1

© 2014 The Middle Ground Journal Number 9, Fall 2014 http://TheMiddleGroundJournal.org See Submission Guidelines page for the journal's not-for-profit educational open-access policy

When the Lion Lies Down with the Lapdog: Artists, Saints, Dogs and Men in Sixteenth-

Century Germany

Miranda K. Metcalf

MA student, Art History, University of Arizona

Canines have been companions to humans for somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000

years and are the earliest domesticated species.1 Despite dogs’ prominent presence during the

development of human civilization, they have received little attention from historians. As

Dorothee Brantz points out, “This omission may, however, reveal more about history as an

academic discipline than it does about the past itself. After all, how could human societies have

survived without the food, materials, labor and entertainment that animals supplied?”2 While

there are those who question the importance of studying the presence of animals in the art and

literature of the past, it is likely that this recent interest in the lives of animals is part of a steady

broadening of the historical lens. This broadening expands beyond the once exclusionary focus

on white, landowning men to include women, racial minorities, the impoverished, non-

westerners, religious minorities, and eventually non-human animals.3

In recent years, several scholars have contributed significant research on the historical

roles and the lives of animals. Erica Fudge is perhaps the most prolific contributor to this field.4

For over a decade she has published work and edited collections dedicated to the lives of animals

and the way in which humans have perceived them in the early modern period. Fudge states in

her publications that a history written by humans is primarily a history of humans and therefore

1 Evan Ratliff, “Mix, Match, Morph: How to Build a Dog,” National Geographic (February 2012), 39-48. 2 Dorothee Brantz, Beastly Natures: Animals, Humans, and the Study of History (Charlottesville: University of

Virginia Press, 2010), 2. 3 Brantz, Beastly Natures, 2 and Juliana Schiesari, Beasts and Beauties: Animals, Gender and Domestication in the

Italian Renaissance (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010), 3. 4 Erica Fudge has written and edited many titles devoted to this subject including, but not limited to: Pets

(Stocksfield: Acumen Press, 2008); Brutal Reasoning: Animals, Rationality and Humanity in Early Modern

England (Ithaca: Cornell University Press: 2006); and Perceiving Animals: Humans and Beasts in Early Modern

English Culture (New York: Macmillan/St Martin’s Press, 2000).

an inherently a narrow view of history, particularly given the abundance of non-human animals

within the lives of humans throughout history and that the way in which humans historically

have defined themselves is often based on comparison to non-human animals.5

Another prominent animal scholar is Harriet Ritvo who began her work on animals and

history in the early 1980s.6 Ritvo wrote in the introduction to her 2010 publication Noble Cows

and Hybrid Zebras that her 1980s work was once introduced as “‘the weirdest’ of the ‘many

weird things that have been coming out of the humanities lately.’”7 She goes on to state that

animal studies is no longer considered a fringe topic and scholars now readily turn their

attentions to nonhuman animals. Yet despite the work of these scholars and many others, the

study of animals in the early modern period remains a popular yet marginal field within the

disciplines of the humanities.8

One of the first major works to discuss animals in the early modern world was Keith

Thomas’s Man and the Natural World, published in 1971. In this work Thomas examines the

changes in the way the people of England viewed the natural world from 1500 to 1800. He

focuses on the fact that the people of the lower classes often spent time in close proximity to

animals and through their interactions formed opinions about the nature of animals which

contradicted the Church’s view that animals were soulless machines.9 Thomas writes on many

aspects of the natural world, including plants, and devotes several pages to the role of domestic

5 Erica Fudge, Renaissance Beasts (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 3; and Perceiving Animals, 1;

Harriet Ritvo, Noble Cows and Hybrid Zebras (Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 2010), 2. 6 Harriet Ritvo, The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creature in the Victorian Age (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1989). 7 Ritvo, Noble Cows and Hybrid Zebras, 1. 8 Ibid., 11. 9 Keith Thomas, Man and the Natural World (New York: Scribner, 1971), 92-99.

dogs in his section titled “Privileged Species,” which is dedicated to the species most intimately

involved in the lives of humans: cows, horses, falcons, cats and dogs.10

My essay explores one aspect of sixteenth-century human-canine relations and an

unaddressed, notable exception to a common pattern found in sixteenth-century portraiture; the

exploration of this may lead to greater understanding as to how these animals, who were so

intimately involved in the forming of human civilizations, functioned in society. Expounding

upon the simplistic connection between certain breeds of dogs and gender identity in sixteenth-

century Germany, I assert that while there were undeniable links between hunting dogs and men

on the one hand, and lapdogs and women on the other, the role that these two varieties of dogs

played in the households of Renaissance nobility is more complex than simply reflecting the

division between masculine and feminine. Exploration of Lucas Cranach the Elder’s 1525 and

1526 versions of Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg as St. Jerome in his Study shows that the

unusual inclusion of a lapdog with a male figure in the 1525 version of this painting exposes the

reality that hunting dogs and lapdogs functioned not merely as gender markers, but as indicators

of the line between public and private spaces. Beginning with a brief history of canines in

western Europe and addressing the ways in which domestic dogs have been connected to the

gender identities of noble men and women, the examination of Lucas Cranach’s 1525 painting of

Albrecht of Brandenburg illustrates how the complex social and political forces in place during

the painting’s creation affected the inclusion–and subsequent removal in the 1526 version of the

painting–of a lapdog. This analysis demonstrates that the placement and removal of this lapdog

imagery was a reflection of the multifaceted society of the Renaissance world and was therefore

more significant than just the simple representation of gender roles.

10

Ibid., 100-120.

The sole author to have explored the topic of dogs and gender roles in the Renaissance is

Juliana Schiesari in her book Beast and Beauties: Animals, Gender and Domestication in the

Italian Renaissance. Schiesari opens her book with an exploration of the burgeoning culture of

pets in sixteenth-century Italy. She focuses on the connection between noblewomen and their

lapdogs, in her chapter, “‘Jewels of Women’: Ladies, Laps, and Lapdogs in Renaissance

Culture.” Schiesari’s work has been extremely useful to my own research devoted to the

relationship between dogs and gender roles in sixteenth-century Germany, specifically the topic

of the imagery of lapdogs when they appear with men.

Dogs as Household Pets in the Sixteenth Century

In Germany, in the sixteenth century dogs as companion animals were a part of everyday

life. This is evidenced by their presence in visual artifacts from the time, such as paintings,

statues and engravings.11

Dogs appear in images with both secular and religious themes, with

nobility and commoners, and as working animals and domestic cohorts. Similar to the present

day, there existed a wide variety of domesticated dog breeds. Dogs resembling Pomeranians,

Papillons, Great Danes, Chihuahuas, Greyhounds, Terriers, Corgis, Mastiffs, and Beagles are all

found in images from sixteenth-century Europe. The existence of such a great range in the

physical appearance of canine companions offered those who could afford such “designer dogs”

the ability to use their pets as an expression of their own identity. The number, breeding, and

strength of one’s dog could be said to reflect on one’s social status and wealth.12

Mark S. R.

