j • Artemisia Gentileschi' s Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting* Mary D. Garrard In her Self-Portrait as the Allegory of Painting, Artemisia been painted by a man." The fact is, no man could have Gentileschi (1593-ca. 1652) made an audacious claim upon painted this particular image because by tradition the art the core of artistic tradition, to create an entirely new im of painting was symbolized by an allegorical female age that was quite literally unavailable to any male artist. figure, and thus only a woman could identify herself with Her apparently modest self-image was, moreover, a the personification. By joining the types of the artist por sophisticated commentary upon a central philosophical trait and the allegory of painting, Gentileschi managed to issue of later Renaissance art theory, indicating an iden unite in a single image two themes that male artists had tification with her profession on a plane of greater self been obliged to treat separately, even though these themes awareness, intellectually and culturally, than has often carried the same basic message. A brief look at some previously been acknowledged. concerns reflected in pictorial treatments of these two In the Self-Portrait, which at present hangs in Ken themes will shed light upon the dilemma faced by male ar sington Palace (Fig. 1),1 Artemisia depicted herself in the tists who had to keep them separate. It will also clarify for act of painting, accompanied by several, though not all, of us Artemisia's own intention in this work and, more the attributes of the female personification of Painting as generally, her ideas on the art of painting. set forth in Cesare Ripa's lconologia. These include: a Pittura, or the allegorical representation of the art of golden chain around her neck with a pendant mask which painting as a female figure, made her appearance in Italian stands for imitation, unruly locks of hair which symbolize art sometime in the first half of the sixteenth century, the divine frenzy of the artistic temperament, and drappo along with the equally new female personifications of cangiante, garments with changing colors which allude to sculpture and architecture. Vasari was the first artist to the painter's skills.2 In 1962 Michael Levey confirmed the make systematic use of female personifications of the arts. identity of the artist through a comparison with other We find them in the decorations of his house at Arezzo seventeenth-century images of Artemisia and connected (Fig. 2), in those for his house in Florence (Fig. 6), and on the picture with Ripa's description of Pittura.J Levey's in the frames of the individual artist portraits that head the terpretation of the work as a self-portrait of the artist in chapters of the Vite.5 The earliest sixteenth-century image the guise of Pittura has gained general acceptance.• Yet of Pittura that I know was painted by Vasari in 1542, in although his interpretation is iconographically correct, it the Stanza della Fama of his Arezzo house, along with im remains iconologically incomplete, for the artist's unique ages of Scultura, Architettura, and Poesia. Each is shown artistic achievement has gone curiously unnoticed, a point as an isolated female figure, seated and seen in profile, best illustrated by Levey's remark that "the picture's real engaged in practicing the art she symbolizes. Vasari's intention [might] have been earlier recognized if it had archetypal Pittura is closely echoed in the mid-sixteenth- * This article is an expanded version of a paper delivered at the College 1651, and recovered for the Crown at the Restoration. It is mentioned Art Association meeting in Los Angeles in 1977. I am grateful to the again in an inventory of the reconstituted collection of Charles I prepared American Association of University Women for a fellowship awarded me in 1687-88 (The Walpole Society, XXIV, 1935-36, 90). See also nn. 55 and in 1978-79, which has facilitated my continuing study of Artemisia Gen 67, below. For literature on the picture not discussed in this article, see tileschi' s treatment of traditional themes. Michael Levey, The Later Italian Pictures in the Collection of Her Ma I would like to thank in particular Pamela Askew, whose insights jesty the Queen, Greenwich, Conn., 1964, 82. generously offered at an early stage, and whose perspicacious advice 2 Ripa, 429-30. provided later, helped to shape this study in an invaluable way. I am also indebted to Norma Braude for her thoughtful critical reading of the 3 Levey, 79-80. manuscript, and to H. Diane Russell and Law B. Watkins for many 4 See Bissell, 162; and Spear, 98. helpful suggestions and discussions. 5 W. Bombe, "Giorgio Vasaris Hauser in Florenz und Arezzo," Belvedere, N.B.: A bibliography of frequently cited sources appears at the end of XII-XIII, 1928, 55ff.; and Paola Barocchi, Vasari pittore, Milan, 1964, 23, this article. 127; 50-51 and 138. See also Winner, 19ff. and 24-25. Vasari' s images of Pittura designed for the frames surrounding the ar 1 The painting, which bears on the table the inscription "A. G. F.," for tists' portraits appeared as woodcut illustrations in the second (1568) edi merly hung at Hampton Court, but has been at Kensington Palace since tion of the Lives of the Artists. These images were also included in 1974. Its presence in the English Royal Collections is first documented in Vasari's Libra de' disegni; proofs of the woodcut illustrations were 1649, when it was described in the inventory of Abraham van der Doort pasted in as headings of the decorative borders framing the drawings in as "Arthemisia gentilesco, done by her self e." See The Walpole Society, his collection. See 0. Kurz, "Giorgio Vasari's Libra de' Disegni," Old XXIV, 1935-36, 96, and Oliver Millar, The Walpole Society, XLIII, 1970- Master Drawings, XI, June, 1937, 1-15 and plates; and XII, December, 72, 186, n. 5. The picture was sold to Jackson and others on October 23, 1937, 32-44 and plates. ARTEMESIA GENTILESCHI'S SELF-PORTRAIT 99 2 Vasari, La Pittura. Arezzo, Casa Vasari (from Barocchi, Vasari pittore) 3 Passerotti, La Pittura. (photo: Metropolitan Museum of Art) symbol for that art, indicating the moment of its social and liberales themselves were not personified in antiquity.8 cultural arrival. In the Middle Ages, painting, sculpture, Painting and Sculpture were occasionally included in and architecture had not been included among the Liberal Liberal Arts cycles on the porches of medieval cathedrals, Arts. The Trivium (Dialectic, Rhetoric, and Grammar) and specifically those of Sens, Laon, and Chartres (north), and the Quadrivium (Arithmetic, Geometry, Music, and on the Florentine Campanile. 