Cardinal de Richelieu's discovery of purple: political and emblematic antecedents of a topos

However, the image of “Tyro Hercolis uxor” did not seem to have much influence on the pictorial tradition where the discovery of purple was represented in a more narrative mode. For instance, in the beginning of the 1560s Taddeo Zuccaro, while working at the Villa Farnese at Caprarola, included this story in the decorations of the Stanza dei Lanifici. His fresco shows Hercules and his beloved standing together; the hero's figure is half-hidden behind the nymph's and mirrors her posture. But only Tyro makes an imperious gesture, pointing at the dog whose head and tail are lowered, as if it is not sure of its master's approval. Significantly, when in 1578 Fabio Arditio mentioned this painting, he concentrated on Tyro and the dog, taking less notice of Hercules“Vi e anco quanto fu ritrovata la porpora dal cane d'Hercole et de la giovane Tiro, che, mangiando la conchiglia presa sul lito del mare, si tinse la bocca di quel sangue, onde ella vedendo cosi bel colore, ne volse dal detto Hercole una veste” [Orbaan 1920: 379].. Thus, even though Arditio's narrative basically sums up the one from the Onomasticon, Zuccaro's arrangement of characters has a certain impact on how the story is told.

The same dramatis personae -- Hercules, Tyro and the dog -- appear in Santi di Tito's Discovery of Purple (alternatively known as Hercules andloleAbout this misnomer see [Spalding 1982: 280-281].) that decorated Francesco I de' Medici's Studiolo in the Palazzo Vecchio (Fig. 8). The artist represented a mostly naked Hercules, who is holding a small pup, in close conversation with Tyro and surrounded by several other figures. The nymph, discreetly but quite expressively, points at the dog's muzzle, thus indicating her desire for a purple garmentAs Spalding suggested, this desire is simultaneously shown as already fulfilled because Tyro is wearing a purple robe. See [Spalding 1981: 19].. This gesture is reminiscent of the one which Tyro makes in Zuccaro's work, but greatly reduced in scale. Still it marks her as “the leader of the deed”, while Hercules and the pup encircled in his arms are simply recipients of this command.

Fig. 8. Santi di Tito The Discovery of Purple, oil on canvas, Studiolo of Francesco I, Palazzo Vecchio, Florence

Both Taddeo Zuccaro's fresco, created around 1562, and Santi di Tito's painting, probably finished in February 1571 [Spalding 1981: 19], belonged to two decorative programs that celebrated human arts and crafts. This allegorical function did not affect their narrative part which closely followed Pollux's legend. And despite some variations, that narrative was conveyed through the arrangement of particular characters (Tyro, Hercules and his dog), the scenery (the sea-shore, possibly with some shells lying around), and Tyro's gesture that indicated her active participation in the discovery of purple. This combination of visual and narrative features makes my tentative reading of Paradin's device “Dux fremina facti” a bit more plausible. If we consider Cavalieri's “Tyro Hercolis uxor”, Taddeo Zuccaro's fresco and Santi di Tito's painting, they all turn spotlight on the female character, and, incidentally, clarify Menestrier's dilemma. The reverend father definitely wanted to foreground the gallant aspect of the story, i. e. hero's devotion to his beloved, but his emblem with a nymph was probably too obscure for the uninitiated, whereas the one with Hercules excluded the new bride -- or inadvertently likened her to the dog.

Before concluding this part I would like to stress the fact that I am not trying to find the actual filiation between Paradin's device and Taddeo Zuccaro's or Santi di Tito's works: they clearly belong to different systems of representation. But their staging of Pollux's legend has some common points that are absent from other interpretations. As we have seen, unlike the sixteenth-century painters and emblem-makers, neither Boissiere nor Rubens had any use for Tyro. In other words, the watershed that separates one predominant reading of the story from another, is less genre-oriented than chronological. On one side of the divide, the discovery of purple means a task set by the beloved, on the other -- the unquestionable fidelity of the dog.

