Advertisement

Picturing Same-Sex Desire: The Falconer and His Lover in Images by Petrus Christus and the Housebook Master

  • Diane Wolfthal
Part of the The New Middle Ages book series (TNMA)

Abstract

This chapter will explore two previously unrecognized images of same-sex desire, Petrus Christus’s Couple in a Goldsmith’s Shop and the Housebook Master’s Falconer, which both employ the falcon as a sign of love (figures 1.1 and 1.8).1 These works have never been satisfactorily explained. Much has been written about the Goldsmith’s Shop, a canonical work within the field of northern renaissance art, but the literature is characterized by uncertainty, debate, and contradiction, precisely because no one has been able to make sense of the mysterious male couple depicted in the mirror in the right foreground (figure 1.2). The Falconer is less well known, but the few studies that discuss the print dismiss it too easily, thereby misinterpreting it. Both works are part of a complex cultural history of sexuality that is just now being written, which explores the conceptualization of heterosexual and homosexual desire, and shows how they became constructed as opposites in the West, with one defined as the norm and the other as deviance.2 Furthermore, these images demonstrate that love between men is implicated in the history of marriage, an institution that became the privileged site of heterosexuality. Yet these works also reveal that although some images reinforce the idea of sodomy as sin, others, to quote Jacqueline Murray, “extend beyond a litany of prohibitions and condemnations.”3

Keywords

Male Couple National Gallery Metropolitan Museum Homosexual Desire Courtly Love 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 2.
    For a summary of the arguments against adopting the word “homosexual” to refer to the time before the nineteenth century, see Abigail Solomon-Godeau, Male Trouble: A Crisis in Representation (London: Thames and Hudson, 1997), pp. 26–32.Google Scholar
  2. 3.
    Jacqueline Murray, “Twice Marginal and Twice Invisible: Lesbians in the Middle Ages,” in Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, ed. Vern L. Bullough and James Brundage (New York: Garland, 1996), p. 208 [191–222].Google Scholar
  3. 4.
    Warren Johansson and William A. Percy, “Homosexuality,” in Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, ed. Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage (New York: Garland, 1996), pp. 176–78 [155–89].Google Scholar
  4. 5.
    For recent relevant studies on medieval and early modern images of homosexuals, see Michael Camille, “‘For Our Devotion and Pleasure’: The Sexual Objects of Jean, Duc de Berry,” Art History 24 (2001): 169–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Michael Camille, The Medieval Art of Love: Objects and Subjects of Desire (New York: Harry N. Abrams, 1998), pp. 138–40Google Scholar
  6. Craig Harbison, “The Sexuality of Christ in the Early Sixteenth Century in Germany,” in A Tribute to Robert A. Koch: Studies in the Northern Renaissance, ed. John Oliver Hand (Princeton: Department of Art and Archaeology, 1994), pp. 69–81Google Scholar
  7. Robert Mills, “Ecce Homo,” in Gender and Holiness: Men, Women and Saints in Late Medieval Europe, ed. Samantha J.E. Riches and Sarah Salih (London: Routledge, 2002), pp. 152–73Google Scholar
  8. Robert Mills, “‘Whatever You Do Is a Delight to Me!’: Masculinity, Masochism, and Queer Play in Representations of Male Martyrdom,” Exemplaria 13.1 (2001): 1–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. James Saslow, Pictures and Passions: A History of Homosexuality in the Visual Arts (New York: Viking, 1999), esp. pp. 76–78, 92–95Google Scholar
  10. J. Schenk, “Homoseksualiteit in de Nederlandse beeldende kunst voor 1800,” Spiegel Historiael 17 (1982): 576–83. For other works, see n65.Google Scholar
  11. 6.
    “m petr[us] xpi me fecit a 1449.” See Della C. Sperling, “Petrus Christus,” in From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in the Metropolitan Museum, ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth and Keith Christiansen (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998), p. 150 [150–53].Google Scholar
  12. 7.