9 Invariably in these last in Astrology) were established as the canonic seven arts in stances, however, the personifying figure for Painting or the fifth-century allegorical treatise of Martianus Capella, Sculpture is not female but male, even when, as at Laon and in manuscripts and in sculptural cycles they were (Fig. 4), all of the other arts are shown as women. The dis usually depicted as female figures, following the Roman tinction is significant. These figures do not represent the tradition of allegorical personification, although the artes Fine Arts, as has been suggested, since the Fine Arts did 8 On the complex history of the Liberal Arts in the Middle Ages, see P. other hand (p. 13), sustains the contrary position of Pliny the Elder, that d' Ancona, "Le rappresentazioni allegoriche delle arti liberali nel medio painting was a Liberal Art in antiquity (Natural History xxxv. 77), and evo e nel rinascimento," L'Arte, v, 1902, 37ff., 21lff., 269ff. and 370ff; points to the acceptance of this view in the Renaissance and to its reitera L. Ettlinger, "Pollaiuolo's Tomb of Pope Sixtus IV," Journal of the tion by theorists. See also Kris and Kurz, 4ff. Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, XVI, 1953, 239-271, esp. 250ff.; L. • Figures representing Painting are found on the central portal of Sens Ettlinger, "Muses and Liberal Arts," Essays in the History of Art Presented Cathedral (end of the 12th century), at Laon Cathedral (1210-1230), and to Rudolf Wittkower, London, 1967, 29-39, esp. 32, n. 23; Jean Seznec, on the north porch at Chartres (ca. 1250). (In the last example, the male The Survival of the Pagan Gods, Princeton, 1972 (1st edition, 1953), personification is found among male Liberal Arts figures.) See Eugene chap. IV; Adolf Katzenellenbogen, The Sculptural Programs of Chartres Emmanuel Viollet-le-Duc, Dictionnaire raisonne de !'architecture Cathedral, Baltimore, 1959, 15ff.; Horst W. Janson, Apes and Ape Lore, fran~aise du Xle au XVle siecle, Paris, 1874, u, 1-10. The male figure who London, 1952, 295ff.; and L. Heydenreich, "Eine illustrierte Martianus stands for Painting on the Florentine Campanile, a relief of 1337-1340, Capella-Handschrift des Mittelalters und ihre Kopien im Zeitalter des from the Andrea Pisano workshop, is juxtaposed with a figure represent Friihhumanismus," Kunstgeschichtliche Studien fur Hans Kauffman, ing sculpture. These figures stand among female personifications of the Berlin, 1956, 59-66. traditional Liberal Arts. When, a century later, Luca della Robbia added Contrary to a belief widely held in the Renaissance, the art of painting to the north side of the Campanile figures symbolizing some of the appears to have had no firm standing among the Liberal Arts in an Liberal Arts, he used male exponents of the arts, e.g., Orpheus for Music, tiquity. In part, this is because the Liberal Arts did not become an Euclid for Geometry, Pythagoras for Arithmetic, sustaining the tendency organized set of entities until the Middle Ages, but see Pevsner, 34, who seen in the earlier cycle to depict practitioners, now allegorized with observes that art was not the profession of educated men in ancient reference to antiquity. See Walter and Elisabeth Paatz, Kirchen von Greece; and Wittkower, 7-8, and 16, who asserts that the visual arts were Florenz, Frankfurt am Main, 1952, III, 389 and 549ff; and d'Ancona, never admitted to the Liberal Arts in ancient Rome. Panofsky, on the L'Arte, No. 5, 1902, 223ff. ARTEMESIA GENTILESCHI'S SELF-PORTRAIT 101 Pittura and Scultura at Arezzo, apparently the first to pre sent these arts as allegorical female figures, should have been created two years after the celebrated motu proprio of Paul III, which officially declared sculpture to be a free art, exempt from the jurisdiction of guilds.17 The pictorial elevation of the position of art above that of individual artists held immediate advantages for artists themselves who, in enlightened self-interest, sought to raise the status of their professioiJ.. As Tolnay has pointed out,lS the theoretical separation between the fine and the mechanical arts during the Renaissance was intimately bound up with the social separation between artist and ar tisan. The social problems posed for the later sixteenth century Florentine artist by the association with manual arts that still attached to him, despite the personal attain ments of Leonardo and Michelangelo, and the theoretical defenses developed by artists to combat this stigma have been extensively described in Blunt's classic account.l9 Similarly, Pevsner has definitively characterized the of ficial formation of the Florentine Academy in 1563 as the outcome of a series of efforts by artists to raise their own social status by creating a new organizational structure that would effectively free them from their dependence on individual guilds, and from an essentially medieval system that still lingered in Florence.20 The inevitable conse quence of these concerns and efforts, an aspect that has received somewhat less focused art-historical attention, was that art itself was drawn into the service of 5 The Artisan, Tarocchi engravings, E series propaganda, for the greater glory not of God, but of art (photo: National Gallery of Art) and artists. It was surely for this purpose that Vasari created, shortly after 1561, about the time that the Academy was founded, a much fuller-blown Allegory of the Arts in his painted decoration for a room in his house acceptance of Leonardo's point of view: only when the art in Florence. In this cycle, Vasari alternated personifica of painting was understood to involve inspiration and to tions of the arts with narrative scenes from the life of result in a higher order of creation than the craftsman's Apelles, and added a row of portraits of famous painters product did it become appropriate to symbolize the art along the tops of the walls (Fig. 6).21 The campaign to with an allegorical figure. It must remain an open question elevate the status of art was extended to Rome, where the how female personifications originally came into being, counterpart for Vasari's cycle can be seen in the residence yet on an expressive level a female personification for of Federico Zuccaro, who was the principal founder