the females. To understand Pignas example of the prince, as the suprem e human link in the great chain, is to understand his position in which the di vine nature of the prin ce derived from his duty and purpose. His purpose was to reach perfection a nd thus enable his subjects to reach toward perfection through emulating the prince, who was Gods represen tative. Thus, the prince was given rule over others so that he could dedicate himself to erad icating evil and introducing virtue among the governed. The ideal prince was an exam ple of heroic human nature that surpassed 75 This was echoed in the writings of Bernini in the Diary of the Paul Freart de Chantelou, Cavaliere Berninis Visit to France ed. Anthony Blunt (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985), 235.

PAGE 433

433 other mere mortals. Thus, the prince was sacral in nature which allowed him to adapt the religious justification for the active life as a witn ess to those he governed.76 As numerous Catholic theologians argued fo r this theory of divine right monarchy, it produced broad implications for European history and for the role of the papacy in particular during the early seventeenth century. If the king s power derived directly from God, the pope did not serve as an intermediary be tween the celestial and the terres trial realms. However, if the kings power was only by consent of the people, then the pope could interfere as the Vicar of Christ on earth. The role taken by Pigna and othe r anti-Machiavellians was to liberate the Catholic prince from direct control of the papacy and to help bring abou t the realities of the Treaty of Westphalia (1649), which gave significant theological a nd political cover for divine right monarchs. It is clear that the opinions James and Ch arles espoused, re garding their political independence from the papacy, agre ed with those of the anti-Machiavellians, as expressed in Basilikon Doron This expression of the virtuous prince clearl y was in the mind of Charles and other princes when they bought the greatest artwork for displa y and commissioned the greatest works in the Baroque age. Lavin has traced the important links between Bernini and this theory of a divine right Counter-Reformation prince. He applied Bireleys thought a bout anti-Machiavellianism to this arguably greatest artist of the Baroque, Be rnini. For Lavin, one of the most important sources for formation of this ideology and its expression in the art of the Counter-Reformation was the Jesuits, especially Domenico Gamberti. Gamberti was an important contemporary of 76 Giovnni Battista Pigna, Il principe di Nel quale si di scriue come debba essere il principe heroico, sotto il cui gouerno vn feli ce popolo, possa tranquilla & beatamente viuere, (Venice : appresso Francesco Sa nsouino, 1561). This divine nature of the good Catholic prince and his special role is argued throughout this work.

PAGE 434

434 Bernini and a chronicler of the dukes of Medi na. Gamberti used the writings of Pigna to elaborate on his theory of the heroic prince.77 Gamberti took Platos notion of idea seriously in that he truly believed the prince was a divine model fo r all in his principality.78 For Gamberti, the perfect prince was one who united all the requisite virtues in a harmonious chorus. Basing much of his thought on Thomas Aquinas, the most important source for the anti-Machiavellian thinkers of th e Counter-Reformation, Gamberti divides the competencies of the prince-hero into two spheres, the civil and the military, in both which the primary virtues are the four car dinal virtues, prudence, fortitude, justice and temperance.79 No evidence indicates that Gamberti or Bernini ever met, but that is not beyond the realm of possibilities. They were well-traveled and impor tant figures in their rival courts in Italy. However, ample evidence shows that they both dr ew their ideas from the same source, Tarquinio Galluzzi. This distinguis hed professor of rhetoric worked in the Jesuit College in Rome and the Collegio Romano for almost the entire fi rst half of the se venteenth century.80 Galluzzi was extremely important in the development of Jesuit drama and wrote several important tragedies on Christian subj ects in the classical style. He also wrote theoretical treatises and commentaries. He also penned a lengthy commentary on Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics which was the primary source for the contemporar y idea of the prince-hero. Here Aristotle describes the earliest phase of monarchy, which was the age of heroes where there were gods 77 Irving Lavin, 451. 78 Irving Lavin, 452. 79 Irving Lavin, 452. 80 Irving Lavin, 452-455.

PAGE 435

435 among men whom they ruled by common consent.81 Galluzzi was such an important figure in Rome that he preached the funeral for Robert Bellarmine (died 1621). Galluzzi undoubtedly knew Bernini, who designed the tomb for the car dinal and executed a famous portrait bust of Bellarmine in reverent devotion.82 It is clear that Bernini was exposed to this Catholic theology of prince-hero and that many of his works exem plified this notion. Prin ce and prelate alike inhaled Berninis works. Catholic absolutist s actively sought Berninis works because they clearly expressed the idea of a virtuous monarch. These Catholic absolutes included ecclesiastical princes, the dEste, and finally the most notable of the ideal absolute monarchs of the seventeenth century, Louis XIV. Char les Stuart also wanted Berninis works. The history of the Bernini bust of Char les I (A-11 and A-12) is well known. Queen Henrietta Maria commissioned this work in 1635. Bernini modeled the statue on the Van Dyck triple-portrait of the king. Van Dyke began the triptych Charles I in Three Positions (A-102) in 1633. The Catholic Dutch master took pains to make it a superb piece of art, not merely recording the kings head from three different va ntage points, but making the triptych a unified composition to impress the Roman cognoscenti and painters.83 Van Dycks work, a treasure in itself, was a masterpiece of spontaneity dashe d off for this very purpose by the greatest 81 Irving Lavin 455. 82 Irving Lavin 455. 83 Oliver Millar, The Age of Charles I: Painting in England 1620-1649 (London: The Tate Gallery, 1972), 63.

PAGE 436

436 portraitist of the age.84 After the busts completion, Thomas Baker took charge of the bust to ensure safe arrival in London. Bernini also completed a splendid bust for Baker (A-104).85 The king expressed to Bernini in a letter that he hoped the artist would sculpt a work in marble above the best quality showing his true character.86 Using proper channels, the queen officially commissioned the marble bust. Pope Urban VIII and his nephew, Cardinal Francesco Barberini, authorized the commission for Bernini.87 That the popes official artisan would take such an important commission from a heretic king certainly speaks of the growing dtente during the 1630s. This is remarkable, considering the religious controvers ies of the Elizabethan Age and the difficulties James I had with the O ath of Allegiance controversies after the Gunpowder Plot, in 1605. The bust was completed by late August of 1636, and its availability reported to the queen, though the work did not reach England until April 1637.88 The reason for the delay was its exhibition in Rome before the dispatch to England.89 The piece created a sensation as one of Berninis greatest portrait busts. According to many sources, including Cardinal Barberini, the agent of the Duke of Modena, it was truly beautiful and you c ould not imagine the universal applause it has received, nor do I think that there exists a Cardin al, Ambassador or gentleman of 84 Charles Avery, Bernini Genius of the Baroque (London: Thames and Hudson, 1997), 225. 85 Oliver Millar, 63. 86 Oliver Millar, 63. 87 Oliver Millar, 63. 88 Charles Avery, 225. 89 Charles Avery, 225.

PAGE 437

437 quality who has not desired to see it. It was so remarkable a work some quipped that Charles shall become a Catholic when he saw it.90 Of course, this was the intention all along. Charles clearly was the target of a campaign of conversion to Roman Catholicism, and this flattering image might even have had an effect in this direction when it reached th e Kings eye in distant London,91 according to Cardinal Barberini. Because of this commissions importance fo r good relations with England, the cardinal himself supervised the dispat ching of the bust to England.92 Due to the delicacy of the carved marble image and the danger of the crossing, great pains were taken in its packing and transport.93 George Con, the papal legate who was returning to London, helped care for the sculpture. Con was to testify to its perfect form on leaving Rome, and he was in charge of its careful unpacking at its final destination.94 According to eyewitnesses, as the planks were removed from the crate, the superintendent of st atues exclaimed the bust was a miracle, given its beauty and likeness to the king.95 The queen and king at Oatlands enthusiastically received it on 17 July 1637. This work was a resounding success, and those who viewed it were completely taken by the virtuosity of Bernini not only for the exquisiteness of the worke but the likness and near resemblance it had to the kings countenance.96 90 Charles Avery, 225. 91 Charles Avery, 225. 92 Oliver Millar, 63. 93 Charles Avery, 225. 94 Charles Avery, 225. 95 Charles Avery, 225. 96 Oliver Millar, 63

PAGE 438

438 For Charles, that countenance was the depic tion of him as a virtuous and noble Christian prince. The bust was such a success that Be rnini was paid with a diamond worth 4000 scudi a large sum for such a work, even for a king.97 Another version of the payment was given by Baldinucci, a biographer of Bernin i. He related the dramatic tale that Charles was so pleased with the bust that he took the ring directly off his finger, and that it was worth 6000 scudi This was a royal gesture not out of character for the connoisseur Charles. In either case, Vatican etiquette demanded that the reward for Bernin i come from the Catholic queen. Therefore, Bernini rather slowly received pa yment from Henrietta Maria six months after the reception of the bust.98 The figure of 6000 or 4000 scudi was an extravagant amount many times more than that paid for Berninis busts of Scipione Borghe se. It was twice the value paid for the over lifesized statue of Urban VIII by the Senate of Rome constructed at the same time as the bust for Charles. Indeed, it was more than [the] already generous 3000 scudi that the sculptor was to receive in 1650 for his more ela borate bust of the Duke of Modena, and more than he was paid for the bust of Louis XIV.99 As reported to the Barberinis, the satisfac tion of the King in respect of the Head passes all expression: no person of quality comes to court but is immediately taken by the King himself to see it in public. 100 This report testifies to a rather more liberal viewing of the kings artworks than some historians have allowed. Charles and Henrietta Maria were no doubt smitten by the work and understood its value as a work of art, but also as a propaganda piece extolling 97 Oliver Millar, 63. 98 Charles Avery, 226. 99 Charles Avery, 226. 100 Charles Avery, 226.

PAGE 439

439 the virtue of the king. Charles was thankful that the greatest living sculptor/artist of the time and his patron Pope Urban VIII, the Solomon of Rome, allowed the luxury of this work. While Bernini was working on the bust, he noted that there was something of [the] funest and unhappy, which the countenance of that Excellent Prince forboded101 in the portrait Van Dyck had made. Berninis expression about th e ambiguity of Van Dykes work was almost prophetic, considering the highs and the lows that Charles would endure in the ten years after he received the bust. Remarkably, regarding the subs tantial destruction of Caroline works during the Civil War, the bust survived the turmoil and ra vages of the Commonwealth but was tragically lost in the Whitehall fire of 1698. Fortunately, becau se of its fame, several copies and casts of this work were made in plaster and in stone. Th e only plaster cast that re mains is of the face (A12).102 Nicholas Stone (1618-1647), the English cognoscenti and sculptor who worked under Bernini at Rome, left a sketchbook and a notebook describing his and his fathers works. He witnessed firsthand the reactions many had to th e bust. Stone remarked on the exquisiteness of the work and on the excellent resemblance that it had to the kings countenance.103 While in Rome in 1639, Stone impressed Bernini enough that Bernini created a bu st for him even though Bernini was overextended due to the great demand placed on his talents. This occurrence is remarkable since the pope had ordered Bernini to stop making works without the popes direct 101 John Evelyn, Numismata, a discourse of medals, ancient and modern together with some account of heads and effigi es of illustrious, and famous pe rsons in sculps, and taille-douce, of whom we have no medals extant, and of the use to be derived fr om them : to which is added a digression concerning physiognomy (London: Printed for Benj. Tooke, 1697), 335. 102 Gudron Raatschen, Plaster Casts of Berninis Bust of Charles I, in Burlington Magazine, vol. 138, no. 1125 (1996): 813. 103 Gudron Raatschen, 813.

PAGE 440

440 permission. However, Bernini yielded to this charming young Englishman and made an exquisite bust for him. In his diary, Stone described the questions Bernini had abou t the bust of Charles. Bernini said: Come to St. Peeters and I s hould haue what I desyred, bei ng in uery good umor hee askt me whether I had seene the head of marble wc h was sent into England for the King, and to tell him the truth what was spoken of itt. I told him that whosouer I had heard admired itt nott only for the exquistenesse of the work but the likenesse and nere resemblance itt had to the Kings countenance. He sayd that diuers had told him so much but he could not beliue itt, then he began to uery free in his discourse to aske if nothing was broke of itt in carryge and how itt was preserued not from danger I told him that when as I saw itt that all was hole and safe, the wch (saythe) I wonder att, but I tooke (sayth he) as much care of packing as studye in makin of itt; also I told him that now itt was pers erued with a case of silke, he deyred to know in what manner.104 Bernini, too, was pleased by th e busts positive reception, and it ce rtainly added to his reputation in northern Europe. It is clear that this tragically lost mast erpiece followed the same tradition as many other works by Bernini dating from the 1630s. Such artists as Algardi in Rome, Francois Dieussart, Le Sueur and the Stones in England often emulated these works. The busts of Charles (A-11, A-12) created after Berninis bust followed his standard type and portrayal. The sitters attention seems to have been caught by some distant vision, toward which he turns in a pervasive and spontaneous movement. Of special concern is the treatment of the drapery, which envelops the body and creates and uncanny illusion or rather series of illusi ons. No cut edges, only folds are visible along the lower silhouette, from the right shoulder down across the chest, th e drapery is pulled tight and knotted at the lower left, thus th e body does not seem to be cut off but rather wrapped, Christo-like, as a self-sufficient object.105 Though this is a description of Berninis Bust Francesco I dEste (A-105), it describes most of 104 A. J. Fionberg, The Diary of Nicholas Stone, Junior, The Walpole Society VII, 1918-19, 170. 105 Irving Lavin, Berninis Image of the Ideal Christian Monarch, 446.

PAGE 441

441 the busts Bernini created in this period c oncerning their overwhelming mass and grandeur.106 This is precisely what the artist was seeking to convey and what the patrons sought. It also is a description of Charless bust. One feature draped across some torsos was a cloth that Lavin associated with a parapetasma a cloth of honor. This suggested the heavenly sublimati on of the deceased.107 Parapetasmas were seen often in Roman sarcophagi and used by Bernini in cenotaphs, such as the cenotaph dedicated to Maria Raggi in Santa Maria Sopra Minerva in Rome (Figure 7-2). For the dead, this cloth is open; for the living (such as the bust of the living Charles I) (Figure 2-13), the parapetasma is bound up as a large voluminous sash a nd gathered at the shoulder. However, it still encompasses the entire tors o and is not cut, as is the armo r or other cloth on the bust. The heads of most of these busts are relatively small, allowing the work to show the ample, tightly curled tresses of hair and to give the large torso a larger than life impression. An important aspect of these Baroque works is the context in which the hero-prince is a response to the dilemma posed by two fundamental yet seemingly incompatib le political tenets of anti-Machiavellian Catholicism: the spir itual power of the absolute monarch derived ultimately from God, but his effective power de rived ultimately from the consent of his subjects. 108 For Lavin, the key to understanding th is paradox in artwor k that portrays the Baroque monarch is to understand that the prac tice of virtue or virt uosity needed to be transformed into a politicized equivalent of Chri stian virtue especially the cardinal virtues of 106 Irving Lavin, 446. 107 Irving Lavin, 448. 108 Irving Lavin, 450.

PAGE 442

442 prudence, fortitude, justice and temperance.109 Lavin wrote, Magnificence was thus an element of fundamental importance to th e Renaissance and Baroque court as a Christian virtue. This exultation was a prodigal expenditure, as virtue came through a humanist revival of a ThomismAristotelian philosophical position.110 These works for the Stuart dynasty by Bernini, Van Dyke, and Rubens are best understood in the context of a Baroque, Counter-Reformation, and anti-Machiavellian art tr adition. This tradition was formed in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries and transferred by cont act and design to England through the Stuart monarchy and their flirtation with Catholic ideas and forms. Van Dyck: the Image of the King A new age began with the accession of Charles I, the princely patron who bought the great Mantua Collection, and whose visit to Sp ain in 1624, where he saw the royal portraits by Titian, Rubens and Velzquez, led to his sear ch for a comparable painter for the English Court.111 That search ended with the arrival of Van Dyck. Of all th e artists who were encouraged to come from the continent to work at the Stuart court, Van Dyck was a superb cognoscente of the style and the iconography that by Charles and Henrietta Maria desired. As the star pupil of Rubens and as a master in his own right, he painted for his royal patrons far more sophisticated and straightforward portraits than any produced before in England. Charles saw these themes in the great tradition of painters an d collectors in the arrangement of the galleries he 109 Irving Lavin, 450. 110 Roy Strong, Splendor at Court: Renaissance Spectacle and the Theater of Power (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1973), 72. 111 F. E. Halliday, An Illustrated Cultur al History of England (New York: The Viking Press, 1967), 151.

PAGE 443

443 visited in Spain and France. These galleries emph asized the importance of the royals and placed them in the great traditi on of divine right rulers. The seeds of an idealization of Charles as the perfect absolute began to grow when Van Dyck first came to London in the second decad e of the 1600s. Though he departed from England in early 1621, many in court, in cluding the Arundels and the ki ng, followed his career. He was actively courted to return to England. Charle s warmly welcomed him back when Van Dyck returned in the spring of 1632. Charles immedi ately knighted him and gave him an annual pension and a house near Blackfriars.112 More than any other pa inter, Van Dyck created a revolution in English painting. His training enabled him to design on a large scale, and use beautiful technique and delicacy. He captured the essence of his subjects and magnified their personalities, which was especially true in his work for the royal family--and Charles in particular. He made Charles a figure of religious aw e, power, and kingship expressing the kings majesty more impressively than any other artist did, with perhaps the ex ceptions of Rubens or Bernini. All the equestrian works such, as King Charles I on Horseback (A-106) and King Charles I on Horseback with M. D. St. Antoine (A-107) show the abso lutist ideal of antiMachiavellianism. They also reflect a religious quality expressed in such works of a divinely chosen monarch in traditions already well established in Spain, France, and Italy. In particular, the likeness of the king on horseback (A-106) takes as its point of departure the archetypal image on the face of all the Great Seals of England. It shows the monarch as warrior. King Charles is wear ing Greenwich-made armor and holding a commanders baton. A 112 Oliver Millar, The Age of Charles I: Painting in England 1620-1649 66.