Jenner writes in his essay “The Great Dog Massacre,” “[male] aristocrats [of early modern

11 Simona Cohen, Animals as Disguised Symbols in Renaissance Art (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 22; Francis Catherine

Johns, Dogs: History, Myth, Art (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008); Francis D. Lazenby, “Greek and

Roman Household Pets,” The Classical Journal 44/ 4 (1949): 245-252; and Yi-fu Tuan, Dominance and Affection:

The Making of Pets (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984). 12

Thomas, Man and the Natural World, 102-3.

Europe] were expected to care for large packs of hound.”13

Similarly, the breed of dog often

reflected the gender of its master.14

These gendered interpretations of dog breeds appear to be

similar to modern day stereotypes.

To place dogs in an accurate context one must understand the animals’ role in the society

of sixteenth-century Germany. The existence of this wide spread affection and presence of dogs

in sixteenth-century art may be in part connected to the rebirth of other classical traditions for

which the Renaissance is named. Companion dogs were a large part of ancient Roman society.

They are mentioned throughout classical writings and appear in texts written by some of the

most recognized authors of the time, such as Martial and Ovid.15

It is well documented that dogs

were not only beloved companions during the mortal lives of the men and women of antiquity,

but were expected to accompany their owners into the afterlife as well. Statues of dogs were

featured on funerary monuments and the animals were often shown at the feet of the entombed,

13 Mark S. R. Jenner, “The Great Dog Massacre,” in Fear in Early Modern Society, eds. Penny Roberts and William

Naphy (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 44-61. 14 Juliana Schiesari, Beast and Beauties: Animals, Gender and Domestication in the Italian Renaissance (Toronto:

University of Toronto Press, 2010), explores the connection between lapdogs and women. References to the

connection between noblewomen and lapdogs can also be found in the cited works of Jenner and Thomas, 107-110. 15 Martial wrote an entire poem dedicated to his puppy Issa. He praises her disposition and physical features as well

as states that he is having her likeness capture on a painted tablet. Martial 1.109: Issa est passere nequior

Catulli,/Issa est purior osculo columbae,/Issa est blandior omnibus puellis,/Issa est carior Indicis lapillis,/Issa est

deliciae catella Publi./Hanc tu, si queritur, loqui putabis;/sentit tristitiamque gaudiumque./Collo nixa cubat capitque somnos,/ut suspiria nulla sentiantur;/et desiderio coacta uentris/gutta pallia non fefellit ulla,/sed blando pede suscitat

toroque/deponi monet et rogat leuari./Castae tantus inest pudor catellae,/ignorat Venerem; nec inuenimus/dignum

tam tenera uirum puella./Hanc ne lux rapiat suprema totam,/picta Publius exprimit tabella,/in qua tam similem

uidebis Issam,/ut sit tam similis sibi nec ipsa./Issam denique pone cum tabella:/aut utramque putabis esse ueram,/aut

utramque putabis esse pictam. The translation of which is: “Issa is more mischievous than the sparrow of

Catullus,/Issa is purer than the kiss of a dove,/Issa is more affectionate than all the girls,/Issa is dearer than the

jewels of India,/Issa is the darling little puppy of Publius./If she whines, you will think that she speaks;/She feels

sorrow and joy./She sleeps resting on his neck, and takes her naps/Such that no breaths are heard;/And compelled by

the desire of her bladder,/Not a single drop has befouled the coverlet,/But she awakens him with a caressing paw,

and advises/That she be put down from the couch, and asks to be picked up./There is such great modesty in the little

puppy;/She does not know Venus, nor do we find/A mate worthy of such a delicate girl./So that her last day does not

snatch her away entirely,/Publius is portraying her on a painted tablet/On which you will see an Issa so lifelike/That not even she herself is so similar to herself./And so put Issa down beside the tablet;/Either you will think that each is

real,/Or you will think that each is painted.” Dogs as companion animals appear through Ovid’s Metamorphoses.

Examples of this include the tale of Meleager and Atalanta. Companion dogs also play a key role in the tale of

Actaeon, who was devoured by his own dogs after been transformed into a deer-like creature by the goddess Diana.

Ovid lists Actaeon’s dogs and their virtues in Metamorphoses (London: Penquin Classics, 1955), 206.

sleeping or looking up devotedly at their owner.16

Dogs were not only featured as marble

portraits accompanying a master or mistress into the next world, but tombs were erected –

complete with poetic epitaphs – in the memory of many household pets including dogs.17

During the Middle Ages, however, canines fell out of favor with people of western

Europe. This attitude grew out of fear of disease, most prominently plague and rabies.18

After

the fall of the Roman Empire large packs of wild dogs roamed the land. These packs were made

up of abandoned war dogs that were left to fend for themselves after the battles ended as well as

household dogs who had lost their home and possibly their human companions during the

violence. Due to the large number of unprotected and unregulated dogs, rabies spread among the

wild dogs and people quickly learned to fear these animals with whom they had once been so

close.19

During this time, images of dogs in art moved further and further away from being

associated with nobility and loyalty until eventually they were associated with the evil qualities

of humans.20

Dogs were thought to embody many of the cardinal sins, including lust, sloth and

most commonly of Ira, or wrath.21

In the early modern period there was a great deal of discussion about the philosophical,

theological, and social place of animals.22

Many philosophers and theologians were concerned

16 Catherine Johns, Dogs: History, Myth, Art (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008), 24; and Lazenby,

“Greek and Roman Household Pets,” 245-252. 17 Jan Papy, “Lipsius and His Dogs: Humanist Tradition, Iconography and Rubens’s Four Philosophers,” Journal of

the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes, 62 (1999), 167-198, here, 174; and Lazenby, “Greek and Roman Household

Pets,” 245-252. 18 Jenner, “The Great Dog Massacre,” 44-61. 19 Tamsin Pickeral, Dog: 5000 Years of the Dog in Art (London: Merrell Publishers, 2008), 72. 20 Erica Fudge, “How a Man Differs from a Dog,” History Today 53 no. 6 (June, 2003), 38. Fudge writes, “In the

early modern period the description of many vices – heavy drinking, gluttony, lust and so on – were represented as

having the power to transform humans into beasts.” In Hieronymus Bosch’s (1450-1516) illustration of the seven

deadly sins (1500, oil on wood,120cm x 150 cm, Museo del Prado, Madrid), dogs appear in two illustrations of sins including accidia, or sloth, in which a dog and his master sleep before a fire. See Cohen, Animals as Disguised

Symbols in Renaissance Art, 22. 21 Cohen, Animals as Disguised Symbols in Renaissance Art, 22. 22 Fudge, Renaissance Beasts, 9; and Peter Harrison, “The Virtues of Animals in Seventeenth-Century Thought,”

Journal of the History of Ideas, 59 (1998): 463-484. Harrison states that this intellectual interest in animals began in

with what separated humans and creatures. These authors believed that somewhere in that

mystery lay the secret to man’s divine nature. If one could understand the essence of what

separated man from beast, one would understand how humans connect to God and eternal life.23

Despite the fact that animals in general were a large part of medieval culture, dogs as household

pets were uncommon during this time.24

By the sixteenth century domesticated dogs as pets returned to large numbers in western

Europe.25

So much so that during this time city ordinances were passed in attempt to control the

amount of dogs.26

An example of the love humans expressed for their dogs at this time can be

found in the work of prominent humanists, such as the Belgian author Justus Lipius (1547 –

1606) who was famously fond of his dogs, Mopsus, Mopsulus and Saphyrus. He wrote of his

affection in both public and private texts and repeatedly commissioned their portraits.27

Upon

the sudden death of Saphyrus, Lipius wrote a poem in Latin in Saphyrus’s honor. The elegy

expresses not only Lipius’s love for the creature but the unfortunate way in which Saphyrus died:

falling into a pot of boiling water.