of the Pittura could usefully signal, through the very un Accademia di S. Luca, the institutional successor to the usualness of her connection with an activity largely prac Florentine Academy. Zuccaro's ceiling fresco of 1598 in ticed by men, that she stood for Art, an abstract essence the Palazzo Zuccaro depicting the Apotheosis of the Artist superior to the mere existence of artists. Thus she could (Fig. 7) presents an idealized male artist accompanied by assist in conveying the concept that art was separate from Athena and Apollo, the protectors of the arts, who also the manual labor connected with its making. It may be serve here to sustain the allegorical mode.22 The spreading more than coincidence, then, that Vasari's images of effort to propagandize on behalf of the elevated status of 17 On the importance of the motu proprio of 1539 and that of 1540, and 21 Vasari's house in Florence is located at SorgoS. Croce, No. 8. Seen. 5 their dependence upon Michelangelo's singular fame, see Pevsner, 34 for literature. For Bocchi's description of the episodes in the life of and 56. Apelles, see Barocchi (as cited in n. 5), 138. 18 Tolnay, 32. 22 Zuccaro's painting, executed a few years after the establishment of the 19 Blunt, chap. IV. Accademia di S. Luca, also follows shortly after the publication of Romano Alberti's Trattato della nobilta della pittura ... , Rome, 1585, a 20 Pevsner, chap. n. See also C. Goldstein, "Vasari and the Florentine Ac treatise devoted to the proof that painting is a liberal and not a cademia del Disegno," Zeitschrift fur Kunstgeschichte, xxxvm, 2, 1975, mechanical art. See Mahon, 163, n. 3. 145ff. ARTEMESIA GENTILESCHI'S SELF-PORTRAIT 103 11 Sebastien Bourdon, Ape lies Painting Campaspe, labeled Pictura (photo: Warburg Institute) be found in the numerous self-portraits of the sixteenth 9 Antonio Moro, Self-Portrait. Florence, Uffizi (photo: Florence, and seventeenth centuries that depict the artist wearing a Soprintendenza alle Gallerie) golden chain, a reminder of the rank conferred upon him by a ruler. Perhaps the noblest example of this genre is Ti tian's Self-Portrait of ca. 1550 in Berlin (Fig. 10), which shows the painter wearing the tokens of rank given him twice by the Emperor Charles V.25 Such an expression of the social exchange between ruler and artist, and of their comparable prestige, had as its original model the relationship between Alexander the Great and Apelles, symbolized in the story of Alexander's gift to the artist of Campaspe, the Emperor's favorite mistress and the paint er's model. This legend became a popular theme in its own right in Renaissance art, as well as a metaphor for the exalted status of painting, a development that is illustrated in a print designed by the seventeenth-century French ar tist Sebastien Bourdon (Fig. 11), in which the Apelles and 25 The golden chain given to Titian by Charles V symbolized the rank of Count Palatine and the Order of the Golden Spur, both conferred in 1533. See E. Panofsky, Problems in Titian, Mostly Iconographic, New York, 1969, 7-8; and on the more general relation between rulers and painters, see Kris and Kurz, 40ff. Z. z. Filipczak discussed the tradition of the golden chain in the self-portraits of Rubens and Van Dyck in a 10 Titian, Self-Portrait. Berlin, Gemaldegalerie (photo: Jorg P. paper delivered at the College Art Association meeting, New York, Anders) January, 1978. ARTEMES!A GENTILESCH!'S SELF-PORTRAIT 105 13 Agostino Veneziano, Baccio Bandinelli's "Academy" in Rome (photo: Warburg Institute) 14 P. F. Alberti, Academy of Painters (photo: Warburg Institute) 15 Pietro Testa, Liceo della pittura (photo: W arburg Institute) depending for the Bandinelli upon the inscription alone. It pursuit had acute personal relevance for every practicing is perhaps in some measure indicative of a lingering artist of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, direct problem for the artist who sought to associate himself personal identification with the elevated status of art was with the rising status of his profession that one of the only possible for the male artist through indirect and culminating examples of this workshop/academy tradi sometimes very awkward combinations of attributes. Two tion, Pietro Testa's engraving of the early 1640's, the Licea final examples may help to confirm this point. In one of della pittura (Fig. 15), contains a poignant personal em several self-portraits that include his golden chain (Fig. blem, a snake and stone in the lower right corner, to stand 16), VanDyck displays his trophy with na'ive pride, at the for Testa himself, who as a living artist had no place in the same time pointing very self-consciously to a giant sun ensemble of ideal characters he had created.Jz flower. Both attributes symbolize the art of painting, and Ironically, then, although the idea of painting as a noble form a composite expression of the artist's devotion to 32 See E. Cropper, "Bound Theory and Blind Practice: Pietro Testa's and Courtauld Institutes, XXXIV, 1971, 285-86. Notes on Painting and the Licea della Pittura," Journal of the Warburg ARTEMESIA GENTILESCHI'S S£LF-POR TRAIT 107 that of contemporary male artists whose self-portraits in recapitulates the color scheme of the painting in the five dicate their efforts to look like gentlemen. Because of her patches of color on her palette. The color changes em identity as a woman, Artemisia was in a position to take ployed in the Self-Portrait are not simply embellishments creative advantage of the allegorical tradition, and to make added to make it conform to an iconographic specification, a statement that was at once more humble and more but, rather, they reflect Artemisia's use of Ripa's profound. suggestive phrase as an opportunity to display, through Every writer on Artemisia's Self-Portrait has suggested her own interest in and command of color, the technical that the picture's subject, dependent as it is upon Ripa, skill appropriate to Pittura herself, and perhaps even to must have been dictated to the artist by a learned patron take a position as well on a continuing controversy of art like Cassiano dal Pozzo.36 There is no evidence, however, theory, aligning herself as she does with colore over that the painting was ever part of Cassiano' s collection disegno.39 (see Appendix), and since it was not painted for any other In a theoretical vein quite contrary to Artemisia's ex known patron, this proposal is gratuitous. We must resist