    Peter Schabacker, “Petrus Christus’ ‘Saint Eloy’: Problems of Provenance, Sources and Meaning,” Art Quarterly 35 (1972): 107–108 [103–18].Google Scholar
  13. Maryan W. Ainsworth, “St. Eligius,” in Petrus Christus: Renaissance Master of Bruges, ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth and Max P.J. Martens (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1994), p. 96 [96–101].Google Scholar
  14. 8.
    F. Werner, “Eligius (Alo’, Loy) von Noyon,” in Lexikon der christlichen Ikonographie, ed. Englebert Kirshbaum et al., 8 vols. (Rome: Herder, 1968–76), 6: cols. 122–27Google Scholar
  15. Erwin Panofsky, Early Netherlandish Painting: Its Origin and Character (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1953), p. 490, n2.Google Scholar
  16. 9.
    Guy Bauman, “Early Flemish Portraits 1425–1525,” Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 43.4 (1986): 11 [44–64]Google Scholar
  17. Lorne Campbell, review of Petrus Christus exhibition at Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, in Burlington Magazine 136 (1994): 641 [639–41]Google Scholar
  18. Martha Wolff, “The South Netherlands, Fifteenth and Sixteenth Centuries,” in The Robert Lehman Collection, vol. 2: Fifteenth to Eighteenth Century European Paintings: France, Central Europe, The Netherlands, and Great Britain, ed. Charles Sterling et al. (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998), pp. 65, 67, 69, 71 [61–124]Google Scholar
  19. Hugo van der Velden, who terms it the “epitome of secular painting,” in “Defrocking St. Eloy: Petrus Christus’s ‘Vocational Portrait of a Goldsmith,’” Simiolus 26 (1998): 242–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 12.
    Jos Kolderweij, in his review of Ainsworth and Martens, Petrus Christus: Renaissance Master, in Simiolus 23 (1995): 271 [268–73], convincingly argues that the object with the pelican on the lid is a reliquary.Google Scholar
  21. 13.
    Rings functioned in both the betrothal and wedding rituals: see Edwin Hall, The Arnolfini Betrothal: Medieval Marriage and the Enigma of Van Eyck’s Double Portrait (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), pp. 15, 34, 62–64.Google Scholar
  22. Joel Upton, Petrus Christus: His Place in Fifteenth-Century Flemish Painting (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1990), p. 34; Ainsworth, “St Eligius,” p. 96; and Wolff, “The South Netherlands,” p. 70.Google Scholar
  23. 15.
    See Wolff,“The South Netherlands,” p. 70; Ronald W. Lightbown, Mediaeval European Jewelry (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1992), pp. 306, 382.Google Scholar
  24. 16.
    Gustav Glück, “Bildnisse aus dem Hause Habsburg: I. Kaiserin Isabella,” Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, n.s. 7 (1933): 189, fig. 150, 191 [183–200]Google Scholar
  25. Keith Moxey, “Chivalry and the Housebook Master (Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet),” in Livelier than Life: The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet or the Housebook Master, ca. 1470–1500, exh. cat., ed. Jan Piet Filedt Kok (Amsterdam: Rijksprentenkabinet/Rijksmuseum, 1985), pp. 65–78. For this gesture, see also Marcantonio Raimondi’s Apollo, Hyacinth, and Amor, 1506, in Bruce R. Smith, Homosexual Desire in Shakespeare’s England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), p. 2, and two versions of Paris Bordon, Pair of Lovers, ca. 1540–50Google Scholar
  26. Jill Dunkerton, Susan Foister, and Nicholas Penny, Dürer to Veronese: Sixteenth-Century Painting in the National Gallery (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), pp. 102–103, figs. 115–116.Google Scholar
  27. 17.
    For the sword as phallus see Diane Wolfthal, Images of Rape: The “Heroic” Tradition and Its Alternatives (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 61, 81, 83; for the gesture of grasping the hilt of the sword in a marital contextGoogle Scholar
  28. Margaret Scott, The History of Dress Series: Late Gothic Europe 1400–1500 (London: Mills and Boon, 1980), p. 33, fig. 13Google Scholar
  29. Raimond van Marle, Iconographie de l’art profane au Moyen Âge et à la Renaissance, 2 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1931), 1:457, fig. 452; Hall, Arnolfini Betrothal, pl. 9. For earnest money, see Wolff, “The South Netherlands,” p. 70, and Hall, Arnolfini Betrothal, pp. 15, 61.Google Scholar
  30. 21.
