The period from the middle of the 16th century through to the end of the Thirty Years' War saw the rise of a trend across Europe of rulers involved in the politically/religiously motivated wars bringing engraved portraits of themselves into circulation. These engravings were intended from the outset for individual circulation, as is reflected in their design. The period between 1550 and 1650 saw practically all of Europe's rulers using the reproductive print to present themselves in architectonic / allegorical terms, going beyond the pure replication of the physiognomy and stately demeanour of the subject to convey statements about their personality for propaganda purposes. The portrait of the ruler is typically set in an aedicule in the form of a triumphal arch, its programme of personifications, allegories and emblems in the base area and on either side of the portrait giving a historical context to the subject's personal qualities and achievements, typically glorified in the pediment area. [1]

At the height of his power, emperor Ferdinand II commissioned Aegidius Sadeler in 1629 to create such an engraved portrait, complete with figurative language serving to celebrate the emperor's military triumphs over heretics, infidels and Turks. (fig. 1)

Crowned with laurels, the emperor is seen riding as a victorious general through a triumphal arch, the Roman armour and laurel wreath both being references to the apparel of ancient emperors, who would march triumphantly into Rome in celebration of a military victory. Other references to the ancient world feature heavily in the background of the scene. The soldiers and dignitaries marching by, the palatial architecture and, above all, the monumental pillar are clear allusions to the ancient Imperium Romanum. The spiralling relief is reminiscent of Trajan's Column, this being not just a reflection of the fictitious genealogy based on the imperial/theological claims of the Habsburg as emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, but also a conscious reference to the ancient model of just government exemplified by Trajan, with whom Ferdinand II is to be compared. [2]

The figures of Religio-Pietas and Iustitia-Fortitudo on either side of the triumphal arch are intended to emphasise the virtuous qualities which made the emperor worthy of his position as ruler. Cherubs with twigs of laurel and holding crowned pikes are intermediaries to the heavenly sphere, where an Olympian council of gods are discussing the earthly deeds of the zealous champion of the Counter-Reformation in anticipation of the emperor Ferdinand II ascending to their ranks - another reference to the ancient world -, as suggested in the picture's caption - "Divum Caesarem [...]".

While the vanquished foes cast to the ground are a reference to the military triumphs over the Protestants in 1620 and 1626, the monumental figures on either side of the arch reinforce the specific connection to the historical situation in question. The emperor's Pietas, a winged figure in ancient robes bearing the flame of the true faith on her head, her gaze turned to the heavens, stands firmly on her plinth, the inscription Immota referring to the unswerving faith of the Habsburg. In keeping with the iconography of the cornucopia, the abundance of fruit in her hand brings the promise of the beneficial yields of this virtue of the emperor - peace and prosperity for the land - once the religious turmoil would come to an end and order would be restored to the empire under Habsburg rule. Iustitia with sword and scales can likewise be seen as a reference to the anticipated end of the war, with the slain, several-headed dragon at her feet being a familiar motif used in the celebration of Saint Michael. The Catholic church deliberately employed Michael after the Thirty Years' War as a symbol of the triumph of the faith. [3] The inscription Interrita is an expression of justice as the quality personified by the emperor in his unassailable will to fight for the good, i.e. the Catholic church. This composite allegory is as such clear in its justification of the taking up of arms against the Protestant princes of the empire, the illustration of their defeat evident in both metaphorical and very real terms - at the feet of Iustitia and under the hooves of the emperor's horse.

The overall message of the picture is boldly expressed by the image of the emperor on his horse. "[...] for in a kingdom the greatest one can say of a king is that he is a sound rider, a phrase that implies both his virtue and his courage." [4] The portrait on horseback is at the same time an illustration of the rider's ability to keep as sure and firm a reign on his affairs as he does on his horse, thereby making the portrait a symbol for royal sovereignty. [5] As a result, pedagogical treatises and sovereign codes of the time featured equestrian imagery harking back to ancient ideals as a metaphor for sound government, and princes were expected to learn horsemanship as a matter of course. [6]

This symbolic illustration of royal sovereignty, celebrating as it does the emperor as miles christianus, [7] is a reflection of the historical reality in 1629. The military triumphs over the Protestants at the Battle of White Mountain in 1620 and at Lutter am Barenberg and Dessau in 1626 and, equally importantly, the Edict of Restitution of 1629, which returned church property confiscated by the Protestants since the Treaty of Passau, allowed the emperor to consolidate his position in the empire and at the same time strengthen the Catholic cause.