pressive emphasis, Ripa also stipulated that Pittura wear a the notion that a painting that draws upon Ripa's long dress covering her feet, in order to establish a Iconologia necessarily displays a scholar's erudition. metaphorical relationship between the covered female Although Ripa composed the Iconologia as an academi body and the ideal proportions of painting, set down in cian interested in the complex literary and artistic strands the underdrawing but disguised in the final work, when that made up the composite images,37 many artists subse the color - the clothing, as it were - is added. In this for quently consulted the book for the purpose of creating mulation, Ripa followed a set analogy between female broadly comprehensible images, not for the sake of arcane beauty and perfection of proportions that frequently ap or erudite allusions. Moreover, a close study of Ar peared in sixteenth-century Italian theoretical treatises, in temisia's painting in relation to Rip a's description of which, as Elizabeth Cropper has shown, female beauty Pittura reveals that the artist made purposeful and selec served as a metaphor for the perfection of urns, columns, tive use of her text, extracting from it for emphasis and even art itself. 4o Gentileschi, however, disregards this precisely those features which were of greatest philosophical focus upon disegno and proportionate anatomical form as interest to artists. the essence of painting. Significantly, she ignores Ripa's Ripa had called, for example, for Pittura's dress to be of o.vert suggestion that she convert the female image into a drappo cangiante, a phrase that can be traced to Lomazzo, vehicle for a rhetorical conceit. Leaving out the skirt and who in his treatise of 1584 describes it as a virtuoso tech feet altogether, she places herself in a foreshortened, tran nique practiced by painters of his day to demonstrate their sitory, and active pose that prevents the viewer's discover skill in handling color.38 To play the changes, Lomazzo ex ing conventional beauty, symmetry, proportion or even plains, an artist painted a passage of cloth with one color the arched eyebrows that Ripa had emphatically in the lights and a different hue in the shadows. As Ar specified. 41 temisia runs magnificent violets and greens through the Throughout the entry on Pittura, Ripa carefully in cloth of the sleeves, she demonstrates a knowledge of the terweaves the themes of the pure intellectual beauty of technique as well as her own ability to handle color with painting and the physical beauty of women, in order to skill and flourish. Yet on a more subtle level, she develops reinforce the cerebral, and therefore noble, character of the rich, carefully adjusted color relationships throughout the art of painting. In this, he adopts the device of the Man painting, sustaining the dominant red-brown of the nerist painters, namely, the creation of a formula by which background in the bodice, harmoniously balanced with women's bodies stand for men's minds. Women, in this the dark green of the blouse and the blue-violet highlights conception, do not share in the cerebral bounty of the art of the sleeves; she modulates flesh to white highlights to they symbolize. The misogynist basis of the lofty theme establish spatial planes with great precision, and she sounded by Ripa is revealed in a satirical Italian print of 36 Levey, 80, accounts for Artemisia's "slightly learned depiction of her tury, and on the relatively low status of color in academic theory, see self," through his suggestion that Cassiano was the patron of the picture. Donald Posner, Annibale Carracci, London, 1971, text, 136-38; and Spear, 98, states that "Cassiano himself may well have dictated the Ripa Mahon, 65ff., 138, and 178ff. based allegory." Bissell, 158, more generally connects Artemisia's interest 40 E. Cropper, "On Beautiful Women, Parmigianino, Petrarchismo, and in allegorical subject-matter in the 1630's, seen in her Fame, Minerva, the Vernacular Style," Art Bulletin, LVIII, Sept., 1976, 374-94. and the Self-Portrait as La Pittura, with "an influence of the Roman u For obvious aesthetic reasons, Artemisia also saw fit to eliminate the cultural climate, particularly that of the circle of Cassiano dal Pozzo." cloth binding the mouth of Pittura, Ripa's specification following 37 On Ripa's approach to his subject, see E. Mandowsky, "Ricerche in Horace's ancient description of painting as mute poetry. Illustrated edi torno all' Iconologia di Cesare Ripa," La Bibliofilia, XLI, 1939, particularly tions of Ripa echo the text in showing Pittura with a gagged mouth. Ar 13ff. and 279ff.; also Cropper, 270. temisia, however, undoubtedly worked directly from Ripa's text, since 38 Giovanni Paolo Lomazzo, Trattato dell'arte de Ia pittura, Milan, 1584 no illustrations of Pittura were provided in the early editions of the (Hildesheim, 1968 facsimile), Bk. III, chap. x, 198-201. Iconologia (the earliest image of Pittura that I have seen appears in a French edition of 1644). 39 On the continuation of the disegno-colore controversy in the 17th cen- ARTEMESIA GENTILESCHI'S SELF-PORTRAIT 109 her compass upward, deriving inspiration from the perament as melancholic, a concept preserved by Ripa in heavens, the source of eternal superior guidance. When his entry on Pittura in order to sustain its intellectual Testa inserted the pair into his Licea, he did not preserve associations. Unlike Durer's Melencolia I, paralyzed by Mariotelli' s hierarchic relationship between Theory and excessive thought, and unlike Testa's Theory and Practice, Practice, pessimistically conceiving Practice as blind and who are mutually blocked from fulfilling their function, Theory as bound, but he did retain the upward and Artemisia the living artist acts freely and without inhibi downward orientation of the figures. tion.s2 By embodying the abstract allegory in realistic Without recourse to complex personification, Artemisia human form, she suggests that the worth of the art of evokes the contrast between Theory and Practice in her painting derives neither from association with royalty nor Self-Portrait. She has posed herself with one arm raised from theoretical pretensions, but from the simple business upward, the hand stretched toward its invisible target, of the artist doing her work, and further, that in this un suggesting the higher, ideal aspirations of painting, with impeded performance, theoretical obstacles evaporate. the other arm resting firmly on a table, the hand holding The idea of the artist engaged in work as a living the brushes and palette which are the physical materials of allegory of art was to be developed in more elaborate form painting. 