Abstract The French royal family was living in exile at Blois when the Queen Mother of France, Catherine de’ Medici (b. 1519), dictated her will on the morning of her death, on 5 January 1589. She bequeathed to her granddaughter, Christine of Lorraine (1565–1637), one half of her movable possessions. This paper explores the nature and meanings embedded in the testamentary bequest and the corresponding inventory of the movable goods acquired by Christine through this gift and eventually brought to Florence on the occasion of her marriage in 1589 to Ferdinando de’ Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany (1549–1609). A translation of the inventory is provided in an online appendix. In this essay is presented the first publication in English of the Inventario di Robe venute di Francia alla Ser.maMad.maCristiana di Loreno Gran Duchadi Toscana stateli lasciate per testam.todalla Crist.maRegina, Madre del Re Enrico 0/3 stimate l’anno 1589 Parte dal S.rBernardo Vecchietti, et Giaches Gioiell.reet parte da Benedetto et Vinc.oBuommattei.1 The translated text of the inventory (online Appendix i) may help resolve some of the problematic idiosyncrasies of the sixteenth-century Florentine vernacular while making the contents accessible to a wide readership. The inventory is also used to explore the extent and character of the collection of Christine of Lorraine. More broadly, it will be of value to scholars who make use of inventories of possessions in order to explore the collections which they document, especially those of royal women in sixteenth-century France and Italy. As an independent source of study, the inventory provides many details of historical value; for example, it establishes ownership, valuation, the quantities of the items concerned and (to varying degrees) their measurements, materials, techniques, weights, and place of origin. However, the title of the manuscript may easily mislead those who make use of it to investigate its contents. It records the belongings Christine brought from France which had been left to her ‘in testament’ by Catherine de’ Medici.2 From this description, the reader might reasonably (though erroneously) assume that Catherine would have chosen each item listed in the manuscript to bequeath to her granddaughter. This essay explains how and why the inventory does not record individual objects as selected by Catherine: as we shall see, it remains unknown who was responsible for selecting the items listed. For this reason, the title of this commentary purposefully ascribes a more accurate meaning of the manuscript, appropriately stating Christine ‘acquired’ the movable property of her inheritance.3 Focusing on primary resources, we shall explore the socio-political and historical influences shaping the character and contents of the manuscript; the nature of the inventory itself will be illuminated by examining the meanings embedded in its text. In this way, future researchers will be alerted to its advantages and limitations. The inventory was made for use by the Medici guardaroba, a wardrobe-lined room in the Palazzo Vecchio. It is a redaction of the original manuscript prepared in the Palazzo Pitti on 9 May 1589, under the supervision of the notary Zanobi Paccali.4 A copy was made for use in the Medici household accounts.5 The present inventory was selected for publication rather than the other versions for two reasons: first, only this inventory includes subsequent notations describing the circumstances of the elimination of specific objects from the wardrobe; and second, this additional information remains a fertile ground from which future studies may investigate the continued trajectory of these objects following their deliberate extraction. Three exhibitions have given attention to the surviving decorative art objects in the collection of the Museo degli Argenti, Florence. In 1956 the ‘L’Italia splendida’ exhibition took place, followed in 1980 by an exhibition of objects of decorative art from the Medici collection.6 Many of the same items were included in a third exhibition in 1997, which brought together paintings and sculptures with decorative material belonging to the Medici.7 An illustrated study that explores the materials, makers and techniques of all known extant objects, now in the collections of the Museo degli Argenti, was added to the bibliography of published materials in 2008, but it remains unpublished.8 While we have no intention here to return to analyses of each surviving object, the present commentary offers an impression of the movable items within Christine’s inheritance. It also includes a concordance between the extant objects listed in the wardrobe inventory and the subsequent archival inventories that secure their provenance. Ferdinando de’ Medici: a critical ally During what are known today as the Wars of Religion, France found itself in a state of chaos, with brutal infighting between the Protestant Huguenots and Roman Catholics led by the French Holy Catholic League, whose goal was to overthrow the royal House of Valois. Catherine de’ Medici’s attempts to bring about a peaceful resolution between the two factions failed. The treasury was bankrupt, loans to defend the crown were denied,9 and the League was in control of nearly all the governing bodies of France. The ineffectual King Henry III, along with the royal family, fled the war-ravaged capital of Paris following the infamous ‘Day of the Barricades’ (12 May 1588), and the court settled at the royal château of Blois.10 The only real hope of restoring the Valois to the throne was to secure a political alliance, a possibility that took form when Francesco de’ Medici died in October 1587, and his brother in Rome, Cardinal Ferdinando de’ Medici, succeeded him as Grand Duke of Tuscany.11 As a political ally, Ferdinando would bring both his financial strength and pro-French sympathies, which were well known amongst his contemporaries.12 In November 1587, Catherine de’ Medici began to push for a marriage between Christine of Lorraine and Ferdinando de’ Medici, through a complex marital strategy intended to cement dynastic and political alliances and ultimately to restore the Valois monarchy.13 The queen mother’s marital negotiations represented a royal duty, shared with and implemented by other rulers and it was Catherine who expertly negotiated the marriage contract that was signed at Blois on 8 December 1588.14 A signed marriage contract, however, constituted an expression of a matrimonial project and not an irreversible union: indeed, the engagement could easily be have been dismissed and considered little more than a diplomatic indiscretion. Celebration of the engagement by proxy and the subsequent wedding with the bride and groom present were needed to finalize the marriage. Securing the marriage: the bequest of movable property A royal marriage was an essential expression and function of international politics in which the movable goods brought by a princess to her marriage were tangible and symbolic vehicles of dynastic power, as well as being indications of her status and honour. According to the marriage articles, Christine would bring to the marriage 50,000 scudi, and ‘rings or other things’ as collateral for future instalments on her dowry in capital.15 No mention