Aegidius Sadeler, who served under three successive emperors, [8] had also executed engraved portraits with allegorical content for Ferdinand's predecessors, Rudolf II and Matthias, creating a distinct type of frame for each ruler. The portraits of all three Habsburgs are executed in a basic format that was originally designed by Enea Vico in 1550 for an engraving of emperor Charles V and subsequently adopted over the following decades by most rulers across Europe (fig. 2). While these governing qualities were included in Sadeler's portrayal of Ferdinand II, Enea Vico had given still greater coverage to the sovereign virtues of Charles V. Any ruler in the early modern age was expected to conform to an extensive catalogue of virtues comprising Prudentia, Iustitia, Fortitudo, Temperantia, Magnamitas, Liberalitas and Clementia. While this ideal was originally based on humanistic principles, since the Reformation "religiousness [belonged] to the fundamental substance of the principle of royal authority." [9] Although utopian in character, the fulfilment of this catalogue of virtues by the princes was considered an integral part of their authority, explaining the creation of an ideal which provided an answer to the challenges, hopes and wishes projected onto the ruler by relevant sections of the populace. [10]

Enea Vico set the bust of the emperor in an inscribed oval portrait in the arch of an aedicule, the latter appearing as a monument in a landscape featuring a battle scene on the left and ancient ruins on the right. The portrait, which shows the emperor bare-headed and dressed in armour with the ceremonial necklace of the Order of the Golden Fleece, is flanked by two pillars symbolising the motto of Charles V - "Plus Ultra". [11] His imperial status is referred to not here, but in the relevant insignia in the frieze above the pillars. The virtues of the emperor are presented by Clementia, with an open book, and Athena, the personification of courage and wisdom, on either side of the portrait and Pietas and Iustitia in the slopes of the pediment. The aspect of the virtues deployed to such effect is illustrated by the figures in chains representing Germania and Africa, which at the same time mark the extent of this ruler's empire.

As with the example above, the arrangement of figures relates primarily to the situation in denominational politics in the empire after the end of the Schmalkaldic War and therefore to the conflict between the emperor and Protestant princes under his rule.

The plaques accompanying the figures do not just explain the relation of the figures to each other, but also include the emperor as the object of homage. In doing so, they amplify the commentary function of the allegorical programme. The meaning of the group of figures and therefore the effect of the engraving were elucidated in a text published in the same year by Antonio Francesco Doni, who had advised the artist on the execution of the engraving. [12]

The allegories on the left refer to the situation in the Holy Roman Empire and the consequences of the Battle of Mühlberg, which is depicted on the base relief next to Germania. The portrayal of the latter is that of a figure content in her state of subjugation, "servitentium"; the objects assigned to her illustrate the notion that the emperor was a ruler who brought peace and prosperity to the land. The joy felt by Germania in defeat is, in addition, explained by the figure standing above her, Clementia, representing the insuperable mercy of the emperor as characterised by Doni. It is Clementia who forgives the outrages committed - on the part of the Protestants - against the emperor. The mercy shown to his enemies is itself a product of the pious nature of Charles V, represented by Religio-Pietas with her attributes; seen in her left hand are keys, interpreted by Doni as a symbol of divine authority. On the attic functioning as a pedestal are two cherubs, who hold armorial cartouches and flags bearing the imperial eagle, as do their counterparts on the other side. According to Doni's commentary, they show that Charles V is the foremost standard-bearer of Christianity, and that the Casa de Austria was and is always imbued with faith and veracity.