In Saphyrum meum βιοθδνaτον

O luctum et lacrimas! meus Saphyrus

Ille gemmula vera, non catellus,

Morte est praecipiti malaque functus,

In vasum miser incidens aenum,

Efferventis aquae, miser catelle,

Haec te post tria lustra mors manebat?

Quis nunc blanditias hiante rictu,

Quis nunc blanditias movente cauda,

the late 1500s, stemming from the work of Montaigne and was feed by the writings of Rene Descartes and the

Cartesians, until it reached its height in the late seventeenth century. 23 Fudge, “How a Man Differs from a Dog,” 38-44. 24 Cohen, Animals as Disguised Symbols in Renaissance Art, 4. 25 Keith, Man and the Natural World, 105 and 110, describes this time as “the rehabilitation of the dog from the Eastern view that dogs were filth,” and he goes on to state that attitudes toward dogs were less than friendly due to

the fact that “the book of Revelations suggest that at Resurrection dogs, like the other unclean beings will not be

allowed in New Jerusalem.” 26 Jenner, “The Great Dog Massacre,” 55. 27

Papy, “Lipsius and His Dogs,” 167.

Hero ultra faciet? quis obsidebit

Osti limen, et ingredi parantem

In se gestibus atque voce vertet?

Quis lusu recreabit? o miselle,

Non ultra facies, abisti ad Orci

Nigri limina. Sit tibi benignus

Frater Cerberus, ipsa Ditis uxor

Sit fautrix (et aberro?), sit patrona;

Illi delicium novum pararis.28

This poem demonstrates not only that Lipius had great affection for his companion, but

also that it was appropriate to honor Saphyrus in a way reflecting classical tradition. Dogs did

not, however, live only in the homes of humanists; people from all social classes kept dogs.29

Merchants considered mastiffs a necessity to guard their house and their wares; cooks used dogs

to turn large spits in their kitchens; and nobility commonly exchanged greyhounds and spaniels

as luxury gifts.30

Dogs as Reflections of Gender Identity

In 1514 Lucas Cranach the Elder painted a double portrait of Henry IV the Duke of

Saxony (1472-1541) and his wife Catherine Mecklenbourg (1487-1561) (fig. 1).31

This portrait

indicates the wealth, status, and gender roles of its subjects. Both Henry and Catherine are

shown in finely embroidered clothes. The folds in the excess drapery inform the viewer that not

28 “To my Sapphire, who died a violent death: Grief and tears! My Sapphire, / no little dog, but a true little gem, /

has died a sudden, terrible death / by falling, poor thing, into a brass cauldron / of boiling water. Poor little dog, /

was such a death in wait for you after 15 years? / Who in future will fawn on his master with mouth agape, / who

will fawn with wagging tail? / Who will wait there for me at the threshold / of the door and grab my attention, as I

prepare to enter, / by leaping around and barking? / Who will entertain me with his play? O poor little creature, / no

longer will you do this. You have departed to dark / Orcus’s threshold. May Cerberus be / a kindly brother to you.

May Pluto’s wife herself / look after you (am I wide of the mark?) and be your protectress; / you shall be a novel treat for her.” Justi Lipsi, Sapientiae et litterarum autistitis fama postuma (Antwerp: Ex officina Plantiana, 1614),

142. 29 Thomas, Man and the Natural World, 101. 30 Ibid., 102-4; and Jenner, “The Great Dog Massacre,” 44-61. 31

1514, canvas, each side 184.5 x 82.5 cm, Dresden Gallery, Dresden.

only could the Duke of Saxony afford such fine material, he could afford it in excess.32

Large,

gold necklaces hang from Henry’s and Catherine’s necks and bejeweled rings decorate their

hands. Catherine crosses her hands over her womb and Henry grasps his sword by the hilt in a

warrior-like confidence; the placement of the sword suggesting the existence of a large phallus.

Figure 1. Lucas Cranach the Elder, Double Portrait of Henry IV the Duke of Saxony (1472-1541) and his Wife

Catherine Mecklenbourg (1487-1561), 1514, canvas, each side 184.5 x 82.5 cm, Dresden Gallery, Dresden. (Image

in the public domain, http://uploads0.wikipaintings.org/images/lucas-cranach-the-elder/portraits-of-henry-the-pious-

duke-of-saxony-and-his-wife-katharina-von-mecklenburg-1514.jpg!xlMedium.jpg.)

32 For detailed information of sixteenth-century dress, see Jacqueline Herald, Renaissance Dress in Italy 1400-1500

(London: Bell & Hyman, 1981), 155.

Domestic dogs accompany both figures. Behind Henry stands a tall hunting dog, its

collar large and adorned, teeth long and sharp, its head to the ground, and ears and eyes forward.

The hound is extremely powerful yet controlled, dignified, and well bred – perhaps implying that

in this way the hound is like Henry. In contrast, a small lion-like dog sits at Catherine’s feet.

Catherine’s dog’s mouth is closed and it sits calmly and is seemingly content to stay where it is

told – perhaps implying that in this way Catherine’s lapdog is like Catherine. Juliana Schiesari

argues in her book, Beasts and Beauties: Animals, Gender, and Domestication in the Italian

Renaissance, that lapdogs and noblewomen played very similar roles in the household. Both

were expected to be happy, submissive, dependent, and to give affection when desired, while not

demanding affection for themselves, making too much noise or running away.33

From this visual

comparison it could be argued that in the sixteenth century lapdogs and hunting dogs not only

reflected physically desirable qualities in their respective genders such as strength or beauty, but

behavioral qualities as well.

Other examples of this connection between the gender of the subject and the breed of

pictured dogs are found in the works of Titian (c. 1488-1576), such as his 1533 portrait of

Charles V (1500-1558) and his 1538 portrait of Eleonora Gonzaga (1598-1655).34

Once again

the male figure is shown with a large, powerful hunting dog. In this example the man’s hand is

physically controlling the beast as he places his fingers under its leather collar. Both Charles’s

right hand and his hound’s head direct the viewer’s gaze to Charles’s codpiece. Titian’s portrait

of Eleonora features two demure, quiet figures, sitting decoratively by a window. The dog

shown in the portrait with Eleonora is almost identical to the one pictured in Titian’s famous

33 Juliana Schiesari, Beasts and Beauties, 15. 34

1538, Oil on Canvas, 114 x 102.2 cm, Uffizi Gallery, Florence.

Venus of Urbino.35

The presence of two dogs so similar in appearance in separate paintings

suggests that there were distinct individual breeds of dogs at this time and due to the fact that

both images portray wealthy women surrounded by their fine goods this particular breed may

have been a status symbol.