was made in the contract of the costly furnishings, clothing and precious objects that a royal bride traditionally brought to her marriage. For instance, François I listed the movable property in the marriage contract he negotiated for Louise Borgia (1500–1553).16 Another example which includes belongings and jewels is the dowry brought by Anne of Austria (1601–1666) at her marriage to Louis XIII of France (1601–1643), as stipulated in her marriage contract.17 Both Catherine de’ Medici and the Princess of Lorraine would have been acutely aware of this significant omission in Christine’s marriage contract; yet, within the context of international relations, the preparation of a princess’s trousseau was a duty shared and implemented by other rulers during the wedding arrangements of female family, kin, and royal favourites. And Catherine had an ingenious plan. The French royal family was founded on the transmission of the royal domain down the male line by way of inheritance, while daughters received their portion by way of a dowry. Thus both male and female children, including natural born children, were provided for.18 Christine of Lorraine, of course, did not have access to the royal domain as the daughter of the late princess Claude of France (1547–75). But, through a skilful legal manoeuvre, Catherine provided her granddaughter with the material of her trousseau by way of an inter-vivos donation, which allowed Catherine to make a gift during her lifetime of her acquired movable property.19 By way of this essential gift, Catherine ensured that ‘her granddaughter for having raised her like her own daughter’20 would hold full ownership of her own possessions, specifically tapestries, wall hangings, and clothing – even if the engagement to the grand duke were dismissed.21 Within the following month, several important events occurred that influenced the material of Christine’s inheritance. First, the spread of French Calvinism had persuaded Catherine to show more tolerance for the Huguenots, a move that, in turn, angered the French Holy Catholic League and their leaders Henry, Duke of Guise (1550–1588), and Louis II, Cardinal of Guise (1555–1588). Defying his mother, King Henry decided to rid himself of the Guises in an attempt to extinguish the power of the League and regain control of the government: he had both Guise brothers assassinated during the Estates-General held at Blois.22 As a result, their brother, the Duke of Mayenne (Charles of Lorraine, 1554–1611), who was already commander of the League’s army, became the new leader of the League. With the assassination of the Guises, the historical, political, and dynastic circumstances under which the Duke of Tuscany was engaged to Christine of Lorraine had change drastically: would Ferdinando still want to align himself through marriage with such a troubled country and the collapsing royal house of Valois? The future of France, compounded with the hoped-for marital alliance between Christine and Ferdinando, were undoubtedly foremost in the mind of the queen mother when she prepared her will only a few weeks later. Suffering from the sudden onset of a septic embolism,23 the sixty-nine-year-old queen mother dictated her final wishes on her deathbed on 5 January 1589. Even with death at hand, Catherine had another strategy for the devolution of her property that continued her lifelong political ambitions for France. In it, Christine received special recognition ‘for the good friendship24 which she has and retains for Madame Christine, Princess of Lorraine’.25 With the exception of their religious donations of a pious nature, queens and consorts traditionally bequeathed their remaining property to their closest male relative and thus maintained the custom of primogeniture. But, as queen consort and queen mother, like those before her, Catherine had no participation in royal inheritance and the crown domain, but rather held the same legal rights as a private citizen to own and transfer property during her lifetime and upon death.26 Ignoring societal structures and royal tradition, Catherine passed down ‘half of all and each of her movable properties’27 to her granddaughter, rather than leaving all her goods to her son, the king.28 This begs the question of what were the movable goods Christine would select for her inheritance and where would she obtain them? The queen mother had devised another testamentary plan that would answer those questions. In her will, she also left to Christine her personal Parisian residence known as the Hôtel de la Reine.29 Here, Catherine occupied her own five-room apartment along with the three other members of the immediate royal family, in addition to Christine, marking her important rank within the family.30 Apart from making use of the crowded and noisy Louvre, Catherine held functions of national and international importance in the Hôtel, displayed her luxurious state furnishings and portraits, and maintained a collection of natural and man-made objects in the collector’s cabinet noted in her probate inventory as a ‘storeroom-cabinet’.31 In the Hôtel de la Reine, the Princess of Lorraine learned about the public and private values associated with the ownership and display of luxurious furnishings as well as the rare and precious objects represented in her grandmother’s collection.32 Christine was, after all, raised by the foremost female collector of her time: this notable distinction was the purview of contemporary male rulers; for instance, Ferdinand II (1503–1554) at Schloss Ambras; Albrecht V (1528–1579) in Munich, and the Medici grand dukes beginning with Cosimo I, amongst others. Following a tradition established by rulers in the Middle Ages, Catherine de’ Medici put on display in her Hôtel precious and costly objects for important events, which functioned as symbolic vehicles of the power and wealth of the French monarchy. But rather than the time-honoured display of inherently valuable gold and silver plate, she put on view contemporary man-made objects that were especially appreciated amongst collectors for their exquisite craftsmanship.33 In 1580 during the period leading up to Ash Wednesday, the queen mother invited ambassadors from England, Spain, Venice, Portugal, Savoy, and Ferrara, as well as the papal nuncio, to the Hôtel de la Reine.34 Christine, then fourteen-years old, was given the prominent role of greeting and accompanying the wife of the English ambassador Henry Cobham (1537–92) during her stay.35 Lord Cobham recorded his experiences at the Hôtel de la Reine in a letter to be shared with Queen Elizabeth (1533–1603). In his report, he recorded the queen mother’s display of objects that she would have removed from her collector’s cabinet for this occasion. He wrote: Then their Majesties arose, and I waited on them into an adjoining chamber, where were two long tables furnished with a banquet,36 wherein the dishes were all of ‘India earth of China,’ [porcelain] the bowls and cups all of crystal. There was a ‘cupbarde’37 furnished only with crystal cups of sundry fashions and rare workmanship, among which was one very great covered cup of agate and a small one of lapis lazuli.38 Catherine’s diplomatic showing of delicate Chinese porcelain along with rock crystal and hardstone vessels not only