On the right, the representative figures illustrate inter-related claims. The figure of Africa in chains and the base relief are an allusion to the Battle of Goleta and the conquest of Tunis in 1535, which was an attempt by the emperor to prevent the Turks reaching the western Mediterranean. An inscription reminds us that the melancholy figure of Africa huddled on the ground in fact feels no shame in her defeat at the hands of one who embodies the virtues of a ruler, and to whom all should surrender. His virtues of Fortitudo and Prudentia are embodied by the naked Athena, armed only with helmet, lance and spear, whose strength Doni attributed to her active triumphs rather than self-defence. Seen at her feet is an owl, an animal used to symbolise vigilance. The personified virtue of justice with helmet and sword completes the picture of the ideal ruler. The weapon is held in its sheath because, as Doni explains, a universal monarchy supported by canon law has no need to brandish the sweeping sword of justice. The modified quote from Caesar on the flag above, "Veni, Vidi, Deus Vicit", equates the successes of a government oriented to the virtues of a ruler with the triumph of God. [13]

The figure of Gloria stands on an eagle above the emperor, holding sword and laurel wreath for the purpose of crowning both the programme of virtues and the emperor. [14] In the tradition of ancient triumphal arches, the plaque on the attic lauds the emperor as ruler of three corners of the Earth, as "Divus" and "Gloriosissimus", thereby providing an intensified expression of the purpose of the allegorical / architectonic portrait composition in superlative terms.

The circumstances under which the portrait was created do, however, put this form of triumphant self-portrayal in relative terms, and go some way to explaining the uses to which a portrait of this nature could be put. The gold plate engraving of the portrait with its allegorical-architectonic framing was, in fact, originally presented by Enea Vico to the emperor in the name of Cosimo de Medici at the Diet of Augsburg in 1548. [15] This monument to the sovereign, initially seen in terms of a homage, now takes on the means and repertoire of forms of ceremonial architecture, which should be seen as the true source of inspiration for this type of portrait. [16] Cities would commission such works to mark the occasion of a coronation, enthronement or military success, and the picture created would glorify the subject entering the city by employing triumphal architecture and an allegorical programme in the same spirit as the allegorical / architectonic portrait.

Emperor Charles V was very appreciative of this glorification of his person. Seeing the potential gains to be made in propaganda terms by the circulation of a portrait of this nature, he instructed the artist to transfer the image to a copper plate so as to allow a series of reproductions to be made. In this way he used the same concept as that of the mass circulation propaganda leaflet to publicise his claim to leadership emanating from his personal virtues and achievements. [17] Just as the latter had been given the power of "propagandistic ubiquity", so it was to be with graphic portraits, which, in the words of Erwin Panofsky, "could be circulated as much as the photographs of statesmen and movie actors today." [18] At the same time, the effort put into promoting the claim to leadership by using the idea of a universal monarchy reflected the expectations the emperor had to fulfil. "The symbolism of the empire of Charles V., which seemed able to include the whole world as then known and to hold out the promise of return to spiritual unity through a revival of cementing power of a christianized imperial virtues, was a comforting phantom in the chaotic world of the sixteenth century." [19]

The emperor was, however, unable to employ this iconographical campaign in support of his claim to leadership to long-lasting effect. Although famed for his successes on battle-fields throughout the empire, Charles V failed to realise his plans of establishing order in the empire through the unification of all imperial states under Habsburg rule.

This employment of the new printing technology for the purposes of public presentation and the legitimisation of political ideas through a portrait was unprecedented, and marked the beginning of a trend across Europe in stately portraiture over the next few decades. While the example was followed by emperors, electors and imperial princes, the Habsburg iconography was taken up by rulers outside the empire as well - for example by Elizabeth I of England, Henry IV of France and the House of Orange in their position as stadtholders of the Netherlands - in order to strengthen their cause in the struggle for political power against what were generally domestic opponents of a different belief. [20] While stately portraits in the next few decades incorporated minor modifications to suit the subject while retaining Enea Vico's general concept, Aegidius Sadeler made more profound variations on the theme, resulting in the portrayal of emperor Ferdinand II referred to above.