PAGE 444

444 page carries his helmet. In keeping with the im perial claim of the inscription: CAROLUS REX MAGNAE BRITANIAECharles Ki ng of Great Britainthe pose and forest setting repeats Titians equestrian representation of Emperor Charles V at Muhlberg. Both works recalled the well-known Roman bronze of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius (thought to be Constantine) on horseback. Over his armor, Charles wears a gold ornament bearing the image of Saint George and the Dragon, the so-called Lesser George. He wo re it constantly, because contained a portrait of Henrietta Maria. It was with him the day he died. Here, however, it identifies him with the Order of the Garter of which Saint George was patron. As Garter Sovereign, he is riding, like Charles V his namesake, as the chief of his gallant knights in defense of faith and virtue. In a philosophical sense, the portrait is a visual assertion of Charless claim to divine kingship. Charles is high above our heads on the horizon line, ensuring th at our viewpoint is roughly at the level of his stirrup. However, Ch arless face is not di storted by foreshortening. Instead, Van Dycks three-quarter view refines hi s features, and he best rides his horse with a distant air of dignified reflection. This is exac tly as Titian had portrayed the emperor almost seventy-five years earlier. As a believer in the divine right of kings, Charles wished to translate this thought into paint and stone for all to see. According to E. F. Halliday, Van Dyck was, along with Rubens, ideally suited to the task of court painter: A disciple of Titian, by the elegance of his style, idealization rather than flattery, he was able to portray his royal and ar istocratic subjects as they would like to appear and be remembered for his portraits have forever fixed the image of Charles, his family, and the supporters of his cl aim to absolutism.113 Halliday also noted that: Van Dycks portraits of the king celebrate him, often on a scale unprecedented in this country [England], as the country gentleman, as a devoted family man, living in blissful 113 F. E. Halliday, An Illustrated Cultural History of England 152.

PAGE 445

445 and fruitful union with his [Catholic] Quee n, and as a famous horseman who could play the role of the warrior and hero in an im perial theme; a theme made up of classical, Venetian and Rubensian elements.114 A spiritual quality is evoked by Van Dycks works. In his paintings of Charles, Charles seems almost Christ-like. Th e kings features were extrem ely like the popular iconology resembling those of Christ in this period.115 Clearly, in the minds of absolutists, the king did stand in for Christ. These works were the vis ual counterpart of the Cavalier poetry of the decade, of Thomas Carew and Suckling, daring and graceful, immensely accomplished, but rarely passionate and profound.116 Perhaps this was true for the poetry, but not of the Van Dyck paintings. These paintings were indeed profound in that they portrayed a greater image than the king gave in person. Van Dyck understood what his master wanted and gave it to him. Van Dyck also painted religious works for Ch arles and Henrietta Mari a. In particular, the painting of the Holy Family with Partridges (A-108) is noteworthy. The unusual iconography of this religious painting can be understood only in re lation to the Neoplatonic climate at the court of Charles I, particularly to the poetry and ma sques, and to the royal patron for whom it was made.117 Looking at the iconography of Holy Family with Partridges, it is possible to see a costume made for the queen. Henrietta Maria was, we will remember, both a Catholic queen and a queen of love at a Neo-Platon ic court. As a Catholic, she would have 114 Oliver Millar, 53. 115 This notion of Charless similarity to th e features of the comm on portrait of Christ was noted by Roy Strong in his Van Dyck: Charles I on Horseback (New York, 1972), Chapter 4, and Kevin Sharpe, Personal Rule 224-227. 116 F. E. Halliday, 152. 117 Margaret Roland, Van Dycks Holy Family with Partridges: Ca tholic and Classical Imagery at the English Court, Artibus et Historiae, vol. 15, no. 29 (1994): 121.

PAGE 446

446 appreciated Van Dycks picture for the numbe r of Counter-Reformatory references to the Virgin and, to a lesser extent, to the church. 118 Roland pointed out traditional a nd easily identifiable iconography, such as the open pomegranate referring to the churchs many parts. Closed pomeg ranates also related to the Virgins chastity. Other fruits and flowers, such as roses, apples, and chestnuts, were also symbols of the Virgin and purity.119 This painting is full of Count er-Reformation and royal iconography. Some of these symbols were borrowed direc tly from Rubens. The standard reference to the Virgin, the parrot, which appears in Rubenss Holy Family with Parrot of 1625, is one such example. Rubens also painted a Holy Family under an Apple tree on the wings of the Ildefonso Altarpiece that Van Dyck saw before his departure to England.120 Van Dyck repeated the iconography used by his master, Rubens. This iconography helps to identify the extremely Counter-Reformation flavor of this artwork. Combin ed in a pastoral landscape with a parrot in an apple tree, an emphasis is on the Virgin as the New Eve.121 Mary, Joseph, and Jesus rest in a heavenly and idyllic landscape as angels pe rform for an appreciative Christ child, and redemption is assured. This is the landscape Charles and his queen proclaimed as their own in their masques and their rituals at court. 118 Margaret Roland, 127. 119 Margaret Roland, 127. 120 This work is at the Museum of Fine Arts, Antwerp. 121 See Margaret Roland for the following de tails of iconography in footnotes on page 132. St. Ambrose noted, Eve caused us to be damned with an apple, Mary redeemed us with the gift from a tree. E. Panofsky wrote on page 30 of Problems in Titian, Mostly Iconographic (New York: New York University Press, 1969) th at the symbol of the apple and the parrot (on pp. 28-29) are connected with the Virgin in Titia ns works. Roland suggested the association of the parrot with Van Dycks work can be found in J. D. Stewarts Hidden Persuaders: Religious Symbolism in van Dycks Portraiture, in Essays on Van Dyck, (Ottawa: National Gallery of Canada, 1983), p. 66.

PAGE 447

447 The dancing putti have an important connect ion with the masques of the Caroline period. It is important to note that He nrietta Maria and Charles not only took delight in the dances but also participated in them. An integral part was dancing children. Dancing cupids were associated with Ben Jonsons Loves Triumph through Callipolis in which fifteen cupids danced for the pleasure of the court.122 In addition, in James Shirleys Triumph of Peace of 1634, which Van Dyck likely saw, naked children with silver wing s sat in a stage set co mpartment acting as putti watching the affair. In Van Dycks work, Holy Family with Partridges, putti dance before Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, as they did before Charles and Henrietta Maria in thei r celebrations of an idyllic and holy court. The most important symbol chosen by Van Dyck, in a Christian context, is the sunflower. It is an unusual association with the Holy Family. As a Christian symbol, it refers to Marys love of Christ.123 It is also connected to classical antiqui ty as a flower that perpetually turns to Apollo, god of light.124 The sunflower seeks light and is emblematic of the soul turning to Christ, the true light. In this work, one sunf lower blooms and turns to the source of light. However, another bloom turns toward the Christ child and breaks the laws of nature. This movement toward Christ is a statement of Christia nitys superiority to the classical and natural. Van Dyck intended the Virgin to be analogous to Henrietta Maria as the sunflower turns to the Virgin and child, thus assuming a monarchical meaning. Some slight resemblance is made to the queen, but she is fuller and more Rubenes que in this work than in real life. 122 Steven Orgel, ed., Ben Jonson: The Complete Masques 459. 123 Margaret Roland, 129. The sunflower is also connected to classical antiquity as a flower that perpetually turns to Apollo. 124 Ovid, Metamorphoses Book IV.

PAGE 448

448 This connection to Henrietta Maria is made evident in one of Van Dycks other works, Self Portrait With a Sunflower (A-109), in which Van Dyck s hows the gold collar and medal that King Charles I gave him in 1633 to celebrate his knighthood. The sunflowe r represents the king and royal patronage. In this painti ng Charles is the reflec tion of divine light, t hus the flower turns toward the portraits of the king and queen cont ained in the locket in Van Dycks regalia.125 The use of the sunflower is clear as a vehicle to show divine ra diance in both of these works. Some evidence suggests that the Holy Family with Partridges (A-108) was made to respond to attacks on the queen. Henrietta Maria, because of her militant Catholicism, was often criticized by Puritan opponents of the regime, such as William Prynne. Prynne was brought to the High Commission Court for publishing Histriomastix or the Players Scourge after the queens theatrical performance. This tract described women act ors as notorious whores and was clearly directed at the quee n. Henrietta Marias portrayal of the Virgin Mary emphasized the queens attributes as a chaste and responsible ideal. Van Dycks association of Henrietta Maria with the Virgin certainly rebutte d the concept of her as a whore.126 In Davenants masque of 1634, Temple of L ove, we can find a parallel in which the queen performed as the Queen of Narsinga whose task is to re-establish the Temple of Chaste Love. It appears that Van Dycks intentions in his Holy Family may well have been the same. The representation of the Virgin in a pastoral setting, and being entertained by dancing putti, implies the queens role in court performances wa s as acceptable as Marys amusement and 125 R. Wark, A Note on Van Dycks Self-Portrait with a Sunflower, The Burlington Magazine XCVII (1956): 53. 126 J. Maidment and W. H. Logan, editors of The Dramatic Works of Sir William DAvenant vol. I (Edinburgh and London, 1872) noted on page 824 that Prynne's Histriomastix or the Players Scourge was published the day after the queens pastoral The Shepherds Paradise was performed at Somerset House.

PAGE 449

449 acquiescence in the painting. It al so connects Henrietta Maria with a powerful Christian, as well as Counter-Reformation symbol, her namesake, Mary, Ever Virgin. The sources for Van Dycks Catholic iconogr aphy were several. Clearly, as Rubenss greatest pupil he learned most fr om his master. Any Catholic cl ergyman, many were at court by the time of his arrival, could have advised him, even his brother Theodore, canon of the Church of St. Michael, Antwerp, who was invited to court as chaplain in 1633 by Queen Henrietta Maria. It is doubtful whether Th eodore served as a chaplain, but he did visit London and his brother for almost a year in 1633 and 1634.127 Van Dyck was a deeply pious man from an extremely dedicated family; one of his si sters was a nun. He was steeped in CounterReformation vocabulary from infancy. Spanish Model: The Rebuilding of Whitehall Palace One of the most important projects Char les planned before the Civil War was the complete renovation of Whitehall Palace. Though this was unrealized, it is important in understanding the mindset of Charles, his plan s for display, and the religious and political motivations in this doomed project. Margaret Whinney documented the existence of plans for the renovation of Whitehall by John Webb no later than the mid-1630s.128 Notions of a renewed Whitehall were earlier. These plans were in connection with the construction of the new Banqueting House at Whitehall. The model for the project was the Escorial (A-13). As discussed in Chapter 2, it is important to remember that Philip II and his architect Herrera envisioned this project as a direct re-creati on of the Temple of Solomon (A -111). The Escorials iconography 127 Margaret Roland, 131. 128 Margaret Whinney, John Webbs Dr awings for Whitehall Palace, in Walpole Society xxxi (1964): 45-107. Also, see Roy Strongs Britannia Triumphans: Inigo Jones, Rubens and Whitehall Palace (London: Thames and Hudson, 1980), 58, 61.

PAGE 450

450 and design were steeped in Christian lore and heavily influenced by Ch ristian Hermeticism and Neo-Platonism. These notions were found in the works of many of the Jesuit architects during this period.129 Geometrical designs of facilities with quadratic inner courtyards and risalits are also found in El Escorial.130 Villalpando, a disciple of Juan de Herrera, published a work that explained the importance of the Escori al and other such building programs. Villalpando published De Postrema Ezechielis Prophetae Visione in 1605. His major work was based on the vision of the prophet Ezekiel. It inspired many European illustrators and was circulated among the master builders of the 17th century. His reconstructed drawings were based on the assumption that the buildings of Jerusalem were designed using the laws of geometry. The drawings were drawn in parallel or orthographic projection. Villalpando likened the Temple of Solomon to Gods plan and vision for architecture.131 This divine, this religious plan, was classical in nature. He proposed an original link between the classical orders and Solomons Temple. After the republication of Vitruviuss De Architectura, which had reported that the origins of the orders lay in the architecture of ancient Greece, Villalpando reinterpreted the orders to have a higher author ity, coming instead from Solomon. Villalpandos works proclaimed that the classical orders were derived from the architecture of Solomons Temple. Thus, he atte mpted to reconcile the Bible with the antique structural design described in Vitruviuss text. Classical architectur es origins then were in Gods 129 R. Wittkower and I. B. Jaffe, The Jesuit Contribution (New York, 1972), 73-81. 130 George L. Hersey, Architecture and Geometry in the Age of the Baroque (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 114. 131 Alberto Prez Gmez, Louise Pelletier. Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge (Cambridge: MIT Press. 1997), 150.

PAGE 451

451 plans for holy construction.132 He suggested that the Greeks co pied their ideas from Solomon; the connection with Solomon and Philip II is we ll documented. He cultivated the title of King of Jerusalem and foreshadowed James in seeking identity with Solomon. Spains Solomon, along with those who completed his works, was in fluential in reviving th e notion of a priestking. It appears that Charles was planning the same kind of connecti on for himself in London with a transformed and spectacular Whitehall comple x with a Basilica Church at its center. Charless firsthand experience of the monaster y complex is undeniable On his visit to win the hand of the Infanta, he visited and indeed st ayed in the Escorial. He also owned his own copy of De Postrema Ezechielis Prophetae Vision by Villalpando Even when he was imprisoned during the Civil War at Carisbrook Castle, he spent time studying this text. He continued to plan the reconstruction of Whitehall in case of a Royalist victory. Si r Thomas Herbert documents the importance of De Postrema for Charles in this firsthand account. Nevertheless both times he carefully observe d his usual Times set apart for his Devotion and for Writing. Mr. Harrington and Mr. Herbert continued wa iting on his Majesty in the Bedchamber: he gave Mr. Herbert the char ge of his Books, of which the King had a Catalogue, and from time to time had brought unto him, such as he was pleased to call for. The sacred Scripture was the Book he most delighted in, read of ten in Bp. Andrews Sermons, Hookers Ecclesia stical Policy, Dr. Hammonds Works, Villalpandus upon Ezekiel, & Sandss Paraphra se upon King Davids Psalms.133 This may seem an extravagance or lack of unde rstanding of his dire si tuation. Nevertheless, Charles continued to dream of his victory a nd the reestablishment of royal supremacy. 132 Joseph Rykwert. The Dancing Column: On Order in Architecture (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1996), 27. 133 Sir Thomas Herbert, Memoirs of the two last years of the reign of that unparallell'd prince, of ever blessed memory, King Charles I. By Sir Tho. Herbert, Major Huntington, Col. Edw. Coke, and Mr. Hen. Firebrace. With the char acter of that blessed martyr, by John Diodati, Mr. Alexander Henderson, and the aut hor of The princely-pelican (London, 1702), 42-43.

PAGE 452

452 Roy Strong drew attention to the similar ities between Villapando s elevation of the Temple of Solomon and the Escorial (A-111) as an imitator of this imperial-religious temple, as well as and to John Webbs early drawing for the re-building at Whitehall Palace (Figure 7-18). The master of the kings works, Inigo Jones, also believed that the recovery of classical arch itecture with its mirror imag e of a harmonic universe was for him [Inigo] also the recovery of a Christian architecture, th e classical orders sanctified by their use in the Temple of Solomon and by Vitruvius, who wrote in the reign of Augustus when Christ was born.134 Both Wittkower and Strong hinted at the importance of the Catholic sources from imperial Spain, as well as one of its majo r proponents of classical architect ure and absolutism proclaimed in Villalpandos work. However, they did not emphasize the importance of this source for much of English classicism. Nor did they see a mo re concerted effort by the Stuart regime to synthesize a clearer artistic polic y using the classical ideal as th e backbone of Stuart artistic policy. The Stuarts would have accepted the Catholic notion growing since the early Renaissance about a clear connection with antiquit y. They also would have accepted the sanctity of the classical as a Catholic religious e xpression and would have made it their own. A copy of Villalpandos comme ntary belonged to the Royal Library and bears James Is arms on the bindings.135 It also appears that James looked to Villalpando for some of his ideas about Londons movement toward a classical plan and ideal. Bishop Williams, in his Great Britians Salomon, noted Villapandos influence in the funeral of James.136 Williams emphasized 134 Strong, 64. Rudolf Wittkower first posits this in his Inigo Jones Puritanissimo Fiero, Burlington Magazine 90 (1948). 135 Roy Strong, Britannia Triumphans (London, 1980), 61. 136 John Williams, Great Britains Salomon A sermon preached at the magnificent funerall, of the most high and mighty king, Iames, the late King of Great Britaine, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c. At the Collegiat Church of Sai nt Peter at Westminster, the

PAGE 453

453 the Solomonic connection and remarked Salomon beautified very much hi s Capitall Citie with Buildings, and Water-workes [as] did Ki ng James the most constant Patron, of Churches.137 This sermon echoed the words of Villa lpando about Philip II, who was also enthralled by classical ideas. Webbs usage of Villalpando in his proposed plans for Whitehall solidified the connection to Spanish royal building programs. Webbs earlier drawing for the proposed Whitehall Escorial (A-112, left) shows a s quare plan with courtyards w ith a central church. This is almost identical with Villalpandos temple illu strations. Vaughn Hart noted that Webb knew of the plans illustrated in Villalpando I (A-112, right).138 Thus, the similarity to the designs for Londons Temple/Palace is surely no coincidence. Conclusion Catholic influence was m ore pervasive in early modern England than has been recognized. This pervasiveness can be seen in the attempts of bishops to model their churches not on continuing reformation tastes, but a return to the common ancestry of ea rly Christianity, as exampled by the Laudian movement. The bishop s also looked to contemporary practices of Catholicism and used the literature of pos t-Tridentine Catholicism for inspiration. The artistic evidence given in this chapter suggest s that Charles was much more cognizant in his display of art than earlier historians ha ve argued. His models we re Rome and Paris, but most of all Madrid for the display of absolutis t artwork. London and other important areas of seuenth of May 1625. By the Right Honorable, and Right Reuerend Father in God, Iohn, Lord Bishop of Lincolne, Lord Keeper of the Great Seale of England, &c. (London: Printed by Eliot's Court Press for Iohn Bill, printer to the Kings most excellent Maiestie, 1625), 25, 29. 137 John Williams, 39, 42. 138 Vaughn Hart, 112.

PAGE 454

454 England were targeted to receiv e artwork to show the majesty and religious influence of the monarchy. These displays began to be better or ganized in the 1630s, but cut short by conflict in Scotland and the Civil War. Chapter 8 will deal with the treatment of Stuart artwork, which suggests that the opponents of the rgime unde rstood what the monarchy was attempting to communicate--and they reacted vigorous ly to what they perceived.

PAGE 455

455 Figure 7-1. Le Sueur, Charles I on Horse Back Photo by author. Figure 7-2. Bernini. Cenotaph of suor Maria Raggi Santa Maria Sopra Minerva, Rome Photo by author.

PAGE 456

456 Figure 7-3. The Temple of Antoninus and Faustina is an ancient Roman temple in the Roman Forum. The remains of the temple were converted into a church, San Lorenzo in Miranda, in the 7th or 8th century, for wh ich it owes its splendid conservation. The baroque pediment, seen behind th e colonnade, is from the early 17th century. The ten monolithic Corinthian columns of its pronaos are 17 m. tall. Photo by author.

