The Duke of Lerma, Equestrian as a Roman Imperial Image in the Court of Philip III of Spain: A Historiographical Reappraisal
2013; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 82; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1080/00233609.2013.787119
ISSN1651-2294
AutoresGraham Cairns, Rachel Isaac-Menard,
Tópico(s)Medieval and Early Modern Iberia
ResumoClick to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Notes 1. John F. Moffitt: ‘Rubens's Duke of Lerma, Equestrian amongst »Imperial Horsemen,« ‘Artibus et Historiae 15, no. 29 (1994). pp. 99–110. 2. John F. Moffitt: ‘Rubens's Duke of Lerma, Equestrian amongst »Imperial Horsemen,« ‘Artibus et Historiae 15, no. 29 (1994). p. 101. Moffitt elaborates on the concept suggested by Justus Müller-Hofstede: ‘Reiterbildnis des Don Francisco Gómez de Sandoval y Rojas, Herzogs von Lerma,’ in Peter Paul Rubens, 1577–1640, Katalog I, Cologne, 1977, p. 307, that the concept of the portrait was specifically Lerma's idea, and not likely to have been that of Rubens. As evidence, Moffitt cites correspondence between Rubens and Annibale Iberti, the Mantuan Ambassador in Spain and correspondence between Rubens and Annibale Chieppio, the Duke of Mantua's Secretary of State. See p. 33 (letter 8), p. 36 (letter 10), and pp. 36–37 (letter 11) in R. S. Magurn (ed.): The Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, Harvard UP, 1971 as outlined in Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, pp. 99–101. 3. Rubens visited the Spanish court in 1603 bearing gifts in the service of Vincenzo Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua. The gifts were calculated to gain Spain's favour and protection for Mantua. Ronni Baer: ‘El Greco to Velázquez: Artists in the Reign of Philip III’, in Sarah Schroth and Ronni Baer: exh cat. El Greco to Velázquez: Art during the Reign of Philip III, Boston: MFA Publications, 2008, p. 47. 4. Moffitt. Rubens's Duke, p. 108. In recent years this unfavourable interpretation of Lerma has been re-evaluated alongside the reign of Philip III. Antonio Feros argues that Philip III's reign has been repeatedly misrepresented with Lerma being judged as self-serving and corrupt; something that was started by Lerma's enemies in 1611 and continued by Count-Duke Olivares in the reign of Philip IV. Feros re-evaluates Philip III's reign and Lerma's role, focusing on Spain's politics (the ending of conflict, establishing peace, etc.) and suggesting that the choice of a favourite was not as a sign of weakness but a help to the King's rule and attempts to modernise the »defective government«. See Antonio Feros: Kingship and Favoritism in the Spain of Philip III, 1598–1621, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000, pp. 11–62. See also Sarah Schroth: ‘The Private Picture Collection of the Duke of Lerma’, PhD diss. (New York University, 1990), pp. 13–16. 5. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, pp. 103–108. 6. John, F. Moffitt. ‘The Forgotten Role of a »Determined Christian Knight« in Titian's Depiction of Charles V, Equestrian at Muhlberg,’ Gazette des Beaux Arts 137, no. 153 (2001), pp. 37–52. 7. Philip II, as quoted by P. Aguado Bleye, Manual de Historia de Espafia, Bilbao, 1928, p. 179 in Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, note 13, p. 109. 8. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, note 12, p. 109 offers a comprehensive bibliography on this period, including information on Lerma himself: P. Aguado Bleye, Manual de Historia de Espafia, Bilbao, 1928; R. Trevor Davies: The Golden Century of Spain, 1501–1621, London, 1937; C. Petrie, L. Bertrand: The History of Spain, London, 1951; J. H. Elliott: Imperial Spain, 1469–1716, New York, 1966; J. Lynch, Spain under the Hapsburgs, II. Spain and America, 1598–1700, Oxford; H. Kamen, A Society of Conflict: Spain, 1469–1714, London-New York, 1983; A. Dennis, Philip III: The Shadow of a King, Madrid, 1985. To this we can add, Sarah Schroth and Ronni Baer: exh cat. El Greco to Velázquez: Art during the Reign of Philip III, Boston: MFA Publications, 2008; Antonio Feros: Kingship and Favoritism in the Spain of Philip III, 1598–1621, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000; Patrick Williams. The great favourite: The Duke of Lerma and the court and government of Philip III of Spain, 1598–1621. Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2006. 9. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, p. 102 who cites Davies, Golden Century of Spain, p. 231. 