Candorem purpura servat

Santi di Tito's Discovery of Purple provides another possible framework for Boissiere's invention which may also explain the subsequent appearance of Guisse's device. As I mentioned in the beginning of this paper, when Boissiere created his promotional set, he was likely connected to the queen-mother's court, either personally or through his patron, the comte de Cramail. It is possible that the idea to use the Tyrian legend originated directly from Marie de' Medici's inner circle. She more than anyone else had an opportunity to see Santi di Tito's work. Besides, the distribution of roles -- the nymph directs Hercules' actions -- should have appealed to her, particularly given Louis XIII's established identification with that hero. Previously her regency abounded with symbolic celebrations of female power (incidentally, among them was a medal bearing inscription “Tanti dux femina facti”See pl. XXXII in [Delaroche et al. 1836: 25].), and later on she definitely tried to maintain her political influence.

But if Santi di Tito's work was chosen as a blueprint for Richelieu's promotional device, it was adapted for the occasion. In spite of Louis XIII's pointed mistrust and almost visceral dislike of the Bishop of Lu^on, Marie wanted to have him in the Royal Council. Therefore, the allegory had to stress the dog's absolute fidelity to its master: as I suggested before, Boissiere's device was intended as a message from the new cardinal to the king. Given the situation, no one would have appreciated the hint that “a woman was the leader of the deed”. Yet, she was still behind the scenes. The image invented by Boissiere -- the dog holds a murex under its paws, and has a blood-red muzzle -- was supposed to showcase the dog's usefulness for Hercules. At the same time it probably conveyed a sense of personal triumph. Picinelli in his Mondo symbolico cited an interesting emblem where Hercules' dog, covered in mu- rex' blood and thus empurpled, signified victory. The ultimate one, because it was a part of marquis Guido Villa's funerary ceremony, which took place in 1649. Pici- nelly found it appropriate for a warrior, although he commented that Villa's military triumph -- he was killed at the siege of Cremona -- proved transitory“Impresa nobile, e degna d'vn tanto guerriero” [Picinelli 1653: 224].. There is little doubt that Richelieu's ascension to the cardinalate represented an important victory for him. As attested by his spectacular gesture when he laid the cardinal's hat at Marie's feet, he did not hesitate to acknowledge that “dux fcmina facti”“Il alla ensuite faire ses remerciemens a la reine mere, et mettant son bonnet rouge aux pieds de cette princesse, il lui dit: “Madame, cette pourpre dont je suis redevable a la bienveillance de vostre majeste me fera tousjours souvenir du voeu solennel que j'ai fait de rependre mon sang pour votre service”” [Richelieu 1853: 748n]..

Fig. 9. Zacharie Heince and Francois Bignon, engraved portrait of cardinal de Richelieu, in Les Portraits des hommes illustres frangois qui sont peints dans la gallerie du Palais cardinal de Richelieu (1650)

By the late 1630s Richelieu's position vis-a-vis Louis XIII called for different allegories. Fidelity remained the central characteristic of cardinal's service to the king, but now it was treated as firmly established. So when Guisse designed a device to complement Champaigne's portrait of the cardinal-minister in La Gallerie des hommes illustres (Fig. 9), he used the image of an eagle and the motto “Expertus fidelem Jupiter” (“Proved his fidelity to Jupiter”). The line was taken from Horace's Ode 4.4, where “the winged minister of thunder”“Qualem ministrum fulminis alitem”. I am using eighteenth century prose translation [Horace 1777: 227]. earned Jupiter's trust by abducting Ganymede. Guisse skipped over that fact and focused on its consequences: “Jupiter always loved the eagle for his loyalty and as a reward has given him the power over all birds. The King perceived His Eminence's unparalleled devotion and entrusted him with the government of affairs”“Le Roy a reconnu une fidelite incomparable en son Eminence, & luy a confie le gouvernement de ses affaires” [Guisse 1638: 10]. It is interesting that in Les Portraits this explanation was toned down a bit, and somewhat clarified: the king has “put in his [i. e. Richelieu's] hand the punishment and the reward”, thus concentrating our attention on the thunderbolt, the weaponized expression of Jupiter's trust. See: [Vulson de La Colombiere 1650: Hh^R]..