PAGE 457

457 CHAPTER 8 EPILOGUE AND CONCLUSION Reaction to Stuart Building and Sculptural Programs The statues at St. Pauls Cathed ral, by com mand of the Council of State, were thrown down and broken, dashed to pieces alongside the marble inscription that proclaimed Charles father of the church. The over life-sized stat ue of King Charles that once stood at the Royal exchange was symbolically beheaded, its scepte r removed. In their place, a new inscription warned viewers that this was the fate of a tyrant.1 In addition to wide-spread iconoclasm, the new Commonwealth ordered Charless es tates and his collections of art to be sold and dispersed. Parliamentary forces destroyed a nything that smelled of popery. Joness classical ornamentation at St. Pauls became a focus of symbolic destruction. The Cathedral, an expression of royal Absolutism and Counter-Reformation architecture, was a key target for iconoclasts, while more generally, Cat holic architecture was routinely attacked or benignly abandoned.2 Noted Royalists, Elias Ashmole a nd William Dugdale, appealed against Puritan iconoclasm. Dugdale noted: Elias Ashmole, armiger, desires that this great choir, sanctified and holy, should remain as an icon so that the testimony of History should not be concerned that the holy temple of God, this maje stic sanctuary of the bui lding of St. Paul, should be destroyed by the passing of the ages or have been damaged by the religi ous neglect of future times.3 Their fears were justified. 1 Margaret Aston, Gods, Saints, and Reformers: Portraiture and Protestant England. In Albions Classicism: The Visual Arts in Britain 1550-1660 205. 2 G. Addleshaw and F. Etchelles, 118. These authors noted that the irreverent and careless behavior toward the altar was encourag ed by Puritans who attributed them to popery. 3 This quotation is taken from a shield in a plate illustrating the choir in Dugdales History and is attributed to Elias Ashmole.

PAGE 458

458 Dugdale reported that Puritans had disfigured the Corinthian colu mns and tore at the royal statues.4 By the middle of the Civil War, the new religious ornamentation displayed there made the building fit, in the thought of Puritans, for quartering ho rses, a symbolic gesture to remind Londoners that Protestants had made St. Peters in to a stable during the sack of Rome in 1527. St. Pauls was no longer a sacred space. Dugdale noted that by 1649 a wall was made to separate the choir from the nave so Puritans could use the choir as a preaching place.5 Until the Restoration, the nave was used fo r purely secular purposes. St. Paul s had become superfluous to Puritan and Calvinist sensibilit ies. Its rich architectural se tting, its choir screen, and its procession-enhanced space were an tithetical to the Puritan service based on Word. Even before the Civil War, a rowdy crowd, according to the Venetian Ambassador in England, broke down the altar, and tore to pieces the books containing the new canons. They then tried to kill the very ministers of the archbishop.6 The Long Parliament and its supporte rs attacked crosses and crucifixes, which had grown familiar since 1619 before exploding in number throughout the Personal Rule. A prime example was the ancient monument at Cheapside, the topic of a small libra ry of pamphlets and broadsheets in the early 1640s, all aimed at its demise. The monument was fanatically destroyed in an act of public iconoclasm. In January of 1642, pr ivate iconoclasts broke through the iron gate, which had enclosed the monument since 1603, destroying severa l statues, including a figure of Christ. The end to the monument came on 2 May 1643, destroyed by a force of mounted soldiers and marching footmen, drum s beating and trumpets sounding. A huge crowd 4 William Dugdale, 115, 148. 5 William Dugdale, 173. 6 G. Addleshaw and F. Etchells, 118.

PAGE 459

459 cheered as Cheapside Cross smashed to the ground. Wenceslaus Hollar commemorated the dramatic occasion by noting that the demise of the cross came on the anniversary of the Holy Cross, a celebration recognized on the Catholic calendar.7 This was no coincidence. As in the 1530s, 40s and 50s, iconoclasm was a response to the idolatry of Rome, and now to the paraphernalia used by Charles and the anti -Calvinists against the English Church. Ironically, given that their view wa s that God was no respecter of places, parliamentary iconoclasts dedicated the site of the demolished cross for further ceremonies of the same sort. Hollar noted the burning of the books in the place where the Corsse stodde beneath his etching of its destruction. Iconoclas ts, during days of thanksgi ving in 1644 and 1645, burned popish books, the Book of Common Prayer, paintings, and Crucifixes in ceremonial bonfires where the Cross once stood.8 The Jacobean and Caroline movement th at sought to bridge the religious divide through common forms of worship was violently rejected. Extremist purifiers and militant ic onoclasts, like those who managed a century earlier to annihilate much of Englands artis tic heritage, halted the splendor of the Stuart court. It also stopped a Counter-Reformation movement that only re-emerged as English Catholicism during the 1800s. A Puritan voice and Calvinist tastes were re-imposed. People were again to look to the Bible, to live by the Word. Image would have no place; God was to be heard, not seen. Some felt cleansed and thankful. I am glad for my part, they are scoured of their gay gazing, and I marveled a great while since, how, and why the Organs grew so many and blew so loud, when 7 Richard Pennington, A Descriptive Catalogue of the Et ched Work of Wenceslaus Hollar 1607-1677 (Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 75. 8 John Vicars, A sight of ye trans-actions of these latter yeares emblemized with ingraven plats, which men may read without spectacles (London: Sould, by Thomas Ienner, in his shop at the old Exhange, 1646), 21.

PAGE 460

460 the very Homilies accused them for defiling Gods house.9 Others waited quietly. Some, like Matthew Wren, suffered in pr ison; others went into ex ile with the Royal family. Immediately after the death of Charles, royal supporters evoked his memory through the words and images of the dead king; they challenged the propaganda of the Commonwealth. Eikon Basilike, The Pourtrature of His Sac red Majestie in His Solitudes and Sufferings, was a spiritual autobiography attributed to Charles I. Published on 9 February 1649, ten days after Charless execution this work answered the accusa tions of the Parliamentarians and clarified royal views. Eikon Basilike in a simple, straightforward style, combined irenic styled prayers, urging forgiveness of Charless executioners. It also contained justifications for royal prerogative, Anglicanism, and the Ki ngs political and military program.10 It is not certain that Charles wrot e the book. However, it was based on his private papers. John Gauden, bishop of Worcester claimed authorshi p. Jeremy Taylor may have had a hand in its revision. No matter the author, Eikon Basilike was a great success. Employing an effective and sympathetic prose style, it was deeply solemn, yet simple in expressing anti-Calvinist piety. Charless image was that of a steadfast king who admitted his weaknesses. It portrayed a man of deep faith that trusted in God despite adversity and calamities. Eikon Basilike proclaimed Charless chief weakness was in yielding to Pa rliaments execution of the Earl of Strafford. Charles paid for this sin with his throne and his life. Reminiscent of the artists who portrayed 9 Thomas Thorowgood, Moderation Justified and the Lords Being at Hand Emporved (London, 1645), pl. 16. 10 Irenism (from Greek eirene peace) was an ideology conceived by Dutch theologian Erasmus (1469-1538) after the consequences of th e Reformation became apparent. It postulated removing conflicts between different Christ ian creeds by way of mediation and gradual amalgamation of theological differences. Much in Eikon Basilike certainly agreed with contemporary Catholic theology.

PAGE 461

461 Charles Stuart as Christ-like, it was a brilliant stroke of propaganda for the royalist cause. In 1649 alone, it went into th irty-five London editions.11 This book was so successful that Parliament commissioned J ohn Milton to write a count er attack. Miltons hi storical corrective. Eikonoklastes (The Icon-Breaker) was published in 1649.12 Interestingly, even the rebuttal of the royalist position spoke of smashing image. Miltons response portrayed Charles and the Absolute monarchy as twin idols, concluding that Charles was just ly overthrown to preserve the law of God and English state. But Miltons th eological counterattack failed to change many minds. After the Protectorate in 1660, many cl amored for the retu rn of Charles II. Iconoclasm and the Great Sale By disbanding the royal estates--pla cing m onetary value on the kings art collection--the Commonwealth symbolically demolished the mona rchy. The power of the symbolism cannot be overstated. The objects that once defined the magnificence of Charles Stuart were de-valued, sold, and bought by anyone with money. The ene mies of England gained as much as anyone. The artworks, sold to Catholic monarchies acro ss the channel, represen ted a form of cultural vandalism. As Christopher Wren lamented in his Parentalia the kings executi on and the virtual death of his art collect ion launched a period of darkness and obscurity.13 11 Joad Raymond, of the University of East Anglia, noted that Eikon Basilike (The image of the king) was published within a few days of the execution of Charles I on 30 January 1649. It immediately became one of the great publishi ng successes of the seventeenth century, with thirty-five London editions in 1649. 12 John Milton, Eikonoklastes in answer to a book intitld Eikon basilike, the portrature of his Sacred Majesty in his solitudes and suffe rings. The author I.M. Published by authority (London: Printed by Matthew Simmons, next dore to the gilded Lyon in Al dersgate street, 1649). 13 This quotation is taken from Per Palmes, Triumph of Peace: A study of Whitehall Banqueting House (London, 1957), 83.

PAGE 462

462 Anything that smacked of Catholic ism--a French Queen, Arminianism or anti-Calvinism-was tagged for destruction or dispersal. The Pa rliament in August of 1643 called for the utter dissolution of all Monume nts of Superstition or Idolatry. This included the destruction of a Rubens Triumph of the Cross in the Chapel at Somerset House along with the magnificent altar.14 The diplomatic community of London wa tched the Civil War with shock. The ambassador from Venice noted, The commons are unrelenting toward the memory of the late king. Thus they have recently ordered all his jewe ls and valuables to be sold, to use the money for the fleet.15 The executions of Charles and his Ar chbishop sent tremors through the royal Houses of Europe. The executions and their afterm ath were viewed as an attack on Absolutism, organized religion, and monarchy. The foreign aristo cracy remembered Charles in works such as Allegory of Charles I of England and Henrietta Maria (A-117). This vanitas painting reminds the viewer of the transience of life and power. Rich with symbolism, this allegory shows a terrestrial globe represen ting the importance of Charles I as a world leader. The atlas and glasses refer to the vanity of mans intellectual pursuits, the skull, with the jaw brutally wrenched away, recalls Charless beheading; the laurel wreath, symbolizing glory, signals Charless hope for immortality. This work immortalized Charles I and Henrietta Maria, bo th as Gods faithful chosen, even in death. Some in England had sympathy for th e dead king and saw the count ry as bitterly divided. In the Execution of Charles I (A-118), the soul of Charles is observed going to heaven as the crowd recoils in horror at regicide. Severa l towns across England pronounced Charles II king, 14 This routine iconoclasm is recorded in Burning of crucifixes and papistical books in England in 1643 (A-115). A strike at th e traditional heart of the English Church, Canterbury Cathedral, was recorded in Thomas Johnsons Iconoclasts in Canterbury Cathedral 9A-116). 15 Calendar of State Papers, Venice, 1647-1652, 92.

PAGE 463

463 while Londons mayor refused to proclaim the abolition of the monarc hy. The response of the Rump Parliament, which ceased to resemble a pa rliament, purged anyone with conservative taste or who showed sympathies to Charles II. Cr omwell eventually dissolved the bothersome body. In the end, the Parliamentary revolution for dem ocracy and true religion became the very thing it fought against, absolute. Like the monarchy, the Church of Engl and paid a price for flirting with Catholic art. The Parliamentary Ordinance for Removing Superstitious Images, Crucifixes, Altars of Stone etc. out of Churches in August 1643 demonstrat es the radical direction of the Puritan program: How well pleasing it is to God, and conducible to the blessed reformation in his worship, all Altars and Tables of stone shall, before the 1st day of November be utterly taken away and demolishedand also all Communion-Tables removed from the east end of every such churchthat all rails be likewise taken away and the chancel ground of every such church or chapel or place of public pr ayer, which hath been, within 20 years past, raised for any Altar or Communion-Table to st and upon, shall, be before the said day, be laid down and leveled as the same as was before the said 20 years past. All tapers candlesticks and basins to be remove d from Communion-Tablesall Crucifixes, Crosses, and all images and pictures of a ny one or more person of the Trinity, or the Virgin Mary and all other images and pictures of saints or superstitious inscriptions inplaces of public prayer be taken away and defaced.16 This twenty-year limit included anything produced during the last years of Jamess reign. Parliament wanted to turn the clock back to a time before 1620. They tried to dismantle anything associated with Catholicism, anti-Calv inism, Arminianism, and Laudianism. Those connected with the thought of Lancelot Andrewes, or the other anti-Calvinists, were denied as aberrations. Andrewes was the hero of Catholic Anglicanism. He was the liturgical enthusiast who helped usher in the English Counte r Reformation beliefs of the use of copes and 16 William Cobbett, The Parliamentary history of England from the earliest period to the year 1803, from which last-mentioned epoch it is continued downwards in the work entitled "Hansard's parliamentary debates." Vol. III (London: Printed by T. C. Hansard, 1806-20), 162163.

PAGE 464

464 wafer-bread, the washing of the priests hands be fore he prepared the elements, the mingling of water with wine in the chal ice, and the use of incense17 were customs denied. Andrewess high doctrine of the Eucharistic presence, claiming th e real presence, was also eliminated. For a Protestant of this time he was almost unique in using the language of sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist.18 His views, too close to Ca tholic doctrine, were purged. Andrewes was an heir to the Chri stian past. His incarnationa l Christology was dependant on ancient Latin and Greek fathers. Even Jesuits found his ecclesiastical traditionalism and mix of asceticism attractive.19 Andrewes has been compared to Ig natius of Loyola as a master of spiritual piety, especially his de votion to meditation. There is lit tle of kinship with Luther or Calvin in his thought. His form of anti-Calvinis m, Arminianism, High Churchmanship represents a refutation of Calvinist predestination. Instead he advocated universal grace by insisting the Christ died to save all men, not just the elect. Faith and good work s contributed to that purpose. Calvinism, with its watertight syst em of arguments, maintained that only those predestined could be saved, and th at faith was not to be gained or achieved but bestowed on the elect by God as a sign of His grace. No human desi re or activity could alter the will of God. To committed Calvinists, Arminianism looked too much like Roman Catholicism, with its doctrines of free will, faith and works, and the universal quality of Christs redemptive act. When anti17 Kenneth Hylson-Smith, High Churchmanship in the Church of England (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1993), 22. 18 Kenneth Hylson-Smith, 22. 19 Maurice F. Reidy, S. J. Bishop Lancelot Andrewes, Jacobean Court Preacher (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957). Reidy argued that Andrewes should be considered the first English Catholic.

PAGE 465

465 Calvinists turned to art and ceremony, the conne ction was made complete in the minds of committed Calvinists and Puritans. Puritans cannot be blamed for mi staking Arminianism for Catholicism. The confusion was real; there was little to separate them on key certain points of agreement. No popethat was clearbut they shared a great deal of common ground. Some historians, among them Tyack and Graham Parry, have even begun calling some of these anti-Calvinists English Catholics. This term may not be far off. The Durham group, the association of clergy surrounding Richard Neil, Bishop of Durham in 1617, who met at Durham House in London until 1628, would not have objected to this classi fication, though they would add R eformed Catholics. John Buckeridge, Mathew Wren, John Overall, John Cosin, George Montaigne, and particularly William Laud were men who appreciated the anti quity of the Roman Church, its forms of devotion and order. To a man, they appreciated art as a tool for worship and instruction, and they insisted on the rights and dignity of th e monarchy. As Nicholas Tyacke wrote: The Durham House group provided the first organi zed opposition to English Calvinism. Its effectiveness derived from the blend of court influence and clerical patronage which [Bishop Neile] exercised.20 Parry argued these men attempted to create an Anglican CounterReformation.21 Above all, these priests and bishops insist ed they were priests, not ministers. They taught that the physical chur ch building was holy because of its holy use. Their expression of piety represents a clear break with Elizabethan and early Jacobean piety, which expressed 20 Nicholas Tyacke, Anti-Calvinists 123. 21 Graham Parry, Glory, Laud and Honour: The Arts of the Anglican CounterReformation (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 2006).

PAGE 466

466 reverence for the inner man in a plain and unadorn ed faith. The Anti-Calvinist attitude had more in common with Counter-Reformation Catho licism than Reformation Calvinism. The Arminian-anti-Calvinist bis hops and clergymen who survived the Civil War were treated no better than Charles for their Romish Heresies. Their crime was the image of the Roman Church. Laud, an enthusiastic supporter of the monarchy, went to the chopping block; Matthew Wren went to the tower for twenty years. Others fled the country or lapsed back into Calvinism for protection. Lauds love of art, dem onstrated in a gift to hi s old church at Oxford, The Virgin Porch (Figure 4-4), sealed his fate. Prynne recorded Lauds greatest offe nces. It was a defining moment in the High Church movement, a ceremony unseen for more than fifty y ears, the consecration of St. Katherine Cree Church (Figure 6-1). Though not present, Prynnes account of the consecration ceremony in Canterburies Doome resonated with anger at this popish superstition. Laud on his knees at the west end of the church, his arms spread sayi ng, this place is holy, an d this ground is holy; in the name of the Father, Son and Holy ghost I pronounce it holy. His description of the Eucharist shows disdain for the sacrament. The bread was cut and laid in five napkins, a nd then he gently lifted up one of the corners of the said napkin, and peeped into it until he saw the bread (like a boy that peeped after a bird-nest in a bush) and presently clapped it down again, and flew back a step or two, and then bowed very low three time toward it.22 Prynne suggested the ceremony was taken directly from the Roman Pontifical. Lauds library had a copy. St. Giles was also consecrated. Roger Manwaring, a supporter of Lauds reforms, was rector there. It was richly decorated by a larg e skreene, in the figure of a beautiful gate, in 22 William Prynne, Canterburies Doome 114.

PAGE 467

467 which its carved two large pillar s, and there large stat ues: on the one side is Paul, with his sword: on the other Barnabas, with his book: and over them Peter with his Keys. They are all set above with winged cherubims, supported beneath by lions.23 And something more striking. Standing over them, who but Peter with his ke ys? Was this not popery? One could hardly distinguish decoration from Catholic idolatry. John Stow, in The Survey of London describes St. Giles as a veritable hoard of High Church taste. There was a wealth of statuary, painted glass, and eighteen windows in all. The windows were an unusual assemblage of Old Testament patriarchs, prophets and kings. There were Apostles, the Virgin and Child, Mary Magd alene, and over the southwest door the Figure of our Savior. Over his head, as in a garland supported by two Angels, these lette rs: IHS. Round about him, Clouds full of Cherubims.24 IHS, the symbol of the Jesuits and the CounterReformation, must have galled Puri tans. High Churchmen attempted to return the decorations to pre-Reformation levels. Their artistic template was not their Elizabethan Protestant past; it was contemporary Catholic Europe. English Catholics The marriage of Henrietta Maria to Charles in 1625 brought in a new wave of Catholic influence in religion and art. Th e state of confusion among Cathol ics in England, especially the competition between regular and secular clergy kept them from being a more potent force. They were nonetheless influential both positively and nega tively, in their actions and reactions, in the infighting between groups of Catholics. English Catholics were generally divided between those who did or did not favor an episcopal form of government. The Vatican tended to support 23 William Prynne, 115. 24 John Stow, The Survey of London 896.