His portrait engraving of Rudolf II dating from 1603 was intended to promote the emperor's governing qualities and, at a time when the Habsburg's position was under threat both from forces within the empire and the permanent danger posed by the Turks, to publicise his military successes (fig. 3). Vices or enemies, here the Turks, are seen defeated in the base of the frame. At the sides are the winged Victoria and, carrying a rudder, Good Government, the personifications of the emperor's military and political resolve. This is based on the virtues of Fortitudo, represented by the spear and Gorgon shield of Athena, and the attributes Victoria and Temperantia, represented by the reigns and spurs held by the figure of Good Government, again in the tradition of equestrian iconography. Together, the figures provide a picture of the emperor's conducting of state affairs, which is further glorified in the pediment area. Holding a globe and palm branch, the figure of Pax Augusta heralds the imminent peace that the world would enjoy under Rudolf II, the emperor bearing motifs taken from Roman sources - the sign of Capricorn inferring equal status with Augustus Caesar, and the eagle, the symbolic animal of Jupiter, as an affirmation of his insuperable position. The programme of figures has as such a dual function, namely to emphasise the most important virtues of a ruler while at the same time reflecting the demands to which Rudolf II was subjected in this period of political unrest in the empire. [21]

Emperor Matthias, on the other hand, made use of the potential of the allegorical portrait to produce a glorious portrayal of the supposedly prosperous conditions that the empire enjoyed under his rule. The composition is, in addition, intended to lend some legitimacy to his imperial status and power, which he had effectively obtained six years before his actual coronation (fig. 4). His brother's political failings gave Matthias the opportunity to take over extensive executive powers in the years 1606/08. This enabled him to make peace with rebellious elements in Hungary and Transylvania and negotiate an armistice with the Sultan, although none of these treaties were recognised by Rudolf II. [22] Sadeler's arrangement of the portrait uses this background to emphasise the genealogical foundations of the emperor's sovereign status. In positioning the portrait bust of Matthias like a sculpture on top of a plinth, the artist is adopting a type of monument which, while based immediately on Adriaen de Vries's portrait bust of Rudolf II, is reminiscent of a bust made by Leone Leonis for Charles V. [23] In addition to this, the portrait of Matthias is set in an oval wreath which also includes portrait-medallions of his predecessors as far back as Charlemagne. [24]

Also in evidence here is the schemata of the Vico engraving, marked by the separation of distinct aspects of the portrait commentary, although the architectural background is hardly visible due to the arabesque liveliness of the individual figures and the festoons adorning the entire frame. In typical fashion, the emperor's enemies - Protestants and Turks - are seen defeated in the base area together with the deadly sins Hatred and Envy, which add moral degradation to their sufferings.

The sides of the portrait feature allegories taken from ancient mythology and Christian iconography which are used to present two paragons of bravery: on the left is Bellerophon, seen restraining Pegasus by the mane and preventing it from flight, with the lance in his hand and the weapons at his feet, all these being universal references to the bravery of an emperor. The catalogue of virtues of the time stipulates that this could not be proven until the unbridled passions had been tamed, this being symbolised by the control over the winged horse. [25] Meanwhile the group of figures on the right relate to the aspirations of imperial bravery, the victorious Fortitudo slaying the many-headed dragon which represents the infidels. The wings of the virtuous figure and the laurel wreath she holds up to the portrait of the emperor are representative of the success of the Christian ruler, whose great renown is heralded in the background by Fama with a trumpet.

In accordance with the motto armae et litterae, the bellicose virtues are complemented by the inclusion of Prudentia and Constantia in the pediment area. Their attribute, the pillar, is included with its spiral relief in imitation of the iconography of Trajan as a reference to justice. The employment of symbolic animals and emblems on the flags emphasises again the virtuousness of the emperor [26], illustrating the notion that a government committed to this ideal would promote not just the arts and sciences, but crafts and trades as well. The promise of prosperity from this rule and the provision by the emperor for his people are in turn emphasised by the wreaths and horns of plenty of the three Graces set above the emperor.

Unlike the later portrait engraving for Ferdinand II, which employs mythological imagery in its depiction of the Olympian council of gods judging the virtuous leadership of the emperor, divine mercy in the version for Matthias is based on the Christian tradition. With a fabulous aura in the background, five cherubs balance crown and sceptre in preparation for the coronation of the emperor as decreed by God.