Fig. 10. Zacharie Heince and Francois Bignon, engraved portrait of abbe de Suger (detail)

This twofold idea that absolute trust leads to the delegation of power played an essential role in Richelieu's propaganda, and therefore was frequently expressed both allegorically and through historical parallels. For instance, abbe de Suger's and cardinal d'Amboise's portraits were commissioned for the Gallery because the first acted as a regent of the realm, and the second, like Richelieu, filled the position of `principal ministre d'Etat'. Suger's political function was evoked by an emblematic image of “a sheepdog [sitting] next to shepherd's staff” (Fig. 10). As we have seen in Dominichi's impresa for the Archbishop of FlorenceSee above, cf.: [Biralli 1600: 36^V]., such imagery was frequently used in ecclesiastic devices to underscore the guardian duty of clergy. But here the idea of protection plays second fiddle to the notion of trust. The emblem's motto, “Absens pastor mihi creadit ouile” (“Absent shepherd entrusted me the flock”), emphasizes the master's faith in his dog's abilities. According to Guisse, when the king (Louis VII) participated in the Second Crusade, he appointed Suger as one of his regents“Le berger s'escarte quelquesfois du troupeau sur l'asseurance qu'il a de son chien. Le Roy allant en Syrie laisse Suger Regent en France”[Guisse 1638: 30].. This historical precedent was increasingly important for Richelieu as Louis XIII's health slowly deteriorated and another period of regency was expected (cf.: [Hildesheimer 2004: 449]). In other words, the image of the dog that guards the flock in the shepherd's absence referred to Suger's achievement and at the same time indicated Richelieu's aspirations.

Fig. 11. “Dalpretium candor”, in SylvesterPetrosancto, De symbolis heroicis libri IX (1634)

I am reluctant to attach too much importance to cardinal d'Amboise's emblematic set because it seems to be put together for the sake of compositional unity (see above). The device that, according to Les Portraits, showed d'Amboise diligent service to the king and the state (a crane standing one leg and holding a stone in another, with familiar motto “Non dormit qui custodit” ) was probably borrowed from earlier emblematic collections. A similar invention can be found in the second volume of Gabriel Rollenhagen's Nucleus emblematum (1613) where the crane is directly associated with a bishop's crosierSee emblem 15 in [Rollenhagen 1613].. Even if it actually belonged to Georges d'Amboise, it does not add much to Richelieu's image, unless the mention of d'Amboise's vigilance“Vne Grue qui dort tenant vne pierre en l'air <...> Ce Cardinal ne prenoit aucun repos qu'en meditant dessein pour l'honneur de son Maistre & pour la gloire de sa Patrie” [Vulson de La Colombiere 1650: Gg^R]. was supposed to refer to Richelieu's insomnia and his habit of spending nights working on the state papers. Nevertheless, this device provides a good point of comparison, demonstrating the difference between ideologically important concepts (an eagle entrusted with Jupiter's thunderbolt, a sheepdog guarding the flock in shepherd's absence) and commonplace ones.