PAGE 468

468 regular (order priests) clergy. However, Bishop Smith was consecrated bishop of Chalcedon in October 1627; therefore, England had a Catholic bishop albeit for a short time. Catholics also tried to make themselves as English as possible at court. Through the examination of newslett ers published by Catholics, Michael Questier noted that as contemporaries themselves observed, the ideological circumstances and assumptions of certain sections of the English Catholic comm unity and certain secti ons of the Church of Englands clergy started, in the 1630 s, to look distinctly analogous.25 Bishop Smith and his sympathizers compared their ideals with those of the High Church party of the Church of England. He compared their agreem ent on art, liturgy, and discipline.26 The Queen was a rallying point of agreement. Scholars note the religious pl uralism of the councilors of the queen. Though an unapologetic Roman Catholic, she extended patrona ge beyond her Catholic friends. Henrietta attracted supporters of the French alliance such as Robert Sidney, Earl of Leicester who was an import contact of Bishop Richard Smith after his exile to France. The Percy family was also friendly to Catholic sensibilities. 27 Papal legates such as Gregorio Panzani, George Con, and Carlo Rossetti were dispatched to Henrietta Mari a. Panzani, in particular was known for pushing his curial masters considering a pos sible reunion between Rome and London.28 Panzani and Con 25 Michael C. Questier, editor, Newsletters form the Caroline Court, 1631-1638: Catholicism and the Politics of the Personal Rule (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 18. 26 Michael C. Questier, 19. 27 Caroline M. Hibbard, Charles I and the Popish Plot (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1983), 32-33. 28 G. Albion, Charles I and the Court of Rome (London, Burnes, Gates, and Washbourne 1935). See Chapter 7 of this book for a detailed discussion.

PAGE 469

469 reported signs of cultural agreement. Every irenic sermon, every uncensored Catholic-sounding doctrine, every insult flung at th e puritan, every glance cast fa vorably by Charles toward his Catholic subjects, the Catholic Ambassadors in London, or toward Rome itself, were all picked up on, committed to paper, and then sealed up to be sent to Rome.29 It appeared as if a new corner had turned in toleration for Catholics in 1630s. There were attempts by the Crown and the Catholic Church to modify the Oath of Allegiance; it was made more acceptable in 1636, when Charles drew up modifications friendlier to loyal Catholics.30 The persecution of Catholics slowed considerably. Publically, there was a strong relationship between Ch arles and the papal ambassador Con, which was not a backstairs affa ir. They genuinely liked each other and discussed important matters freely. Questiers resear ch noted that Catholics had reason to hope for a more tolerant England before the Civil War. They noticed that the king thought along lines of agreement with them. During the 1630s his rhetoric wa s a perceived threat from Puri tanism, not Catholicism. He showed admiration for the inquisition and how it treated troublemakers.31 Catholic hopes for tolerance from the Caroline regi me during the 1630s were two fold. They shared a hierarchical view of the Church as well as a love of Baroque culture, theater, art, and a si milar religious piety. Catholic bishop Richard Smith, writing from Paris in 1635 to William Laud, emphasized that he and Laud shared an interest in avoidi ng a creeping attempt by the laity to take over their churches.32 Bishops like Brian Duppa, tutor to Prince Charles (later Charles II) and 29 Michael C. Questier, 25. 30 G. Albion, 264-271. 31 Michael C. Questier, 30. 32 Michael C. Questier, 33.

PAGE 470

470 Richard Montague, had a favorable view of English Catholics w ith a common view of episcopal government, love of the arts, and beauty of wo rship. Both bishops saw a possibility of union between the churches before the Civil War. At the time, the Catholic community that supported the restoration of a hierarchy to England st ressed the common ground with Laudians. Through bonds of affection for art, ceremony and order, Catholics could prove their loyalty. They reversed the effects of 75 years of conflict between Catholics and the State before the Laudian construction vanished in the 1640s. Puritans consistently feared a Popish Plot. Given the Crowns religious policies, Stone observed there was enormous growth of Puritan sentiment against the king.33 Graham Parry noted that much of this resentment came from the perception that foreigners had too much influence with the king. Since the Reformation, Artists and craftsmen had never worked so hard for the Church [or king] as they did in the twenty years before the Civil Warthe Church of Rome had developed exciting new forms as a result of the Council of Trents prolonged efforts to make Catholic worship more appealing both to the spirit and to the senses, and, particularly through the medium of the Jesuit order, many of these baroque inventions touched the imagination of English artists and writers l ooking for more expressive channels for worship and devotion.34 Foreign ideas and images seemed ever-present. The Stuart Attraction to Catholicism Early Stuart En gland (1603-1649) was dram atically tr ansformed by the first two monarchs, James I and Charles I. Less appreciated, the art and architecture of this pe riod, and the politics of the Absolute state, were strongly influenced by Catholic thought and Catholic iconography. James I and VI of Scotland and England was bap tized Roman Catholic in Holy Rood Palace in 33 Lawrence Stone, The Causes of the English Revolution (London, 1972), 128. 34 Graham Parry, Glory, Laud an Honour 190.

PAGE 471

471 Edinburgh. His mother had died Roman Catholic, and throughout his life, James claimed both Protestant and Catholic roots. He memorialized his Catholic mo ther with appropriate Catholic iconography in one of the greatest tombs built in his age. This was the first English royal tomb built since Catholic Henry VII. In Scotland, Ja mes encouraged a Catholic party within the nobility for advantage against extreme Protestants. Through the help of impor tant Catholic Peers, in league with Lord Cecil, a smooth transi tion from Edinburgh to London was achieved. James used the discreet Catholicism of Anne to his political advantage with great Catholic powers invoking a policy of religious r econciliation and dynastic marri age. Unlike E lizabeth, James looked to Europe for culture and art. Ja mes was a Scotsman, not an Englishman. Charless attitude s and tastes stemmed from a rich family history. His Danish mother was a discreet Roman Catholic who loved art and cer emony. His older brother looked to the courts of the Medici and the Hapsburg to make some of the most important connections to Italian culture. Most of all, James envisioned a more united European culture, both religious and political. All the early Stuarts embraced art signif icantly more than the late Tudors. For Charles, art and the use of art, for political as well as re ligious reasons, guaranteed a sense of self-esteem, authority, public approval, a personal desire for completeness. Personal factors clearly motivated Char less use of the arts. The collections he maintained were legacies from his brother Henry, his mother Anne, and finally James. A significant family issue to recall is that the Stuarts were not truly English royals; they did not share the iconoclastic attitudes of earlier monarchs such as Henry VIII or Edward VI. Although Elizabeth was not an iconoclast, she did little to interfere with iconoclasm. The interior of an Elizabethan church was a plain affair. The devotional art surrounding worshipers during Catholic times was destroyed or stripped from ma ny church walls as noted by the Survey of London The chancel

PAGE 472

472 was the place of clergy before the reform. Du ring the Elizabethan times, it became a space for privileged families. Instead of art, the Elizabet han church was decorated with Bible plaintext on a whitewashed background. Word triumphed over Image. Stuarts tastes were different. Charles was a member of a cosmopolitan Scottish dynasty closely connected to Italian and French cultura l influences. He and James had visited foreign courts. Charles grew up looking toward the continent, as did his father, moth er and older brother. To make himself equal with European royalty, Ch arles aimed to establish his credentials, meant collecting. Travel changed his vi ews. The influence of Catholic Europe caused a change in the English church, chapel and court. Austere inte riors changed slowly. The Chancel was again for clergy and Sacraments as before the Reform ation. Churches became spiritually significant spaces. Anti-Calvinism and Laudianism triumphed over plainness moving slowly from parish to parish until the Civil War. This was true not on ly at Oxford, but in Cambridge, where the antiCalvinists at Peterhouse trained the ne xt generation in liturgy and decoration.35 James, even more clearly than Char les, rejected the attitude of the Tudor monarchy, which essentially turned its back on Europe to strike its own course of electi on. Stuarts rejected formal portraits that were sti ff and often ironically icon like in a time when icons were destroyed. With the exception of Holbein, Tudor ta ste was a reflection of the late Middle Ages rather than the Renaissance. Instead, the Stua rts embraced works inspired by classically trained masters such as Raphael, Mantegna, Giorgione, a nd especially Titian. The Classicism of these 35 See Graham Parry, Glory, Laud and Honour: The Arts of the Anglican CounterReformation chapter 4. In Chapter 4 Parry gave a stunning account of the level of renewal in college chapels in Oxford. What is surprising is the level of decorations at Cambridge. Much of the older scholarship does not notice the level of innovation in decoration or liturgical worship at Cambridge, always associated with Calvinis m. Though the outlying area may have been Calvinist, many of the schools by 1640 were converted to the Laudian ideal.

PAGE 473

473 masters was more than a style; it exemplifie d Renaissance Christian art. Elizabeth did not commission or collect art with religious themes except a few objects in her chapel. The Stuarts displayed them with their collections, often publically. If this changing attitude in art creat ed some difficulties, religious war radically re-defined the dynasty. The critical problem Charles faced, central to understanding the early Stuarts, was that their collection and creation in the arts unfolded during the bitterest re ligious conflict in Europe, the Thirty Years War (1618-1648). At ti mes, Charles capitalized on the discord to acquire his works of art, especi ally the spectacular Mantua colle ction in 1629. However, the war generated a significant number of problems at home by further ra dicalizing Protestants. AntiCatholic sentiments grew at an alarming rate. More often than not, protests came when the dynasty tried to bridge the gap between warring communions. In the end, the real threat to English monarchy came from radical Protestants, not Catholics. Jamess son-in-law, the husband of Charless only living sister, Elizabeth, placed them all in an awkward position regarding the Stuarts plans for a more unified Europe. It left both monarchs choosing sides in a ruinous religious war. Charless interv ention on behalf of his sister failed. Charles chose peace. Kevin Sharpe noted the prosperous effects of this policy of peace during the Personal Rule of the 1630s. Neverthele ss, in a world of religious conflict, peace and prosperity were not enough to sati sfy those who waged war on popery. At the center of Stuart policy for dtente was the challenge of matchmaking, of contracting marriage with a Catholic Princess. Initiall y, James hoped a Spanish Match would gain him political and financial independence from increas ingly discontented parliament. His greatest

PAGE 474

474 hope to end hostilities was religiou s, and the hope was not unreasonable.36 The match spurred on the use of art and architecture It allowed for changes to d ecoration and practice in Chapels Royal by James. He moderated his view of religion toward traditi onal bishops and priests such as Andrewes, and in 1618 welcomed to England a form er Catholic Prelate and anti-Machiavellian theorist, De Dominis. These advisors supported Absolutist notions and encouraged art for purposes of church and state. James believed that it was his de stiny to accommodate the doctrinal difference of Christianity based on common belief and practice. He was the first English ruler in more than 40 years to acknowledge the roman Church to be our Mother Church. He also claimed, My faith is the true, ancient Catholic and Apostolic faith, grounded upon the Scriptures and express word of God.37 From 1619 and thereafter, James, and th en Charles, steadily moved the English Church back toward its Catholic past in the use of art and ceremony. The face of the English Church soon resembled its Catholic past and the Baroque present. This was their intention. Given this policy, however, a critical debate in England arose over the definition of church. A pulpit and pamphlet war soon arose ove r changes in ceremony and art. A growing number of Purita ns in both monarchs parliaments believed that accommodation and union were nothing but a delivery of the English Church back into the hands of a corrupt papacy. Many Purita ns believed they were the true remnant of church, the Elect, that Divine Providence governed them in religio n, not the monarchy. They were passionately committed to separating England from popish ceremonies and idolatry. Charles and his 36 See William B. Patterson, King James VI and I and the Reunion of Christendom for a full discussion of the possi bilities in pages 314-329. 37 W. B. Patterson, 35-36.

PAGE 475

475 bishops had to be halted and the movement had to be reversed. As head of state, Charles would not compromise his prerogative to govern his church. Charles believed that his kingship came from God. His travels in France and Spain defined him further in this direction. His fathers ideas about absolutism were re inforced; he saw first hand imperial power and prerogative, he also saw collections of art in the service of church and state. He purchased the cartoons by Raphael, portraying the Acts of the Apostles for use at the Mortlake tapestry factory, opened by the orde rs of King James in 1619 for royal service. Magnificent works, such as the Miraculous Draught of Fishes (A-113) by Raphael for Pope Leo X, proclaimed the importance of the papacy. Now these works showed the greatness of the Stuarts and their reformed Catholic taste. Purchased by the prince, these religious disp lays showed a relaxed view toward religious themes as early as 1619.38 What was Protestant Charles doi ng with papal propaganda on the eve of his trip to Madrid? The Stuarts wished to sh ow their religions connections to Catholicism. The Catholic bride, Spanish or later French, coul d see that Charles was the Anglican unifier of the Christian faith. English tastes for great re ligious art would be accommodated as simply as a Catholic bride. England would bridge Prot estant and Catholic in a shared culture. James tried to show this commonality when Charles visited Madrid. He gave instructions to Lenard Mawe and Matthew Wren to visit Spai n together with all stuff and ornaments fit for the service of God.39 They were to show the Spanish just how similar they were to the Catholic 38 W. G. Thomson, A History of Tapestry from the Earliest Times until the Present Day (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1906), 281. 39 Philip Yorke Hardwicke, Miscellaneous State Papers, from 1501 to 1726, 2 vols. (London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1778) vol. I, 406.

PAGE 476

476 faith through English worship. The king directed th at prayer be arranged chappellwise with an altar, frontl, palls, lynnen cove rings, demy carpet, communion was to be in the style of Rome. 40 Charles and his closest friend, Bucki ngham, travelled to Madrid, the greatest imperial city in the seventeenth-century. Becau se of the intensive building of Philip II, Madrid was also one of Europes newest cities. Here Charles saw Hapsburg patronage on a grand scale, Philips most audacious design, the imperial center, San Lorenzo del Escorial. Part palace, part monastery, part mausoleum, San Lorenzo overwhelmed the pr ince. It was a Counter-Reformation statement of absolutism, a monumental a ffirmation of Catholicism. Co mplete with libraries, central basilica, crypts and royal apartments, the Escori al was a building program of theater. Charles had never seen anything like it. Even in the twilig ht of his life, Charles dreamed of creating just such a complex in London. In Spain, Charles experienced firsth and the greatest ceremonial splendor of any court at this time, except perhaps the Vatican. The E nglish diplomat John Digby noted, all the streets were adorned, in some places with rich hanging, in other with curious pictures.41 Images and icons at once represented the power of empire and the Hapsburg Catholic faith. The experience of Madrid was to the English an artistic revelation. So too were the gifts that were showered on the young prince. Philip III presented Charles Titians with majestic Portrait of Charles V with Hound (A-114). It was charged with political, re ligious, and imperial messages, Titian painted the work to commemorate the coronation of Charles V by Pope Clement VII. Here Charles was 40 Albert J. Loomie, Spain and the Jacobean Catholics vol. II (London: Catholic Record Society, 1973-1978), 186. 41 John Digby, Earl of Bristol A true relation and iournall, of the manner of the arrivall, and magnificent entertainment, giuen to the hi gh and mighty Prince Char les, Prince of Great Britaine, by the King of Spai ne in his court at Madrid (London: Printed by Iohn Hauiland for William Barret, 1623), 26.

PAGE 477

477 represented as the champion of Christendom and as Holy Roman Emperor. Presenting this masterpiece to the prince was a clear message to both Spanish and English representatives. Phillip was publically inviting Charles to become part of the Hapsburg dynasty through marriage, to accept his crown from the Pope, and to emulate his namesake as defender of the faith. As future king of England, Charles might well have rejected th e painting. He did not. James acknowledged the spiritual precedence of the Papacy, but not the political. In a climate of reconciliation by James, such images were more appealing to the young prince than many observers in England might ha ve liked. Charles had spent the proceeding summer writing to the pontiff that he was far from plotting anything contrary to the Roman Catholic religion and that we may a ll profess one and the self-same faith.42 Even as Charles realized the match was never to be, he continued to purchase religious art, such as an Our Lady by Albrecht Drer. He learned the power of image in Spain not in England. The visit to Madrid expanded Charles and Buckinghams aesthetic sensibilities. Experiencing the Hapsburg collections first hand also helped Charles turn to the south, to Catholic Europe, for guidance and closer allian ce. He might have married one of the many Protestant princesses in Scandinavia or Germany. This seemed never to cross his or his fathers mind. At the same time, he looked to Catholic ar tists to bring image back to England. Orazio Gentileschi arrived eight months after Charles s coronation in October of 1626. Charles sent Nicholas Lanier to Italy to buy artwork for Whitehall. The gr eatest coup in art collection was bringing the Mantua collection to London in 1629. Charles soon commissioned Rubens for the Banqueting House Ceiling, and in the following year Van Dyke became his painter. Image, not the plainness of Wor d, dominated his rule. 42 William B. Patterson, 326.