Examples of this connection between breed of dog and gender identity of the owner are

also found in textual sources. In the 1486 publication titled The Boke of Saint Albans by Juliana

Barnes (b. 1388), a woman instructs her son in masculine arts in his father’s absence.36

In the

chapter on “The namys of diverses maner hounds,” she provides a list of masculine hunting

dogs, which includes greyhounds, mastiffs, and spaniels. Barnes ends this list with “smale ladies

popis that beere a way the flees.”37

These gendered allusions about small companion dogs for

women and large hunting dogs for men can be found throughout the Middle Ages and into the

High Renaissance throughout Europe.38

Lucas Cranach the Elder’s 1525 St. Jerome in his Study

The pattern of men being associated with hunting dogs and women being associated with

lapdogs in sixteenth-century portraiture has been established. There are, however, exceptions to

the recurrence of gendered interpretations of dog breeds. One such exception is found in Lucas

Cranach the Elder’s 1525 portrait of Albrecht of Brandenburg. In this painting a small lapdog

sits at the feet of the Albrecht. Through an examination of the life and times of Albrecht and the

forces at work surrounding the creation of this painting we can gain a greater understanding of

35 1538, Oil on Canvas, 119 x 165 cm, Uffizi, Florence. 36 Juliana Barnes, The Boke of Saint Albans, (1486) (New York: Abercrombie & Fitch, 1966). I originally became aware of this text from Schiesari’s Beast and Beauties, and it has proven extremely useful in my own research. For

further information on this work, see Rachel Hands, “Juilana Berners and the Boke of St. Albans,” The Review of

English Studies, 18, no.72 (1967): 373-386. 37 Schiesari, Beasts and Beauties, 19. 38

Schiesari explores this notion in depth in her book, Beasts and Beauties.

why this lapdog appears in the portrait of a man in this particular painting. In focusing on the

nature behind the exception to the lapdog/woman pattern, one can gain greater understanding of

the meaning behind dogs in paintings from sixteenth-century Germany.

In 1525 Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472-1553) painted a portrait of Cardinal Albrecht of

Brandenburg (fig. 2) represented as St. Jerome.39

Figure. 2. Lucas Cranach the Elder St. Jerome 1525, limewood, 116.5 x 775 cm, Hessisches Landesmuseum,

Darmstadt. (Image in the public domain, http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/E/Z/lce1107_11.jpg.)

Albrecht began commissioning work from Cranach’s workshop in 1520.40

At the time,

commissions from Cranach’s primary patron, the Elector of Saxony, consumed most of

39

1525, limewood, 116.5 x 775 cm, Hessisches Landesmuseum, Darmstadt.

Cranach’s personal attention. It is likely that the majority of commissions created for Albrecht in

Cranach’s workshop were the work of one of Cranach’s pupils who is dubbed “Master of the

Mass of Pope Gregory.” Cranach may have, however, painted some of the mid-1520s

commissions himself.41

Details related to exact authorship of paintings from the sixteenth

century cannot always be determined with absolute certainty. Therefore, for the purposes of this

essay the paintings created by Cranach’s workshop and his students will be referred to as the

work of Lucas Cranach.

Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg (1490-1545), often referred to as Albrecht of Mainz or

Albrecht of Hohenzollern, came from a wealthy family of ecclesiastic men.42

During his career

in the church he held many positions including the prebendary in the cathedral of Mainz,

Archbishop of Magdeburg, Archbishop of Mainz and cardinal-priest. Despite his life-long career

in the church Albrecht received criticism in his younger years for being too focused on the

pleasures of this life. Accused of being more of a humanist than theologian, Albrecht was a

generous patron of learned men and the arts. This is evidenced by the many surviving portraits

of Albrecht created by the great artists of sixteenth-century Germany, including works not only

by Lucas Cranach the Elder, but Albrecht Dürer and Matthias Grünewald.43

Albrecht’s

excessive and all too public love of books, women, and the arts eventually cumulated in Albrecht

drawing sharp criticism directly from Pope Leo X, who reprimanded the Cardinal for letting his

extravagant ways take his eyes away from his flock.44

Given Albrecht’s habit of drawing

40 At the time Cranach was the court painter for the electors of Saxony, who placed him at the disposal of Albrecht

from 1520 to 1529. 41 Max J. Friedl nder, and Jakob Rosenberg, The Paintings of Lucas Cranach (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University

Press, 1978), 104. 42 Owen Chadwick, The Reformation (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972), 40-43; and E. Ruhmer, Cranach (London:

Phaidon Publishers, 1963), 20-21. 43 Ruhmer, Cranach, 20. 44 Miles Joseph O’Malia, “Albert of Brandenburg,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. (New York: Robert

Appleton Company, 1907); and Ruhmer, Cranach, 20.

negative attention, he may have seen benefit in representing himself as one of the most beloved

saints for the people of Renaissance Germany: Saint Jerome (347-420).

In his study was just one of the multiple settings in which St. Jerome was commonly

portrayed.45

Because St. Jerome was considered an intellectual as well as a righteous man, he

often appears in church settings flanked by other scholarly saints such as St. Augustine.46

St.

Jerome is also represented leading an ascetic life in the wilderness.47

This incarnation of the

saint is due to the fact that St. Jerome was thought to have spent many years in the Syrian Desert

as an eremite.48

The motivations behind why Cardinal Albrecht wanted to be seen in this

particular manifestation of St. Jerome may be related to the political turmoil surrounding the

Catholic Church during the Reformation and the historical struggle regarding what should be

considered the correct translation of the Holy Scriptures.

In sixteenth-century Germany St. Jerome was considered the first man to translate the

Bible from Greek and early Hebrew into Latin, a version of the Bible which is still in use today

and known as the Vulgate. It is because of this scholarly enterprise that the saint is often

portrayed in a study. A few years before the creation of Cranach’s 1525 painting, Martin Luther

(1483-1546) translated the Vulgate into German and published his work.49

Albrecht was one of

the strongest and most important opponents of Luther. During the creation of Cranach’s painting

45 For a detailed account of St. Jerome’s reception in the Renaissance, see Eugene Rice, Saint Jerome in the

Renaissance (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1985). 46 Examples of this saintly pairing: Carlo Crivelli (c.1430/35-1495), St. Jerome and St. Augustine, c. 1490, tempera

on wood, 208 x 72 cm, Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice and Pietro Perugino (1446-1524), Virgin and St. Jerome

and St. Augustine, 1470, tempera on wood, 217 x 185 cm, Musée des Beaux-Arts, Dordeaux. 47 Examples of contemporary pieces of St. Jerome in the Wilderness: Albrecht Dürer (1471-1528), Saint Jerome in

Penance, ca. 1496, Engraving, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York. Mr. and Mrs. Isaac D. Fletcher Fund and Cima da Conegliano (1459-1517), St. Jerome in the Wilderness, ca. 1495, oil on canvas, 70 x 99cm, Harewood

House, Yorkshire, UK. 48 Rice, Saint Jerome in the Renaissance, 7. For the full account of the historical St. Jerome, see Rice’s chapter “The

Historical Jerome,” in Saint Jerome in the Renaissance, 1-22. 49

Rice, Saint Jerome, 173.