5° Yet unlike her Mannerist predecessors and her later in the seventeenth century, by VeLazquez, in Las more academic contemporary, Testa, Gentileschi does not Meninas, and by Vermeer, in the Artist in His Studio in separate, but integrates the concepts. The two arms form Vienna, and there is a distinct possibility that Velazquez one continuous arc in the composition, and the plane of may have been affected by Artemisia's Self-Portrait.53 the palette and the line of the brush are precisely parallel. Within the existing conventions, however, only a woman { V"-, ? Art and craft, concept and execution, inner vision and artist could have sustained the specific idea of a unity i <""-'"'-·{ Z '- outer manifestation, all are equally essential to painting, betwen art and the artist in naturalistic terms. This Ar- <:r and they are joined in the mind of the artist, here the head temisia did, for without an outward sign of status, she in- ?--'-~ i of Artemisia Gentileschi, which intersects the curve of the evitably recalled the noble allegory of the art of painting, ~ 12, tl arms and, as the compositional fulcrum, provides the and as the physical embodiment of the spirit of the profes- ~-'¥ point of resolution for the two aspects of painting.51 sion, she could convey, through her self-portrayal as In defining art as an integrated whole, Gentileschi of modestly adorned but profoundly absorbed, the idea that fers a revision of the lingering concept of the artistic tern- the act of painting in itself had both dignity and 50 I am indebted to Pamela Askew for sharing her perceptive observation 53 There was a likely point of contact between the two artists in 1630. that the calculated and somewhat artificial placement of arms in this pic When Artemisia wrote to Cassiano dal Pozzo from Naples in August of ture suggests the hierarchic distinctions of art theory. that year, promising to paint a self-portrait for him after finishing some 51 The deliberateness of Artemisia's decision to position herself as we see work for "the Empress," she was probably referring to Maria of Austria, her is indicated by the very difficulty of painting oneself in near profile. sister of the Spanish king. Maria stayed in Naples as top-ranking royalty To see herself from this angle, she must have used a double mirror. (If for four months, between August and December of 1630, while on her two mirrors are arranged at an appropriate distance from one another, at journey to Trieste to marry Ferdinand of Austria (Pietro Giannone, The an angle of slightly less than 90°, one can see one's own left profile by Civil History of the Kingdom of Naples, Naples, 1723, and in English, looking into the mirror on the right.) The fact that Artemisia would have London, 1731, n, 731ff.). Velazquez, who had been traveling in Italy, had to lean forward and away from the visually obstructing canvas in or stopped at Naples before returning to Spain late in 1630, and visited der to see herself in the mirror may account for the lack of direct physical Maria there long enough to paint her portrait (Madrid, Prado; see Kahr, connection between the depicted canvas and the depicted right hand. 1976, 70-71, and fig. 28). He left on December 18, three days before Ar temisia wrote to Cassiano that she was about to send him her self The location of Artemisia's canvas in this picture remains a problem. portrait, the work that I have here identified with the painting in Ken There are some indications that the entire left three quarters of the sington Palace. It is probable that the two artists would have met in that background represents the canvas, its right edge defined by the vertical small vice-regal court, and quite possible that Velazquez saw Artemisia's line that meets the top of the painter's head and marks the transition to self-portrait. All that we know about Velazquez suggests that such a the darker quarter on the right. The surface of this large area is marked with short dark lines, irregularly placed, which suggest cracks in a work would have interested him greatly. primed canvas. These are definitely painted in, and are not actual cracks A point that remains to be emphasized here is that, for all that Las in the surface. Yet it is curious that she should depict a fresh canvas as Meninas may be claimed in its entirety as the supreme expression of the nobility of the art of painting, even Velazquez was compelled to depict already aged, and that the depicted canvas should completely lack himself wearing at his belt the keys that symbolized his status in the physical substance or firm definition. royal court. And when, after Velazquez's death in 1660, someone painted 52 Annibale Carracci's extraordinary late Self-Portrait on an Easel the Cross of the Order of Santiago on the artist's breast, conferring upon (Leningrad, Hermitage), is a prime example of the use of the artist's him pictorially the sign of that highest rank Velazquez had struggled for studio as a metaphor for art, with particular emphasis upon melancholic years to obtain, he added to Las Meninas a mere reiteration of what the artistic isolation. Although the character of expression here may have picture already expressed: "the dignity of the artist as creator" (Tolnay's arisen, as Donald Posner suggests (text vol., 22), from Annibale's per phrase). Velazquez, however, would probably not have disapproved, for sonal feelings in an alien social world, it also depends upon the sustaining here, as in other examples we have seen, the metaphorical language em 16th-century tradition of the artist as melancholic type (see Wittkower, ployed by the artist to elevate the status of art could not metaphorically 102ff. and 113ff.). elevate the artist. ARTEMESIA GENTILESCHI'S SELF-PORTRAIT 111 In my opinion, Levey's explanation is the more convincing. For reasons of style, the Kensington Palace portrait should be dated around 1630. The precision of its lighting, its naturalism, and its sharp detail connect the painting with Artemisia's early, intensely Caravaggesque period, and there are particularly close analogies with the Detroit Judith and Holofernes of about 1625 in the treatment of light and the conception of form, seen es pecially in the similarity of pose between the maidservant and the artist's