served to establish her collecting preferences and tastes, but marked her position as an important royal collector on the international stage. The testamentary bequest of the Hôtel de la Reine and its contents was a vehicle of dynastic propaganda, adding fuel to the marital interests of Christine’s father, Charles III, Duke of Lorraine (1543–1608), who understood the importance of securing this decisive alliance. To further advance his daughter’s standing in the eyes of her betrothed, Charles wrote to Ferdinando de’ Medici and while emphasizing Catherine and Christine’s close relationship, he stressed the fact that his daughter was now endowed with property worth more than her dowry.39 Likewise, Rucellai, the grand duke’s ambassador at the French royal court, also called attention to the financial value of Christine’s movable goods in a separate letter to Ferdinando’s secretary:40 although the ambassador did not know the exact monetary value, he believed it to be ‘great’.41 Just as Catherine intended, Christine’s ownership of the inherited movable property had become a potent political tool in finalizing her marriage. Expectation of it apparently secured the grand duke’s decision to move forward with the wedding: the engagement by proxy took place at Chéverny, a few miles from Blois, on 24 February 1589.42 Catherine prepared her granddaughter for a future as a royal bride by exposing her to a combination of first-hand experience, observation and direct instruction. Indeed, she was well ‘nourished in affairs and public counsels’ by the queen mother, according to Ferdinando’s French ambassador.43 From an early age, Christine acquired an understanding of the wealth and status manifest in the presentation of semi-precious hardstone vessels from Catherine’s collector’s cabinet, which so notably captured Cobham’s attention. From her grandmother’s collecting interests and activities, Christine would also have learned about the Medici’s attempts to compete with the Milanese productions of exceptional engraved rock crystal and hardstone vessels at the grand ducal workshops.44 Francesco and Ferdinando developed their own interests in such objects from their respective fathers.45 Indeed, as grand duke, Francesco organized the vast Medici collections and contained them in the Uffizi, effectively establishing what is the Uffizi Museum today. He constructed and decorated a special room for the display of the most remarkable objects, the Tribuna, which was maintained by his successor Ferdinando.46 Facing the challenges: the acquisition of movable goods from the Hôtel de la Reine In a courtly culture consumed by notions of familial and dynastic honour and prestige, ownership of an impressive inheritance that once belonged to the Medici-born queen mother of France was a steadfast way for Christine to promote her own power, wealth, and lineage at the Medici court. The familiar state furnishings and decorative objects in the remarkable Hôtel de la Reine where she had lived alongside her grandmother were now hers. Thus, Christine naturally set her sights on acquiring her inheritance from the royal palace. Within days following Catherine’s death, three noteworthy events occurred almost simultaneously, each affecting Christine’s ability to secure her possession. First, as standard legal protocol, the residence was locked and sealed for ‘the conservation of the right of the king’.47 This act was intended to prevent plundering or any other removal of the Hôtel’s contents before a listing of them could take place. Second, the Duke of Mayenne, leader of the Holy Catholic League, had moved into the Hôtel with this family.48 The locks and seals of the residence could not withstand the ambitions and determination of Mayenne: he helped himself to furnishings and decorative objects from the late queen mother’s estate.49 An inventory of these objects includes a state bed, tapestries from Brussels, embroidered silk wall hangings, sundials, cabinets in ebony, ivory and marquetry, pieces of coral, clothing, and Chinese porcelain dishes.50 Third, Christine ordered her former governess and confidante Mme Marigny51 to travel from Blois to the Hôtel and to take ownership of her (as-yet undocumented) inheritance,52 despite the fact that Paris was controlled by Mayenne and the angry Leaguers. For her own protection, Christine had no other option but to move forward on her own and to send her confidante into a dangerous and volatile place on her behalf. The rapidity with which Christine gave Mme Marigny the order makes clear the importance she assigned to establishing her ownership. By 9 February, Marigny had evidently been unable to fulfil this monumental mission, for Cavriana, an Italian physician in the service of Catherine as well as the grand duke’s envoy, wrote to Ferdinando’s secretary informing him that Christine refused to leave France without her inheritance.53 Being raised by the queen mother of France had provided Christine with a substantial understanding of domestic and international politics. Christine would have been present, like Catherine’s daughters, when the queen mother developed political strategies and reacted to the events of the religious wars against the Holy Catholic League. Indeed, Catherine’s daughter Isabel acquired such fine training at her mother’s side that she was the only one of King Philip II’s four wives to wield influence over his private and political life.54 Likewise, the memoirs of Marguerite reveal her intelligent insights into political matters, which she attributes to her presence during recurring discussions of matters of state in her mother’s cabinet, bedchamber, and dinner table.55 Cavriana praised Christine, asserting that she had gained such political expertise alongside her grandmother that ‘no one was more instructed in the management of the State other than Catherine and Queen Elizabeth of England’.56 With the power of the monarchy essentially usurped by the League, Christine ignored any immediate allegiance to the king. Instead, she took matters into her own hand. Acknowledging that Mayenne’s absolute power and rank commanded her respect, she in turn asserted her own authority and position. She directed her attention to Mayenne and asked that he ‘release the movable goods of the late queen from her house in Paris’.57 By then, Christine would have learned that Mayenne and his family had taken over the Hôtel de la Reine and its contents. The leader of the League agreed to her request, possibly because he knew that Christine was leaving France to marry the grand duke of Tuscany and also because her request for items once belonging to the late queen mother from the Hôtel was relatively inconsequential. Having said that, within the context of the Wars of Religion his accommodating response could have been interpreted as a gesture of goodwill. Whatever the case, Mayenne worked with her ‘gentleman’ – perhaps Francis Bardin58 – towards their removal on 2 March 1589.59 Bardin took possession of approximately 465 objects, yet approximately 5,000 objects remained in the Hôtel when Catherine’s probate inventory was prepared four months later. The late queen mother’s testamentary bequest of one half of all of her movable estate to Christine is therefore not reflected in the Medici wardrobe