It was the repertoire of forms used by Sadeler for the portrait of Matthias that was drawn on to provide material for a number of portraits of other rulers over the subsequent years. The copperplate engraving of Louis XIII by Crispyn de Passe the Elder in 1618 copied the entire middle section of this portrait. While the allegories relating to the bravery of the Rex christianissimus in the struggle for the Catholic faith emphasised the king's sovereign virtues, his claim to power was to be justified on genealogical grounds as well, the inclusion in the wreath of portrait-medallions of kings Charles Martel, Charlemagne and Chlodwig through to Henry IV serving as a reminder of his rightful succession. [27] The allegories on the sides were still finding employment as late as 1660; when creating his engraving of the coronation of Charles II of England, Hendrick Danckerts took inspiration from Sadeler's work for the cherubs with the royal insignia.

These examples show that such allegories could be universally applied, their symbolism evolving to become a sort of template rather than being tailored to suit the person, as it had been for the portrait of Charles V. The conditions dictated by the religiously and politically motivated wars of the period meant that the originally comprehensive catalogue of virtues was reduced to the qualities essential to government - religiousness personified by Pietas/Fides, and strength in battle, Fortitudo, employed in the military successes against the infidels, Turks and Protestants alike. This portrait style was, however, not developed further here. Until 1650 it was adopted in the context of the Habsburgs as the ultimate sovereigns of Europe. It was not until the reign of Louis XIV that new forms of representation emerged [28], which from then on provided the models for stately portraiture across Europe.

The context of the religious wars of the first half of the 17th century lends great importance to the iconography of the defeated. In portraits of both Rudolf II and Matthias, Protestants and Turks are grouped together with the cardinal sins of Hate and Envy in the same plane. This made the struggle against the enemies a religious affair, a moral crusade against evil which had to be won before hopes of peace and prosperity could be realised.

A similar interpretation can be applied to a portrait engraving executed by Aegidius Sadeler in 1621, in which the prisoners pay homage to the courage displayed by the imperial general Charles de Longueval, Duke of Buquoy, in his victory over the Protestants at the Battle of the White Mountain (fig. 5). The prisoners are seen cowering among the implements of war in front of the base of the architectural frame, whose composition of figures here consists of just two winged cherubs holding emblematic banners decorated with the trumpets of Fama. The oval portrait of the duke, dressed in armour and with the field commander's sash over his shoulders, is decorated with a laurel wreath and palm branches. The commentary is illustrated more clearly by the view of the battlefield. While this print can be seen primarily as a celebration of the strategic skills of the general, the same setting used seven years later by Balthasar Moncornet for Louis XIII is clearly a promotion of royal sovereignty, the latter being based on the strategic mastery of Fortitudo that was evident in the siege and conquest of La Rochelle, marking the defeat of the Huguenots 29.

Victory over Protestants also provided the Bavarian duke with the grounds for self-aggrandisement, first as victor in the service of the emperor, and then in his subsequently awarded status of Elector. The copper plate engraving made by Wolfgang Kilian after Matthias Kager was printed in two different versions in 1619 and from 1621 onwards. [30] Maximilian I presents himself first as a duke in armour. In the base area are Architectura and Abundantia, who pay homage to the sovereign for his building achievements in the capital and the prosperity across the land. The four universal cardinal virtues, Sapientia and Temperantia on the left and Constantia-Fortitudo and Iustitia on the right, extol the moral strength of Maximilian, whose reputation as a godfearing ruler is heralded by the allegory of Fama above the portrait.

The options available with the medium of graphic printing were used after 1621 to alter certain important details on this portrait engraving so as to take into account the changes in the political situation (fig.6 ). The Bavarian duke wears a field-commander's sash over his armour. The reason for this is indicated in the middle of the base area, where the heraldic cartouche has been replaced by a depiction of the Battle of the White Mountain. The consequences of this military victory over the Protestant alliance under Frederick V, Elector Palatine and appointed King of Bohemia, are illustrated in the heraldic cartouche, which is here positioned above the portrait and decorated with the Elector's coronet. Immediately after his triumph, Maximilian had attempted to attain the Palatine Elector privilege in a secret treaty, although he had to wait until 1623 before being officially designated as such by emperor Ferdinand II at the Regensburg Diet.