    Heinrich Schwartz, “The Mirror in Art,” Art Quarterly 15 (1952): 103 [97–118].Google Scholar
  31. 22.
    M.J.H. Madou, “Het gebruik van de spiegel in de Middeleeuwen,” in Oog in oog met de Spiegel, ed. Nico J. Brederoo (Amsterdam: Aramith, 1988), pp. 57–61 [38–65]; Schwartz, “The Mirror in Art,” p. 103Google Scholar
  32. Julien Chapuis, “Early Netherlandish Painting: Shifting Perspectives,” in From Van Eyck to Bruegel: Early Netherlandish Painting in the Metropolitan Museum, ed. Maryan W. Ainsworth and Keith Christiansen (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1998), p. 17 [3–21]; Schabacker, “Petrus Christus’ ‘Saint Eloy,’” pp. 103–118.Google Scholar
  33. 24.
    Mira Friedman, “The Falcon and the Hunt: Symbolic Love Imagery in Medieval and Renaissance Art,” in Poetics of Love in the Middle Ages, ed. Moshe Lazar and Norris J. Lacy (Fairfax: George Mason University Press, 1989), p. 162 [157–75].Google Scholar
  34. Peter Schabacker, Petrus Christus (Utrecht: Haentjens, Dekker and Gumbert, 1974), p. 90. Again van der Velden disagrees: see “Defrocking St. Eloy,” p. 243.Google Scholar
  35. 28.
    Meyer Schapiro, Words and Pictures: On the Literal and the Symbolic in the Illustration of a Text (The Hague: Mouton, 1973), p. 40.Google Scholar
  36. 29.
    See Ruth Mellinkoff, Outcasts: Signs of Otherness in Northern European Art of the Late Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), esp. 1:209–27.Google Scholar
  37. 30.
    Filedt Kok, “Catalogue,” p. 155, fig. 58c; Stephen K. Scher (ed.), Europe in Torment: 1450–1550 (Providence: Brown University and Rhode Island School of Design, 1974), pp. 107–109.Google Scholar
  38. 32.
    Scott, Late Gothic Painting, pp. 146, 148. Bauman also terms them aristocratic: see “Early Flemish Portraits,” pp. 11–12. For images of Isabella, see Micheline Sonkes, Dessins du XVe siècle: Groupe Van der Weyden (Brussels: Centre National de Recherches “Primitifs Flamands,” 1969), p. 110 and pl. XXIIIb.Google Scholar
  39. 33.
    H. Clifford Smith, “‘The Legend of S. Eloy and S. Goddeberta’ by Petrus Christus,” Burlington Magazine 35 (1914): 331 [326–35].Google Scholar
  40. 36.
    John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), p. 253Google Scholar
  41. Juliann Vitullo, The Chivalric Epic in Medieval Italy (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 2000), pp. 79–80.Google Scholar
  42. 38.
    Beate Schmolke-Hasselmann, “Accipiter et chirotheca: Die Artus des Andreas Capellanus—eine Liebesallegorie?,” Germanisch-romanische Monatschrift 63 (1982): 387–417 (esp. 392–96).Google Scholar
  43. 42.
    Camille, Medieval Art of Love, p. 97, fig. 82. See also, for example, Mira Friedman,“Sünde, Sünder und die Darstellungen der Laster in dem Bildern zur ‘Bible Moralisée,’” Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte 37 (1984): 162, 165–66; 253, fig. 6; 254, figs. 11–12; 260, fig. 33 [157–71].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Marc Boone, “State Power and Illicit Sexuality: The Persecution of Sodomy in Late Medieval Bruges,” Journal of Medieval History 22 (1996): 143–44 [135–53].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Jacques Chiffoleau, “Dire l’indicible. Remarques sur la catégorie du ‘nefan-dum’ du XIIe au XVe siècle,” Annales: Économies, sociétés, civilisations 45.2 (1990): 289–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Joseph Manca, “Sacred vs. Profane: Images of Sexual Vice in Renaissance Art,” Studies in Iconography 13 (1990): 145–90Google Scholar
  47. Joseph Manca, The Art of Ercole de’ Roberti (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), p. 96.Google Scholar
  48. 47.