inventory. Bardin got hold of a great deal of many of the most inherently desirable objects in the Hôtel, many of which demonstrated the particular collecting interests of Ferdinando – specifically the engraved hardstone and rock crystal vessels. No known documents survive to suggest how, or to what extent, Christine may have played a part in the selection of items from the royal residence, yet it seems unlikely (though not open to proof) that she did not further assert her authority and position by ordering Bardin to remove specific objects from the Hôtel. Until further information comes to light, however, this possibility must remain open to speculation. A movable inheritance The most highly valued item inherited by Christine was a remarkable bed of estate, clearly made for a royal owner.60 Most exceptional was the costly pearl embellishment used in the trimming.61 Even for royal women with great purchasing power, pearls embellished their most formal gowns or were worn as necklaces far more often than being used to adorn their state furnishings.62 It may be noted that during the reign of Henry II, the French royal inventory of 1551 added two beds of estate with pearl embellished hangings,63 presumably for Henry and Catherine; the queen mother would seem to have used this elaborate bed of estate at her Parisian palace. Such a prized luxury item would have firmly established Christine’s position as a royal princess of the highest standing within the Medici court.64 Also significant in material and social value were the rich silk textiles of scarlet damask, gold and silver brocade, and a combination of turquoise and white shot-silk.65 The nearly 2,000 metres of these textiles indicates that they were actually wall hangings, comparable to the extensive decorative schemes of illustrious residences such as Ferdinando de’ Medici’s Roman palace during his cardinalate as well as the Palazzo Pitti.66 Christine inherited more hangings than were owned by Gabrielle d’Estrées (1573–1599), mistress of Henry IV (1553–1610), or Henry’s sister Catherine of Bourbon (1559–1604).67 The dynastic prestige connected to their royal history, their current ownership and their display in her apartment in the Palazzo Pitti, would have further demonstrated her wealth, lineage and dynastic associations. Yet above that, Christine’s the majority of inherited possessions came from her grandmother’s cabinet, which together formed a distinct collection. This was a remarkable achievement among royal women of this period: by comparison, the probate inventory of Louise of Lorraine records only movable items with a primarily utilitarian function, and even such an avid collector as Catherine of Austria (1533–1572), owned a much smaller collection.68 Amongst women, only Isabella d’Este (1474–1539), a fervent patron of the arts and a notable collector, owned a collection similarly dominated by elaborate vessels of semi-precious stone and rock crystal, in addition to remarkable cabinets and time-pieces.69 From the Hôtel de la Reine, Christine acquired Catherine de’ Medici’s entire collection of engraved rock crystal70 and hardstone vessels with elaborate mounts71 – a total of forty-one objects. This would have been a celebrated addition to any collection and certainly for her future husband Ferdinando, for whom these items held a specific interest. The finest engraved works were produced in Milan by the two celebrated workshops of the Miseroni and Sarachi, also famous for producing the elaborate, costly decorative mounts associated with them.72 The Sarachi workshop is perhaps represented in Christine’s collection by way of a rock crystal flask of bulbous shape, engraved with a representation of Apollo dwelling on Mount Parnassus among the muses; on the other side of the flask is a scene illustrating the Judgement of Midas.73 Heinzl-Wied attributes this flask to the Sarachi workshop on the basis of its delicate engraving, subject, form, and mounts, while Scalini is less certain of its attribution.74 More certain of a Sarachi workshop production is a rock crystal jug with elaborate engravings depicting hunting scenes and landscapes with allegorical figures representing the Four Elements in the form of Neptune, Juno, Ceres, and Vulcan.75 The design of the Four Elements is considered a liberal interpretation of a Four Seasons design by Annibale Fontana of Milan, c.1580, which helps date the piece.76 Also attributed to the Sarachi is a rock crystal cup in the shape of a cistern with two gold enamelled handles in the form of herms.77 Despite a lack of supporting documentation, by virtue of her patronage, purchasing power and not to mention interest in such objects, the quantities involved, it is reasonable to suggest that Catherine commissioned at least some of these desirable vessels from the Milanese masters, although this remains conjecture. Marking Catherine’s Medici-Valois lineage is an engraved rock crystal salver engraved with a representation of Noah’s Ark.78 Piacenti-Aschengreen and Hayward suggest the salver was commissioned by Pope Clement VII (born Giulio de’ Medici, 1478–1534) and came to France with Catherine in 1533, on the occasion of her marriage.79 However, the popular lapidary Giovanni Bernardi (1496–1553) refers to his then current work on a dish with the story of Noah in a letter of 1 May 1546 addressed to Cardinal Alessandro Farnese (1520–1589):80 considering that Bernardi’s letter was written one year after the pope’s death and twelve years after the wedding of Catherine and Henry, it seems more probable to this author that Cardinal Farnese gave the salver to Henry to mark his succession to the throne in 1547. One item Christine inherited from Catherine is the now well-known rock crystal and silver-gilt cabinet with the arms and device of Pope Clement VII, signed and dated by the lapidary Valerio Belli (1465–1564) in 1532.81 Clement commissioned the cabinet as a gift to Francis I to commemorate the wedding of Catherine and the Dauphin, Henry.82 The cabinet is comprised of eight square, rock crystal panels engraved with scenes depicting the Passion, divided by fluted columns, with a base and frieze with gold filigree and enamel flowers in white, red and black. The cover carries eight engraved, rock crystal panels representing the Passion, with representations of the arms of the Pope, and the inscription ‘cle vii pont max’. This elaborate presentation piece appears in the 1561 inventory of the French crown jewels as, ‘Ung coffer de crystal gravé et garny d’argent doré et de quelques frizes emaillées, pesantxvmarcziionces, estiméiiic’.83 Clearly, Catherine removed this gift from the royal wardrobe to add to her collection. The dual Medici-Valois references and the royal history embedded in this object would visually and symbolically transfer to Christine of Lorraine as Grand Duchess of Tuscany. Contemporary fascination for mathematical instruments is represented by an astrolabe and sundial,84 in addition to seven elaborate mechanical clocks with gold, rock crystal, mother-of-pearl, diamond, ruby and emerald ornamentations.85 King Francis offered mechanical, or chiming, clocks as diplomatic gifts, as did Queen Elizabeth, whose royal inventory of 1572 categorized these objects as jewels.86 The interest in such highly admired works lay