self-image.64 The brushstroke used in the Self Portrait is, however, somewhat freer than in paintings of the 1620's, and there is a more sophisticated combination of blurred and sharp edges. There are also changes in the direction of generalizing form (here still held in careful balance with sharply rendered focal points and planes), changes that eventually led to Gentileschi's more idealized and more fluidly painted works of the 1640's, a direction of development that is indicated as early as the figure in Fame, signed and dated 1632.65 Despite its thematic connection with the London Self-Portrait and with Cassiano's commission, the Palazzo Corsini painting does not appear to be by the hand of Artemisia, and especially not if it must be conceived as a work of the 1630' s.66 The handling of light is quite different from that seen in the Kensington Palace painting, less specific and less observed. The backlighted fleshy protrusion in the sitter's neck, for example, has no coun terpart in any documented work, and the shadow cast by the mahlstick on the artist's right forearm would have been impossi ble to observe, since the mahlstick is positioned at nearly a right angle to the arm. By contrast, Artemisia took great care in ren dering light effects naturalistically. Further, although the Palazzo 19 Anonymous artist, Portrait of a Woman Artist (as Corsini painting is about the same size as the London picture, its La Pittura?). Rome, Palazzo Corsini (photo: GFN) scale is quite different, since the female figure is treated more broadly, with less delicacy, and it fills a larger area of the picture surface than her London counterpart. The poses of the two the positions of fingers, and in detail. women, moreover, are very different in conception: the self If the Palazzo Corsini picture was not painted by Artemisia, image in the London painting is freer in movement and much less however, it may well be an image of her painted by another ar stiff, and the spatial positions of her limbs are much better tist. The face bears some resemblance to the image of Artemisia clarified. Finally, the closely comparable hands that hold the recorded in Jerome David's contemporary engraving of her, a brush in the two pictures differ considerably, in overall shape, in print supposedly based upon a self-portrait.67 Yet the picture in 64 See Bissell, 157-58, on the dating of the Detroit Judith. The style of the 9). An addition to the English translation of Roger de Piles, The Art of Kensington Palace Self-Portrait is also generally comparable to that of Painting, London, 1754, 376, informs us that she drew portraits of the the firmly dated Annunciation (Naples, Capodimonte) of 1630. English royal family and many of the nobility. The only existing portrait 65 On this picture, see Bissell, 159 and n. 51; and Harris and Nochlin, 122. of another person certainly by her hand, however, is the Portrait of a Ann Harris recently pointed out to me that the figure should be identified Condottiere, Bologna, Palazzo Comunale (see Bissell, 157; and Harris and Nochlin, 122). Another portrait by her, of the engineer A. de Ville, was as Clio and not Fame, since she has no wings (see Ripa, 154 and 368). engraved by J. David (Bissell, 166). Another important consideration in the dating of the Self-Portrait is Artemisia's youthful appearance in the picture, certainly nearer the age The engraving of Artemisia in Sandrart's Academia (opp. 290), one of an entire collection presumably based upon existing portraits, does not of 37 than 44. Spear, 98, rightly rejects Bissell's argument that the artist closely resemble any of the known portraits of her, though it may record intentionally depicted herself as younger than she was. her appearance at a very early age. In addition to the self-portrait 66 Alfred Moir (The Italian Followers of Caravaggio, Cambridge, Mass., promised Cassiano, Artemisia promised one to Don Antonio Ruffo in 1967, 100, No.4) and Nolfo di Carpegna (Pittori napoletani del '600 e del letters of Jan. 30 and Mar. 13, 1649 (Ruffo, 48-49). This picture was '700, Rome, 1958, 18, and No. 16) accept the Palazzo Corsini painting as never delivered. Levey, 79, has rightly rejected the Self-Portrait of a by Artemisia, but not a self-portrait. Spear, 98, states that it "does not Woman Artist in Earl Spencer's collection as "neither by nor of" appear to be a self-portrait of Artemisia." Artemisia Gentileschi; for other rejected portrait attributions, see Bissell, 67 See Levey, 79-80, for an illustration and discussion of David's engrav 166-67. ing and a 17th-century portrait medallion of Artemisia. David's engrav Ward Bissell has called to my attention a second picture representing ing is inscribed "Artem Pinx," indicating that its source was a self Pittura in the collection of Charles I, which is listed, separately, in the portrait, but the work on which it was based is not known. same inventory as the Kensington Palace Self-Portrait. This work is Although the broader question of portraits and self-portraits by Ar described as" A Pintura A painteinge: by Arthemisia" (Walpole Society, temisia Gentileschi is beyond the scope of this article, it may be useful to XLIII, 191), and although it is of great interest, it is not necessarily a self set forth the evidence. According to Sandrart and Baldinucci, Artemisia portrait. Since the word "painteinge" is probably a noun, not a gerund, was especially known for her portraiture (Joachim von Sandrart, the description is less likely to apply to the picture under consideration Academia nobilissimae artis pictoriae, Nuremberg, 1683, 192; Filippo here than the description cited in n. 1. Baldinucci, Delle notizie de' professori del disegno, Florence, 1772, XII, .. . 112 THE ART BULLETIN Rome represents an entirely different conception from the Ken Blunt, Anthony, Artistic Theory in Italy, 1450-1600, 2nd ed., Oxford, sington Palace painting, and has in fact more in common with 1962. the type represented by Cerrini's Allegory of Painting (Fig. 17), Bottari, Giovanni, and Stefano Ticozzi, Raccolta di lettere sulla pittura, in that the artist, idealized in physiognomy, wearing laurel in her scultura ed architettura, Milan, 1822, 1. hair, and gazing expectantly at the viewer, appears primarily to Cropper, Elizabeth, "Bound Theory and Blind Practice: Pietro Testa's represent the allegory rather than a living person.