Albrecht was working on his own German translation of the Bible with a Catholic bias.50

Possible motivations for Albrecht may have been that a translation of the Bible in a commonly

accessible language was needed in his eyes to refute this new Lutheran version. Bodo

Brinkmann makes the argument that visual manifestations of this conflict over the translations

are found in Cranach’s 1525 image.51

St. Jerome may have held personal significance for Albrecht. Both St. Jerome and

Albrecht of Brandenburg were associated with the position of cardinal. Beyond this, in the first

episode of his life St. Jerome had a vision in which he was allowed through the gates of heaven

and into eternal paradise, but once there he was tormented for never having given up his books of

classical writings. The connotation of this to a man such as Albrecht, who was perhaps too

attached to the humanistic life, could not have been lost. Indeed, Cranach’s 1525 painting is

only one of three known portraits of Albrecht as St. Jerome.52

Many of the objects which surround Albrecht in this image are commonly found in

representations of St. Jerome in his study, such as the cardinal’s cloak cast aside, the crucifix on

the table on which the saint is studying, an hourglass hanging on the wall, a window letting in the

light of God, and, most commonly, a lion.53

A lion is almost always shown in any representation

of St. Jerome in reference to the episode in which the saint removes a thorn from the foot of a

lion and the beast is forever dedicated to him.54

According to legend, the lion spent the rest of its

50 Brinkmann, Cranach, 252. 51 Ibid. 52 The others being: Lucas Cranach the Elder, Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg as St. Jerome in a Landscape,

1527, panel, 148 x 110cm, Berlin-Dahlem, Museum, Berlin and Lucas Cranach the Elder, Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg as St. Jerome, 1526, oil and tempera on wood, 144.9 x 78.9, The John and Mabel Ringling Museum of

Art, State art Museum of Florida, Sarasota. 53 Colin Eisler, Dürer’s Animals, (Washington: Smithsonian Institutional Press, 1991), 142. 54 Penny Howell Jolly, “Antonello de Messina’s Saint Jerome in His Study: An Iconographic Analysis,” The Art

Bulletin 65, no.2 (1983): 238-253.

life doing chores around the monastery in which St. Jerome lived and dedicated itself to

protecting the monastic donkey.55

In addition to the objects commonly found in representations of St. Jerome, Cranach’s

1525 image includes a figure unusual in a portrait of a man. Just to the left of Albrecht, sitting

on the floor is small lapdog. The little dog is white, with tan ears, and bears a strong

resemblance to the lapdogs featured in portraits of women. The image is admittedly of a

somewhat different nature than the secular portraits by Cranach and Titian discussed earlier. It is

a portrait not only of Albrecht of Brandenburg, but of a saint as well. If the visual language was

already in place for men to be painted with large dogs and women with lapdogs, then the

divergence of depicting Albrecht with a lapdog would not have gone unnoticed by early

sixteenth-century viewers and images such as these were surely intended to be read and reflected

upon.56

In 1525 Albrecht Dürer’s St. Jerome in Study (1514) (fig. 3), which will be examined in

greater depth later, was a well-known image of St. Jerome.57

55 Eisler, Dürer’s Animals, 142. 56 Laurie Schneider Adams, The Methodologies of Art: An Introduction (New York: Harper Collins, 1996), 36-57. 57 Albrecht Dürer, Saint Jerome in His Study, 1514, Engraving, 25.4 x 19 cm, National Gallery of Art, Washington,

D.C.

Figure. 3. Albrecht Dürer, Saint Jerome in His Study, 1514, Engraving, 25.4 x 19 cm, National Gallery of Art,

Washington, D.C. (Image in the public domain,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ac/D%C3%BCrer-Hieronymus-im-

Geh%C3%A4us.jpg/300px-D%C3%BCrer-Hieronymus-im-Geh%C3%A4us.jpg.)

In Dürer’s engraving the saint’s head is bowed over his book in deep concentration. In

Cranach’s version, however, the saint’s gaze is different. Jerome’s eyes are raised and he looks

beyond the text for inspiration to the crucifix sitting on his table.58

The image of Christ suffering

on the cross is one that was rejected by the Lutheran church.59

It is this object to which Albrecht

as St. Jerome turns to for guidance to create what he believes to be a true and accurate translation

of the Holy Scripture.60

Given these intense theological and political dynamics surrounding the

creation of this painting it is reasonable to believe that objects within it—including the lapdog—

are ripe with meaning and worthy of comprehensive examination.

Connection to Dürer’s St. Jerome Engraving

It is plausible that Cranach was aware of another image of St. Jerome in his study created

only eleven years earlier. Dürer’s St. Jerome in his Study is considered, along with Knight,

Death and the Devil and Melencolia I, to be among his Meisterstiche, or masterworks. It would

not be the first time Cranach used an engraving of Dürer’s as reference for a painting created for

Albrecht of Brandenburg.61

As stated previously, Albrecht began to commission work from

Cranach in 1520. All of the portraits of Albrecht created by Cranach depict the cardinal in the

same three-quarter profile viewed from Albrecht’s right. Given this, it seems likely that Cranach

never captured Albrecht’s likeness from life, but instead was working from Dürer’s 1519

engraving.62

Albrecht was a generous patron of both artists; therefore, it is likely that Cranach

had access to Dürer’s engraving.

58 Brinkmann, Cranach, 252. 59 Susan C. Karant-Nunn, The Reformation of Feeling: Shaping the Religious Emotions in Early Modern Germany

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 67-68. 60 Brinkmann, Cranach, 252. 61 Ruhmer, Cranach, 21. 62

Werner Schade, Cranach: A Family of Master Painters (New York: Putnam, 1980), 52.

Because Dürer’s version of St. Jerome in His Study is an engraving, Dürer could create

multiple copies of this piece to be sold and shipped throughout Europe. Dürer was considered a

great artist during his own lifetime and given the existence of multiple copies of Dürer’s St.

Jerome in His Study, as well as the fact that Dürer and Cranach shared a major patron, it is

reasonable to believe that Cranach may have seen or even been referencing this piece. In a side-

by-side comparison one can see there are similar objects in these images, including small details

such as the cardinal’s cap hanging directly above the saint’s head, the bench with a single pillow,

the strip of leather holding letters on the wall behind the saint, and, most notably for this essay, a

small lapdog.

Is Dürer’s Dog a Lapdog?

There are, however, objects in Dürer’s engraving not present in Cranach’s portrait and

objects in Cranach’s portrait not present in Dürer’s engraving. The inclusion of the lapdog

cannot, therefore, be said to be simple imitation on Cranach’s part. Cranach’s painting was

important for his patron; it addressed the conflicts present in Albrecht’s life in 1525 and the

inclusion of the lapdog among the figures borrowed from Dürer’s engraving is significant. In

Dürer’s engraving, however, the dog’s apparent size in comparison to the lion is problematic for

the assertion that the animal is a small pet. Dürer is famous for his interest in exotic creatures as

well as his extremely naturalistic renditions of animals.63

The dog appears to be about one-

fourth the size of the adult male lion, an animal that in modern times has been recorded weighing

as much as 250 kg. It should be noted, however, that at this point in Dürer’s life he may never

have seen a lion in person or at the very least was lacking full knowledge regarding the physical

63 Guilia Bartrum, Albrecht Dürer and his Legacy: the Graphic Work of a Renaissance Artist, (London: British

Museum, 2002), 31; and Colin Eisler, Dürer’s Animals.

aspects of this animal.64

Dürer is known to have created images of animals based on textual

descriptions alone, so it is possible this was the technique used when rendering this lion.65

It is

also possible that the size of lions was underestimated in the collective knowledge of the early

Renaissance.