in the fact that they combined the innovative mathematical competence and technical ability of the clock-maker with the expertise of a goldsmith skilled in the use, design, and decoration of the precious metal case enclosing the mechanical device.87 It may be noted that within two years of her death, Catherine purchased three mechanical clocks,88 although – like the crystal and hardstone vessels – none appear in her probate inventory. In 1589, the year Christine succeeded as Grand Duchess of Tuscany, Ferdinando de’ Medici had drawn up the first inventory of the Medici collections in the Tribuna, with objects carefully categorized by typology.89 A second and more comprehensive inventory listed the objects added to the Tribuna between 1603 and 1634, including Christine’s collection of rock crystal and hardstone vessels, contained and displayed in a prominent room within the Uffizi, the Stanza di Madama.90 This room was located where the Cabinet of Miniatures is today, in the east corridor of the Uffizi towards the River Arno.91 Christine’s collection of decorative objects was not only clearly associated with the Medici collections but also was given the distinction of a separate and important contribution to them. It is not known who selected the objects for the Stanza di Madama, although both Christine and Ferdinando were familiar with the objects as well as the various significances ascribed to their public display.92 Conclusion This commentary on the acquisition of Christine of Lorraine’s inherited movable objects has provided a clearer appreciation for the uses of the inventory as a source for study. It is easy to be misled by the title or contents alone of an inventory of possessions, without an understanding of the nature and meanings embedded in it. Here we have sought to eliminate misconceptions about the items left to Christine by way of her grandmother’s testamentary bequest by providing a context for the inventory and by drawing attention to the influences shaping its history and contents. Having been brought up by the queen mother, Christine occupied her own apartment in the Hôtel de la Reine and attended official functions there for nearly a decade. Naturally, she was thoroughly familiar with the magnificent state furnishings in the royal residence as well as the inherently and dynastically valuable contents of her grandmother’s cabinet. While the identity of the person responsible for selecting the movable goods from amongst those in the Hôtel de la Reine remains unclear, Catherine de’ Medici’s probate inventory prepared in July 1589 gives an indication of what was left behind after Christine of Lorraine’s agent had removed the objects of her inheritance in March.93 It may be noted that the probate inventory includes no presentation cabinets, engraved vessels of rock crystal or hardstone, mechanical time pieces, nor bed hangings with pearl embellishments, all of which are included in the inventory of Christine’s inheritance, as discussed. Confronted with unprecedented challenges, Christine of Lorraine played a crucial role in the power politics of her time by boldly executing the political, marital, and testamentary strategies set in place by her grandmother. She refused to leave France without her inheritance from the Hôtel, realizing that ownership would provide a means of securing both a political ally and also her marriage to Ferdinando de’ Medici. The new grand duchess successfully directed her intentions to the enemy of the crown, the Duke of Mayenne. Only with his permission was her representative Bardin able to ‘acquire’ the bed of estate, silk hangings, and precious man-made objects from Catherine’s collector’s cabinet that so favoured the explicit collecting interests of the grand duke. Given her fierce determination to obtain these items, it may be conjectured that Christine worked closely with Bardin to make certain she gained possession of specific, named objects. Just as Catherine had planned, Christine successfully position herself as the new Grand Duchess of Tuscany, as well as the most important female collector of her time. She arrived at the Medici court with movable goods evocative of the wealth and power of the queen mother of France, but of which she now had full ownership. In addition to her dowry, Christine brought to her marriage 30,000 scudi in inherited movable property, of which 15,000 scudi represented the value of her collection. At the age of twenty-three, Christine of Lorraine acquired a collection that was contained and displayed during her lifetime in the Stanza di Madama. The surviving objects of Christine’s inheritance are identified in the concordance given in online Appendix ii. Supplementary Information A translation of the inventory is provided at Journal of the History of Collections online (Appendix i). A concordance list (Appendix ii) relates surviving objects with those listed in the inventory. Footnotes 1 See online Appendix i, ‘Inventory of Movables Christine of Lorraine “Acquired” by way of Testamentary Donation from Catherine de Medici’ (Palazzo Pitti, 1589). 2 The testament is published in Debtes et créanciers de la royne mère Catherine de Medicis, 1589–1606. Documents publiés pour la première fois d’après les archives de Chenonceau avec une introduction par M. L’Abbé C. Chevalier (Paris, 1862), pp. 15–21; and Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, ed. G. Baguenault de Puchesse (Paris, 1905), vol. ix, pp. 494–8. The manuscript is preserved in the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Paris, (hereafter bnf) Cabinet des manuscrits, Fonds français, 20176, fol. 69. 3 In the sixteenth-century French legal system, movable property (meubles) was a category of possessions that had particular importance in matters of inheritance and marriage portion. Movable goods included furnishings, clothing, jewellery, and other perishable objects that could be disposed, carried, or ‘moved’. They could also be given to another without legal restriction during the lifetime of the inheritor and through testamentary donation. J. Brissaud, A History of French Private Law, translated from the 2nd French edn. by R. Howell (London, 1912), pp. 268–71; and R. Giesey, ‘Rules of inheritance and strategies of mobility in prerevolutionary France’, American Historical Review 82 (1977), pp. 272–5. 4 Archivio di Stato di Firenze (hereafter asf), Notarile Moderno, Protocolli 1100, Inventari di Cristina di Loreno, Robe stateli lasciate per testamento, pp. 194r-204r. 5 asf, Medicio del Principato, (hereafter mdp), Inventario di Robe che la Serenissima Gran Duchess di Toscana, ha fatta portare di Francia, fols 368r-372v. 6 L’Italia splendida: pronkjuwelen der Italiaanse sierkunst (The Hague, 1956); and Palazzo Vecchio: committenza e collezionismo medicei, exh. cat., Palazzo Vecchio, Florence (Milan, 1980). 7 Magnificenza alla corte dei Medici: arte a Firenze alla fine del cinquecento, exh. cat., Palazzo Pitti, Florence (Milan, 1997). 8 K. Michahelles, ‘Catherine de Médicis’ Testamentary Bequest to Christine de Lorraine: A case of female succession’, M.Phil. diss. (University of Manchester, 2008), pp. 113–33, with illustrations on pp. 201–8. 