10. Magurn, Letters of Peter Paul Rubens, pp. 148–49 (letter 92). 11. The decision to move the Spanish capital from Madrid further north to Valladolid in 1600 has been subject to much speculation. It was, however, part of a tendency that saw the court move its host city numerous times throughout the sixteenth century. In this particular case explanations tend to oscillate between a purely economic rationale and more symbolic reasons. Moffitt offers an extensive bibliography of these two conflicting positions. With regard the economic explanation, see: Davies, Golden Century, p. 232; Petrie and Bertrand, History of Spain, p. 250; Elliott, Imperial Spain, p. 301. With reference to the symbolic side of this discussion, see: J.J. Martin González, »Rubens en Valladolid,« in IV Centenario del Nacimiento de Rubens: Ciclo de Conferencias, Valladolid, 1978, pp. 11–19; and J. M. Palomares Ibáñez, »Valladolid en los años de la Corte de Felipe III,« in ibídem, pp. 39–48. 12. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, p. 102. 13. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, p. 103 and Walter Liedtke, The Royal Horse and Rider: Painting, Sculpture and Horsemanship, 1500–1800, New York, 1989 note 2 p. 228. 14. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke p. 107. The context for Oliviero's publication was the victorious battles against the Protestant League and the subsequent triumphal entry of Charles V into Ulm. Rubens's Duke, p. 104. The Schmalkadic War refers to this period of conflict (1546–1547) between the Catholic princes of the Holy Roman Empire led by Charles V against the Lutheran Schmalkadic League of Protestant princes. For more information on this conflict and the Battle of Mühlberg, where the Lutheran league was defeated, see: Wim Blockmans. Emperor Charles V (1500–1558). Translated by Isola van den Hoven-Vardon. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002; James D. Tracy: Charles V: Impresario of War. Cambridge University Press, 2002. 15. Moffitt, The Forgotten Role, p. 37. 16. Moffitt, The Forgotten Role, pp. 37–38. For a detailed understanding of Charles V and his reign see: Stephan Diller, Joachim Andraschke, Martin Brecht: Kaiser Karl V und seine Zeit. Ausstellungskatalog. Universitäts-Verlag, Bamberg 2000; Alfred Kohler: Karl V. 1500–1558. Eine Biographie. C. H. Beck, München 2001; Ferdinant Seibt: Karl V. Goldmann, München 1999. 17. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, pp. 99–101. 18. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, p. 103 provides a detailed description of the formal correspondence between the print and Rubens’ portrait: »white horses with bowed heads and obliquely turned torsos calmly and majestically pace toward the viewer at an acute angle, each moving to the right of the composition. Both noble mounts raise their left front legs in matching curves while the other three legs remain firmly planted upon the ground. In both pictures, even the ground-plane oddly tilts forward, allowing us to appreciate the identical placement of hooves. The riders are also posed as though they were iconographic twins, even though the horseman in the Italian print is fully armoured whereas Lerma only wears a polished cuirass. Both horsemen are bare-headed and, even more significantly, both loosely clasp a field-marshall's baton in their right hands. Additionally, in both cases, this attribute of military command rests upon the noble rider's right thigh, serving as a kind of support for his right arm.« 19. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, pp. 99–101. 20. It is important to note at this point that Moffitt discusses a link between the horse in Titian's Charles V and the horse in the Marcus Aurelius, Equestrian in formal terms. This link is not wholly convincing as the formal differences between both horses are significant, as he himself accepts. Forgotten Role, p. 39. It is our contention that he more strongly connects the Titian Charles V with the Christian Knight theme; something he does through numerous medieval textual and iconographical sources. Forgotten Role, pp. 40–46. 21. See Forgotten Role., p. 43. For a detailed analysis of the career and literary output of Olivier de La Marche see Alistair Millar: ‘Olivier de la Marche and the Court of Burgundy, c.1425–1502’, PhD diss. (University of Edinburgh, 1966). For the wider context of literary developments in the late medieval period see R. Menage, ‘Le voyage délibéré du chevalier de la Marche’ in Sénéfiance, 2 (1976), pp. 211–219. 