A similar example of a lion whose size appears to have been greatly misjudged is found

in the work of the Cologne artist Stefan Lochner (1400-1452). In Lochner’s 1451 rendition of

St. Jerome in his study, the saint is shown at his desk complete with the traditionally pictured

scriptures and cardinal cap (fig. 4).66

64 For alternate speculations on when Dürer encountered a lion first hand, see Eisler, Dürer’s Animals, 140. 65 Such as Dürer’s famous woodcut The Rhinoceros, 1515, Woodcut, National Gallery of Art Washington, D.C. Rosenwald Collection and Walrus, 1521, Pen and ink, Trustees of the British Museum, London, Sloane Collection. 66 St. Jerome in His Study, c. 1435, panel, 39.5 x 30.5 cm, North Carolina Museum of Art, Raleigh. Stefan Lochner

was a Cologne-based painter. For more information on this painter, see Wolfgang Stechow, “A Youth Work by

Stephan Lochner,” The Bulletin of the Cleveland Museum of Art, 55, no.10 (1968): 307-314; and Brigitte Corley, “A

Plausible Provenance for Stefan Lochner,” Zeitschrift für Kenstgeschichte, 59, no.1 (1996): 78-96.

Figure. 4. Lochner, St. Jerome in His Study, c. 1435, panel, 39.5 x 30.5 cm, North Carolina Museum of Art,

Raleigh. (Image in the public domain, http://www.1st-art-gallery.com/thumbnail/371361/1/Saint-Jerome-In-His-

Study.jpg.)

The saint reaches down to the left of the painting to engage a lion that is holding up its right paw,

perhaps to ask for help from the saint. While the lion’s physical features reflect that of a mature

male, clearly represented by the full mane, the lion’s small size appears almost cartoonish to a

modern viewer. This apparent inaccuracy in scale may simply reflect Lochner’s desire to reveal

the saint’s relative importance or that the artist may not have concerned himself with exact size

of his subjects. It may also be evidence that while physical features of lions were commonly

known to artists of the time, their exact size remained something of a mystery.

Another comparison shows that the lapdog in Dürer’s St. Jerome in his Study (fig. 3)

bears a strong resemblance to another little animal found in a scene from Sandro Botticelli’s

(1445-1520) The Trials of Moses (1482).67

A viewer may observe that both Dürer’s and

Botticelli’s dogs have large heads, with bulging eyes and oversized triangle-shaped ears. If these

are indeed the same breed of dog, it is clear that the dog is small enough to fit under a child’s

arm, as shown in The Trials of Moses. One may go so far as to suggest that both these dogs are

very similar in appearance to the modern day Chihuahua, the world’s smallest dog. Although

Chihuahuas are most often associated with Central America, it is images such as Botticelli’s

(painted some ten years before Christopher Columbus set sail for the New World) that lead some

animal historians to believe that this particular breed of dog has its genetic roots in Europe.68

The Significance of Cranach’s Lapdog

As indicated above, a lapdog is one of many features found in both Dürer’s engraving of

St. Jerome and Cranach’s paintings. Importantly, however, not every object is copied faithfully.

This speaks to the lapdog’s importance although not necessarily its connotations. Even though

67 Sandro Botticelli and assistants, 1481-1482, Fresco, 348.5 x 558 cm, Sistine Chapel, Rome. 68 Bruce Fogle, “Chihuahua,” The Encyclopedia of the Dog, Vol. 1. (London: Dorling Kindersley, 1995), 272. For

further interpretations on the meaning of the small dog in Dürer’s engraving, see Eisler, Dürer’s Animals, 175.

lapdogs were often associated with noble women in the sixteenth century, I maintain that the

inclusion of the lapdog was not meant to communicate something feminine about St. Jerome or

Albrecht of Brandenburg. Cranach’s piece was a commissioned portrait of the patron, and Lucas

Cranach would not have portrayed his patron in an undesirable light.69

Gender roles in the early

sixteenth century were strictly defined, and to show a holy figure or the patron of one’s art in

what would be a comical and unflattering representation would not be done. The presence of the

lapdog is therefore not an indication of feminine qualities or temperament of the subject. Rather,

interpreting the division between hunting breeds and small breeds into masculine and feminine is

an oversimplification of the way in which domesticated dogs were perceived in the early

sixteenth century.

Another possible interpretation of the presence of the lapdog in Cranach’s 1525 painting

is that it indicates a woman somewhere in Albrecht’s home, but not pictured in the painting.

This dog is similar in physical characteristics – dropping ears, brown and white body, small

square head – to dogs found sitting directly near women in Titian’s portraits as discussed earlier.

It is improbable, however, that the lapdog was meant to imply the presence of a woman in

Albrecht’s home. The depiction of whether it was appropriate for ecclesiastic men to wed was

one of the deepest points of contention between the Lutherans and the Catholic Church. In 1525,

the year this painting was created, Luther married without any intention of leaving his position in

the church.70

That same year he sent a letter to Albrecht challenging him to wed his longtime

69 While it is known that Lucas Cranach and Martin Luther were friends and Albrecht of Brandenburg was a nemesis

of Luther, when this painting was made the lines of the Reformation were not as clearly formed as we consider them

today. Beyond this Albrecht was an important patron of Cranach’s, one who it would be most unfortunate for Cranach to lose. For information on the relationship between these three men, see Ruhmer, Cranach, 20; and

Chadwick, The Reformation, 41-43. 70 Karant-Nunn, Masculinity in the Reformation Era, 176. This source contains detailed information about Luther’s

motivations for marriage as well as the interesting detail that Luther criticized St. Jerome’s as “unchristian” for

writing against marriage.

mistress, a letter published later in 1526, surely a public humiliation for Albrecht.71

Given that it

was forbidden for clergy to be married and were supposed to live lives of celibacy, it is doubtful

that the little dog is meant to insinuate the presence of woman in Albrecht’s home, certainly not a

noblewoman. A dog with the physical characteristics of the one featured in Cranach’s painting

would not have belonged to a household servant or cook. The companion dogs of the lower

classes were consistently represented in sixteenth-century art as nondescript medium-sized

brown or black animals.72

They are often depicted outdoors participating in physical labor with

their owners or pictured as mangy, skinny beasts scouring the streets for scraps of meat. The

representation of lower class dogs as either working companions or town nuisances suggests that

a small, pet dog would be a luxury. Only individuals with the resources necessary to feed an

animal from which they were not receiving labor and the time to enjoy an animal in and of itself

would be able to appreciate a companion animal that did not serve a functional purpose for the

household.73

Cranach certainly had professional associations with key figures in Reformation, but

there is evidence that a personal friendship existed between Cranach and Luther.74