9 In 1568, for example, Francesco de’ Medici (1541–1587) refused to lend the queen mother funds to fight the Huguenots even though she offered her royal jewels as collateral. On the subject of Catherine’s requests for loans from the Medici, see L. Jensen, ‘Catherine de’ Medici and her Florentine friends’, Sixteenth Century Journal 9 no. 2 (1978), pp. 62–6. 10 R-J Knecht, Catherine de’ Medici (London, 1998), p. 263. 11 The relationship between France and Tuscany had suffered from pro-Habsburg sympathies that began with Cosimo I de’ Medici (1519–1574), and continued with his son and successor Francesco, who supplied King Philip II of Spain (1527–1598) with loans to the French Holy Catholic League. The alliance between Spain and the League was secured with the Treaty of Joinville, signed on 31 December 1584. See E. Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries, 1527–1800: A history of Florence and the Florentines in the age of the Grand Dukes (Chicago, 1973), p. 101; J-M Constant, La Ligue (Paris, 1996), p. 115; and J. Héritier, Catherine de Medici, trans. C. Haldane (London, 1963), pp. 445–8. 12 Filippo Cavriana (c.1536–1606) to Antonio Serguidi (1537–1600), Paris, 14 February 1588, Négociations diplomatiques de la France avec la Toscane, documents récueillis par Giuseppe Caenstrini, ed. A. Desjardins (Paris, 1872), vol. iv, pp. 757–9. 13 Lettres de Catherine de Médicis, ed. G. Baguenault de Puchesse (Paris, 1901), vol. viii, p. 278. 14 asf, mdp 4742, Contratto di Articoli Matrimonio, fols 50r-3v. 15 Ibid. 16 An extract from the marriage contract is published in E. Bonnaffé, Inventaire de la duchesse de Valentinois, Charlotte d’Albret (Paris, 1878), pp. 121–2. 17 R. Kleinman, Anne of Austria: Queen of France (Columbus, 1985), p. 21. Earlier, King Henry VIII (1491–1547), selected and financed from the royal treasury the movable inheritance brought by his sister Mary Tudor (1496–1533) to her marriage to King Louis XII (1462–1515). M. Perry, The Sisters of Henry VIII: The tumultuous lives of Margaret of Scotland and Mary of France (New York, 1998), pp. 81, 90. 18 J. Brissaud, A History of French Public Law, trans. J. W. Garner (Boston, 1915), pp. 343, 353–4; R. Descimon, ‘L’union au domaine royal et le principe d’inaliéabilité. La construction d’une loi fondamentale aux xvie et xviie siècles’, Droits: revue française de théorie juridique 22 (1995): pp. 83–4; and Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises, depuis l’an 420 jusqu’à a révolution de 1789, par MM. Isambert…Decrusy …Armet, vol. xii (Paris, 1828), pp. 567–670. 19 ‘Acquired’ movable goods were those which came by way of purchase, personal labour, or gift. Acquired property could similarly be given away by testamentary bequest or during the lifetime of the beneficiary as an inter-vivos donation: Brissaud, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 273–4. 20 ‘[S]a petite fille pour l’avoir nourrie comme sa propre fille’, Lettres, op. cit. (note 2), p. 495. The close mother-daughter like bond shared between these women is explored in K. Michahelles, ‘Apprentissage du mécénat et transmission matrilinéaire du pouvoir. Les enseignements de Catherine de Médicis à sa petite-fille Christine de Lorraine’, in Patronnes et mécènes en France à la Renaissance, ed. K. Wilson-Chevalier with E. Pascal, trans. H. Quiniou (Saint-Étienne, 2007), pp. 557–76. 21 asf, gm 152, Inventari di Cristina di Loreno, Robe stateli lasciate in vita, fols 7v-13v. 22 F. Baumgartner, France in the Sixteenth Century (New York, 1995), pp. 258–9; Mack P. Holt, The French Wars of Religion: 1562–1629 (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 129–32; and N. M. Sutherland, The French Secretaries of State in the Age of Catherine de Medici (London, 1962), pp. 294–303. 23 Michahelles, op. cit. (note 8), p. 14, n. 7. 24 ‘Et pour la bonne amitié qu’elle a et porte a Madame Chrestienne Princesse de Lorraine’, Lettres, op. cit. (note 2), p. 495. In sixteenth-century France, ‘friend’ was a word describing affection and intimacy between spouses, relatives, and kin. Parental love was also viewed as a form of friendship. On this subject see, A. Jouanna, Le devoir de révolte. La nobles française et la gestation de l’État moderne: 1559–1661 (Paris, 1989), pp. 65–90; and U. Langer, Perfect Friendship: Studies in literature and moral philosophy from Boccaccio to Corneille (Geneva, 1994). 25 Lettres, op. cit. (note 2), p. 495 26 Brissaud, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 352–3; and Giesey, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 275–6. 27 ‘[A]vec la moitié de tous et chacuns ses meubles’, Lettres, op. cit. (note 2), p. 495. 28 To Queen Louise (1553–1601) she bequeathed the château of Chenonceau along with its lands and dependencies. To the Grand Prior of France, Charles (1573–1650), the natural born son of Charles IX (1550–1574), she left her maternal inheritance of landed properties in France and the other half of her movable goods. And, to her last living son the king she left all other property (although there was none), which essentially constituted her debts. Fanny Cosandy, ‘Quelques réflexions sur les transmissions royales maternelles: La succession de Catherine de Medicis’, in Women Rulers in Europe: Agency, Practice and the Representation of Political Powers (xii-xviii), ed. Giulia Calvi (San Domenico di Fiesole, 2008), p. 67 29 Lettres, op. cit. (note 2), p. 495 30 The other five-room apartments built by Catherine, in addition to her own, were for King Henry III, the Queen Consort, Louise of Lorraine, and Catherine’s daughter Marguerite of Valois (1553–1615). Each apartment included a hall, antechamber, chamber, wardrobe, and cabinet. H. Sauval, Histoire et recherche des antiqués de la ville de Paris (Paris, 1724), vol. ii, p. 216, cited in L. Hautecoeur, Histoire de l’architecture classique en france (Paris, 1943), vol. i, p. 336. 31 Knecht, op. cit. (note 10), p. 41; and Kerrie-rue Michahelles, ‘Catherine de Medici’s 1589 Inventory at the Hôtel de la Reine in Paris’, Furniture History 38 (2002), pp. 18–22, inv. nos 203–375. 32 C. Turbide, ‘Catherine de Medicis, mécène d’art contemporain: L’Hôtel de la Reine et ses collections’, in Patronnes et mécènes en France à la Renaissance, comp. K. Wilson-Chevalier with E. Pascal (Saint-Étienne, 2007), pp. 511–26. 33 The 1553 Medici inventory includes over 400 examples of most, if not all, Chinese porcelain; and, both Rudolf II (1552–1612), and Ferdinand II (1529–1595) had porcelain in their curiosity cabinets. Yet, the largest porcelain collection at the time was perhaps that of King Philip II (1527–1598). J. Ayers, ‘The early China trade’, in The Origins of Museums: The cabinet of curiosities in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe, ed. O. Impey and A. MacGregor (Oxford, 1986), p. 263; B. Bukovinská, ‘The Kunstkammer of Rudolf II: where it was and what it looked like’, in Rudolf II and Prague: The court and the city’, ed. E. Fučíková et al., exh. cat., Prague Castle (London, 1997), p. 202; E. Scheicher, ‘The collection of Archduke Ferdinand II at Schloss Ambras: its purpose, composition and evolution,’ in Impey and MacGregor, op. cit., p. 37; and L. Shulsky, ‘Philip II of Spain as porcelain collector,’ Oriental Art 44 no. 2 (1998), pp. 51–4. 