22. Moffitt suggests that The Holy Lance had been »directly associated with a legend of world domination of great antiquity«, and had been purported to have helped Christian rulers vanquish their heathen foes. See footnote 30. 23. Moffitt, Forgotten Role, pp. 45–46. 24. Moffitt, Forgotten Role, p. 44. 25. Moffitt, Forgotten Role, p. 45. 26. Liedtke, Royal Horse, p. 37. 27. In The Royal Horse and Rider Liedtke gives an extensive explanation of the three major themes in equestrian monuments (between 1550–1650). He underlines that the Christian knight theme generally shows a stoic, determined rider leading his mount determinedly forwards, often in a fight against heresy. By contrast, he emphasises that the imperial theme often used a rearing horse to associate sixteenth and seventeenth century sitters with antique imperial portraits, which were known in the seventeenth century principally through antique coins, medals and statuettes representing victorious emperors. In his description of the able rulership theme he stresses that the image of a rider mastering a horse, especially a rearing horse, was often understood as a symbol of an ability to rule. See especially pp. 37–47. See also Walter A. Liedtke and John F. Moffitt: ‘Velázquez, Olivares and the Baroque Equestrian Portrait’, The Burlington Magazine vol. 123, n.942 (Sep. 1981) pp. 532–537 for a brief discussion of themes in equestrian portraiture from c.1550-c.1650. 28. In this regard Liedtke's work suggests differences with Moffitt's. He proposes the Titian Charles V, Equestrian as the iconic model of the Christian knight theme. Royal Horse, pp. 40–41. 29. E. Panofsky, Problems in Titian, Mostly Iconographic, New York, 1969, pp. 84–87. It should also be noted that Panofsky discusses the spear in the context of Roman emperors; the spear being representative of the Holy Spear often seen as a symbol of supreme power used by Roman Emperors, especially when setting off for a Profectio Augusti; a military campaign or significant conflict. See also Liedtke, Royal Horse, pp. 40–41. 30. As a consequence of the widespread fame of the Battle of Milvian Bridge, when Moffitt identifies the use of the spear at this battle, he underlines the fact that its religious connotations would have been readily understood. The accepted principal sources include; Lactantius, De mortibus persecutorum 44; Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History ix, 9 and Life of Constantine i, 28–31 (the vision) and i, 38 (the actual battle). Amongst the most recent texts on Constantine and his role in establishing the Christian Empire include, Charles Matson Odahl. Constantine and the Christian Empire. London, 2004, and Paul Stephenson, Constantine Unconquered Emperor, Christian Victor, London, 2009. 31. Moffitt places exclusive emphasis on the lance as an imperial symbol in Forgotten Role. Liedtke and Panofsky however, also discuss it in the context of the medieval Christian knight tradition, with particular emphasis on the Titian Charles V, equestrian. The Royal Horse, pp. 40–41 and Problems in Titian, pp. 84–87, respectively. 32. For Lerma's pacifist policies see Feros, Kingship and Favoritism, pp. 149–51, 195–6, 204–6, 252–3. 33. In Rubens' portrait, Lerma is shown with a baton rather than a weapon of combat. Sarah Schroth and Ronni Baer, El Greco, p. 200 identify that a baton is a reference to martial authority. It alludes to Lerma's appointment as commander-general of the Spanish Cavalry in 1599. He is distant from the battle that rages behind him, rather than directly engaged in it, and is shown executing a passage, the equestrian manoeuvre used to review the troops. The intention is to portray him as a military strategist and commander rather than a soldier engaged directly in battle. 34. See Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, p. 105 for a short summary of this history and for a longer history see T. Ravenscroft, The Spear of Destiny. The Occult Power Behind the Spear Which Pierced the Side of Christ, New York, 1974, pp. 10–21. 