The play with symbolic meaning of a cardinal's purpura definitely belonged to the former category. While such witticisms existed before and after Richelieu's time, they did not seem to be de rigueur. Remarkably, in the Gallery all three cardinals were assigned devices that emphasized their relation to purpura. Again, I have to put aside d'Amboise's image of saffron crocus and the motto “Per aspera purpurastis” (“Empurpled through hardships”): structurally it is close to Boissiere's rosebud (the red color comes from the thorns), and it also involves a wordplay (saffran / souffrance). That leaves only two other purpura devices, Lorraine's and Richelieu's. For the moment let us ignore Guisse's explanation why a murex was deemed appropriate for Lorraine; as usual, he tells only a part of the story. As a member of the Guise family that claimed sovereign status, Charles de Lorraine may have been `born in purple'(“Nobiscum purpura nata est”) both literally and figuratively. He stood very close to the French throne, particularly for the short period when his niece, Mary, Queen of Scots, was married to Francois II. In him the ecclesiastic purple was almost -- but not quite -- mixed with the royal one. As we have seen in cardinal-infante Ferdinand's case, this combination was too symbolically charged to be simply ignored. So Lorraine's murex may have been a reminder of this double claim.

Richelieu's personal and political situation was different. After `la Journee des Dupes' his power became exceptional but it was still delegated to him by the king and therefore fully dependent on Louis XIII's good willCf.: [Hildesheimer 2004: 238].. At the same time his political opponents, particularly from the queen-mother's court, began to insinuate that he was trying to usurp the throne. Significantly, his purpura device showed not a red rose or a bleeding murex but an image of “a crimson and white carnation” with motto “Candorem purpura servat” (“Purple guards candor”)“un oeillet incarnat mesle de blanc” [Guisse 1638: 10].. According to Guisse, this implied that his Eminence's glory stemmed both from his Vatican purple and from his most sincere service to the king. The central concept here is “candor” that in Latin indicates both the color (white) and the moral quality (integrity, sincerity, etc.), thus creating an ingenious word play. In some sense, Richelieu and his em- blematists wanted to demonstrate that his purpura was more white than red.

This marriage between the red and the white could have been achieved by other means. Just a few years earlier Sylvester Petrasancta presented his patron, Pier Luigi Carafa, bishop of Tricarico and Apostolic Nuncio to Cologne, with a similar invention. In his De symbolis heroicis libri IX (1634) he offers an interesting interpretation of purpura that is both red and white: the red alludes to the royal blood of Aragon, while the white signifies Carafa's virtues. The engraving that illustrates this simile shows not a flower but a huge shell lying on a tiny islet and profusely bleeding into the surrounding sea (Fig. 11). The shell looks like a murex's but has a pearl inside, so it is a cross between two kinds of `oysters', the one which denotes “purple / red” and another which signifies “white”. The motto, “Dat pretium candor”, stressed the white component of this invention, and that is probably why Picinelli, who also described that device in his Mondo Simbolico, interpreted it as virtue's prevalence over bloodCf. [Petrosancto 1634: 455-456; Picinelli 1653: 224]..

The white is more important than the red: that was probably the intended message of Richelieu's flower device as well. Lorraine's murex hinted at the idea that the royal and ecclesiastic purple can be united in one personality; but ultimately the House of Guise's ambitions came to naught. Richelieu's red-and-white carnation stated that the difference between the royal white and the cardinal purple should and would remain distinct.

Conclusion

In 1636, a year before Jean Guisse published his Symbola herotea, the Gallery in the Palais-Royal inspired another learned author to contribute to its decoration. Jean du Four from Tours offered several Latin verses for each portrait, celebrating the virtues of the depicted figures, and using them as the foil to the unsurpassable eminence of the cardinal-minister. For instance, he compared Charles de Lorraine to Nestor and at the same time imagined how this sagacious personage would have acknowledged Richelieu's greatnessCf.: “Si tamen hic lusti palmas numerarit, ab astris /Armando dicet, Dux tibi cedo manus” [Du Four 1636: 10].. Whereas cardinal d'Amboise was practically dismissed because he did not have “Armand's genius”“Hunc at fors non respexit, miraris? in illo / Non erat Armandi Principis ingenium” [Du Four 1636: 13]., Du Four did not have much to say about l'abbe de Suger, but “Cardinalis Dux Eminintissimus” definitely made him think of the lightning in the king's hand [Du Four 1636: 10].