PAGE 478

478 When Charles returned from Ma drid with ambitious plans for remodeling Whitehall (based on the Hapsburg palaces in Madrid), he al so brought more formal attitudes derived from Spanish royalty. In adopting more sober attire, he reflected a deeper affinity for Hapsburg ideas about collecting, ceremony, and privacy. This visit confirmed his already budding piety and sense of religious responsibility, which was more Counter-Reformation in natu re than Calvinist. If he was to guide his people, he had to give responsible witness, to proclaim virtue by encouraging a more Christianized court. Jame ss habits of hunting and drinking, which often took precedence over matters of church and stat e, were replaced by piety and quiet dignity. Charles worked hard at being king. Charless religion was genuine. He em braced his charge as head of the church in England and expected Englishmen to follow his lea d. The rigorous Calvinist approach toward predestination, a pre-ordained and a certain elect, did not appeal to Charles or his father after 1619. These monarchs promoted the anti-Calvinists and guaranteed their ev entual control of the English Church. The royal image was consciously fashioned to meet a new political climate. This image was perhaps more religious than politi cal. Charles used great Catholic artists like Rubens, the incomparable Bernini, the Gentileschi, and Van Dyck to provide the iconography of a personal sacred monarchy. Charless vision of Kingship was not an English invention. Catholic anti-Machiavellians were providing political and theol ogical cover from mid-sixteenth century Spanish emperors, Charles V and kings like Phillip II and Phillip. Rubens created similar works for this dynasty long befo re his English commissions. Catholics assisted in expanding the Culture of Im age. The Catholic Queen, Henrietta Maria, helped Charles through his transformation. Her influence on the Stuart family was felt for the rest of the century. Both of their sons and one of their daughters converted to

PAGE 479

479 Catholicism: Yet, another revolution to sa ve England from a popish plot in 1688 when James II became king. Nevertheless, before disa ster struck, Rubens fa mously painted Charles and his Queen as St. George slaying the Dragon and rescuing the Virgin. He and his queen bridged the great cataclysm of re ligion, if only briefly and only on canvas (A-96). In this work, Whitehall is the idyllic background on the banks of the Tham es. Rubens, master of iconography, knew the Catholic symbols of the Hapsburgs collect ions and married them to the Stuarts. Here Rubens transformed Englands ki ng Charles into a Titian empe ror symbolized by St. George who crushes the dragon of religio us discord. It was the victory of peace between Protestant and Catholic, the promise of banishing conflict from Christendom forever.43 But that was not to be. Charles survived only one month after the last great European religious war ended. Charles was its last victim. Rubenss greatest pupil, Van Dyck, also created images of kingship steeped in the continental Catholic mode. In many of these works, Charles seems Christ like. Van Dycks works present an overwhelming sense of sheer p hysical presence. In his royal portraits, he portrayed the Stuarts as loving and in love, noble and authorita tive. Like Rubens, Van Dyck raised the political and artistic profile of Henrietta Maria. Often criticized as a frivolous political innocent, she was a genuine force in court in sponsoring plays, music, masques, and commissions. Henrietta Maria also established an alternative cour t at Somerset House, much as Anne undertaken earlier. Somerset was a welcom e home for a diverse group of Catholics and Catholic sympathizers, and even a few Puritans It was also a place of political intrigue. 43 Erica Veevers, Images of Love and Religion: Queen Henrietta Maria and Court Entertainments (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ ersity Press, 1989), 187-91.

PAGE 480

480 Charless queen drew two of the most astute public officials in to her influence, Sir Francis Windebank and Francis Cottington. Her adherence to her faith went unchallenged by Charles. Henrietta pursued her faith with pious sincerity. This made her unpopular with Puritans and some anti-Calvinists. Yet, through the commi ssions of Catholic chapels, such as Somerset House, her religion was both provoc ative and imitated. Joness ba roque design, with niches and statues of St. Peter and St. Paul, the high altar, by sculptor Franois Dieu ssart, which ignited the excited admiration, joy, and adoration in Her Majesty and all the Catholics,44 set the artistic standard for the rest of the decade. As Char les claimed: He had never seen anything more beautiful.45 In these chapels, Van Dyck, Gentileschi, and other Englishmen connected to the court and practiced their Catholic faith relatively unfettered. The charge that Charles was soft on Catholics is accurate when it came to his wife, artists, and t hose he favored. The Queens activities at cour t went far beyond commissioning chapels. She was instrumental in re-establishing the first dir ect diplomatic relations between London and the papacy since Henry VIII and Mary I. This paved the way to obtaining one of the greatest collaborations in art. Through Henriettas correspondence with Pope Urban VIII, Bernini sculpted the legendary bust of Charles using Van Dycks triple portrait. Bernini often constructed his works to represen t divinely-given majesty to his patrons. Charless bust was the only one commissioned for a Protestant monarch. Contact with Rome had detractors. William Prynne, in his assault on theater (as well as an assault on Henrietta Maria) liste d many offences of the Queen. Histriomastix was a criticism of 44 Raymond Needham and Alexander Webster, Somerset House: Past and Present (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1905), 114. 45 Raymond Needham and Alexander Webster, 114.

PAGE 481

481 laughter, music, dancing, play going, bonfires, effeminacy and the very art of making pictures and images as the occasion of Idolatry. 46 It was a thinly veiled attack on Charles. Prynnes writings showed the insurmountable gap growing be tween Puritans and the royal court. Charles continued to re-create bar oque culture and celebrate hi s continental sensibilities. Charles issued few pronouncements on art. Like most kings, this was too trivial a matter to set pen to paper. Yet, in one of his rare comments on art, Charles shows a sovereigns eye for the political power of image. He told the Lord Keeper in 1638 that the works he had commissioned and collected were las ting monuments remaining to posterity.47 The works of Mytens, Le Surer, Bernini, Gentileschi, and Van Dyck were indeed monuments. However, there is no more enduring example of art for posterity than the Banqueting House project. Its ceiling made it a living mausoleum like the Escorial; a remembrance to King James.48 Though the Banqueting House Ceiling served the memory of James, Charles was embodied in its iconographical statements. Like his father, Charles, was an u nquestioned priest-king, just as Lucas de Here had portrayed Philip II as Solomon (A-14) at St. Bavo in Ghent. The ceiling portrayed a brilliant fusi on of Catholic Counter-Refor mation style and political imagery, this with only a few hints of Protesta nt symbolism. The motifs, mostly Catholic, combined a range of iconography. He re Rubens took Minerva from his Lion Hunt the Roman architecture from Raphaels Acts of the Apostles and then integrated Guido Renis Hercules and the putti of Giulio Romano. Nothing could be more Counter-Reformation than the Apotheosis 46 William Prynne, Histriomastix, the Players Scou rge or Actors tragedie 901. 47 Kevin Sharpe, The Personal Rule of Charles I, 181. 48 Gregory Martin, The Banque ting House Ceiling: Two Ne wly Discovered Projects, Apollo 139 (1994), 29-34.

PAGE 482

482 (A-50), with its familial style that fused an imperial triumph with the Assumption of the Virgin.49 Most striking was the in tegration of iconography placi ng the altar in the hands of religion (A-50), the same motif Rubens used for the Medici in France (A-87). The double connotations of Solomonic columns seen in Rubens Wise Rule of James I (Figure 8-1) linked James to Solomon, which recalled the great works of Bernini in Rome (Figure 6-2, 6-3) celebrating ultimate Christian triumph of Euchar istic sacrifice. William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury at St. Mary the Virgin Oxford (Fi gure 4-4), incorporated this same theme time by framing the doors of the main entrance with So lomonic columns as a triumphal entrance. Catholic Sympathies and Attitudes The comm itment to engage Catholicism by Ja mes, Henry, Anne, and Charles was genuine. It expressed confidence that the Roman Church was a true part of the catholic church. These commitments represent a remarkable change from the age of Elizabeth. Opponents of the Stuarts never understood this accommodation. Starting w ith the Spanish delegation invited to London, which sought to restore relations with Catholic Europe (1604), James opened England to trade and cultural renewal. The intimate circles of the early Stuarts included many powerful Catholic figures that shaped the political, religious, a nd cultural attitudes of the monarchy. Even the great Protestant hope Prince Henry had an immediat e circle of advisors th at included Catholics or Catholic sympathizers, notably Lord Lumley, Thomas Howard, and Inigo Jones. In certain respects, Lord Lumley led the way in Engla nd in the new fashion for displaying religious images. At the end of his days, Lord Cecil al so showed movement toward Catholic CounterReformation tastes in his chapel. Nothing like it had been built in England since the time of Mary Tudor. 49 Graham Parry, The Golden Age Restord: The Culture of the Stuart Court 1603-42 36.

PAGE 483

483 Henry Howard, Earl of Northampton, another member of the Catholic Howard family, enthusiastically supported Ceci ls plans for Jamess gaining the English throne. Henry was appointed to the Privy Council and remained a close advisor until his death in 1614. Displayed in his galleries were a wide range of religious paintings, including St. Francis and Christ holding the Cross, and other images showing his religious allegiance, among them three portraits of Mary Queen of Scots and a portrait of Mary Tudor, the last Catholic queen of England.50 For Anne, a discreet Roman Catholic, the collection and co mmission of art represent attempts to regain her diminishing royal authority. They also comforted her loss of loved ones, especially her children. Annes collections gr ew significantly after the marriage of her daughter to the Elector of the Palatinate and the death of Henry. Art was an obvious expression of her Catholic faith, and toward the end of her life, she displayed a substantia l number of devotional images and the paraphernalia of Catholic worship.51 Anne spent her last days sitting in her gallery, admiring paintings of Christ, Mary Magdalene, the Virgin Mary, and the Passion.52 With Annes death, Charles b ecame the official guardian of the family memory, particularly of his mother and brother. Annes collection was substantial and had a significant influence on Charles in forming the nucleus of his own growing collection. It also gave him 50 E. P. Shirley, An inventory of the effects of Henry Howard, K. G., Earl of Northampton, taken on his death in 1614, toge ther with a transcript of his will Archaeologia, 42 (1969), 357-358. 51 M. T. W. Payne, An Inventory of Queen Anne of Denmarks ornaments, furniture, householde stuffe, and other pa rcels at Denmark House, Journal of the History of Collections 13, 1 (2001), 23-44. Annes invitories show a significant number of religious artworks. 52 Anonymous, Madame the Queens Death, and Maner thereof, in Miscellany of the Abbotsford Club vol. 1 (Edinburgh, 1837), 81.

PAGE 484

484 solace, as is clear from the frontispiece (A-45) of Eikon Basilike which suggests a very Christlike Charles in the Garden of Gethsemane suffering like King Jesus. The Howards had a particular taste for absolutist and Counte r-Reformation art. Their patronage of Jones, the trips abroad for James and Charles (despite their occasional problems with the Stuarts), testifies to their importance, es pecially as Charles devel oped his artistic tastes. Their fate was the same--disgrace and displacem ent--and even though Lord Arundel converted to Anglicanism, he was finally reconciled to Rome His heart is buried in a Franciscan church. Whether welcome or unwanted, Catholicism played an influential role in the politics, art, and religious development of early Stuart England. Through the leadership of James and Charles Stuartgiven their commitment to Catholicis m and its art, energy, and forms of worship England enjoyed a vibrant renaissa nce before the Civil War. Once again, church and state joined together as a patron of the arts, and England embraced the spirit of th e baroque that shaped Catholic Europe and the Absolute state. The Stuarts slowly thawed the icy grip of Calvinism on English art. Though much of what was create d would be destroyed during the Civil War, evidence suggests that Englands major artistic achievements took inspiration from Catholic Europe. An Angelo-Catholic spirit struggled and finally succeeded in an otherwise failed Counter-Reformation. In the end, the English achievement was led by anti-Calvinists and Laudians, by James and Charles Stuart, and by th eir Catholic Queens. The Stuarts left their mark.

PAGE 485

485 Figure 8-1. Sir Peter Paul Rubins. Wise Rule of James I Banqueting House. Photo by author.

PAGE 486

486 APPENDIX LIST OF ARTWORKS NOT ILLUSTRATE D AND PUBL ICATIONS CONTAINING THEIR ILLUSTRATION A-1. Michelangelo. The Last Judgment 1536-1541, fresco (Janetta Rebold Benton and Robert DiYanni, Arts and Culture An Introduction to the Humanities vol. II, 2005), 32. A-2. Parmigianino. Madonna with the Long Neck 1540 (Janetta Rebold Benton and Robert DiYanni, Arts and Culture: An Introduction to the Humanities vol. II, 2005), 38. A-3. Bernini. David, (Francesca Castria Marchetti, Baroque: 1600-1770: European Art from Caravaggio to Tiepolo, 2005), 121. A-4. Veronese. Feast in the House of Levi 1573 (Frederick Hartt, History of Italian Renaissance Art: Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture Fourth Edition, 1994), 694. A-5. Faade of the Lateran Palace Engraving by Ferrerio, Designed by Domenico Fontana and finished by the summer of 1589 for Pope Sixtus V, (Torgil Magnuson, Rome in the Age of Bernini 1982), 27. A-6. Inigo Jones. Design for the Catafalque of James I, 1625. John Peacock, Inigo Joness catafalque for James I, Architectural History vol. 25 (1982), 6. A-7. Upper Left: (A) Bramante's Tempietto from A. Palladio. Upper Right: Sergio Venturi, (B) Catafalque for Paul V Lower Left: Domenico Fontana, (C) Catafalque for Sixtus V Lower Right: (D) Temple of Vesta, Tivoli from A. Palladio. John Peacock, Inigo Joness Catafalque for James I, Architectural History vol. 25 (1982), 7. A-8. Giovanni Battista Ricci. Pope Sylvester Consecrates th e High Altar of the Lateran, Transept. San Giovanni in Laterano, (Jack Freiberg, The Lateran in 1600 Christian Concord in Counter Reformation Rome 1995), 109. A-9. Rubens, Banqueting House Ceiling, (Gregory Martin: Rubens: The Ceiling Decoration of the Banqueting House 2005), pl. 1. A-10. Peter Paul Rubens. Apotheosis of James I flanked by two Panels of Precessions of Putti Caring Garlands, Torches, and Cornucopias Banqueting house, (Gregory Martin: Rubens: the Ceiling Decorati on of the Banqueting House 2005), pl. 3. A-11. Francis Bird, after Gianlorenzo Bernini. Charles I White Marble Height 147 cm. K. A. Esdaile, Two Busts of Charles I and William III, The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs Vol. 72, No. 421 (April 1938), 166. A-12. Three versions of Berninis Bust of Charles I, which was destroyed in 1698: plaster (left) Francis Bird's copy (center) and engraving by R obert Van Voerst (right) (Charles Avery: Bernini: Genius of the Baroque ), 224.

PAGE 487

487 A-13. After Pedro Perret. View of the Escorial, (Marie Tanner, The Last Descendant of Aeneas 1993), 164. A-14. Lucas de Herre. Philip II as Solomon Ghent, Saint Bavo, (Marie Tanner, The Last Descendant of Aeneas 1993), 168. A-15. Pompeo Leoni. Hapsburg effigies: Charles V and Family on the Gospel side; Philip II and Family on the Epistle Side, Basilica of San Lorenzo, Escorial. (Marie Tanner, The Last Descendant of Aeneas, 1993), 173. A-16. Peter Paul Rubens. The Victory of Eucharistic Truth over Heresy 1626, (Charles Scribner III, Peter Paul Rubens 1989), 97. A-17. The Overturning of the Great Marmite (Philip Benedict, Christs Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism 2002), 140. A-18. Jean Marot. The Temple of Charenton built from 1600 to 1606, (Helene Guicharnaud, An Introduction to the Archite cture of Protestant Temples Constructed in France before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition ), 137. A-19. The Temple of Bourg-l Abbe Completed in 1612 (Helene Guicharnaud, An Introduction to the Architecture of Protestant Temples Constructed in France before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition ), 143. A-20. Interior of the Temple of Charenton (Helene Guicharnaud, An Introduction to the Architecture of Protestant Temples Construc ted in France before the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Traditio n), 149. A-21. Anonymous. Painted Panel of the Ten Commandment s, 1612-14 (Ilja M. Veldman, Protestants and the Arts: Sixteenth-a nd Seventeenth-Centur y Netherlands, in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition 1999), 382. A-22. Hendrick Goltzius. Christs Fulfillment 1578, engraving, (James R. Tanis Netherlandish Reformed Traditions in th e Graphic Arts, 1550-1630, in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition 1999), 379. A-23. Hendrick Hondius. Papist Pyramid, circa 1599, (James R. Tanis Netherlandish Reformed Traditions in the Graphic Arts, in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition, 1999), 382. A-24. Jan Wierix after a design by Maarten Van Heemskerck. Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread, engraving no. 4 from the series The Lord s Prayer, first edition, 1570 (Ilja M. Veldman Protestants and the Arts: Sixteenth-and Seventeenth-Century Netherlands in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinis t Tradition, 1999), 419.

PAGE 488

488 A-25. Jan Wierix after a design by Maarten Van Heemskerck. Give Us This Day Our Daily Bread engraving no. 4 from the series The Lord s Prayer, second edition, 1570 (Ilja M. Veldman Protestants and the Arts: Sixteen th-and Seventeenth-Century Netherlands in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition 1999), 420. A-26. Job Adriansz Berckheyde. 1655, Interior of St. Bavos Haarlem (Web Gallery of Art, ) A-27. Frans Hogenberg. 1570, Iconoclasm of 1566 One of the captions reads, After a little preach ing of the Calvinist religion, (Philip Benedict, Christs Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism 2002), 183. A-28. Langley Chapel. 1601, Communion Table in Langley Chapel, Shropshire, (Christopher Stell, Puritan and Nonconformist Meetinghouses in England in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition 1999), 53. A-29. Toxteth Chapel Liverpool, 1604 (Christopher St ell, Puritan and Nonconformist Meetinghouses in England, in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition 1999), 55. A-30. Toxteth Chapel, plan and section. (Christopher Stell, P uritan and Nonconformist Meetinghouses in England, in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition 1999), 56. A-31. Interior of Toxteth Chapel Liverpool, 1604, (Christopher Stell, Puritan and Nonconformist Meetinghouses in England in Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition, 1999), 57. A-32. Hans Epworth. Elizabeth I and the Three Goddesses 1569, (Karen Hearn. Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630 ), 73. A-33. Luca D Heere. The Family of Henry VIII : An Allegory of the Tudor Succession 1572, (Karen Hearn. Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630), 81. A-34. Hans Epworth. An Allegory of Man 1570, (Karen Hearn. Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630 ), 74. A-35. Unknown. Allegory of the Wise and Foolish Virgins 1570, (Karen Hearn. Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630 ), 74. A-36. Monument of Sir Anthony Cooke 1570s, St. Edward the Confessor, Romford, Essex, (Eric Mercer, English Art 1553-1625 ), pl. 84. A-37. Monument of Thomas Andrewes (1590s), Charwelton, Northamptonshire, (Eric Mercer, English Art 1553-1625), pl. 86b. A-38. Monument of Sir John Jeffery (d. 1611) Whitchurch Canonicoru m, Dorset, (Eric Mercer, English Art 1553-1625 ), pl. 85.