35. Feros, Kingship and Favoritism, pp. 95–98, 236–237, 241, 255–256 details the rise and downfall of Lerma as favourite and complexity of the situation he dealt with. For example, as early as 1602 questions were raised about his role as King's favourite with Lerma discovering a »plot« against him emanating from Queen Margaret's household. In 1615 Fray Juan de Santa Maria heavily criticised the role of »favourites« in Royal Courts. So direct where the insinuations upon Lerma's objectives and behaviour as »favourite«, that the Duke attempted to impede the dissemination of Santa Maria's arguments. His estrangement from the court finally materialised in 1618 upon his acceptance of a Cardinalship from Pope Paul V who appointed him Cardinal of San Sisto. Later that year he was exiled from Madrid by Philip III and remained in Valladolid under the »protection of the Church«. Upon the ascent to the throne of Philip IV, he was »investigated« and his properties sequestered as Olivares and Fray Juan de Santa Maria introduced a new system of courtly patronage and favourites. 36. In the Forgotten Role, Moffitt associates Marcus Aurelius with Charles V. Whilst this connection is well known and documented in general terms, we suggest here that references to Marcus Aurelius are equally as useful for understanding Rubens’ Lerma, Equestrian. 37. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, pp. 105–106. 38. Here again, our point is that the connection made by Moffitt between the horse pose in Titian's Charles V and the Marcus Aurelius, Equestrian is far from obvious or clear. By contrast, the formal similarities in the tripartite model we suggest here is direct. See also note 20. 39. For a history of haute école riding see Liedtke, Royal Horse Chapter 1 and appendix. Also see Etienne Saurel's Histoire de l'Equitation, Paris, 1971. Liedtke has identified that Federico Grisone and his followers established the riding academies with the intention of making them courtly institutions that could help cultivate and display the elegance and formal refinement of the rider. He also underlines that from c.1550 onward it became increasingly likely that the elite who commissioned equestrian portraits, whether monarchs, noblemen or others, would request one of three principal poses for the horse: standing in place; a moderate trot; or a more exuberant »air above the ground«, typically the levade. 40. Pope-Hennessy, Italian High Renaissance and Baroque Scupture, London and New York, 1970, pp. 103–4. For the relocation of the statue to the Campidoglio and the development of the square, see Herbert Siebenhüner, Das Kapitol in Rom. Idee und Gestalt, Munich, 1954, 54–63; Paul Kiinzle, »Die Aufstellung des Reiters vom Lateran durch Michelangelo,« Miscellanea Bibliothecae Hertzianae (Römische Forschungen der Biblioteca Hertziana), xvi, 1961, pp. 255–270 as per Michael P. Mezzatesta, »Marcus Aurelius, Fray Antonio de Guevara, and the Ideal of the Perfect Prince in the Sixteenth Century,« The Art Bulletin 66, no. 4 (Dec. 1984): p. 627, note 44. 41. The inscription reads M. Antonino Pio. See The Art Bulletin 66 p. 624 n. 10. 42. Whether the initial direct reference made by Lerma was intended to be the Oliviero engraving, as Moffitt argues (Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, pp. 103–104), or the Marcus Aurelius, Equestrian as we suggest is possible, the effect is the same; an examination of the horse's stance would have lead the knowledgeable viewer to the posture of the most famous equestrian statue of the period, the Marcus Aurelius. 43. Leidtke, Royal Horse, especially pp. 37–39. 44. As expressed by Ferdinando I to Domizio Peroni and Orazio della Rena in regards to complimenting Giambologna's Samson and a Philistine, at Lerma's La Ribera gardens, with a second fountain executed by the same artist: »There is no chance, we venture to tell you, of finding another one like that by Cavaliere Giovanni Bologna, who is now the best sculptor in the world …« (Florence, Archivio di Statio, Mediceo del Principato, 5080, fols. 1257–60, 8th May 1604) as quoted in Edward L. Goldberg, »Artistic relations between the Medici and the Spanish Courts, 1587–1621: Part II,« The Burlington Magazine, vol. 138, n.1121 (Aug. 1996), p. 530. 45. As expressed by Ferdinando I to Domizio Peroni and Orazio della Rena in regards to complimenting Giambologna's Samson and a Philistine, at Lerma's La Ribera gardens, with a second fountain executed by the same artist: »There is no chance, we venture to tell you, of finding another one like that by Cavaliere Giovanni Bologna, who is now the best sculptor in the world …« (Florence, Archivio di Statio, Mediceo del Principato, 5080, fols. 1257–60, 8th May 1604) as quoted in Edward L. Goldberg, »Artistic relations between the Medici and the Spanish Courts, 1587–1621: Part II,« The Burlington Magazine, vol. 138, n.1121 (Aug. 1996), pp. 532. 