Du Four's verses displayed a good understanding of the Gallery's ideological framework. Nevertheless his panegyrics (which were not used in Les Portraits des hommes illustres frangois, where the portraits are introduced by other Latin verses) give a sense that their author was unaware of some finer points. He did get the significance of Lorraine's and d'Amboise's presence but completely missed why the presence of Suger was really important. In other words, his perception of the Gallery was that of a well-informed outsider.

Both Guisse and Boissiere were much closer to Richelieu's network of artists and literati, and therefore more attuned to the interplay of political allusions. That is why I was able to retrace some possible filiations that connected Boissiere's invention first to the Italian pictorial tradition, and second to Richelieu's gallery of historical portraits. This trajectory from Santi di Tito's Discovery of Purple to Guisse's “Nobiscum purpura nata est” shows the constant reshaping of the same story that can be narrated in full or used metonymically, cut down to one or two characters and still remain recognizable -- at least for the contemporaries. Its ideological role may be less interesting than the thought process. Even Menestrier's opportunistic flipping through images in “Fidelite merite Amour” suggests new equivalences that were not evident before.

The same principle of proximity and human communications allows me to suggest some connection between Boissiere's device and Rubens's sketch for the Discovery of Purple. For one thing, the way Boissiere described the dog's posture -- “un chien qui tient une pourpre marine sous les pieds, & a le museau empourpre de sang” -- almost exactly corresponds to what we see in Rubens's work. It is possible that both had the same verbal or iconographic model. But it is also plausible that the artist was aware of Boissiere's invention. In the beginning of 1622 Rubens was in Paris, negotiating the terms of the contract for the Luxembourg Palace with Marie de' Medici's agents, including the Bishop of Lu^on. Afterwards he stayed in close contact with Peiresc and the Du Puy brothers that supplied him with Parisian news and international curiosities. These communications went both ways, which most likely explains why Menestrier's description of his emblem for Charles Emmanuel's wedding“Hercules assis, & caressant son chien, qui a le museau tout teint de pourpre”. sounds like a depiction of Rubens's / Theodoor van Thulden's painting for the Torre de la Parada. The learned emblematist belonged to the same intellectual network that connected Rubens to Peiresc (with whom Menestrier also corresponded) and other antiquarians.

By putting the Flemish artist next to the French emblem-maker I do not want to overstress the latter's importance but to draw attention to another curious fact. When we consider Theodore von Loon's and Cornelius Galle's engraving for Purpura Austriaca, it seems to follow in Taddeo Zuccaro's or Santi di Tito's footsteps by lining up all the dramatis personae from Pollux's legend. Whereas Rubens's Discovery of Purple moves in the opposite direction: its narrative technique is more emblem-like. Not only because it leaves out Tyro and her request, but also because it is perfectly recognizable and at the same time slightly enigmatic as attested by the variety of interpretations it inspires.

Sources

1. Alciato, A. (1534). Emblematum libellus. Paris: Chr. Wechel. (In Latin).

2. Aristotle. (1619). Aristotelous Peri zoon istorias. Aristotelis Historia de animalibus. lulio Cae- sare Scaligero interprete, cum eiusdem commentaries. Philippus Jacobus Maussacus, in senatu Tolosano consiliarius regius, ex bibliotheca paterna opus a multis abhinc annis ex- petitum primus vulgauit & restituit, additis prolegomenis & animaduersionibus. Tolosae: R. Colomerij, typographi regij. (In Latin).

3. Baro, B. (2015). Theatre complet (Vol. 1). Paris: Classiques Garnier. (In French).

4. Berni, Fr. (1656). L'esequie trionfali del marchese Guido Villa logotenente generale dell'armi di

5. S. Chiesa etc. Ferrara: Per gli heredi del Gironi. (In Italian).

6. Binet, E. (1622). Essay des merveilles de nature, et des plus nobles artifices. Piece tres neces- saire a tous ceux qui font profession d'eloquence. 2^nd ed. Rouen: J. Osmont. (In French).

