Habsburg Court Painter, 16th Century

Portrait of King Philip II of Spain (1527–1598), after the Battle of Saint Quentin, bust-length, wearing armour and the Order of the Golden Fleece,
oil on canvas, 59 x 51.5 cm, framed
We are grateful to Gloria Martínez Leiva for her help in cataloguing the present painting. Her written report accompanies this lot.

This portrait depicts the young Philip II of Spain in a triumphant pose. It is a defining image of the early part of the new monarch’s reign, created to commemorate Spain’s victory over the French at the Battle of Saint Quentin in August 1557, in which Philip had been present on the battlefield, an artistic statement intended to validate Philip as both the military, as well as the political heir to his father, Emperor Charles V. Philip is painted wearing the cuirass of the famous Cruces de Borgoña armour, made for him in 1551 by Wolfgang Grosschedel of Landshut (circa 1517–1562) his favoured smith, still in the Royal Collection, Madrid (inv. no. 190000326, cat. A-263). This suit of armour was particularly finely wrought, with Burgundy crosses, as well as motifs of the Order of the Golden Fleece, with a flaming image of the Immaculate Conception at the centre, over the heart of the monarch, in damascened gilt decoration. This is the very armour that Philip wore at the Battle of Saint Quentin.

Anthonis Mor made a first version of the portrait in Brussels in 1557, a few days after the event. This portrait was taken to Spain in 1559. Comparing the portrait of Philip painted in 1550/51 by Titian (Museo del Prado, Madrid, inv. no. P000411), to Mor’s invention, there are some similarities but also some striking differences. In both works Philip is depicted in armour, the mood of the two portraits, however, is entirely different. Some of this is due to the difference in age and position of the sitter in the two portraits. When Titian painted Philip, he was a young prince of about 23, rather than a more mature king of about 30. But it is the difference in the two painters’ temperaments that most separates the pictures. Titian’s Philip, although full-length and in armour, is more relaxed and natural – a man of intelligence and ability. In contrast, the present depiction presents Philip as a man of action and power. Indeed, although he admired Titian and was his most important patron, Philip found Titian’s portrait somewhat lacking, and slightly unresolved in execution, particularly in the depiction of the armour. Furthermore, Mor’s technique is entirely different to Titian’s famously impressionistic handling. The precision of line and detail in the present composition is exceptional, with illusionistic details, such as the reflection of the King’s right arm in the side of his armour, and are rendered with great skill. Whatever Philip may have found lacking in Titian, Mor and his disciples were able to execute perfectly, producing the kind of portrait required by the King and his family to project Habsburg sovereignty.

The image was a success and retained its potency for many years. Juan Pantoja de la Cruz made at least one version of the work for the Palace of El Pardo. In 1560, during his second sojourn in Spain, Mor himself painted a replica for the gallery of family portraits gathered by the Infanta of Portugal in the Monastery of Descalzas Reales in Madrid and this is the only autograph version that has survived (Anthonis Mor, Philip II, full-length, wearing armour and the Order of the Golden Fleece, 1560, oil on canvas, 198 x 102 cm, National Heritage, Escorial, inv. no. 10014146).
Alonso Sánchez Coello painted a version in 1566 intended for the Imperial court in Vienna (now in Schloss Ambras, Innsbruck, on loan from the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. no. 3995) which has a feigned painted frame as a border. Another workshop example on panel is in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (inv. no. M.64). Mor accompanied Philip II on his return to Spain, taking the first version of the portrait with him. However, at least one full-length workshop or autograph replica appears to have remained in Brussels. There is a reference to it in the Coudenberg Palace Inventory of 1659 (see A. Pérez de Tudela, Las copias de los retratos de Antonio Moro durante su segunda estancia en España (1559–1561), in: E. Lamas/D. García Cueto (eds.), Copies of Flemish Masters in the Hispanic World (1500-1700), Turnhout 2021, p. 116). Gloria Martínez-Leiva has suggested that the version now in Cambridge must have been executed in Brussels, based on the version referenced in Coudenberg Palace, not only because of its wooden support, but also because of its truthfulness to the model. The present version is a much more inventive variation: the artist has adapted the composition to the smaller format, including the red ribbon on the right arm that identified the Spanish army in the battle, and the Golden Fleece, which is often omitted in reductions from the full-length type, such as in Cristofano dell’Altissimo’s version of Philip II (circa 1562, oil on canvas, 60 x 45 cm, Gallerie degli Uffizi, Florence, inv. 1890, no. 42). In that version, Cristofano dell’Altissimo simply removed the ribbon and fleece, in the same way as in a small portrait in Vienna (13.2 x 10 cm, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. no. GG 4676). The present painting, furthermore, features some stylistic characteristics of a very skilled artist, who, whilst representing an iconic image of the young King, created a highly individual portrait.