•• Significantly, Notes on Painting and the Liceo della Pittura," Journal of the Warburg the face of the man on the easel is more particularized and more and Courtauld Institutes, XXXIV, 1971, 262-296. tangible in the rendering of light on skin than is that of the painter herself. If Cerrini's formula is an accurate guide, the face on Harris, Ann Sutherland, and Linda Nochlin, Women Artists, 1550-1950, Los Angeles, 1976. the easel should represent the artist who painted the picture, a picture that may have secondarily complimented Artemisia as Kahr, Madlyn, "Velazquez and Las Meninas," Art Bulletin, LVII, 1975, the contemporary female embodiment of Pittura, perhaps even 225-246. alluding to her Self-Portrait as La Pittura. In view of the Roman ------, Velazquez: the Art of Painting, New York, 1976. provenance of the Palazzo Corsini painting and its possible con Kris, Ernst, and Otto Kurz, Legend, Myth, and Magic in the Image of the nection with the Barberini Collection, and considering the com Artist, New Haven, 1979. parable dimensions of the two pictures,•9 it is not inconceivable that the picture in the Palazzo Corsini was the unknown painter's Levey, Michael, "Notes on the Royal Collection - II: Artemisia Gen contribution to Cassiano dal Pozzo's famous artist series, a hybrid of tileschi's 'Self-Portrait' at Hampton Court," Burlington Magazine, CIV, 1962, 79-80. himself and Artemisia Gentileschi, whose promised self-portrait was never delivered.7o Lumbroso, Giacomo, "Notizie sulla vita di Cassiano dal Pozzo," Levey may be right in suggesting that Artemisia took the pic Miscellanea di storia italiana, xv, Turin, 1876, 129-388. ture with her to England in about 1638, a year after her Mahon, Denis, Studies in Seicento Art and Theory, London, 1947. correspondence with her patron ended, and that the painting en Naude, Gabriel, Epigrammatum libri duo, Paris, 1650. tered the Royal Collection shortly after her arrival. Since the painting is conspicuously absent, however, from the 1639 Van Panofsky, Erwin, Idea: A Concept in Art Theory, Columbia, S.C., 1968. der Doort inventory of the King's collection (it is also absent Pevsner, Nikolaus, Academies of Art, Past and Present, Cambridge, from the appendix added by another writer, probably in 1640), it 1940. is equally possible that the painting was obtained separately by Posner, Donald, Annibale Carracci, a Study in the Reform of Italian the King in the early 1640's, when he is known to have continued Painting Around 1590, 2 vols., London, 1971. buying pictures in Italy through agents (see Francis Haskell, Patrons and Painters, New York, 1963, 179). Ripa, Cesare, Iconologia, Padua, 1611. Ruffo, Vincenzo, "Galleria Ruffo nelsecolo XVII in Messina," Bollettino d'arte, x, 1916, 21ff. Spear, Richard, Caravaggio and His Followers, Cleveland, Ohio, 1971. Bibliography of Frequently Cited Sources Tolnay, Charles de, "Velazquez' Las Hilanderas and Las Meninas," Gazette des beaux-arts, xxxv, 1949, 21-38. Winner. Matthias, Die Quellen der Pictura-Allegorien in gemalten Bildergalerien des 17. ]ahrhunderts zu Antwerpen, diss., Cologne, 1957. Bissell, R. Ward, "Artemisia Gentileschi - A New Documented Chronology," Art Bulletin, L, 1968, 153-168. Wittkower, Rudolf, Born Under Saturn, New York, 1963. 68 Although the woman in the Corsini painting does not have the at 7° Cassiano dal Pozzo may have had a particular interest in acquiring a tributes of Pittura (her laurel wreath suggests Poesia), her depiction in portrait of Artemisia because she was a woman artist. His collections the act of painting precludes our identifying her as any other allegory. were built around curiosities of natural phenomena, both animal and That the Allegory of Painting could be shown without Ripan attributes is mineral, and the portrait collection contained, as Lumbroso explained (p. demonstrated by Cerrini's painting itself. See also a painting attributed to 164), "personi singolari per longevita, o per qualche fisico fenomeno o Giacomo Cavedoni (1577-1624) in which the sitter also lacks the ap per ingegno precoce od altra qualsiasi ragione." Certainly women artists propriate attributes, but which is described in Pitti Palace inventories as were curiosities in Cassiano's time, as earlier, and portraits of women an Allegory of Painting (Evelina Borea, ed., Pittori bolognesi delseicento were claimed as objects of double beauty, of the picture and of the sitter, nelle gallerie di Firenze, Florence, 1975, No. 63 and fig. 31). as Annibale Caro avowed (see Harris and Nochlin, 107). This sentiment 69 The Kensington Palace painting measures 96.5 X 73.7cm; the Palazzo is also evoked in a French artist's description of the hand of Artemisia Corsini picture, 93 X 74.5cm. As Bissell observed, Artemisia's mention in Gentileschi that accompanies his drawing of the hand (see P. Rosenberg her letter of Oct. 24, 1637 to Cassiano dal Pozzo of his "conforme" in Paragone, CCLXI, Nov. 1971, 69-70). Cassiano himself actively sought suggests that dimensions were stipulated. Even more explicitly, she states portraits of several other women, one from the hand of another woman in her letter of Aug. 24, 1630, that she has seen the "misura" that he has artist. He corresponded in 1630-31 with Giovanna Garzoni, the sent her. miniaturist from the Marches who, like Artemisia, worked in Rome and Bissell, 162, points out that the Palazzo Corsini painting was acquired Naples; he wanted from her a portrait of Anna Colonna (Bottari-Ticozzi, for the Galleria Nazionale in 1935, the same year that some pictures from 342-48; on Garzoni, see Harris and Nochlin, 135-36). From Fra Giovanni the Barberini Collection were sold by the Galleria I' Antonina in Rome. Saleano he requested portraits of two French women, Mme. d' Aubignan Other pictures in the Galleria Nazionale are known to have come from and Mme. d'Ampus (Bottari-Ticozzi, 361-63). Finally, according to the collection of Cardinal Francesco Barberini, whom Cassiano dal Pozzo Naude's epigrams, the dal Pozzo Collection contained a portrait of served as secretary, and Bissell suggests that this picture may have been Christina of Sweden. one of them. 110 THE ART BULLETIN philosophical significance.s4 There are strong indications that no self-portrait by Artemisia Unsung as it has been, Gentileschi's Self-Portrait as the ever joined Cassiano's collection of portraits of famous artists. Allegory of Painting continues to bear its silent but elo No portrait of or by her was named either in de Cotte' s descrip quent witness to the proposition that there is nothing tion of the dal