These examples are intended to show an outline of the circulation of the allegorical portrait, which, although based on Habsburg iconography, was also adopted by those not aligned with the emperor. Practically all of Europe's land-owning princes used the opportunity to both justify their royal sovereignty on the grounds of their achievements and document their claim to power before a politically relevant public [31].This sovereign power, founded on virtues, is at the same time considered the source of the prosperity that the determined ruler would bring to the land once conditions had reverted from those reminiscent of civil war. [32]

In addition to the rulers of France, England or Poland, Moritz of the House of Nassau-Orange started a tradition among the stadtholders general of the Netherlands of adopting Habsburg iconography in order to present themselves as a dynasty that was in no way inferior to other royal houses. [33] In celebration of his triumph over the Spanish, Moritz commissioned an engraving by Cornelisz Dircksz. van Boissens in around 1600, his portrait being presented in an architectonic frame and designed with an allegorical programme that spares no detail in its glorifying portrayal of both the heroism of the prince of Orange and his religious nature. [34] (fig. 7) While the fortifications and battle scenes on either side refer to the various cities that he had freed from occupation, his ultimate triumph over the Spanish is interpreted as a war against the vices of Catholic idolatry and tyranny, fought out here between the Belgian lion and the Spanish dragon in the base area.

A copper plate engraving by Jan Saenredam from around 1600 is instead concerned solely with the strategic skills of the prince of Orange. (fig. 8) The portrait commentary here is confined to the side of the print, and refers only to his military prowess, while the prince of Orange stands in the armour of a general on a hill providing a view of a battlefield. His helmet lies next to him on a pedestal, decorated with the emblem of the House of Orange - the tree stump which continues to grow after being cut. Whereas the previous portrait was a monument to his personage, it is his military achievements in the service of the Church and his fatherland that find recognition here. The lasting relevance of this portrait's statement is evidenced in the execution of a second version of the print, the only changes being in Moritz's facial features to reflect a man now well advanced in years.

The Protestant imperial princes commissioned such portraits on a smaller scale, and even these were somewhat toned down, presenting their virtues, courage and piety in a more modest version of the surrounding triumphal architecture. [35] This may well be due to the fact that this type of portrait was, as has been shown, associated exclusively with the emperors and their deeds in the name of the Catholic cause. The preferred response of the Protestants to this markedly Catholic style of publicity was the propaganda leaflet featuring a picture accompanied by detailed written commentary in order to glorify their claims to legitimate leadership while depicting the enemy in compromising terms. [36] The potential of reproduction available with graphic printing was used with both forms of portraying political and historical content in order to promote the cause of the subject in the religious wars in Europe. Although similar in iconography, the leaflet differed from the type of royal propaganda [37] depicted here in its purpose as a means of agitation; the antithetical lining up of Protestant virtues battling against the vices of the opponent was portrayed in striking terms and at great length in the text, the aim being to move the viewer to active involvement. The commented portrait reacted in turn to this agitation by excluding language that could be understood by the masses. [38] In the tradition of royal propaganda it employs the conventional catalogue of virtues to justify sovereignty. Adapting the means of ceremonial architecture while putting to use the potential of graphic printing for mass circulation, this type of portrait was intended as a mobile monument; free of local references and as such "ubiquitous" [39], it provided an answer to the ephemeral ceremonial architecture and sovereign worship that expressed the expectations to which the new ruler was subjected by the relevant sections of the public who commissioned these ephemeral monuments. [40]

In the years following the Thirty Years' War, the allegorical content of the portrait was gradually replaced by the portrait on horseback, which rendered detailed commentary of the subject obsolete. As in the example above, this type of picture allowed the virtuousness of the ruler to speak for itself. The type of portrait presented here can as such be seen as the forerunner of the actual monuments erected while the ruler was alive, a tradition of political art that was already long established in Italy, Spain and France. [41]

FOOTNOTES