7. Biralli, S. (1600). Dell'imprese scelte, Dove trovansi tutte quelle, che da diversi autori stampate, si tendon conformi alle regole, & alleprincipali qualita (Vol. 1). Venezia: Gio. tt. Ciotti. (In Italian).

8. Boissiere, J.-Fr de (1654). Les Devises: Avec un Traite des Reigles de la Devise. Paris: A. Courbe. (In French).

9. Bouhours, D. (1671). Les entretiens d'Ariste etd'Eugene. Paris: S. Mabre-Cramoisy. (In French).

10. Du Ferron, R. (1626). Vita illustrissimi domini cardinalis Richelieu, praefecti intimi senatus re- gis Galliarum. Avreliae: Arn. Martz. (In Latin).

11. Du Four, J. (1636). Eminentissimi cardinalis ducis de Richelieu porticus Parisina. Parisiis: Her- vetum du Mesnil. (In Latin).

12. Duret, Cl. (1605). Histoire admirable desplantes et herbes esmerveillables et miraculeuses en nature. Paris: N. Buon. (In French).

13. Ferro, G. (1629). Ombre apparenti nel teatro d'imprese di Giovanni Ferro. Venezia: G. Sarzina. (In Italian).

14. Gale, Th. (1672). The court of the gentiles: or A discourse touching the original of human literature, both philologie andphilosophie, from the Scriptures & Jewish church. Oxon: H. Hall.

15. Geliot, L. (1635). Indice armorial, ou Sommaire explication des mots usitez au blason des ar- moiries. Paris: P. Billaine. (In French).

16. Guisse, J. (1638). Symbola hero'tca. Porticus Eminentissimi Cardinalis Ducis. Parisiis: Io. Bes- sin & N. Trabovillet. (In Latin).

17. Heyns, Z. (1625). Emblemata. Emblemes chrestienes, et morales. Sinne-beelden streckende tot Christelicke bedenckinghe ende leere der zedicheyt. Rotterdam: P van Waesberge. (In French, Dutch).

18. Horace. (1777). The Works: Translated Literally Into English Prose by C. Smart. Edinburgh:

19. J. Dickson; J. Duncan.

20. Latini, Br. (1863). Li livres dou tresor. Publ. pour la premiere fois d'apres les manuscrits de la Bibliotheque imperiale, de la Bibliotheque de l'Arsenal, et plusieurs manuscrits des departements et de l'etranger par P. Chabaille. Paris: Impr. Imperiale. (In French).

21. Menestrier Fr. (1662). L'Art des emblemes. Lyon: B. Coral. (In French).

22. Menestrier Fr. (1663). Les Noeuds de l'amour, dessein de l'appareil dresse par les soins du Senat, de la Chambre des Comptes, & des Consuls de la Ville de Chambery, a l'entree de Leurs

23. AA. RR. dans la mesme Ville, a l'occasion de leurMariage. Lyon: P Guillimin. (In French).

24. Paradin, Cl. (1551). Devises heroiques. Lyon: J. de Tournes & G. Gazeau. (In French).

25. Paradin, Cl. (1557). Devises heroiques. Lyon: J. de Tournes & G. Gazeau. (In French).

26. Paradin, Cl. (1591). The heroicall deuises ofM. Claudius Paradin, Canon of Beauieu. Whereunto are added the Lord Gabriel Symeons and others. P S. (Trans. out of Latin). London: W. Kearney.

27. Petrosancto, S. (1634). De symbolis heroicis libri IX. Antuerpiae: ex Officina Plantiniana Bal. Moreti. (In Latin).

28. Picinelli, F (1653). Mondo symbolico o sia universita d'imprese scelte, spiegate, ed illustrate con sentenze ed erudizioni sacre e profane. Milano: Fr. Mongnagha. (In Italian).