46. See Edward L. Goldberg, »Artistic relations between the Medici and the Spanish Courts, 1587–1621: Part I,« The Burlington Magazine, vol. 138, n.1115 (Feb. 1996), pp. 105–114 and Edward L. Goldberg, »Artistic relations between the Medici and the Spanish Courts, 1587–1621: Part II,« The Burlington Magazine, vol. 138, n.1121 (Aug. 1996), pp. 529–540, for Tuscan state gifts during the reign of Philip III, including those sent to Lerma and his family and their reception in Spain. The exchange of gifts was an ancient international custom among princes and courtiers that showed a marked increase at the Spanish Court during the reign of Philip III. Goldberg, Artistic relations, I, p. 105. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries Medici Grand Dukes from Tuscany sent costly state gifts to Spain; after the accession of Philip III, Lerma soon became the focus for the gifts which often included works of sculpture and painting, Artistic relations, I p. 108. 47. Charles V became aligned with Marcus Aurelius through the teachings of his influential tutor and court historiographer, Fray Antonio de Guevara. Guevara espoused neo-Stoic ideas derived from Marcus Aurelius’ Meditations and counseled Charles V to follow the model of Marcus Aurelius, seen by him to be the image of the ideal prince. See Mezzatesta, Marcus Aurelius, pp. 624–626. Guevara's ideas were made known throughout Europe in the sixteenth century through his widely read publications. For the life and work of Guevara see Augustin de Redondo's Antonio de Guevara (1480?–1545) et l'Espagne de son temps, de la carrière officielle aux oeuvres politico-morales, Geneva, 1976. For a history of Stoicism in seventeenth-century Spain, see H. Ettinghausen, Francisco de Quevedo and the Neostoic Movement, Oxford, 1972. 48. See Mezzatesta, Marcus Aurelius, pp. 624–626 for a summary of these works and their widespread popularity throughout Europe in the sixteenth century. 49. See Mezzatesta, Marcus Aurelius, pp. 625–6. 50. Mezzatesta, Marcus Aurelius, pp. 624–5 gives a detailed description of the text and identifies that the Libro Aureo was begun in 1518 as an educational tract for Charles V, the new King of Spain and was purported to be a translation of a Greek manuscript of the Meditations. The book consists of forty-eight chapters that cover Marcus Aurelius’ life with a focus on his virtues as well as his personal struggles. 51. As Mezzatesta, Marcus Aurelius, p. 625 (citing Redondo, Antonio de Guevara, p. 306) identifies, the word relox may be translated as dial or clock and was meant to have an explicit moral connotation. The Relox is three times as long as the Libro Aureo; it is dedicated to Charles V but was also aimed at a wider audience, and offers a more comprehensive presentation of Guevara's political ideals. Both the Libro Aureo and the Relox identify Marcus Aurelius as the ideal prince providing an example for rulers and other men to follow. Mezzatesta, Marcus Aurelius, p. 626. 52. For Charles V's entry into Rome see M.L. Landonna, »L'Ingresso di Carlo V a Roma,« in M. Fagiolo, ed., La Città Effimera e l'universo artificial del giardino, Rome, 1979, 63ff. 53. Mezzatesta points out the influential sculptor Leone Leoni (1509–1590) was a key figure in the formulation and dissemination of Aurelian imagery and even proposed an equestrian portrait of Charles V to celebrate his triumph at Mühlberg with Aurelian associations (see Mezzatesta, Marcus Aurelius, p. 630), Giambologna's Cosimo I is another example of an important and well known equestrian monument that references the Marcus Aurelius figure through its pose: its collected trot. See Liedtke, Royal Horse, especially p. 38, for this and other examples. On Leone Leoni see Eugene Plon: Les maitres italiens au service de la maison d'Autriche. Leone Leoni sculpteur de Charles Quint et Pompeo Leoni sculpteur de Philippe II, Paris, 1887 and Michael P. Mezzatesta: ‘Imperial Themes in the Sculpture of Leone Leoni,’ Ph diss. (New York University, Institute of Fine Arts, 1980). 54. See George Long, The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, New York, 1909 for its history. 