Peter Paul Rubens’ Medici Cycle:
Social Vanity or Political Strategy?

Peter_Paul_Rubens_041.jpg
 

This thesis analyzes Marie de’ Medici’s social, political and strategical ambitions during her lifetime in relation to Peter Paul Rubens’ Medici Cycle. Her life and her portrayal in Peter Paul Rubens’ Medici Cycle is discussed in Jacques Thuillier’ book, “Rubens’ Life of Marie de Medici,” and Juliusz A. Chrościcki’s article “The Recovered Modello of P. P. Rubens'“Disembarkation at Marseilles.” The Problem of Control and Censorship in the Cycle “Life of Maria De' Medici.””

Marie de’ Medici was known to be strong and formidable as well as proud and domineering. Her behavior was mostly shaped by her upbringing. Jacques Thuillier’s book described her as “heroic” and celebrated her for her determination, will and strategy. Though she plotted to keep the throne from her son for herself, this book describes her as brave. She is celebrated for fighting the patriarchal system that passed her husband’s throne to her son instead of allowing her to be queen. Marie was often told she was beautiful and understood her power as a daughter of nobility. However she also understood that women of her time had limited power.

Growing up, she watched her family plot and scheme to achieve what they desired, which molded her behavior. Some pass off this behavior of hers, as well as her life choices, as simple arrogance and selfishness. While Marie de’ Medici can be viewed as narcissistic, she can also be viewed as a bit of a matriarch for women’s liberation and for being a political mastermind.

She did not want to give up her political power for her son’s sake. Was this simply because of a lust for power and overwhelming vanity, or was she angry by the fact that she was not given what could be rightfully hers because she was a woman? One of my goals is to analyze how Marie de’ Medici viewed herself and her situation, and how others like Peter Paul Rubens viewed her. I also plan to understand the relationship between the Medici Cycle and the political tactics happening during that time.

The Medici Cycle shows Marie de’ Medici as an incredible, powerful, educated and basically other-worldly woman. While Rubens’ and others had their hand in the creation of the cycle, Marie de’ Medici and her court had a lot of control as well. Around 1622, Rubens’ was given 14 chosen topics for the paintings. Then, the Queen’s court demanded sketches for five of the topics. They also supervised Rubens’ drawing compositions, required detailed written identification of the figures in those five sketches, and put the artist through other various checks and balances. When Marie de’ Medici and her confidants decided to commission this cycle, what was the true intention? Was this a social piece to raise her appearance within the eyes of other nobles? If it was, was it for her vanity, or was it political propaganda to show why she is better suited for a position of power. There is proof to suggest that Marie de’ Medici was rebellious and a creature of strategy and conspiracy, as was her friend, who later became her enemy, Cardinal Richelieu. The book suggests this by quoting art history scholar Otto Von Simson, who stated: “The masterwork of political thought…is beyond question Rubens’ Medici Gallery…No other creation is so bound up with the politics of its time; it must be understood as apolitical act. It was the product of a strange collaboration between Rubens and the greatest statesman of his age, Richelieu.” This furthers the theory and assumption that Marie de’ Medici and her court were political tacticians who used the Medici Cycle as a political campaign to boast Marie de’ Medici’s status. Thuillier’s book attributes people like Cardinal Richelieu, for their political abilities but gives a lot of strategical credit to Marie de’ Medici. Chrościcki’s article, however, at many times calls Marie de’ Medici “unsuccessful” and tends to minimize her hand in the schemes, mentioning her court doing most of the work and sometimes not implying her participation in certain situations. Both the book and the article referenced give strong implications of political participation in respect to Marie De’ Medici and the Medici Cycle, but other references may have further detail. Thuillier’s book is better in this aspect, as it has multiple chapters and sections devoted to my research topic. The article by Chrościcki gives are collection of the happenings around the time Rubens’ was commissioned and then painted the Medici Cycle, but is lighter on the political aspects. The moments the article does reference politics it defers heavily on the work of King Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu.

There are other articles that succeed in further discussing the political situations and possible intentions of the Medici Cycle. Geraldine A. Johnson’s “Pictures Fit for a Queen: Peter Paul Rubens and the Marie de' Medici Cycle,” argues that one of the main purposes of the Medici Cycle was to impress her son in hopes to regain his trust, solely for the purpose of regaining some of her political power. The author also argues the paintings held symbols that accentuated her role as an important player within the dynasty. In reference to Rubens’ Meeting in Lyons and the Peace Confirmed in Heaven the author states:

“… [T]he Queen Mother’s bare breast emphasizes her feminine and motherly qualities. Rubens used these attributes to depict Marie de’ Medici as powerful precisely because of her gender, because of her ability to bear and nurture the King’s children, thereby ensuring the continuation of the dynasty.”9

This article holds vital information to further analyze my research topic. Another resource I will be using is Sarah R. Cohen’s “Rubens's France: Gender and Personification in the Marie de' Médici’s Cycle”article, which discusses the female personifications within Rubens’ Medici Cycle. This author also implies that the symbols’ serve tactical purposes. This article differs from the rest by mostly being a complete guide' to the symbols, personifications and iconography within the cycle, which will be an important asset to truly understanding the metaphorical depth within the paintings.9 I also plan to use Otto Georg von Simson’s article “Richelieu and Rubens: Reflections on the Art of Politics,.”, which is an in depth investigation about the politics of the Medici Cycle. Out of all my resources Simson’s article focuses the heaviest on the relationship between politics and art, particularly when it deals with this cycle. He goes as far as to question whether these painting scan even be considered art, considering them propaganda in its clearest form. This article contrasts from my other choices by being focused on the politics of the cycle instead of the look, symbols, meaning or iconography. Simson’s article is a welcomed addition to my source list, as it balances out the others, that can be overtly descriptive of the art rather than opinionated about its purpose.

Overall, I hope to form an educated judgment on the meaning and purpose of Peter Paul Rubens’ Medici Cycle. I also hope to further understand the underlying messages within the paintings. Using the resources available to me, I will weigh the viewpoints of the various authors’ opinions and research about Marie De’ Medici, her court, Peter Paul Rubens, Louis XIII and Cardinal Richelieu. I will also study the roles they had in relation to the commission, development and purpose of the cycle.

Bibliography

  • Chrościcki, Juliusz A. “The Recovered Modello of P. P. Rubens' “Disembarkation at Marseilles.” The Problem of Control and Censorship in the Cycle “Life of Maria De' Medici.”” Artibus Eet Historiae 26, no. 51 (2005): 221-249.

  • Cohen, Sarah R. “Rubens's France: Gender and Personification in the Marie de' Médici's Cycle.” Art Bulletin 85, no. 3 (2003): 490-522.

  • Johnson, Geraldine A. “Pictures Fit for a Queen: Peter Paul Rubens and the Marie de' Medici Cycle.” Art History 16, (1993): 447-469.

  • Thuillier, Jacques. Rubens’ Life of Marie de' Medici. New York: H.N. Abrams, 1970.

  • Von Simson, Otto Georg. “Richelieu and Rubens: Reflections on the Art of Politics.” The Review of Politics 6, no. 4 (1944): 422-451.