Pozzo collection that dates from about 1689, or in Ghezzi's inventory of Cassiano's collection prepared in 1715.58 "mere" about artistic practice, nothing "unintellectual" Haskell and Rinehart have commented upon the curious ab about an ability to see in natural life raw metaphors for sence, in these lists, of works by Artemisia Gentileschi, among profound human concerns, and, more particularly, others, leading them to conclude that Cassiano's collection is nothing "unintellectual" about a picture that offers both likely to have been in the process of dispersal before 1715.59 recognition of and a solution for an aesthetic dilemma that There is, however, an earlier clue to the contents of Cassiano's had troubled artists for nearly a century. portrait collection. In 1641, a set of epigrams was composed by Gabriel Naude, a Frenchman then working in Rome, to accom The American University pany 42 of the portraits of famous artists (more accurately, famous exponents of art, science, and letters, since Galileo and Lope de Vega were also included). Artemisia is not among those Appendix commemorated in the epigrams.6o Several hypotheses have been proposed by scholars to explain The provenance of the Self-Portrait as La Pittura cannot be the relation between the existing painting and the picture or pic traced earlier than 1649, when it was already in England, and tures mentioned in the correspondence between Artemisia and first mentioned in the inventory of the collections of Charles 1.55 Cassiano. Levey suggested that the letters of 1630 and 1637 The painting has, however, been logically connected with one of described the same portrait, that it was never delivered to Artemisia's principal Italian patrons, the learned Roman scholar Cassiano, but was instead brought to England by Artemisia her Cassiano dal Pozzo. In three letters written from Naples in 1630 self, when she went to London in about 1638 to join her father.61 to Cassiano, Artemisia repeatedly promised to deliver a self Bissell, on the other hand, thought that the documents referred portrait that he had evidently requested.56 There is no further to two different paintings, the first supplied in 1630 to Cassiano mention of a self-portrait in their correspondence until 1637, but, Bissell speculated, perhaps given to Cardinal Barberini, when she wrote to Cassiano offering some large paintings, leading Cassiano to request a replacement for his own collection through him, to Cardinal Barberini, whom Cassiano served as in 1637.62 Bissell identified the Self-Portrait in London with the secretary, in order to raise money for her daughter's wedding, second commission and proposed that the work under discussion and offering as well a self-portrait to be added to Cassiano's irt 1630 is identical with a Portrait of a Woman Artist that collection of portraits of famous artists. A month later, she presently hangs in the Palazzo Corsini in Rome, bearing an attri repeated the offer; no further correspondence is preserved.57 bution to Artemisia Gentileschi (Fig. 19).63 Artemisia's achievement appears to have been innovative but not in specified work, and promises to take care of his request as soon as she 54 fluential. There exist numerous portraits and self-portraits of women ar has completed some pictures for "the Empress." (Most probably, this tists, but few if any that directly join the image of the artist with the was Maria of Austria; see n. 53.) In the second letter, dated a week later, allegory of painting. The portrait medal of Lavinia Fontana (Biblioteca, she again promises the requested picture, as soon as work for the Em Imola), executed after her death by another artist, depicts her in bust press is done, and this time calls the picture a self-portrait. She reiterates 'ill length on the coin:;Ia~e.--~nd on the verso, a figure painting at an easel her promise in the third letter, of Dec. 21, 1630: "ho usato ogni diligenza ~' (N •i who is clearly the Allegory of Painting (identifiable by her wild locks of in farle il mio ritratto, il quale l'inviero con il seguente procaccio." No let hair, medallion, and bound mouth), but who may or may not be Fontana ters from Cassiano to Artemisia are preserved. herself. Occasionally, allegorical figures were combined in a single pic 57 Bottari-Ticozzi, I, 352-53. In a letter of October 24, 1637, she speaks of ture with images of artists, as in Angelica Kauffman's Angelica several paintings, "et un altro per V. S. col mio ritratto a parte, conforme Hesitating Between the Arts of Music and Painting (Yorkshire, Nostell ella una volta mi comando, per annoverarlo fra' pittori illustri." In the Priory), but in such examples as this, the artist employs the male artist's final letter of November 24, 1637, she enumerates the pictures offered in method and keeps the separate identities intact. For reproductions of the preceding letter, but does not specifically mention the self-portrait. these two works, and others that represent unallegorical self-portraits See F. Haskell and S. Rinehart, "The Dal Pozzo Collection: Some New (Vigee-Lebrun) and impersonal allegories of painting (Carriera), see 58 Eleanor Tufts, Our Hidden Heritage, New York and London, 1974, figs. Evidence, Part I," Burlington Magazine, en, July, 1960, 318ff. 14 a and b, 63, 69, 60 and others. 59 Haskell-Rinehart, 320. 55 Artemisia's Self-Portrait does not appear in the first inventory of the •o Naude's collection of epigrams was published as Epigrammatum libri collection of Charles I, that prepared in 1639 by Abraham van der Door!, duo, Paris, 1650. On Cassiano's collection of portraits, see Haskell although Van der Doort's inventory does contain references to three Rinehart, 318ff., esp. 320; and G. Lumbroso, "Notizie sulla vita di other pictures by Artemisia Gentileschi (Fame, mentioned twice, a Cassiano dal Pozzo," Miscellanea di storia italiana, xv, Turin, 1876, 129- Susanna and the Elders, and a Tarquin and Lucrezia). See 0. Millar, 388, esp. 164ff. "Catalogue of the Collections of Charles I," Walpole Society, xxxvn, ., Levey, 80. 1960, 46, 177 and 194. •z Bissell, 162. 56 Giovanni Gaetano Bottari and Stefano Ticozzi, Raccolta di lettere sulla •J The painting was attributed to Artemisia Gentileschi in 1935 by Sergio pittura, scultura ed architettura, Milan, 1822, I, 348-351. In a letter of Ortolani (La mostra della pittura napoletana, Naples, 1938, 318). See also August 24, 1630, she acknowledges measurements he was sent for an un- Bissell, 162 and n. 75.