29. Piraltus, A. (1626). Quwstio Politica An Recte Cardinalis Richelius Suaserit, Fieri Pacem A Rege Galliae Cum Rebellibus Hugenottis, ut Bellum Transferatur In Palatinatum Adversus Hispanum. Lugduni. (In Latin).

30. Puteanus, E. (1635). Purpura Austriaca Hierobasilica, sacram et regiam serenissimi principis Ferdinandi hispaniarum infantis, S. R. E. Cardinalis, imaginem colore panegyrico reprae- sentans. Antverpiae: J. Cnobbaert. (In Latin).

31. Rollenhagen, G. (1613). Nucleus emblematum selectissimorum, quae italici vulgo impresas vo- cant priuata industria studio singulari, undique conquisitus, non paucis venustis inuentioni- bus auctus, centuria secunda. Colonia: ex officina Cr. Passaei. (In Latin).

32. Richelieu, A. J. du Plessis de (1853). Lettres, instructions diplomatiques etpapiers d'Etatdu Cardinal de Richelieu (Vol. 1) 1608-1624. M. Avenel (Publ.). Paris: Impr. Imperiale. (In French). Rigault, N. (1601/ Funus parasiticum, sive L. Biberii Curculionis parasiti mortualia: item Ju- liani Caesaris epistola adAlexandrinos. Lutetiae: A.Drouart. (In Latin).

33. Sauval, H. (1724). Histoire et recherches des antiquites de la ville de Paris (Vol. 2). Paris: Ch. Moette & J. Chardon. (In French).

34. Thomas Aquinas (1508). Thomae Aquinatis Opuscula varia: cum summa totius logicae, et trac- tatu celeberrimo de usuris; cum vita S. Thomae. Venetiis. (In Latin).

35. Thomassin, L. (1682). La methode d'etudier et d'enseigner chretiemmement & solidement les lettres humaines. T.II. Paris: F Muget. (In French).

36. Vigenere, Bl. De. (1578). Les Images, ou Tableaux de Platte Peinture de Philostrate Lemnien Sophiste Grec. Mis en Francois par Blaise de Vigenere, Avec des Argumens & Annotations sur chacun d'iceux. Paris: N. Chesneau. (In French).

37. Vossius, G. J. (1641). De theologia gentili etphysiologia christiana; sive De origine ac progres- su idolatriae. Liber I, et II. Amsterdami: Ioh. & C. Blau. (In Latin).

38. Vulson de La Colombiere, M. de (1644). La Science hero'tque, traitant de la noblesse, de l'ori- gine des armes, etc. Paris: S. & G. Cramoisy. (In French).

39. Vulson de La Colombiere, M. de (1650). Les Portraits des hommes illustres franpois qui sont peints dans la gallerie du Palais cardinal de Richelieu, avec leurs principales actions, armes, devises et eloges latins, desseigpez et gravezpar les sieurs Heince et Bignon. Ensemble lis Abregez historiques de leurs vies. Paris: H. Sira, J. Pasli & Ch. de Sercy. (In French).

References

1. Adams, A., Rawles, S., Saunders, A. (1999). A bibliography of French emblem books (Vol. 2) L-Z. Geneve: Librairie Droz.

2. Alpers, S. (1971). The decoration of the Torre de la Parada. New York: Phaidon.

3. Bertram, G. (2018). Peter Paul Rubens as a designer of title pages: Title page production and design in the beginning of the Seventeenth century. [Heidelberg]: Arthistoricum.net, Heidelberg Univ. Library.

4. Church, W.F. (1972). Richelieu and Reason of State. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.

5. Delaroche, P., Dupont, H., Lenormant, Ch. (Eds.) (1836). Tresor de numismatique et de glyp- tique, ou Recueil general de medailes, monnaies, pierres gravees, bas-reliefs, etc., tant an- ciens que modernes, les plus interessans sous le rapport de l'art et de l'histoire. Vol. 10-12: Medailles frangaises depuis le regne de Charles VII jusqu'a celui de Louis XVI. Premiere partie. Paris: Rittner et Goupil. (In French).