55. Schroth, Private picture, identifies the primary sources for Lerma's court appointments and honours to be: Luis Cabrera de Córdoba, Relaciones de las cosas sucedidas en la Corte de España desde 1599 hasta 1614, Madrid, 1857; Matias de Novoa, Historia del reinado de Felipe III. Colección de Documentos Inéditos para la Historia de España, vol. 68, Madrid, 1875 and Descripción e Inventario de las rentas, bienes y hazienda del Cardenal Duque de Lerma, Valladolid, March 27, 1622. On December 18, 1598, Lerma was appointed sumiller de corps (groom of the stole). A few months earlier he had been made caballerizo mayor del rey (master of the horse). These two posts were the highest offices in the Habsburg court and had never been conferred on the same individual previously. As groom of the stole, Lerma attended the king in his private chambers and was the key administrator of the royal palace. As master of the horse, he was responsible for accompanying the king on all excursions outside the palace. See Schroth, Private picture, identifies the primary sources for Lerma's court appointments and honours to be: Luis Cabrera de Córdoba, Relaciones de las cosas sucedidas en la Corte de España desde 1599 hasta 1614, Madrid, 1857; Matias de Novoa, Historia del reinado de Felipe III. Colección de Documentos Inéditos para la Historia de España, vol. 68, Madrid, 1875 and Descripción e Inventario de las rentas, bienes y hazienda del Cardenal Duque de Lerma, Valladolid, March 27, 1622, pp. 1–2. 56. For a description of this see: Paola Venturelli: exh.cat. Vincenzo I Gonzaga, 1562–1612: il fasto del potere, Mantova (Museo diocesano Francesco Gonzaga), 2012. 57. Anthony Birley: Marcus Aurelius: A Biography, London, 1987, p. 13. 58. Anthony Birley: Marcus Aurelius: A Biography, London, 1987, pp. 140–141. The ability of Marcus Aurelius to deal with these situations would have made him a perfect model for Lerma, given the political complexity of his own position and the constant need for political negotiation and deals. See Feros, Kingship and Favoritism, especially pp. 92–93, 110–11, 164–165, for more information on Lerma in this regard. Feros underlines the astuteness of Lerma's early manoeuvrings to ensure he strictly controlled access to the new King by arranging the position of caballerizo mayor directly upon the death of Philip II. He also underlines that Lerma worked both inside and outside the state structure to impose his influence on the King. Inside the standard structures of state governance he had the role Counsellor of State which ensured his presence at every »official« state meeting. However, this went hand in hand with his role as valido which, operating outside what Feros calls the »structures of state« entitled him to discurso de las privanzas; private, intimate conversations with the King. Furthermore, Feros also identifies that Lerma skilfully ensured that he avoided direct criticism (at least in the early years of his role at court) by the manipulation of »the political culture that upheld the idea of absolute political obedience to a ruler who was depicted as a superior being«. In this climate any criticism of Lerma could be »spun« as criticism of the King. 59. Marcus Aurelius jointly ruled the Roman Empire with Lucius Verus. It was the first time such an arrangement had been implemented and set an example which was followed with increasing frequency. See Birley, Marcus Aurelius, p. 117. It should also be noted that it is generally accepted that Marcus Aurelius was the dominant force in the relationship, although in outward signs of authority and importance no distinction was made. This offered a form of precedent for the arrangement Lerma himself had with Philip III and also the power relationship between the two. See Feros, Kingship and Favoritism. Feros identifies that »Lerma's political role in the monarchy had no precedents in any other period« p. 110. Indeed, he states that Lerma was »seen as the pre-eminent player in politics and government«. Furthermore, he identifies that in contrast to previous monarchies, any royal orders were not to be acted upon unless signed by Lerma himself p. 113. 60. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, pp. 107–8, points out that all the imperial images were only half the size of the commanding Lerma and, in doing so, underlines his principal argument that Lerma presents us with »an instance of the pathology of political megalomania«. For a description and analysis of Lerma's picture collection, the most important private picture collection in Spain in the first two decades of the seventeenth century, see Sarah Schroth, Private Picture, especially pp. 19–97. Knowledge of Lerma's picture collection is based on a series of sixteen inventories that date from 1603–1637, see Sarah Schroth, Private Picture, p. 18. 61. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, p. 107. 62. Moffitt, Rubens's Duke, p. 108.
Referência(s)