PAGE 489

489 A-39. Epiphanius Evesham. The Tomb of Lord Teynham: Daughters of Lord Teynham. On Lord Teynhams monument at Lynsted, Kent (Eric Mercer, English Art 1553-1625), pl. 87a. A-40. Hubert Le Sueur, Monument to Ludovic Stuart second duke of Lennox and duke of Richmond, erected by 1628, Henry VII Chapel Westminster Abbey, (Nigel Llewellyn, Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England, 2000), 291. A-41. Nicholas Stone, 1631, Monument to Mary, Lady Digges and her sons. (Nigel Llewellyn, Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England 2000), 292. A-42. Maximilian Colt. Tomb of Robert Cecil 1st earl of Salisbury, d.1612, (Brian Kemp, English Church Monuments ), 76. A-43. Nave with Pulpit of Bishop William Knight next to and to the right of Sugar Chantry, ( plex/Cathedral/Interior/Wells-Cath-interior.html ) A-44. Monument to the Scott Family. 1600, St. Mary, Brabourne, Kent, (Nigel Llewellyn, Funeral Monuments in Post-Reformation England ), 116. A-45. Charles the Martyr from Eikon Basilike (Pauline Gregg, King Charles I ), 244. A-46. Elizabeth I and King Solomon Thomas Morton, Solomon or a Treatise Declaring the State of the Kingdome of Israel (1596), (John King, Tudor Royal Iconography), 258. A-47. Frontispiece from John Foxe Acts and Monuments (1641 edition). A-48. Elizabeth I and the Four Virtues 1569, Bishops Bible, (John King, Tudor Royal Iconography ), 234. A-49. Otto II in Majesty (John King, Tudor Royal Iconography), 10. A-50. Peter Paul Rubens. Detail of the Apotheosis of James I flanked by two Panels of Precessions of Putti Caring Garl ands, Torches, and Cornucopias Banqueting House (Gregory Martin: Rubens: The Ceiling Decoration of the Banqueting House, 2005), pl. 3. A-51. Rubens. The Union of Scotland and Engla nd (center) with the A llegories of Hercules (left) and Minerva (right) (Gregory Martin: Rubens: The Ceiling Decoration of the Banqueting House 2005), pl. 4. A-52. Rubens. The Unification of the Kingdoms (center) with Wisdom (Minerva) left, Suppressing Sedition and Virtue (Hercules) right, Overcoming Discord (Gregory Martin: Rubens: The Ceiling Decoration of the Banqueting House 2005), pl. 5. A-53. The Temple of Castor and Pollux, annotated by Inigo Jones in his copy of Palladios Quattro Libri (Venice, 1601), iv, pl 96. (Wor cester College, Oxford) in (John Bold and Edward Chaney, English Architecture Public and Private ), fig. 16.

PAGE 490

490 A-54. Giovanni Antonio Summ onte, engraving of the Temple of Castor and Pollux from his Historia della cita di Napo li (Naples, 1601). (Worcester College, Oxford) in (John Bold and Edward Chaney, English Architecture Public and Private ), fig. 19. A-55. Paul van Somer, 1620. James I in Front of the Banqueting House (Christopher Lloyd, The Painting in the Royal Collection 2003), 27. A-56. Hendrick Van Steenwijk the Younger and Others 1620. Charles I as Prince of Wales (Karen Hearn, Editor, Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England, 1530-1630 ), fig. 141. A-57. Robert Stephenson. Allegory of the Defeat of the Armada c. 1610 oil on panel (Lucy Gent, Albions Classicalism ), 209. A-58. Thomas Cecil. Engraving of Queen Elizabeth as St. George c. 1625 (Lucy Gent, Albions Classicism ), 210. A-59. Anonymous Dutch engraving. The Solemnization of the Spanish Marriage Treaty in the Whitehall Chapel Royal July 1623 (B. P. V. Akrigg, Jacobean Pageant or The court of King James I 1963), 356. A-60. Interior of the Chapel at Hatfield House Hertfordshire, looking North East. (Andrew Spicer, editor, Defining the Holy: Sacred Space in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, 2005), 132. A-61. The Gallery of the Chapel at Hatfield House Hertfordshire (Timothy Mowl, Elizabethan Jacobean Style, London : Phaidon Press Ltd. 1993), 124. A-62. French and English glass painters. Old Testament Scenes 1610 Hatfield House, Chapel. Hertfordshire. A-63. Unknown Mary Queen of Scots and James VI and I c 1583. Im age from A-64. Unknown. Mary Queen of Scots Memorial Portrait (Jayne Elizabeth Lewis: Mary Queen of Scots Romance and Nation ), 68. A-65. Isaac Oliver, Head of Christ 2 by 1 5/8 (Jill Finsten, Isaac Oliver Art at the Courts of Elizabeth I and James I 1981) Figure 87. A-66. Isaac Oliver, Madonna and Child in Glory, 1615 11 by 8. The Madonna is seated, fulllength in clouds. She holds the child at her left. He is portr ayed golden haired and white robed, holds the orb in his left hand and make s the sign of the cross with his right hand (Jill Finsten, Isaac Oliver: Art at the Courts of Elizabeth I and James I 1981), Figure 79. A-67. Isaac Oliver, Moses Strikes the Rock, c 1610.

PAGE 491

491 A-69. Unknown, after Isaac Oliver. Crucifixion 1601, 4 by 3 watercolor on ivory (Jill Finsten, Isaac Oliver: Art at the Courts of Elizabeth I and James I vol. II, 1981). A-70. Isaac Oliver. Lamentation over the Dead Christ, 1586 (Karen Hearn, Editor, Dynasties. Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England, 1530 1630), pl. 103. A-71. Inigo Jones, Queens Chapel St. Jamess Palace. Given over by King Charles I to his Catholic wife, Henrietta Maria as a Catholic Chapel (J. H. Plumb, The Treasures of the British Crown), 111. A-72. Titian, Ecce Homo, 1548. Web Gallery of Art A-73. Giovanni da Bologna, (Giam bologna), Samson and the Philistine /s tories/Giambologna's_Samson_Philistine/in dex.html A-74. Frans Pourbus the Younger? Archduchess Isabella Clara Eugenia and her Dwarf c.1599 (Karen Hearn, Editor, Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England, 1530-1630 ), pl. 124. A-75. Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger. Anne of Denmark 1611-1614 (Karen Hearn, Editor, Dynasties: Painting in T udor and Jacobean England, 1530-1630 ), pl. 130. A-76. Rowland Buckett. The Angel Appearing to the Shepherds 1611 (Karen Hearn, Editor, Dynasties: Painting in T udor and Jacobean England, 1530-1630 ), fig. 46. A-77. Isaac Oliver. Edward Herbert, First Baron Herbert of Cherbury c. 1613 (Karen Hearn, Editor, Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630), pl. 86. A-78. Daniel Mytens. Thomas Howard, 14th Earl of Arundel c 1618 (Karen Hearn, Editor, Dynasties: Painting in T udor and Jacobean England, 1530-1630 ), Figure 140. A-79. Daniel Mytens, Alatheia Talbot, Countess of Arundel 1618 (Karen Hearn, Editor, Dynasties: Painting in T udor and Jacobean England, 1530-1630 ), Figure 141. A-80. Inigo Jones, Unexecuted design for St. Paul s elevation for the West Front (John Harris and Gordon Higgott, Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Drawings ), 167. A-81. Peter Paul Rubens, Lady Arundel and Her Entourage 1620 (Karen Hearn, Editor, Dynasties: Painting in T udor and Jacobean England, 1530-1630 ), Figure 141. A-82. Inigo Joness Journey (Michael Leapman, Inigo: The Troubled Life of Inigo Jones: Architect of the English Renaissance 2003), 136. A-83. Faade of the Jesuit Church of San Ambrogio Genoa, from Rubenss Palazzi di Genova (Antwerp, 1622) pl. xxiii. (John Harris and Gordon Higgott, Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Drawings, 1989), 241.

PAGE 492

492 A-84. Inigo Jones. Elevation of the Penultimate design of the Banqueting House Whitehall, London (John Harris and Gordon Higgott, Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Drawings ), 113. A-85. Elizabethan Coat of Arms St. Margarets Church Tivets hall, Norfolk. Formerly above the altar area of the church a Last Judgment was put there in the Middle Ages. Elizabeth Is arms painted over it. (Jennifer Woodward, The Theater of Death: The Ritual Management of Royal Funerals in Renaissance England 15701625, 1979), Figure 6. A-86. Inigo Jones. Elevation/perspective of a monument to Lady Cotton in St. Chad's, 1610(John Harris and Gordon Higgott, Inigo Jones Complete Architectural Drawings, 1989), 43. A-87. Peter Paul, Rubens Louis XIII Comes of Age (Ronald Forsyth Millen and Robert Erich Wolf, Heroic Deeds and Mystic Figures: A New Reading of Rubenss Life of Maria de Medici, 1989), pl. 53. A-88. Orazio Gentileschi. The Finding of Moses (Karen Hearn, Editor, Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England, 1530-1630 ), fig. 55. A-89. Orazio Gentileschi. Allegory of Peace and the Ar ts under the English Crown (Arthur MacGregor, Editor, The Late Kings Goods in the Light of the Commonwealth Sale Inventories ), pl. 28. A-90. Johannes Kip. Engraved view of Chapel fitted out for Roman Catholic Services 16861688. The Queens Chapel by Inigo Jones bui lt 1623-1625 as engraved in 1688 when it still functioned as a Catholic chapel for Catherine of Braganza, the Queen. A-91. Gerrit van Honthorst. Apollo and Diana 1628 (Christopher Lloyd, The Paintings in the Royal Collection: A Thematic Exploration ), 39. A-92. Rubens Design. The Triumph of Eucharist over Pagan Sacrifice Tapestry model, 162528. Madrid, Descalzas Reales (Marie Tanner, The Last Descendant of Aeneas, 1993), 218. A-93. P. P. Rubens, The Four Philosopher Florence. Pitti Palace. Web Gallery of Art, A-94. Peter Paul Rubens. Portraits with Friends in Mantua 1606-08 Cologne, W allrafRichartz Museum, A-95. Peter Paul Rubens. The Apotheosis of Henry IV and th e Proclamation of the Regency of Marie de Medici on May 14, 1610, 1623-25, Oil on canvas Muse du L ouvre, Paris, Web Gallery of Art, A-96. Peter Paul Rubens, Landscape with St. George and the Dragon (Arthur MacGregor, edito r, The Late Kings Goods), pl. 60.

PAGE 493

493 A-97. Inigo Jones. St. Pauls Cathedral, London. Engraved by Wenceslaus Hollar, 1658 (John Harris and Gordon Higgott, Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Drawings, 1989 ), 238. A-98. Inigo Jones. The nave of St. Pauls Cathedral Engraving after Wenceslas Hollar (Giles Worsley, Classical Architecture in Britain: The Heroic Age 1995), 9. A-99. The plan of St. Pauls engraved by Wenceslaus Hollar and published in Dugdales History 1658. m age:Hollar%2C_Wenceslaus_1658.jpg A-100. Winchester Cathedral, Hampshire. The Choir Screen drawn by Charles Woodsfield, 1714 (John Harris and Gordon Higgott, Inigo Jone s: Complete Architectural Drawings, 1989), 248. A-101. Inigo Jones. Design for Choir Screen at Winchester Cathedral, 1637-38 (John Harris and Gordon Higgott, Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Drawings 1989), 249. A-102. Titian. The Emperor Charles V on Horseback, in Muhlberg 1548 Oil on canvas, 130 3/4 x 109 7/8 in (332 x 279 cm) Prado, Madrid, ive/T/titian/charles_v.jpg.htm l A-103. Sir Anthony Van Dyck. Charles I in Three Positions. Oil on canvas: 33 by 39 inches (Oliver Millar, The Age of Charles I ), 61. A-104. Gianlorenzo Bernini. Thomas Baker, Marble: height 32 in. The Victoria and Albert Museum (Oliver Millar, The Age of Charles I ), 127. A-105. Bernini. Bust of Francesco I d'Este Galleria Estense, Modena (Irving Lavin, Bernini's Image of the Ideal Christian Monarch ), 443. A-106. Van Dyck. King Charles I on Horseback (Arthur MacGregor editor. The Late Kings Goods in the Light of the Commonwealth Sale Inventories ), pl. 69. A-107. Van Dyck. King Charles I on Horseback with M. D. St. Antoine (Arthur MacGregor editor. The Late Kings Goods in the Light of the Commonwealth Sale Inventories ) pl. 68. A-108. Van Dyck. Holy Family with Partridges, 1632. (Margaret Roland, Holy Family with Partridges Catholic an d Classical Imagery at the English Court, Artibus et Historia Vol. 15, No. 29 (1994), 122. A-109. Van Dyck. Self Portrait With a Sunflower showing the gold collar and medal King Charles I gave Van Dyck in 1633 (Michael Levey, Painting at Court 1971), 124. A-110. Pedro Perret after Juan de Herrera, Gr ound Plan of the Escorial (Marie Tanner, The Last Descendant of Aeneas 1993), 165. A-111. The Escorial Royal Palace near Madrid. From a Contemporary woodcut (Marvin R. OConnell, The Counter Reformation 1560-1610 1974), pl. 6.

PAGE 494

494 A-112. Plan of Whitehall Palace (left) Plan of Solomons Temple according to Villalpando (Right) (Vaughn Hart, Art and Magic in the Court of the Stuarts 1994), 113. A-113. Raphael. The Miraculous Draught of Fishes (J. H. Plumb, The Treasures of the British Crown ), 109. A-114. Titian, Portrait of Charles V with Hound, A-115. Unknown. Burning of crucifixes and papistical books in England in 1643 (Sergiusz Michalski, T he Reformation and the Visual Arts: The Protestant Image Question in Western and Eastern Europe, 1993), Figure 10. A-116. Thomas Johnson. Iconoclasts in Canterbury Cathedral. 1657 A Parliamentary committee is directing the destruction of stained glass and carve d decoration (Oliver Millar. T he Age of Charles I: Painting in England 1620-1649), 109. A-117. Simon Renard de Saint-Andre Ca. 1669-1677, Allegory of Charles I of England and Henrietta Maria (Walter Brown, The Stuart Legacy: English Art 1603-1714 ), 159. A-118. Anonymous, Execution of Charles I (Maurice Ashley, A Royal History of England: The Stuarts 2000), 53.

PAGE 495

495 LIST OF REFERENCES Primary Sources Anonym ous Eikon Basilike the pourtrai cture of His sacred Majes tie in his solitudes and sufferings. London: printer unknown, 1649. Anonymous. The seconde tome of homelyes of such ma tters as were promised and intituled in the former part of homelyes. Imprinted at London: In Powles Churcheyarde, by Richard Iugge, and Ihon Cawood printers to the Quenes Maiestie, 1563. Andrewes, Lancelot. The Preces Privatae of Lancelot Andrewes trans. and ed., F. E. Brightman London, 1903: rpt. New York: Living Age Books, 1961. Andrewes, Lancelot. Responsio ad Apologiam Cardinalis Be llarmini, quam nuper edidit contra praefationem monitoriam Serenissimi ac potentissimi principis Iacobi, Dei gratia Magnae Britanniae, Franciae, & Hiberniae Regis, fidei defensoris, omni bus Christianis monarchis, principibus atque ordinibus inscriptam. Londini: Excudebat Robertus Barkerus, serenissae Regi ae Maiestatis typographus, Anno 1610. Batman, Stephan. The golden booke of the leaden goddes Wh erein is described the vayne imaginations of heathe[n] pagans, and c ounterfaict Christians: wyth a description of their seueral tables, what ech of thei r pictures signified. By St ephen Batman, student in diuinitie. London: In Fleetestreete, neare vnto Saynct Dunstanes Churche, by Thomas Marshe, 1577. Becon, Thomas. The Catechism of Thomas Becon With other pieces written by him the in the reign of King Edward the sixth. Edited for the Parker society, by the Rev. John Ayre, Cambridge: Printed at the University press, 1844. Becon, Thomas. The sycke mans salue. VVherin the fa ithfull christians may learne both how to behaue them selues paciently and thankefully, in the tyme of sickenes, and also vertuously to dispose th eir temporall goodes, and final ly to prepare them selues gladly and godly to die. Made and newly recognis ed by Maister Tho. Becon. Imprinted at London: By Iohn Day, dwelling ouer Aldersgate beneath Saint Martins, [1561] second edition at Edinburgh, 1584. Bernard, Richard. Contemplative pictures with whol esome precepts. The first part: Of God. Of the diuell. Of goodnesse. Of badnesse. Of heauen: and of hell. By Richard Bernard. London: Printed by William Hall for William Welbie, 1610. Bidermann, Jakob. Heroum Epistolae, Epigrammate & Herodial Antwerp: Mortus, 1633.

PAGE 496

496 Birch, Thomas, editor. The Court and times of Charles the Fi rst illustrated by authentic and confidential letters, from various public and private collect ions; including Memoirs of the mission in England of the Capuchin friars in the serv ice of Queen Henrietta Maria. By Cyprien de Gamache, Capuchin Preacher and Missionary to the Queen edited, with an introduction and notes, by the author of Memoirs of Sophia Dorothea, Consort of George I, The court and times of James. I London: H. Colburn, 1848. Birch, Thomas, editor. The Court and Times of James the Firs t: Illustrated by Authentic and Confidential Letters, from Various Public and Private Collections (London: Henry Colburn, Publisher, 1848, 2 vols. Boughen, Edward. Tvvo sermons the first, preached at Canterbury, at the visitation of the Lord Archbishops peculi ars, in Saint Margarets Church, April 14, 1635: the second, preached at Saint Paul's Crosse, th e eighteenth of April, 1630 / by Edward Boughen London: Printed by R.B., 1635. Brinsley, John. The glorie of the latter temple greater then of the former Opened in a sermon preached at the consecration or restituti on of the Parish Church of Flixton in the island of Louingland in the county of Suffolke; being sometimes the mother church of the EastAngles. 11. March. 1630 / By Iohn Brinsley. London: Printed [by G. Miller] for Robert Bird, and are to be sold at his shop at the signe of the Bible in Saint Laurence-lane, 1631. Calvin, Jean. The institution of Christian religion, vvryt ten in Latine by maister Ihon Caluin, and translated into Englysh according to the authors last edition. Seen and allowed according to the order appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions Translated by Thomas Norton, London: By Reinolde VVolfe & Richarde Harison, Annee. 1561. Calvin, John, Institutes of the Christian Religion vol. I, editor John T. Mcneill. Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, On Sacred Images. Twenty-fifth Session December 3 and 4, 1563, translator, H. J. Schroeder. St. Louis: London: Herder, 1941. Camden, William. The historie of the life and reigne of the most renowmed [sic] and victorious Princesse Elizabeth, late Queen e of England contayning th e most important and remarkeable passages of state, dur ing her happy, long and prosper ous raigne / composed by way of annals, by the most learne d Mr. William Camden ; and fa ithfully translated into English. London: Printed for Benjamin Fisher, [1630. Carier, Benjamin. A tretise, vvriten by m. doctor Carier, vvherin hee layeth down lerned and pithy considerations by which he was moued, to forsake Protestant congregation, and to betake himselfe to the Catholke Apostolic Romn Church. Agreeing verbatim with the written copye, addressed by sayd doctor to the King his most excellent Maiestie England: English Secret Press, 1614.