34 Lord Cobham’s account, dated 21 February 1580, of the ‘King’s private banquet and Shrove-Tuesday feast at the Hôtel de la Reine’, Calendar of State Papers, Foreign Series, of the Reign of Elizabeth, 1579–1580, ed. A. Butler, vol. xiiii (London, 1904), pp. 161–4. 35 Account by Lady Cobham [née Francis Brooke, 1544–1592], February 1580, of the ‘Shrove-Monday feast at the Hôtel de la Reine’, in Butler, op. cit. (note 34), pp. 174–5. 36 On the social uses and construction of the banquet (or buffet), see P. Eames, Medieval Furniture: Furniture in England, France and the Netherlands from the twelfth to the fifteenth century (London, 1977), pp. 55–72. 37 Likewise, for the cupboard (or ‘dressor’), see ibid. 38 ‘King’s private banquet’, op. cit. (note 34), p. 163. 39 asf, mdp 6354a, Duke of Lorraine to Orazio Rucellai (d. 1605), Nancy, 13 January 1589, fols 26r-26v. 40 asf, mdp 4742, Rucellai to Lorenzo Usimbardi (1547–1636), Blois, 12 January 1589, fol. 159v. 41 Ibid. 42 Rucellai to Usimbardi, Chéverny, 27 February 1589, op. cit. (note 12), fol. 881. 43 Cavriana to Serguidi, Paris, 14 February 1588, idem, p. 757. 44 Extant examples include Museo degli Argenti, Inventory Gemme 1921, inv. nos 464, 506 and 802. 45 Francesco established the Galleria di Lavori in the Uffizi Palace and Ferdinando similarly created the Opificio delle Pietre Dure alongside the River Arno. On this subject, select sources include: L. Berti, Il principe dello studio: Francesco I dei Medici et la fine del rinasciamento fiorentino (Florence, 1967); S. Butters, ‘“Una pietra non una pietra”. Pietre dure e botteghe medicee nella Firenze del Cinquecento’, in Il Cinquecento, ed. F. Franceschi and G. Fossi, vol. iii of La Grande Storia dell’artigianato (Florence, 2002), pp. 133–85; D. Corsini, ‘Botteghe ‘drento [sic] la città’ e laboratori in Galleria: Gli orafi a Firenze nel Cinquecento’, in Franceschi and Fossi, op. cit., pp. 118–25; C.-W. Fock, ‘Francesco I e Ferdinando I mecenati di orefici e intagliatori di pietre dure’, in Le Arti del principato mediceo (Florence, 1980), pp. 317–63; and A. Giusti, ‘The origins and splendors of the Grand-Ducal pietre dure workshops’, in The Medici, Michelangelo, and the Art of Late Renaissance Florence, exh. cat., Palazzo Strozzi, Florence (New Haven, 2002), pp. 103–11. 46 P. Barocchi, ‘La galleria e la storiografia artistica’, in Gli Uffizi: quatro secoli di una galleria, ed. P. Barocchi and G. Ragioniere (Florence, 1983), pp. 49–69; D. Heikamp, ‘La tribuna degli Uffizi come era nel cinquecento’, Antichità viva 3 (1964), pp. 11–6; and La tribuna di Ferdinando I de’ Medici: Inventari 1589–1631, ed. G. Bertelà (Modena, 1997). A contemporary account of the Tribuna is found in F. Bocchi, Le bellezze della città di Firenze (Florence, 1591), reproduced in C. De Benedictis, Per la storia del collezionismo Italiano: fonti e documenti (Florence, 1995), pp. 211–13. 47 bnf, Cabinet des manuscrits, Fonds latin, 14359, Inventaire des meubles trouvés après le scellé de la chambre levé en la maison de la Royne mère, fol. 418v. 48 asf, mdp 4742, Rucellai to Usimbardi, Blois, 13 January 1589, fol. 256r. 49 bnf, Cabinet des manuscrits, Fonds latin, 14359, Mémoire des meubles de Madame de Mayne, fols 454v-6r. 50 These objects are assigned their own inventory numbers, which follow the corresponding entries in Catherine’s probate inventory, ibid. 51 Michahelles, op. cit. (note 8), p. 107. 52 asf, mdp 4742, Rucellai to Usimbardi, Blois, 12 January 1589, fol. 163r. 53 Cavriana to Serguidi, Blois, 9 February 1589, op. cit. (note 12), p. 862. 54 H. Kamen, Philip of Spain (New Haven, 1997), pp. 203–5. 55 Mémoires et lettres de Marguerite de Valois. Nouvelle édition, revue sur les manuscrits des Bibliothèques du Roi et de l’Arsenal, et publiée par M. F. Guessard (Paris, 1842), pp. 47, 49–51, 66–7, 129–37, 144–51; and Memoirs of Marguerite de Valois, Queen of France, Wife of Henri IV; of Madame de Pompadour of the Court of Lois XV; and of Catherine de’ Medici, Queen of France, Wife of Henri II (New York, c.1910), pp. 18, 24–34, 37, 44–5, 57, 80–2, 89–90, 143–7, 149. 56 Ibid. 57 asf, mdp 4742, Rucellai to Ferdinando de’ Medici, Sully-sur-Loire, 7 March 1589, fol. 145. 58 Bardin was the agent and counsellor of both Christine and her father, as well as Christine’s proxy. asf, mdp 4742, Rucellai to Usimbardi, Blois, 13 February 1589, fol. 176; and bnf, Cabinet des manuscrits, Fonds latin, 14359, fol. 420r. 59 Ibid. 60 Online Appendix i, no. 135. 61 In 1534, King Francis I paid the enormous sum of 5,000 livres - approximately ten years’ wages of his court architect Sebastiano Serlio (1475–1554) – for bed hangings adorned with pearls. Les comptes des bâtiments du Roi, 1528–1571, suivis de documents inédits sur les châteaux royaux et les beaux-arts au seizième siècle, recueillis et mis en ordre par Le Marquis Léon de Laborde, ed. J. Guiffrey (Paris, 1880), vol. ii, p. 262; and L. Laborde, La Renaissance des arts à la cour de France: études sur le seizième siècle (reprinted Geneva, 1970), vol. i, pp. 204–5. 62 Portraits of royal female sitters from the French court with elaborate pearl adornments include, amongst others: a miniature by François Clouet (1510–1572) of Catherine de’ Medici, Victoria and Albert Museum (c.1555); Mary I of Scotland (1542–1587) also by Clouet (c.1559), Victoria and Albert Museum; and Isabel of France (1545–1568) by the Spanish royal court portraitist Alonso Sánchez Coello (1531–1588), Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (1565). 63 S. Schneebalg-Perelman, ‘Richesses du garde-meuble Parisien de François Ier: inventaires inédits de 1542 et 1551’, Gazette des Beaux-Arts 78 (1971), p. 255, inv. nos 84–7; pp. 277–8, inv. nos 110 and 142; and p. 292, inv. nos 296–306. 64 According to the Medici wardrobe inventory, Christine’s son, Grand Duke Cosimo II (1590–1621) purchased this bed from his mother’s estate; this marks its place as a valued possession through three generations. See footnote to Online Appendix i, no. 135. 65 Online Appendix i, nos 136–47. 66 An essay that uses the household inventory of 1588 to investigate the decoration and furnishings in Ferdinando’s Roman palace known as the Palazzo di Firenze, is P. Arizzoli-Clémentel, ‘Le décor intérieur et l’ameublement de la villa Médicis à l’époque du cardinal Ferdinand’, in Études, ed. A. Chastel with P. Morel, vol. ii of La Villa Médicis (Rome 1991), pp. 506–27. The above reference is taken from p. 507. 67 This author takes into account the possibility of the removal of objects from their respective owner’s estates by heirs, creditors, or household staff, before the taking of their probate inventories. ‘Inventaire du mobilier de Gabrielle d’Estrées, 1599,’ in J. Deville, Dictionnaire du tapissier: critique et historique de l’Ameublement Français depuis les temps anciens jusq’à nos jours, ed. P. Clausen (Paris, 1878), vol. i, pp. 288–9; and ‘Inventaire après décès des meubles de Catherine de Bourbon contenus en son hôtel de la rue des Deux-Écus’, ed. M-P Bayaud, Bulletin des amis du château de Pau 1 no. 3 (1959), pp. 11–9. 68 Inventaire des meubles, bijoux et livres estant a Chenonceaux, le huit Janviermdciii . . .de Louise de Lorraine par Le Prince Augustin Galitzin (Paris, 1856), and A. Jordan, The Development of Catherine of Austria’s Collection in the Queen’s Household: Its character and cost (Ann Arbor, 1994). 