6. Duccini, H. (2003). Faire voir, faire croire. L'opinionpublique sous LouisXIII. Seyssel: Champ Vallon. (In French).

7. Garrigues, V (2006). Adrien de Monluc, 1571-1646: D'encre et de sang. Limoges: Presses uni- versitaires de Limoges. (In French).

8. Georgievska-Shine, A., Silver, L. (2014). Rubens, Velazquez, and the King of Spain. Farnham: Ashgate Publishing Ltd.

9. Hulsen, Chr. (1917). Romische Antikengarten desXVI. Jahrhunderts. Heidelberg: Winter. (In German).

10. Hildesheimer, Fr. (2000). Les scrupules de Richelieu. Journal des savants, 1(1), 99-122. (In French).

11. Hildesheimer, Fr. (2004). Richelieu. Paris: Flammarion. (In French).

12. Janik, A. (1996). L'entree et le sejour de Louis XIII a Toulouse en novembre 1621. Annales du Midi: revue archeologique, historique etphilologique de la France meridionale, 108(216), 421-439. (In French).

13. Kirchner, Th. (2009). Richelieu et son usage programmatique de 1'art. L'image du cardinal dans le decor de ses residences. In J.-Cl. Boyer, B. Gady, B. Gaehtgens (Eds.). Richelieu, Patron des arts, 251-272. Paris: Editions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme. (In French).

14. Klecker, E. (2000). Purpura non vellere, sed virtute nobilis. Panegyrische Tradition und liter- arische Originalitat in Erycius Puteanus' Purpura Austriaca. Humanistic Lovaniensia. Journal of Neo-Latin Studies, 49, 301-315.

15. Knaap, A. C., Putnam, M. C. J. (Eds.) (2013). Art, music, and spectacle in the age of Rubens: The Pompa Introitus Ferdinandi. London: Harvey Miller Publishers.

16. McGrath, E. (2009). Artists, their books, and subjects from mythology. In C. Van de Velde (Ed.). Classical mythology in the Netherlands in the age of Renaissance and Baroque: Proceedings of the international conference, Antwerp, 19-21 May 2005, 301-332. Leuven: Peeters.

17. Morford, M. P O. (1991). Stoics and Neostoics: Rubens and the circle of Lipsius. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press.

18. Orbaan, J. A. F. (1920). Documenti sul barocco in Roma (Vol. 2). Rome: Societa Romana di Sto- ria Patria. (In Italian).

19. Praz, M. (2001). Studies in seventeenth-century imagery. Rome: Ed. di Storia e Letteratura.

20. Russell, D. S. (1985). The emblem and device in France. Lexington, Kentucky: French Forum Publishers.

21. Russell, D. S. (1995). Emblematic structures in Renaissance French culture. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.

22. Sauvel, T. (1960). De l'hotel de Rambouillet au Palais-Cardinal. Bulletin Monumental, 118(3), 169-190. (In French).

23. Schneider, R. A. (1989). Public life in Toulouse, 1463-1789: From municipal republic to cosmopolitan city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.

24. Spalding, J. (1981). Santi di Tito and the Studiolo of Francesco I. Antichita' viva, 20, 18-22.

25. Spalding, J. (1982). Santi Di Tito. New York: Garland.

26. Thuau, E. (2000). Raison d'Etat etpenseepolitique a l'epoque de Richelieu. Postface de Gerard Mairet. Paris: Albin Michel. (In French).

27. Winston-Allen, A. (1997). Stories of the rose: The making of the rosary in the Middle Ages. University Park, Penn.: Pennsylvania State Univ. Press.

Размещено на Allbest.ru