PAGE 497

497 Charles I, King of England. Editor John Bruce. Letters of King Charles the First to Queen Henrietta Maria London: Camden Society, 1865. Charles I, King of England. Reliquiae sacrae Carolinae. Or th e works of that great monarch and glorious martyr King Charles th e I. Collected together, and di gested in order, according to their several subjects, civil and sacred. The contents appear in the ensuing pages. C.R. Hague [i.e. London]: Printed by Samuel Browne for R. Royston, 1657. Chapman, George. The Iliads of Homer prince of poets Neuer before in any languag truely translated. With a co[m]ment vppon some of his chiefe places; donne according to the Greeke by Geo: Chapman. London: Printed [by Richard Field] for Nathaniell Butter, 1611. Charke, William. An answere to a seditious pamphlet lately cast abroade by a Iesuite conteyning ix. ar ticles heere inserted and set downe at large, with a discouerie of that blasphemous sect. By William Charke. Imprinted at London: By Christopher Barker, printer to th e Queenes most excellent Maiestie, Anno 1581. Cleland, James. Hero-paideia, or The institution of a young noble man by James Cleland, At Oxford: Printed by Ioseph Barnes, 1607. Cobbett, William The Parliamentary history of England from the earliest period to the year 1803, from which last-mentione d epoch it is continued downwards in the work entitled "Hansard's parliamentary debates." Vol. III (London: Printed by T. C. Hansard, 1806-1820. Coignet, Matthieu. Politique discourses upon trueth and lying An instruction to princes to keepe their faith and promise: containing the summe of Christian and morall philosophie, and the duetie of a good man in sundrie politi que discourses vpon the trueth and lying. First composed by Sir Martyn Cognet ... Ne wly translated out of French into English, by Sir Edward Hoby, Knight London: Printed by John Windet for Ralfe Newberie. Cum gratia & priuilegio Regiae Maiestatis, 1586. Cornwallis, Sir Charles. The Life and Death of Our Late Most Incomparable and Heroiqe prince, Henry, Prince of Wales: A Prince (for Val our and Vertue) fit to be Imitated in Succeeding Times London: printed by Iohn Dawson for Nathanael Butter, 1641. Digby, John, Earl of Bristol. A true relation and iournall, of the manner of the arrivall, and magnificent entertainment, giuen to the high and mi ghty Prince Charles, Prince of Great Britaine, by the King of Spaine in his court at Madrid. London: Printed by Iohn Hauiland for William Barret, 1623. Dugdale, William. The history of St. Pauls Cathedra l in London from its foundation untill these times extracted out of originall charters, re cords, leiger books, and other manuscrip ts : beautified with sundry prosp ects of the church, figures of tombes and monuments. London: Tho. Warren, 1658.

PAGE 498

498 De Dominis, Marco Antonio. De republica ecclesiastica libr i X. Auctore Marco Antonio de Dominis Archiepiscopo Spal atensi. Cum suis indicibus Londini: Ex officina Nortoniana apud Io: Billium, 1617. Earle, John. Microcosmography Editor P. Blis. London: 1818. Evelyn, John. Numismata, a discourse of medals, ancient and modern together with some account of heads and effigies of illustrious, and famous persons in sculps, and taille-douce, of whom we have no medals extant, and of the use to be derived from them: to which is added a digression concerning physiognomy (London: Printed for Benj. Tooke 1697. Evelyn, John. The Diary of John Evelyn Ed. John Bowle, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983. Evelyn, John. Sculptura, or, The history, and art of chalcography and engraving London: Printed by J.C. for G. Beedle and T. Collins, 1662. Farley, Henry. The complaint of Paules to all Christi an soules, or, An humbl e supplication, to our good King and nation, for her new reparation written by Henry Farley. London: For Laurence L'isle, and are to bee sold at his shop in Pauls Church -yard at the Turkes-head, 1616. Fleming, Gyles. Magnificence exemplified: and, the repaire of Saint Pauls exhorted unto In a sermon appointed to be prea ched at St. Pauls-Crosse but preached in the church. August the 31. 1634. By Gy les Fleming Mag. in Art. and preacher of Gods Word at Waddingworth, in Lincolne-shire. London: Printed by Richard Badger for Thomas Alchorn, 1634. Fuller, Thomas. The holy state by Thomas Fuller ... Cambridge: Printed by Roger Daniel for John Williams ..., 1642. Great Britton, Public Record Office. Edited by Allen B. Hinds. Calendar of State Papers and Manuscripts, Relating to English Affa irs. Existing in the Arch ives and Collections of Venice. And in the other Libraries of Northern Italy. Vols. 1-38. Nendeln, Liechtenstein: Kraus-Thompson Organized Limited, 1970 Hacket, John. Scrinia reserata a memorial offer'd to th e great deservings of John Williams, D. D., who some time held the places of Ld Keeper of the Great Seal of England, Ld Bishop of Lincoln, and Ld Archbishop of Yo rk: containing a series of the most remarkable occurences and transactions of his life, in rela tion both to church and state. London: In the Savoy: Printed by Edw. Jones for Samuel Lowndes, 1693. Hardwicke, Philip Yorke. Miscellaneous State Papers, from 1501 to 1726, 2 vols. London: W. Strahan and T. Cadell, 1778.

PAGE 499

499 Herbert, Sir Thomas. Memoirs of the two last years of the reign of that unparallell'd prince, of ever blessed memory, King Charles I. By Sir Tho. Herbert, Major Huntington, Col. Edw. Coke, and Mr. Hen. Firebrace. With the character of that blessed martyr, by J ohn Diodati, Mr. Alexander Hende rson, and the author of The princely-pelican . London, 1702. Heylyn, Peter. Cyprianus Anglicus, or, The history of the life and death of the Most Reverend and renowned prelate William, by divine providence Lord Archbishop of Canterbury ... containing also th e ecclesiastical history of the three kingdoms of England, Scotland, and Irel and from his first ri sing till his death. London: Printed for A. Seile, 1668. Holme, Randle. The academy of armory, or, A storehouse of armory and blazon containing the several variety of created beings, and how born in coats of arms, both foreign and domestick: with the instruments used in all trades and sciences, to gether with their their terms of art: also the etymologie s, definitions, and historical observations on the same, explicated and explained according to our modern language: very usefel [sic] for all gentlemen, scholars, divines, and all such as desire any knowle dge in arts and sciences. Chester: Printed for the author, 1688. Hooker, Richard. The Lawes of Ecclesticall Politie London: John Windet, 1597. Howell, James. Epistolae Ho-Elianae. Fimiliar lette rs domestic and forren; divided in sections, partly historidcall, politic all, philosophicall London: Printed for Humphrey Moseley, 1645. James I, King of England. The Political Works of James I. Charles H. McIlwain, editor. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1918. James I, King of England. James F. La rkin, and Paul L Hughes, editors. Stuart Royal Proclamations Volume I, Royal Proclamations of King James I 1603-1625 Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. James I, King of England and Charles I King of England. Ed. James Orchard Halliwell. Letters of the Kings of England, now First collected from the Originals in Royal Archives, and from other Authentic Sources, Private as Well as Public. Vol. 2. London: Henry Colburn, Publisher, 1846. Jones, Inigo. The Theater of the Stuart Court: Incl uding the Complete Designs for Productions at Court, for th e most part in the Colle ction of the Duke of Devonshire, Together with their texts and Historical Documentation Stephen Orgel and Roy Strong, editors. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973. King, John. A sermon at Paules Crosse, on behalfe of Paules Church, March 26. 1620. By the B. of London. Both preached and published by his Majesties commandment London: Printed by Edward Griffin for Elizabeth Adams, 1620.

PAGE 500

500 Lanyer, Aemelia. Salue Deus Rex Iudaeorum Containing, 1 The Passion of Christ. 2 Eues apologie in defence of women. 3 The te ares of the daughters of Ie rusalem. 4 The saluation and sorrow of the Virgine Marie. With diuers other things not vnfit to be read. / Written by Mistris AEmilia Lanyer, wife to Captaine Alfonso Lanyer seruant to the Kings Majestie. London: Printed by Valentine Simmes for Richard Bonian, 1611. Laud, William. A Relation of The Conference bewteene William Lawd, Then, Lord Bishop of St. Davids, Now Lord Arch-Bishop of Canterbury; And Mr. Fisher the Jesuit, by the Command of King Ja mes of ever Blesses Meomrie, With an Answer to Such Exceptions as A. C. takes against it London: Richard Badger, Printer to the Prince His Highness, 1639. Laud, William. A sermon preached at VVhite-hall, on th e 24. of March, 1621 Beeing the day of the beginning of his Maiesties mo st gracious reigne. By the Bishop of S. Dauids. London: Printed by Bonham Norton, and Iohn Bill, printers to the Kings most excellent Maiestie, 1622. Laud, William, William Laud: The history of the troubles and tryal of the Most Reverend Father in God and blessed mart yr, William Laud, Lord Arch -Bishop of Canterbury wrote by himself during his impris onment in the Tower; to which is prefixed the diary of his own life, faithfull y and entirely published from the original copy; and subjoined, a supplement to the preceding history, the Arch-Bishop's last will, his large answer to the Lord Say's speech concerning liturgies, his annual accounts of his province delivered to the king, and some other things relating to the history London: Printed for Ri. Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in St. Pauls Church-Yard, 1695. Laud, William. The Works of the Most Revere nd Father in God, William Laud. ed. W. Scot and J. Bliss Oxford, 1847-1860, 7 vols. Lipsius, Justus. De constantia Libri duo qui alloquium prcipue continent in publicis malis Oxonii: typis Will. Hall, anno dom. 1663. Lipsius, Justus. Politicorum, siue, Ciuilis doctrinae lib ri sex, qui ad principatum maxim spectant. Londini: Typis Georgii Bishop, 1590. Linche, Richard. The fountaine of ancien t fiction Wherein is liuely depictured the images and statues of the gods of the ancients, with thei r proper and perticular expositions. Done out of Italian into English, by Richard Linche Gent. London: Printed by Adam Islip, 1599. Macdonald, Alexander and Sir Patrick Walker, editors. Letters to King James the Sixth from the Queen, Prince Henry, Prince Charle s, the Princess Elizabeth and her Husband Frederick King of Bohemia, and from their Son Prince Frederick Henry Edinburgh: The Maitland Club. 1835. Manningham, John. The diary of John Manningham editor J. Bruce. Camden Society XCIX, London, 1868.

PAGE 501

501 Milton, John. The Prose Works of John Milton. Vol. I-V editor. J. A. St. John, London: G. Bell, 1908. Milton, John. Eikonoklastes in answer to a book intitld Eikon basilike, the portrature of his Sacred Majesty in his sol itudes and sufferings. The author I.M. Published by authority London: Printed by Matthew Simmons, next dore to the gilded Lyon in Aldersgate street, 1649. Panzani, Gregorio. Memoir of Gregorio Panzani giving an account of his agency in England in the years 1634, 1635, and 1636 Birmingham: Swinney and Walker, 1793. Paleotti, Gabriele. Discorso intorno alle imagini sacre e profane Bologna, 1582. Reprint edition. Pola Barocci in Tratati darte del Cinquencento vol. 2, 117-509. Bari: Giuseppe Laterza e Figli, 1961. Pigna, Giovan Battista. Il pricipe...nel qval si discrive come debba essere il Principe heroico, sotto il cui gouerno vu felice popolo, possa tranquill a & beatamente viuere Venetia: Appresso Francesco Sansovino, 1561 Prynne, William. A briefe suruay and censure of Mr Cozens his couzening deuotions Prouing both the forme and matter of Mr Cozens his booke of priuate deuotions, or the houres of prayer, lately pub lished, to be meerely popish: to differ from the priuate prayers authorized by Queene Elizabeth 1560. to be transcribed out of popish authors, with which th ey are here paralelled: and to be scandalous and preiudiciall to our Church, and aduantagious onely to the Church of Rome. By William Prynne Gent. Hospitij Lincolniensis. London: Thomas Cotes, 1628. Prynne, William. Histriomastix London: by E. A. and W. I. for Michael Sparke, Reprint of the 1633 edition. Prynne, William. Canterburies doome, or, The first part of a compleat history of the commitment, charge, tryall, condemnation, execution of William Laud, late Archbishop of Canterbury containi ng the severall orders, articles, proceedings in Parliament against him, from his first accusation therein, till his tryall: together with the various evidences and proofs produced against him at the Lords Bar ... : wherein this Arch-prelates manifold trayterous artifices to usher in popery by degrees, are cleerly detected, and the ecclesiasticall history of our church-affaires, during his pontificall domination, fa ithfully presented to th e publike view of the world/ by William Prynne, of Lincolns Inne, Esquire London: Printed by John Macock for Michael Spark, Senior, 1646. Public Record Office. State Papers, Council of State, Days Proceedings vol. IX, July 1650.

PAGE 502

502 Relf, Francis Helen, Editor. Notes on the Debate s of the House of Lords, officially taken by Robert Bowyer and Henry Elsing, clerks of the Pa rliament, 1621, 1625, 1628; edited from the original manuscr ipts in the Inner Temple Library, the Bodleian Library and the House of Lords, by Frances Helen Relf, London: Royal Historical Society, XLII (1929). Rubens, Peter Paul, Sir. Letters. Translated and Edited by Ruth Saunders Magurn, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955. Rudd, Anthony. A sermon preached before the Kings Maie stie at White-Hall vpon the ninth of Februarie. 1605. By the Reuerend Fath er in God, Anthonie Rudd, Do ctor in Diuinitie, and Lord Bishop of Saint Dauids London: Printed by Humfrey Lo wnes, for Clement Knight, 1606. Sarpi, Paolo. The History of the Quarrels of Pope Paul V with the State of Venice London: Richard Lownds, 1653. Siefried, Ionne. Arbor Aniciana Seu Genealogia Se renissimorum Augustissim Austr Domus Principum Ab Anicia Antiquissima nobilissimaque Urbis Rom familia deducta septemque Libra explicata, Vol. 2. Vienna: Joannis Fidler for Zwethalensibus [Zwettl], sumptibus Auctoris [Seifrid], 1613. Siguenza, Fray Jose De. La Fundacion del Monasterio de el Escorial por Filipe II Madrid: Aguliar, 1963. Stow, John, Anthony Munday and others. The survey of London contayning the originall, increase, moderne estate, and go vernment of that city, methodically set downe. With a memoria ll of those famouser acts of c harity, which for publicke and pious vses have beene bestowed by many worshipfull citizens and benefactors. As also all the ancient and moderne monuments erected in the churches not onely of those two famous cities, London and We stminster, but (now ne wly added) foure miles compasse. Begunne first by the paines and industry of Iohn Stovv, in the yeere 1598. Afterwards inlarged by th e care and diligence of A.M. in the yeere 1618. And now completely finished by th e study and labour of A.M. H.D. and others, this present yeere 1633. Whereunto, besides many additions (as appeares by the contents) are annexed divers alphabe ticall tables; especial ly two: the first, an index of thi ngs. The second, a concordance of names London: Printed by Elizabeth Purslovv, 1633. Strype, John. Memorials of the most reverend Father in God .Thomas Cranmer 2 vols. London Routledge, 1694.

PAGE 503

503 Thorowgood, Thomas. Moderation iustified, and the Lords be ing at hand emproved, in a sermon at VVestminster before the Honor able House of Commons assembled in Parliament: preached at the late solemne fast, December 25. 1644. By Thomas Thorowgood B. of D. Rector of Grimston in the county of Norfolke: one of the Assembly of Divines. Published by order from that House. London: Printed by I. L. for Christ opher Meredith at the Crane in Pauls Church-yard, and for Thomas Slater at the Swan in Duck-Lane, 1645. Tuke, Thomas. A discourse against painting and tincturing of women Wherein the abominable sinnes of murther and poysoning, pr ide and ambition, adultery and witchcraft are set foorth & discouered. Whereunto is adde d The picture of a picture, or, the character of a painted woman. Imprinted at London: [By Thomas Creede and Bernard Alsop] for Edward Marchant, 1616. Vicars, John. A sight of ye trans-actions of these latter yeares emblemiz ed with ingraven plats, which men may read without spectacles. London: Are to be sould, by Thomas Ienner, in his shop at the old Exhange, 1646. Wallington, Nehemiah Historical Notices of Events Occurring Chiefly in the Reign of Charles I. ed. R. Webb, 2 vols. London: R. Bentley, 1869. Webb, John. A vindication of Stone-Heng restored in which th e orders and rules of architecture observed by the anci ent Romans are discussed: together with the customs and manners of several nations of the world in matters of building of greatest antiquity: as also, an hi storical narration of the most memorable actions of the Danes in England London: by James Bettenham for G. Conyers, J. and B. Sprint, B. Lintot, D. Browne junior, J. Woodman and D. Lyon, 1725. Weever, John. Ancient funerall monument s within the vnited monarchie of Great Britaine, Ireland, and the islands adiacent with the dissolued monasteries therein contained: their founders, and what eminent persons haue beene in the sam interred. As also the death and buriall of certaine of the bloud royall; the nobilitie and gentrie of these kingdomes ento mbed in forraine nations. A worke reuiuing the dead memory of the royall pr ogenie, the nobilitie, gentrie, and communaltie, of these his Maiesties dominions. Intermixed and illustrated with variety of historicall obseruations, annotations, and briefe notes, extracted out of approued authors ... Whereunto is prefixed a discou rse of funerall monuments ... Composed by the studie and trauels of Iohn Weeuer. London: Printed by Thomas Harper, 1631. White, Francis. A Replie to Iesuit Fishers answere to certain questions propounded by his most gratious Maitie King James London: Adam Isop, 1624. Willet, Andrew. A Christian letter of certaine English protestants, vnfained fauourers of the present state of religion, authoris ed and professed in England: vnto that reverend and learned man, Mr R. Hoo requiring resolution in certaine matters of doctrine (which seeme to ouerthrow the foundation of Chri stian religion, and of the church among vs) expreslie his fiue books of Ecclesiasticall pollicie. Middelburg: Richard Schilders, 1599.

PAGE 504

504 Willet, Andrew. Synopsis Papismi, that is, a gene ral vievv of papoistrie vvherin the vvhole materie of iniquitie, and summe of antichristian doctrine is set downe, which is maintained this day by the Synagogue of Rome, against the Church of antidotum or counterpoyson out of Scripture, against the whor e of Babylons filthie cuppe of abominationsDiuided in to fiue bookes or centurie s, that is, so many hundreds of popish heresies and errors. London: Imprinted by Felix Kyngston, for Thomas Man, dwelling in Pater noster row at the signe of the Talbot, 1600. Williams, John. Great Britains Salomon A sermon preached at the magnificent funerall, of the most high and mighty king, Ia mes, the late King of Great Britaine, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, &c. At the Collegiat Church of Saint Peter at Westminster, the seuenth of May 1625. By the Right Honorable, and Right Reuerend Father in God, Iohn, Lord Bishop of Lincolne, Lord Keeper of the Great Seale of England, &c. London: Printed by Eliot's Court Press for Iohn Bill, printer to the Kings most excellent Maiestie, 1625. Wilson, Arthur. The History of Grate Britain: Being the Life and Reign of King James the First, Relating to What passed from His First Access to the Crown, Till his Death. London: Richard Lownds, 1653, 102. Woverius, Johannes. Assertio Lipsiani donari adversu s gelastorum sugillationes. Antwerp: Joannes Moretus, 1607. Wood, Anthony. Athenae Oxonienses. An exact history of all the writers and bishops who have had their educ ation in the University of Oxfor d. To which are added the Fasti, or Annals of the said University London: Rivington ed. P. Bliss, 4 Vols. 1813-20. Wotton, Henry. The Elements of Architecture Frederick Hard, editor. University Press of Virgin ia, Charlottesville, 1968, 51. Wren, Matthew. A sermon preached before the Kings Ma iestie on Sunday the seventeenth of February last, at White-Hall by Dor VVren, the Master of St Peters Colledge in Cambridge, and his Ma iesties chaplaine. Printed by command At Cambridge: By Thomas and Iohn Buck, pr inters to the Vniversitie, Ann. Dom. 1627. Secondary Source Addleshaw, G. W O. and Frederick Etchells. The Architectural Setting of Anglican Worship. An Inquiry into the Arrangements for Public Worship in the Church of England from the Reformation to the Present Day. London: Faber and Faber, 1948. Akrigg, G. P. V. Jacobean Pageant or The Court of King James I Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963. Albion, G. Charles I and the Court of Rome London: Burnes, Gates, and Washbourne, 1935.