69 Isabella’s collections of bronze figures of Roman gods and paintings are the notable differences in the general make-up of the two collections. S. Béguin, ‘Le studiolo d’Isabelle d’Este’, La revue du Louvre et des Musées de France 111 (1975), pp. 192–4; Il codice Stivini: inventario della collezione di Isabella d’Este nello studiolo nella grotta di Corte Vecchia in palazzo ducale di Mantova (Modena, 1995), vol. i, pp. 16–26; D. Ferrari, Isabella d’Este: i luoghi del collezionismo, exh. cat., Palazzo Ducale, Mantua (Modena, 1995); and E. Verheyen, The Paintings in the Studiolo of Isabella d’Este at Mantua (New York, 1971). 70 Online Appendix i, nos 190–206, and 208–13. 71 Online Appendix i, nos 227–32, 235–7, and 239–50. 72 Rudolph Distelberger, ‘Milanese a Praga’, FMR, Italian edn, 143 (December-January 2001): pp. 84, 88, 91; and Giusti, op. cit. (note 45), pp. 103–11. 73 Online Appendix i, no. 192, J. Hall, Dictionary of Subjects and Symbols in Art, intro. K. Clark, rev. edn, (London, 1995), pp. 27–8; J. F. Hayward, Virtuoso Goldsmiths and the Triumph of Mannerism, 1540–1620 (London, 1976), pp. 156–7; and C. Piacenti-Aschengreen, Il Museo degli Argenti (Milan, 1967), p. 137, no. 149. 74 B. Heinzl-Wied, ‘Studi sull’arte della scultura in pietre dure durante il Rinascimento: I fratelli Sarachi’, Antichità viva 12 no. 6 (1973), p. 45, fig. 14; and M. Scalini, ‘Preziosi medicei presenti nelle collezioni al 1589’, in Magnificenza alla corte dei Medici: arte a Firenze alla fine del cinquecento, exh. cat., Palazzo Pitti, Florence (Milan, 1997), p. 410, fig. 5, and p. 411. 75 Online Appendix i, no. 198. Hayward, op. cit. (note 73), p. 369, fig. 336; Palazzo Vecchio, op. cit. (note 6), p. 230, fig. 444; and F. Rossi, Capolavori di oreficeria italiana dall’xialxviiisecolo (Milan, 1956), p. 46, fig. 40. 76 R. Distelberger, ‘Die Sarachi-Werkstatt und Annibale Fontana’, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien 71 (1975), pp. 148–9, figs 173–5; E. Kris, Meister und Meisterwerke der Steinschneidekunst in der italienischen Renaissance (Vienna, 1929), vol. i, p. 182; vol. ii, pp. 123–35; Piacenti-Aschengreen, op. cit. (note 73), p. 133, n. 63; and Scalini, op. cit. (note 74), p. 410. 77 Online Appendix i, no. 197. Magnificenza alla corte, op. cit. (note 7), p. 171, fig. 132; Piacenti-Aschengreen, op. cit. (note 73), p. 139, n. 200, fig. 23; C. Piacenti, ‘Quattro secoli di oreficeria al Museo degli Argenti’, in Ori e tesori d’Europa, ed. G. Bergamini and P. Goi (Udine, 1992), pp. 71–8; and Scalini, op. cit. (note 74), p. 411. 78 Online Appendix i, no. 199. According to Piacenti-Aschengreen, Bernardi’s design was based on a now-lost design by the painter and draughtsman Perino del Vaga (1501–47). Piacenti-Aschengreen, op. cit. (note 73), p. 17. 79 Hayward, op. cit. (note 73), p. 81; and Piacenti-Aschengreen, op. cit. (note 73). 80 Hayward, op. cit. (note 73), pp. 134–5; L’Italia splendida, op. cit. (note 6), n. 163, fig. 16; A. Massinelli and F. Tuena, Treasures of the Medici (London, 1992), p. 104; Piacenti-Aschengreen, op. cit. (note 73, p. 143, n. 295, fig. 15; Palazzo Vecchio, op. cit. (note 6), pp. 218–19, n. 409; E. Plon, Benvenuto Cellini orfèvre, médailleur, sculpteur; recherches sur sa vie, sur son œuvre, et sur les pièces qui lui sont attribuées (Paris, 1883), p. 272; V. Slomann, ‘Rock-crystals by Giovanni Bernardi’, Burlington Magazine 48 (1926), p. 19; and G. von Habsburg, Tesori dei Principi (Milan, 1997), p. 74, n. 84, fig. 84. 81 Online Appendix i, no. 254. 82 C. Furlan, ‘Per Valerio Belli: “gemmarum sculptor” e “aurifex”’, in Bergamini and Goi, op. cit. (note 69), pp. 323–6; Hayward, op. cit. (note 73), p. 81; L’Italia splendida, op. cit. (note 6), no. 163, fig. 16; A. Morassi, Il tesoro dei Medici: oreficerie, argenterie, pietre dure (Milan, 1963), fig. 21; Piacenti-Aschengreen, op. cit, (note 73), p. 13, p. 134 n. 78, fig. 14; and Palazzo Vecchio, op. cit. (note 6), p. 218, n. 408. 83 ‘Inventaire des Joyaux de la Couronne de France en 1560’, ed. M. Paul Lacroix, Revue Universelle des Arts 3 (1856), p. 341, inv. no. 86. 84 Online Appendix i, no. 284. Of course, an astrolabe told the time, in a sense, and made possible angular measurements for astronomical and surveying purposes. The sundial also told time and was required to keep in check the accuracy of the mechanical clock. 85 Online Appendix i, nos 272–8. The distinguishing feature of the mechanical clock, as Burton explains, ‘was that it struck a bell at the hour or sounded an alarm bell at a predetermined time’. In my translation of Christine’s inventory, Online Appendix i, a ‘clock’ has the feature of a bell, or, more explicitly, that chimes. E. Burton, A History of Clocks and Watches (London, 1979), p. 7. 86 Idem., p. 58; O. Kurz, ‘European clocks and watches in the Near East’, Journal of the Warburg Institute 34 (1975), p. 24. 87 Burton, op. cit. (note 85), pp. 54, 61; A. Turner, ‘Mathematical instrument-making in early modern Paris’, in Luxury Trades and Consumerism in Ancien Régime Paris: Studies in the history of the skilled workforce, ed. R. Fox and A. Turner (Aldershot, 1998), pp. 63–98; and G. Turner, Antique Scientific Instruments (Poole, 1980), pp. 7, 10, 67–8, and 106–44. 88 Catherine de’ Medici confirmed in a letter that she would pay 50 écus for each external case that was designed to both decorate and protect the internal clock mechanisms. Lettres, op. cit. (note 2), p. 175. 89 asf, gm 127, fol. 70, Inventario delle robe della Tribuna, fols 1r-50r. For a transcription of the inventory see La tribuna di Ferdinando I, op. cit. (note 46), fols 3r-60r. 90 asf, gm 127, fol. 71, D’Inventario delle [R]obe della Tribuna, pp. 52r-143r. The inventory is transcribed in La tribuna di Ferdinando I, op. cit. (note 46), fols 65r-88r. 91 D. Heikamp, ‘Lo “studiolo nuovo”, ovvero il tempietto della tribuna degli Uffizi’, in Splendori di Pietre Dure: L’arte di corte nella Firenze dei Gonzaga, ed. A. Giusti, exh. cat., Palazzo Pitti, Florence (Florence, 1988), p. 55. 92 asf, gm 127, fol. 71, Inventario delle robe che sono nella stanza de’ ritratti all’entrare di Galleria allato alle stanze dell’armeria come apresso, cioè di Madama Serenissima Madre, fols 119r-130r. 93 Michahelles, op. cit. (note 31), pp. 12–39. © The Author(s) 2017. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
Journal of the History of Collections – Oxford University Press
Published: Nov 14, 2018
It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.
Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.
All for just $49/month
Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly
Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.
Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.
Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.
All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.
“Hi guys, I cannot tell you how much I love this resource. Incredible. I really believe you've hit the nail on the head with this site in regards to solving the research-purchase issue.”Daniel C.
“Whoa! It’s like Spotify but for academic articles.”@Phil_Robichaud
“I must say, @deepdyve is a fabulous solution to the independent researcher's problem of #access to #information.”@deepthiw
“My last article couldn't be possible without the platform @deepdyve that makes journal papers cheaper.”@JoseServera