    Charles de Tolnay, Michelangelo: Sculptor, Painter, Architect (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 19; Manca,“Sacred vs. Profane,” 155–57, 187–88, n29; Saslow, Pictures and Passions, p. 97Google Scholar
  49. William E. Wallace, Michelangelo: The Complete Sculpture, Painting, Architecture (Hong Kong: Hugh Lauter Levin, 1998), p. 137.Google Scholar
  50. Howard Hibbard, Michelangelo, 2nd edn. (New York: Harper and Row, 1974), cites this explanation along with another, p. 318.Google Scholar
  51. 50.
    Elizabeth B. Keiser, Courtly Desire and Medieval Homophobia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), pp. 2–5, 133.Google Scholar
  52. 51.
    See Joseph Cady, “The ‘Masculine Love’ of the ‘Princes of Sodom’ ‘Practicing the Art of Ganymede’ at Henri Ill’s Court: The Homosexuality of Henri III and His Mignons in Pierre de L’Estoile’s Mémoires-Journaux,” in Desire and Discipline: Sex and Sexuality in the Premodern West, ed. Jacqueline Murray and Konrad Eisenbichler (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1996), p. 126 [123–54].Google Scholar
  53. 52.
    See Cady, “The ‘Masculine Love’ of the ‘Princes of Sodom,’” p. 127. For this phenomenon elsewhere, see Bernd-Ulrich Hergemöller, “Homosexuelles Alltagsleben im Mittelalter,” Zeitschrift für Sexualforschung 5 (1992): 117–118.Google Scholar
  54. 53.
    Lilian Armstrong first proposed this in The Paintings and Drawings of Marco Zoppo (New York: Garland Publishing, 1976), pp. 252, 313–314, 420.Google Scholar
  55. Later scholars have supported her proposal: see Betty Rosasco, “Albrecht Dürer’s ‘Death of Orpheus’: Its Critical Fortunes and a New Interpretation of Its Meaning,” Idea: Jahrbuch der Hamburger Kunsthalle 3 (1984): 33 [19–41]Google Scholar
  56. Hugo Chapman, Padua in the 1450s: Marc Zoppo and His Contemporaries (London: British Museum, 1998), p. 38.Google Scholar
  57. 54.
    Jeffrey Richards, Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages (London: Routledge, 1995), p. 138.Google Scholar
  58. 55.
    Michael J. Rocke, “Sodomites in Fifteenth-century Tuscany: The Views of Bernardino of Siena,” in The Pursuit of Sodomy: Male Homosexuality in Renaissance and Enlightenment Europe, ed. Kent Gerad and Gert Hekma (New York: Haworth Press, 1989), p. 18 [7–31]. Also see his Forbidden Friendships: Homosexuality and Male Culture in Renaissance Florence (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996).Google Scholar
  59. 57.
    Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality, vol. 1, An Introduction, trans. Robert Hurley (London: Penguin, 1978).Google Scholar
  60. James Saslow, “The Middle Ages and Negative Imagery,” The Advocate (January 21, 1986): 56–58Google Scholar
  61. Edgar Wind, “‘Hercules’ and ‘Orpheus’: Two Mock-Heroic Designs by Dürer,” Journal of the Warburg Institute 2 (1938–39): 214–217 [206–18]. Colin Eisler, noting Dürer’s close relationship with Willibald Pirckheimer, has suggested that the two were loversCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. see his review of Jane Campbell Hutchison, Albrecht Dürer: A Biography, in Renaissance Quarterly 45 (1992): 165 [163–66]Google Scholar
  63. Sixteenth-century Netherlandish art also represented same-sex desire. Bosch is probably referring to sexual acts when he shows a man inserting a flower into another man’s rear end, a print by Theodor de Brij depicts dogs attacking homosexuals in the New World, and those by Frans Hoogenberg show the arrest and execution of monks condemned for sodomy in Bruges. See Saslow, Pictures and Passions, p. 78, and J. Schenk, “Homoseksualiteit in de Nederlandse beeldende kunst voor 1800,” Spiegel Historiael 17 (1982): 579–80 [576–83]. See also an illumination of Jupiter and Ganymede in The City of God, Philadelphia Museum of Art,’ 45–65–1, fol. 33r.Google Scholar
  64. 66.