PAGE 505

505 Amussen, Susan Dwyer. An Ordered Society: Gender and Class in Early Modern England Oxford: Blackwell, 1988. Arthos, John. Milton and the Italian Cities New York: Barns and Noble, 1968. Ashley, Maurice. Charles I and Oliver Cromwell: A Study in Contrasts and Comparisons London; New York: Methuen, 1987. Aston, Margaret. Astraea: The Imperial Theme in the Sixteenth-century London and Boston: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1975. Aston, Margaret. Englands Iconoclasts: Laws Against Images Vol. 1. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Aston, Margaret. Gods, Saints, and Reformers: Portraiture and Prot estant England, in Albions Classicism: Th e Visual Arts in Britain, 1550-1660 Lucy Gent, editor. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1995. Auerbach, Erna and C. Kingsley Adams. Painting and Sculpture at Hatfield House. London: Constable 1997. Aveling, J. C. H. The Handle and the Axe: The Catholic Recusants in England from the Reformation to Emancipation London: Bond and Briggs, 1976. Avery, Charles. Bernini Genius of the Baroque London: Thames and Hudson, 1997. Avery, Charles. Studies in European Sculpture London: Christies, 1981. Aylmer, G. E. The Struggle for the Constitution: England in the Seventeenth Century London: Blandford Press, 1975. Ayre, John, editor. The Works of John Whitgift Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 18511853. Bangs, Carl. Arminius: A Study in the Dutch Reformation Grand Rapids, Michigan: Francis Asbury Press, 1985. Barber, Richard. King Arthur in Legend and History. Ipswich, Suffolk: The Boydell Press Ltd. 1973. Barber, Richard, editor. Myths and Legends of the British Isles Woodridge: The Boydell Press, 1999. Barocchi, Paola. Trattati darte del Cinquecento 2 vols. Bari: Giuseppe Laterza e Figli, 1961.

PAGE 506

506 Barroll, Leeds. Anna of Denmark, Queen of England: A Cultural Biography Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2001. Barroll, Leeds. The Court of the First Stuart Queen. In The Mental World of the Jacobean Court Linda Levy Peck editor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. Basset, Bernard S. J. The English Jesuits from Champion to Martindale Herefordshire: Gracewing, 2004. Beals, D. and D. G. Best, editors. History, Society and the Churches: Essays in Honour of Owen Chadwick. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Bell, Henry Bradley. Archbishop Laud and Priestly Government London: A. Constable, 1905. Benedict, Philip. Christs Churches Purely Reformed: A Social History of Calvinism New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2002. Bennett, Martyn. The English Civil War 1640-1649 London; New York: Longman Group Limited, 1995. Bergeron, David M. King James & Letters of Homoerotic Desire Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1999. Bireley, Robert. The Counter-Reformation Prince: An ti Machiavellianism or Catholic Statecraft in Early Modern Europe. Chapel Hill; London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1990. Birt, H. N. The Elizabethan Religious Settlement London: K. Paul, Trench and Trubner 1907. Biudici, Vittorio. The Sistine Chapel: Its History and Masterpieces Milano: Ufficio Vendita Pubbicazioni, 1998. Blunt, Anthony. Artistic Theory in Italy 1450-1600 Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956. Blunt, Anthony. Cavaliere Berninis Visit to France Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Boesky, Amy and Mary Thomas Crane, Eds. Form and Reform in Renaissance England: Essays in Honor of Barbara Kiefer Lewalski London: Associated University Presses, 2000. Bond, Francis. Dedications and Patron Saints of Eng lish Churches: Ecclesiastical Symbolism Saints and Their Emblems. London: Oxford University Press, 1914.

PAGE 507

507 Bossy, John. The English Catholic Community: 1570-1850 New York: Oxford University Press, 1976. Bouwsma, William J. John Calvin: A Sixteenth-Century Portrait Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1988. Brimacombe, Peter. Life in Stuart England. Norwich: Jarrold Publishing, 2003. Brown, Jonathan. Kings and Connoisseurs: Collecting Art in Seventeenth-Century Europe Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994. Brown, Jonathan and John Elliot, editors. The Sale of the Century: Artistic Relations Between Spain and Great Britain, 1604-1655. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2002. Brown, Walter R. The Stuart Legacy: English Art 1603-1714 Birmingham, Alabama: Birmingham Museum of Art, 1991. Burgess, Glenn. Absolute Monarchy and the Stuart Constitution. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996. Butler, John. James I and Divine Right. Tokyo, Japan: Sekieisha, 1999. Butler, Martin. Theater and Crisis 1632-1642 New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Carlin, Norah. The Causes of the English Civil War Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1999. Carlton, Charles. Archbishop William Laud London; New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987. Carlton, Charles. Charles I, The Personal Monarchy. London; New York: Routledge, 1995. Carrier, Irene. James VI and I: King of Great Britain. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Carrington, Fitz Roy. The Kings Lyrics: Lyrical Poems of the Reigns of King James I. and King Charles I. Together w ith the Ballad of Agincour t Written by Michael Drayton London: Duckworth & Company, 1899. Chamberlain, John. The Letters of John Chamberlain Volume 2, Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society, 1939.

PAGE 508

508 Chaney, Edward. The Evolution of English Collecting: receptions of Italian Art in the Tudor and Stuart Periods Hew Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2003. Chaney, Edward. The Evolution of the Grand Tour: Anglo-Italian Cultural Relations Since the Renaissance London; Portland: Frank Cass, 1998. Chaney, Edward. The Grand Tour and the Great Rebellion: Richard Lassels and The Voyage of Italy in the Seventeenth Century. Ge neva: Slatkine, 1985. Clancy, Thomas H. English Catholic Books 1641-1700: A Bibliography Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1974, Clancy, Thomas H. Papist Pamphleteers: The AllenParsons Party and the Political Thought of the Counter-Reformation in England, 1572-1615. Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1964. Clark, J. C. D. English Society 1688-1823: Ideology, Social Structure, and Political Practice During the Ancient Regime Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985. Cocke, Thomas. 900 Years: The Restorations of Westminster Abbey London: Harvey Miller Publishers, 1995. Codery, B. Meriton and J. Surtees Phillpotts. King and Commonwealth: A History of Charles I and the Great Rebellion. Philadelphia: Jos. H. Coates and Co., 1897. Cogswell, Thomas. The Blessed Revolution: English Politics and the Coming of War, 1621-1624 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Collins, William Edward. Archbishop Laud Commemoration, 1895. Lectures on Archbishop Laud Together with a Bibliography of Laudian Literature and the Laudian Exhibition Catalogue etc New York: Burt Franklin, 1895, reprinted 1969. Collinson, Patrick. From Iconoclasm to Iconop hobia: The Cultural Impact of the Second English Reformation. In Peter Marshal, editor, The Impact of the English Reformation 1500-1640. London: Arnold, 1997. Colvin, Howard. The Canterbury Quadrangle St. Johns College Oxford Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988. Cooper, John. National Portrait Gallery: A Visitors Guide London: National Portrait Gallery Publications, 2001. Cordery, B. Merton and J. Surtees Phillpotts. King and Commonwealth: A History of Charles I and the Great Rebellion Philadelphia: Jos. H. Cotes and Co., 1876.

PAGE 509

509 Corns, Thomas, editor. The Royal Image: Representations of Charles I Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Coward, Barry. ed. A companion to Stuart Britain Oxford: Blackwell Publisher Ltd., 2003. Coward, B. The Stuart Age: England 1603-1714 London and New York: Longman, 1980. Cressy, David and Lorie Anne Ferrell, Editors. Religion and Society in Early Modern England: A Sourcebook. London & New York: Routledge, 1996. Croft, Pauline. King James. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2003. Cruickshanks, Evelyn, editor. The Stuart Courts Gloucestershire: Sutton Publishing Limited, 2000. Crust, Richard and Ann Hughes, editor. Conflict in Early Stuart England: Studies in Religion and Politics 1603-1642. London; New York: Longman, 1989. Cunningham, Andrew and Ole Peter Grell. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse: Religion, War, Famine and Death in Reformation Europe Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000. Cunningham, Peter. Inigo Jones and Ben Jonson London: Shakespeare Society, 1853. Cunningham, Peter. Inigo Jones: A Life of the Architect London: Shakespeare Society, 1848. DHulst R. A. & M. Vandenven. Rubens: The Old Testament. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Davidson, Clifford, editor. The Iconography of Heaven Kalamazoo, Michigan: Western Michigan University, 1994. Davies, Julian. The Caroline Captivity of the Church : Charles I and the Remolding of Anglicanism 1625-1641 Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Dickens, A. G. The Courts of Europe: Politic s, Patronage and Royalty 1400-1800 London: Thames and Hudson, 1977. Dolan, Frances E. Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender and Seventeenth-Century Print Culture Ithaca; London: Cornell University Press, 1999. Donald, Peter. An Uncounselled King: Charles I and the Scottish Troubles, 1637-1641 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Dunn, Richard S. The Age of Religious Wars 1559-1715. New York: W. W. Norton, 1979.

PAGE 510

510 Eales, Jacqueline. Puritans and Roundheads: The Harleys of Brampton Bryan and the Outbreak of the English Civil War Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Edington, Carol. Court and Culture in Renaissance Scotla nd: Sir David Lindsay of the Mount Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1994. Edwards, Graham. The Last Days of Charles I. Stroud, Gloucestershire: Sutton, 1999. Elton, Geoffrey. The English Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1992. Erickson, Peter and Clark Hulse. Early Modern Visual Culture: Representation, Race, and Empire in Renaissance England. Philadelphia: Univer sity of Pennsylvania Press, 2000. Esdaile, Katharine A. English Church Monuments 1510-1840 London: B.T. Batsford Ltd., 1946. Farago, Clare, editor, Reframing the Renaissance: Visual Culture in Europe and Latin American 1450-1650 New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1995. Faulkner, Robert K. Richard Hooker and the Politics of a Christian England Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981. Ferguson, Margaret W., Maureen Quillig an, and Nancy J Vickers, editors. Rewriting the Renaissance: The Discourses of Sexual Difference in Early Modern Europe Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Figgis, Neville J. The Theory of the Di vine Right of Kings Cambridge: University Press, 1896. Fincham, Kenneth. The Early Stuart Church 1603-1642. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1993. Finsten, Jill. Isaac Oliver: Art at the Courts of Elizabeth I and James I New York: Garland Publishing, 1981. Fissel, Mark Charles. The Bishops Wars: Charles Is Campaigns against Scotland, 1638-40 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Franklin, Julian H. Jean Bodin and the Rise of Absolutist Theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Fraser, Antonia. Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot New York: Anchor Books, 1997.

PAGE 511

511 Fraser, Antonia, editor Maurice Ashley. A Royal History of England: The Stuarts. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Fraser, Antonia, editor. Neville Williams. A Royal History of England. The Tudors Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Fraser, Antonia, editor. Maurice Ashley. The Stuarts. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Freedberg, David. Rubens: Corpus Rubenianum, by Ludwig Burchard and Illustrated Catalogue Raisonne of the work of Peter P aul Rubens Based on the Material Assembled by the Late Dr. Ludwig Burchard in Twenty-six Pats. The Life of Christ After the Passion Part VII, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Freedberg, David. Rubens: The Life of Christ After the Passion Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984. Freibert, Jack. The Lateran in 1600: Christian Concord in Counter-Reformation Rome Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Fuller, Thomas. The History of the Worthies of England Editor, John Freeman, London: Allen and Unwin, 1952. Gerard, John. A Narrative of the Gunpowder Plot in The Condition of the Catholics under James I ed. John Morris, S. J., London: Longmans, Green and Co. 1871. Goldberg, Jonathan. Fatherly Authority: Th e Politics of Stuart Family Images, in Rewriting the Renaissance Ferguson, Quilligan and Vickers, editors. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Goldberg, Jonathan. James I and the Politics of Literatu re: Jonson, Shakespeare, and Donne and Their Contemporaries Baltimore: The Johns Hopki ns University Press, 1983. Gotch, J. Alfred. Inigo Jones. London: Methuen and Co. Ltd., 1928. Gmez, Alberto Prez and Louise Pelletier. Architectural Representation and the Perspective Hinge. Cambridge: MIT Press. 1997. Gregg, Pauline. King Charles I Berkeley and Los Angles: University of California Press, 1981. Groves, Henry Charles. The Teaching of the Anglican Divines of the Time of King James I and King Charles I on the Doctrine of th e Holy Eucharist, Extracted from their Writings: with an introduction, containi ng Remarks on the Late Works on that Subject by Dr. Pusey and Mr. Keble. London: John Henry and James Parker, 1858.

PAGE 512

512 Guicharnaud, Helen. An Introduction to the Architecture of Protestant Temples. In Seeing Beyond the Word: Visual Arts and the Calvinist Tradition Cambridge; Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdman Publishing Company, 1999. Gunther, R. T. editor. The Architecture of Sir Roger Pratt Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1928. Guy, John. Charles I and Oliver Cromwell London: Ticktock Publishing Ltd. 1998. Haigh, Christopher, editor. The English Reformation Revised Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Haigh, Christopher. Reformation and Resistan ce in Tudor Lancashire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975. Haigh, Christopher, editor. The Reign of Elizabeth I. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1985. Halliday, F. E. An Illustrated Cultural History of England New York: The Viking Press, 1967. Halliwell-Phillips and James Orchard. Letters of the Kings of England, now first collected from the originals in royal archives, and other authentic sources, private as well as public. Edited, with an historical introduction and notes Two Volumes. London: H. Colburn, 1846. Harris, John and A. A. Tait. Catalogue of the Drawings by Inigo Jones, John Webb and Isaac De Caus at Worcester College Oxford. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1979. Harris, John and Gordon Higgott. Inigo Jones: Complete Architectural Drawings New York: The Drawing Center, 1989. Harrison, William. The Description of England editor Georges Edelen, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1999. Hart, Vaughn. Art and Magic in the Court of the Stuarts London; New York: Rutledge, 1994. Harting, Joanna H. Catholic London Missions from th e Reformation. to the Year 1850 London: Sands, 1903. Hartt, F. History of Italian Renaissance Art: Painting, Sculpture, Architecture New York: Harry N. Abrams Publishers, Inc., 4th edition, 1994. Haskell, Francis and Nicholas Penny. Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture, 1500-1900. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1981.

PAGE 513

513 Havran, Martin. Catholics in Caroline England (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1962), 84-89. Heal, Felicity and Rosemary O Day, editors. Church and Society in England: Henry VIII to James I Hamden, Connectic ut: Archon Books, 1977. Hearn, Karen. Dynasties: Painting in Tudor and Jacobean England 1530-1630. New York: Rizzoli, 1996. Held, Julius S. and Donald Posner. 17th and 18th Century Art: Baroque Painting, Sculpture and Architecture. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1972. Henshall, Nicholas. The Myth of Absolutism: Change and Continuity in Early Modern European Monarchy London: Longman, 1992. Hersey, George L. Architecture and Geometry in the Age of the Baroque. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Hervey, Mary F. S. The Life, Correspondence, and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1921. Hibbard, Caroline M. Charles I and the Popish Plot. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983. Hibbard, Howard. Carlo Maderno and Roman Architecture 1580-1630 University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1971. Hibbert, Christopher. Charles I New York; Evanston: Harper and Row, Publishers, 1968. Hill, Christopher. The Century of Revolution : 1603-1714. Edinburgh: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd., 1961. Hill, Christopher. Society and Puritanism in Pre-Revolutionary England New York: Schocken Books, 1962. Hill, Christopher. The World Turned Upside Down: Radical Ideas during the English Revolution. London: Penguin Books, 1972. Hill, Robert. The Ambassador as Art Agent: Sir Dudley Carleton and Jac obean Collecting. In The Evolution of English Collecting: Receptions of Italian Art in the Tudor and Stuart Periods. Edward Cheney, Editor. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2003. Hirst, Derek. Authority and Conflict: England 16031658 Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1986.

PAGE 514

514 Hoitenga, Dewey J. Jr. Faith and Reason from Plato to Plantinga: An Introduction to Reformed Epistemology. Albany: State Univer sity of New York, 1991. Houston, S. J. James I. New York: Longman Publishing, 1973, 1995 (second edition). Colvin, Howard. The History of the King's Works London, H. M. Stationery Off., 1963. Howard, Deborah. The Architectural History of Scotland Edinburgh, 1995. Howarth, David, editor. Art and Patronage in the Caroline Courts: Essays in Honor of Sir Oliver Millar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Howarth, David. Images of Rule: Art and Politics in the English Renaissance 1485-1693 Berkeley: Univer sity of California Press, 1997. Howarth, David. Lord Arundel and His Circle New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1985. Howarth, David. Mantua Pieces: Charles I and the Gonzaga Collections. In David Chambers and Jane Martineau, editors. Splendors of the Gonzaga, Exhibition Catalogue London: Faber and Faber, 1982. Howarth, David. Charles I, Sc ulpture and Sculptors. In The Late Kings Goods: Collections, Possessions and the Patronage of Charles I in the Light of the Commonwealth Sale Inventories Arthur MacGregor, editor. London; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989. Hubala, Erich. Baroque and Rococo New York: Universe Books, 1989. Hughes, Ann. The Causes of the English Civil War New York: St. Martins Press, 1998. Hughes, Ann. Politics, Society and Civil War in Warwickshire 1620-1660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Hughes, Pal L. and James F. Larkin, editors. Tudor Royal Proclamations Volume II The Later Tudors (1553-1587) New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1969. Humfrey, Peter and Martin Kemp, Editors. The Altarpiece in the Renaissance Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Humphrey, Stephen and James Morris. Churches and Cathedrals of London London: New Hollan