Luther writes

about teasing Cranach’s son about his new bride, with whom the young man seems to be

completely infatuated.75

This personal interaction suggests that Cranach and Luther spent

congenial social time together with each other and with each other’s families. Due to this

personal connection between Luther and Cranach and Luther’s known conflicts with Albrecht

over marriage I believe it could be suggested that Cranach added the lapdog as a way of subtlety

71 Brinkmann, Cranach, 254. 72 Many of scenes of peasants and their canine companions can be found throughout the work of Pieter Bruegel the Elder, in particular he paintings Massacre of the Innocents, 1566-7, oil on canvas 43.75 x 63 in, Kunshistorisches

Museum, Vienna and Netherlandish Proverbs, 1559, oil on panel, 117 x 163 cm, Staatliche Museen, Berlin. 73 Thomas, Man and the Natural World, 102-3, 112; and Jenner, “The Great Dog Massacre,” 52. 74 Simon, The Reformation, 146. 75

Karant-Nunn, Masculinity in the Reformation, 178.

making reference to Albrecht’s womanizing. It is, however, very difficult to surmise the

personal and private motivations of individuals and given a lack of any physical evidence, such

as written communications, any conjecture along these lines would be pure speculation.

Therefore I believe it is doubtful that the presence of a lapdog in these particular circumstances

was meant to suggest the presence of a woman in the house.

The 1526 Version of this Painting

A second rendition of the Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg as St. Jerome in His Study

(fig. 5) was produced by Cranach’s workshop in 1526.76

While the overall layout of the image

was very similar and certain details remain almost identical, such as the design of the table on

which the saint is writing, there are significant changes, the most notable for the purposes of this

essay was replacing the small dog (which in the 1525 edition sits to Albrecht’s right) with a

brown rabbit in the same position crouched on its haunches. Other revisions include the addition

of more animals to the 1526 version, such as the beaver and stag in the bottom left of the

painting, and relocating the cardinal’s cap from the wall behind Albrecht to a table. I would

argue that the addition of more animals to St. Jerome’s study could be Cranach trying to

acknowledge the tradition of representing St. Jerome in the wilderness.77

Often in scenes of the

saint in the forest he is surrounded by many animals and appears to be living in harmony with

them.78

76 Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg as St. Jerome, 1526, oil and tempera on wood, 144.9 x 78.9 cm, The John and

Mabel Ringling Museum of Art, State art Museum of Florida, Sarasota. 77 Well known examples from the early modern period of this tradition include Albrecht Dürer, Saint Jerome in

Penance, ca. 1496. Engraving Museum of Art, New York and Leonardo da Vinci, Saint Jerome in the Wilderness, c. 1480, tempera and oil on walnut panel, 103 x 75 cm, Vatican Museums, Rome. For more information on the

tradition of St. Jerome in the Wilderness, see Eisler, Dürer’s Animals, 145-148. 78 Another possible interpretation of the addition of animals is that they represent specific messages in a bestiary

tradition. It is, however, difficult to read animals in the image with a one-to-one correlation between species and

meaning. Bestiaries from the time often offer differing interpretation of the significance of species and to discover

Figure. 5. Lucas Cranach, Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg as St. Jerome, 1526, oil and tempera on wood, 144.9 x

78.9 cm, The John and Mabel Ringling Museum of Art, State art Museum of Florida, Sarasota. (Image in the public

domain, http://0.tqn.com/d/arthistory/1/0/H/Z/lce1107_14.jpg.)

In the 1526 version of this painting, the cooking utensils, kettle and bookshelf are gone

and instead luxury goods, such as the antler chandelier, surround Albrecht. A painting of the

Madonna and Child hangs in the 1526 rendition of the image, where the bookshelf and hourglass

stood in the 1525 painting.79

Both the painting of Mary and the chandelier are objects found in

the home of a wealthy man of the sixteenth century.80

The items that surround Albrecht in the

which interpretations Cranach would have been referencing could be impossible. For more information on bestiaries, see Margaret Allen, Bestiary, (Winnipeg: St. John’s College Press, 1984). 79 As Brinkmann points out in his book Cranach another possible interpretation of this specific object could be it

was added as a direct reference to the debate regarding celibacy taking place between Luther and Albrecht. 80 Kristen B. Neuschel, “Noble Households in the Sixteenth Century: Material Settings and Human Communities,”

French Historical Studies 15, no.4 (1988): 595-622.

1525 painting are not nearly as extravagant as the items in the 1526 painting. The room in which

Albrecht is sitting in the 1526 painting is, therefore, more about display than the 1525 version of

the painting. The version of Albrecht presented in the 1526 painting is that of a man with a

house full of luxury goods to impress the important guests who came to his home.81

The objects

surrounding Albrecht speak to his wealth, and with wealth comes power. Albrecht is a perfect

example of this well known connection between wealth and power. He spent a fortune and

amassed a heavy debt during his bid for the position of Archbishop.82

Significantly the lapdog is

the only animal found in the 1525 painting that was removed from the 1526 painting.

I argue that it is this connection between the lapdog and the other simple objects which

were removed from the 1525 painting that is a the clue to the question of why the dog present in

Cranach’s 1525 version of Cardinal Albrecht of Brandenburg as St. Jerome in His Study was

replaced by a rabbit in the 1526 version. The objects missing between the two versions of this

portrait are the items of a simple household. Objects like the caldron reflect a distinctively

domestic setting, such as a kitchen, a private space that would not have been seen by guests

visiting the home of a wealthy man.83

Replacing these simple objects with luxury ones changes

the setting in which Albrecht is working from a small, private space to that of a lavish study.

The lapdog is simply another indication of a private, domestic space that was removed in lieu of

other objects that display wealth. Acknowledging the generalized notion that during this time

men inhabited the public world and women the private points to the connection between the

function of humans defined along gender lines and the function of the dogs defined by breed.

81 Brinkmann address this distinction between the objects in the 1525 painting and the 1526 painting in his book

Cranach. 82 It is Albrecht’s personal debt along with the mounting costs to fund St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome which caused the

church to begin the selling of indulgences for sins yet to be committed in Germany. There are some scholars who

believe that this act was the catalyst for Luther taking action against the Catholic Church and beginning the

Reformation. See Simon, The Reformation, 39; and Chadwick, The Reformation, 41-43. 83

Neuschel, “Noble Households in the Sixteenth Century,” 610.

The visual pattern of portraits of women including lapdogs and portraits of men including

hunting dogs, as well as the respective connection between these breeds of dog and the public

and private sphere, are very much interrelated.

Dogs in Public and Private Spaces

Further evidence that lapdogs functioned as indications of a private space comes from

unraveling the way in which domesticated dogs functioned in the households of this time. To do

this one must examine the corollary way in which the two major types of dogs functioned in

society. Hunting dogs led lives external to the home; they were public reflections of their

owners.84

Even if a nobleman did not take the dogs out regularly himself, he would often have

servants who used the animals to bring down game for feasts of the house. Hunting dogs did not

sleep or eat inside the private home and were kept in large kennels outdoors.85

By contrast,

lapdog breeds lived their lives inside, sleeping in the beds of their owners and sharing in their

meals. This is evidenced by images such as Titian’s Venus of Urbino and textual references to

the little dogs’ ability to draw fleas away from their mistresses.86

Given these patterns it is more

likely that the division between hunting hounds and toy dogs falls not exclusively along gender

lines. Rather, I would argue that these dogs also represented the division between public and

private spaces.

Historians have long been devoted to studying perceived expressions of self in the early

modern period by examining the visual artifacts of the time. Clothing, dwellings, domestic

objects, and weapons of war have all captured the interest of scholars. Humans and their canines

84 Thomas, Man and the Natural World, 103. 85 Jenner writes in his essay “The Great Dog Massacre,” 17, that noblemen often spent more time and money

creating the kennels for their hounds than comfortable quarters for their servants. See also, Schiesari, Beasts and

Beauties, 17. 86

Barnes, The Boke of St. Ablans.

have close bonds stretching back to antiquity and beyond and given that people have a habit of

identifying themselves with the things that surround them, it is no wonder that pet dogs have

been and are expressions of their owners – I think as much, if not more so than, as inanimate

objects. I believe that thoughtful explorations of the way people interacted and perceived their

canine companions can offer great insight into the way humans perceived themselves as

individuals as well as what it meant to be a human and have human experiences in the sixteenth

century.

Edited by Jeanne E. Grant, PhD, and Maggie Sachi, journal intern.

Bibliography

Adams, Laurie. The Methodologies of Art: An Introduction. New York: Icon Editions, 1996.

Allen, Margaret. Bestiary. Winnipeg: St. John’s College Press, 1984.

Barnes, Julians. Dame Juliana Berners. The Boke of Saint Albans. 1969.

Bartrum, Giulia, Günter Grass, Joseph Leo Koerner, and Ute Kuhlemann. Albrecht Dürer and

His Legacy: The Graphic Work of a Renaissance Artist. London: British Museum, 2002.

Brantz, Dorothee. Beastly Natures: Animals, Humans, and the Study of History. Charlottesville:

University of Virginia Press, 2010.

Brinkmann, Bodo, Royal Academy of Arts (Great Britain), and Städtische Galerie im

Städelschen Kunstinstitut Frankfurt am Main. Cranach. London; New York: Royal

Academy of Arts; Distributed in the United States and Canada by Harry N. Abrams,

2007.

Chadwick, Owen. The Reformation. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1972.

Cohen, Simona. Animals as Disguised Symbols in Renaissance Art. Leiden: Brill, 2008.

Corley, Brigitte. “A Plausible Provenance for Stefan Lochner.” Zeitschrift für Kenstgeschichte,

59, no.1 (1996): 78-96.

Cranach, Lucas, Max J. Friedländer, and Jakob Rosenberg. The Paintings of Lucas Cranach.

London: Philip Wilson Publishers Ltd., for Sotheby Parke Bernet, 1978.

Cranach, Lucas, Eberhard Ruhmer, and Rouben Mamoulian Collection (Library of Congress).

Cranach. London: Phaidon Publishers; distributed by New York Graphic Society,

Greenwich, Connecticut, 1963.

Eisler, Colin T. Dürer’s Animals. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.

Fogle, Bruce. “Chihuahua.” The Encyclopedia of the Dog, Vol. 1. London: Dorling

Kindersley, 1995.

Frady, Lisa Y. “Constructing Social Identity in Renaissance Florence: Botticelli’s ‘Portrait of a

Lady (Smeralda Brandini).’” MA thesis, The University of Arizona, 2001.

Friedl nder, Max, and Jakob Rosenberg. The Paintings of Lucas Cranach. Ithaca, N.Y.:

Cornell University Press, 1978.

Fudge, Erica. “How A Man Differs From a Dog - Erica Fudge Considers what it Meant to be

Described as an Animal in the 16th and 17th Centuries.” History Today 53, no.6 (2003):

38.

_________. Pets. Stocksfield: Acumen Press, 2008.

_________. Renaissance Beasts: Of Animals, Humans, and Other Wonderful Creatures. Urbana:

University of Illinois Press, 2004.

_________. Brutal Reasoning: Animals, Rationality and Humanity in Early Modern England.

Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2006.

__________. Perceiving Animals: Humans and Beasts in Early Modern English Culture. New

York: Macmillan/St Martin’s Press, 2000.

Hands, Rachel. “Juilana Berners and the Boke of St. Albans.” The Review of English Studies 18,

no.72 (1967): 373-386.

Harrison, Peter. “The Virtues of Animals in Seventeenth-Century Thought.” Journal of the

History of Ideas 59, no.3 (1998): 463-484.

Herald, Jacqueline. Renaissance Dress in Italy 1400-1500. London; Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Bell

& Hyman; Humanities Press, 1981.

Jenner, Mark. “The Great Dog Massacre” in Fear in Early Modern Society, eds. Penny Roberts

and William Naphy. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997.

Johns, Catherine. Dogs: History, Myth, Art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.

Jolly, Penny Howell. “Antonello Da Messina’s Saint Jerome in His Study: An Iconographic

Analysis.” Art Bulletin 65, no.2 (1983): 238-253.

Karant-Nunn, Susan C. The Reformation of Feeling: Shaping the Religious Emotions in Early

Modern Germany. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Lazenby, Francis D. “Greek and Roman Household Pets.” Classical Journal 44, no.4 (1949):

245-252.

Naphy, William and Penny Roberts. Fear in Early Modern Society. Manchester, England; New

York; New York: Manchester University Press; Distributed exclusively in the USA by

Martin’s Press, 1997.

Neuschel, Kristen B. “Noble Households in the Sixteenth Century: Material Settings and Human

Communities.” French Historical Studies 15, no. 4 (1988): 595-622.

O’Malia, Miles Joseph. “Albert of Brandenburg.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. New York:

Robert Appleton Company, 1907.

Ovid. Metamorphoses. London: Penguin Classics, 1955.

Papy, Jan. “Lipsius and His Dogs: Humanist Tradition, Iconography and Rubens’s Four

Philosophers.” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 62, (1999): 167-198.

Pickeral, Tamsin. The Dog: 5000 Years of the Dog in Art. New York: Merrell Publishers, 2008.

Ratliff, Evan. “Mix, Match, Morph: How to Build a Dog.” National Geographic, February,

2012.

Rice, Eugene F. Saint Jerome in the Renaissance. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press,

1985.

Ritvo, Harriet. Noble Cows and Hybrid Zebras: Essays on Animals and History. Charlottesville:

University of Virginia Press, 2010.

_________. The Animal Estate: The English and Other Creature in the Victorian Age.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Ruhmer, E. Cranach. London: Phaidon Publishers, 1963.

Schade, Werner. Cranach, a Family of Master Painters. New York: Putnam, 1980.

Schiesari, Juliana. Beasts and Beauties: Animals, Gender, and Domestication in the Italian

Renaissance. Toronto; Buffalo: University of Toronto Press, 2010.

Stechow, Wolfgang. “A Youth Work by Stephan Lochner.” The Bulletin of the Cleveland

Museum of Art 55, no.10 (1968): 307-314.

Thomas, Keith. Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England, 1500-1800.

London: Allen Lane, 1983.

Tuan, Yi-fu. Dominance & Affection: The Making of Pets. New Haven: Yale University Press,

1984.