    See, for example, Jonathan Goldberg, Sodometries: Renaissance Texts/Modern Sexualities (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1992).Google Scholar
  65. 69.
    Max Lehrs, “Die deutsche und niederländische Kupferstich des fünfzehten Jahhunderts in der kleineren Sammlungen,” Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 15 (1892): 122 [110–46], no. 64:“der Falkonier” and “sein Begleiter”; Max Lehrs, Geschichte und Kritischer Katalog des Deutschen, Niederländerischen und Französischen Kupferstichs im XV. Jahrhundert, 10 vols. (Vienna: Gesellschaft für Vervielfältigende Kunst, 1932), 8:140, no. 75: “der Begleiter” and “der Genosse”Google Scholar
  66. Max Lehrs, The Master of the Amsterdam Cabinet (Paris: International Chalcographical Society, 1893–94), p. 70Google Scholar
  67. Max Lehrs, “Der deutsche und niederländische Kupferstich des fünfzehnten Jahrhunderts in den kleineren Sammlungen,” Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 15 (1892): 122 [110–46]Google Scholar
  68. Jane Campbell Hutchison, The Master of the Housebook (New York: Collector’s Edition, 1972), p. 60Google Scholar
  69. Filedt Kok, “Catalogue,” p. 167. Alfred Stange called the print “The Falconer with the Aristocratic Lord” (Die Falkner mit dem vornehmen Herren): see Stange, Das Hausbuchmeister (Baden-Baden: Heitz, 1958), pp. 15, 39. Fabrizio Augustoni returns to Lehr’s title in Catalogo completo delle incisioni del Maestro del Libro di Casa (Milan: Salamon and Agustoni, 1972), p. xxx (“Der Falkenier und sein Begleiter”).Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    For this print, see Jay A. Levenson, Konrad Oberhuber, and Jacqueline L. Sheehan, Early Italian Engravings from the National Gallery of Art (Washington: National Gallery, 1973), p. 94, cat. no. 17. For another print that shows the gentleman and his servant out falconingGoogle Scholar
  71. Arthur M. Hind, Early Italian Engraving (New York: Knoedler, 1938), II, A.III. 22, a1. Here the gentleman rides on horseback while his servant walks, again a clear class distinction.Google Scholar
  72. 74.
    Jonathan J.G. Alexander, The Master of Mary of Burgundy: A Book of Hours for Engelbert of Nassau (New York: Georges Braziller, 1970), cat. nos. 41–58, fol. 55v. Alexander notes that Emperor Frederick II described the same sort of lure.Google Scholar
  73. Heinz Peters, “Falke, Falkenjagd, Falkner, und Falkenbuch,” in Reallexikon zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte, ed. Otto Schmitt et al. (Munich: Alfred Druckmüller, 1937), 6:1279, 1281–82, 1314 [1251–1366].Google Scholar
  74. 76.
    Guy de Tervarent, Attributs et symboles dans l’art profane, 1450–1600: dictionnaire d’un langage perdu, 3 vols. (Geneva: Droz, 1958–64), 2:309Google Scholar
  75. F.W.H. Hollstein, German Engravings, Etchings, and Woodcuts ca. 1400–1700 (Amsterdam: Menno Hertzberger, 1954), 1:56, B.109.Google Scholar
  76. 77.
    David Landau and Peter Parshall, The Renaissance Print: 1470–1550 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 5 and 378, n109.Google Scholar
  77. 86.
    James Saslow, Ganymede in the Renaissance: Homosexuality in Art and Society (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Emma Campbell and Robert Mills 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diane Wolfthal

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations