Renaissance Studies Vol. 9 no. 3

Rubens in court GEOFFREY HAWS

In 1859 William Sainsbury of the Public Record Office (PRO) published 'Original unpublished papers illustrative of the life of Sir Peter Paul Rubens as an artist and diplomatist preserved in H.M. State Paper Office'. The State Paper Office had reluctantly become part of the PRO in 1854,' but the title of the book was a fair guide to its content because Sainsbury* seems not to have explored the rest of the archives of the PRO for material. There was another omission. In a short notice upon Philip Rubens, the brother of the artist, in Notes and Queries for 18 February 1860, Sainsbury sternly took to task another contributor to that journal for failing to give authorities for his statements. It was unfortunate that he thereby left himself open to the retort in Notes and Queries for 31 March 1860 that his own book on Rubens contained no references whatsoe~er.~

Even if Sainsbury had looked beyond state papers in the PRO for material about Rubens, the records of the High Court of Admiralty would probably have seemed a most unlikely source. But soon after his arrival in London in the summer of 1629 on a mission to help peace negotiations between England and Spain, the artist made a deposition in the court in support of an acquaintance whom he had met in Madrid a year previously.*

Spain had been at war with England since 1625, and was joined by France in 1627. Standard practice then was for privateers to be licensed to take enemy merchant shipping. On 13 December 1627 letters of marque were issued to Sir Kenelm D i g b ~ , ~ son of a Gunpowder Plot conspirator, and

Note: Dates are in old style, unless otherwise stated, but the year is taken to begin on 1 January. Acknowledgements: The writer wishes to express his thanks to Professor S. Anglo (formerly of Swansea University), Dr Diana Greenway (Institute of Historical Research), Dr Elizabeth McCrath (Warburg Institute), Professor Ruth Pike, Dr A. A. Ruddock (formerly of Birkbeck College, London) and Pro- fessor R. Walker (Birkbeck College, London) for their help and advice. They have no responsibility for any errors or misinterpretations. Abbreviations: CSPV calmdnr of State Papers Venetian DNB Dictionary of National Biography Exam PRO, High Court of Admiralty, Examination, vol. 48 Voyage Journal ofa Voyage into the Mediterranean b~ Sir Kenelm Lhgb~ A.D. 1628, ed. J. Bruce (Camden

Society, 1868).

' J. D. Cantwell, The Public Record O@e, 1838-1958 (1991). 162-6. ' William Noel Sainsbury (1825-95). historical writer, who was later Assistant Keeper of the

Records at the PRO (DNB). Notes and Qumes, 2nd ser.. 9 (1860). 129, 247.

' Exams, fols. 211"-212". No reference to the deposition has been found in M. Rooses and C.

' Colmrlar of State Papers Domestic, 1628-9, 303. There is a long entry for Sir Kenelm Digby Ruelens, Corrcspondance dc R u h , vol. v (1907).

(1603-65) in DNB.

0 1995 The Society fw Renaissance Studies, Oxfwd University Press

Rubens in court 293

himself a future diplomat, author and administrator. He set sail from the Downs for the Mediterranean on 6 January 1628.6 During his voyage over the next year, quite apart from the Spaniards and French whose ships he plundered (which were legitimate prey), Digby caused great offence to Venice: he chased Venetian ships, tried to get provisions and refit at harbours under Venetian control, and attacked enemy ships within what Venetians regarded as their waters. Venetian officials tried hard to frustrate him, and the unhappy relationship culminated in a free fight with Venetian galleys at Scanderoon (now Iskenderun).’ The full force of Venetian diplomacy was brought to bear and when on 15 December 1628 NS, Alvise Contarini, the Venetian ambassador in London, sent to Venice a copy of an instruction from the king for Digby to leave the Mediterranean, the problem must have seemed to have been But before Contarini’s report had reached Venice, Digby had committed another outrage.

On 10 December 1628 Digby’s fleet sighted two ships off Sardinia: the Jonas, flying a Hamburg flag, and the St Michuel Archangel of Ragusa. Digby’s pin- nace, the Swallow, first made contact. William Holman, her master, said that after preliminary exchanges, he ordered the Jonas to ‘amaine [i.e. surrender, strike her flag] for the king of England’, but Peter Freese, master of the Jonas, responded robustly, shouting ‘skitt for the king of England’, drinking out of a can and then throwing it overboard, waving a naked sword around his head, and stamping his foot two or three times as a signal to fire the guns carried for self-defence. But the fight was an unequal one, and the two ships soon ~urrendered.~

Examination revealed that the two vessels were bound for Venice from Cartagena and Alicante, laden with wool and other goods belonging to Genoese merchants living in Spain (including one Bartholomew Spinola), Spanish subjects and Venetians. Digby transferred the cargo of the St Mihue1 Archangel to his ships and let her go, but kept the Jonas, perhaps with some relish given his rebuffs from Venetian officials and the fight at Scanderoon, particularly since the pickings were rich.1°

Digby arrived back in London on 2 February 1629, and lost no time in seeking to legitimize his capture in the Admiralty court: the first witnesses were examined on 6 February.” Contarini, the Venetian ambassador, hear- ing that Venetian goods were involved, also lost no time, and had the goods and the Jonas sequestrated.’* There were a series of legal actions. Digby’s contention seems to have been that since the Jonas had carried contraband goods to Spain, before sailing to Venice, she was forfeit; as to the Genoese

Voyage, 1. ’ CSPV, 1628-9, parsim. ‘ Ibid. 437. ’ Exam, fols. 145”-146; CSPV, 1628-9, 574.

l o Exam, fols. 35”-36, 92-92”; Voyage, 78-80; CSPV, 1628-9, 549. I ’ Exam, fol. 31.

CSPV, 1628-9, 549.

294 Geofiey Harris

merchants resident in Spain who had freighted the two ships, they were really Spanish subjects who paid Spanish taxes; anyway, Genoa was under Spanish protection; and Bartholomew Spinola was a sworn servant of the king.13 The Venetian case seems to have been that the Jonas and her companion had been sailing under a Venetian patent, which brought them under Vene- tian protection; there was peace between England and Venice, so they should not have been stopped in the first place; so restitution of the Jonas and all goods, regardless of the nationality of the owners, followed as a matter of course.14 Contarini and the Venetian authorities considered initially that right was so obviously on their side that it would be easy to secure satisfac- tion. They also tried to ensure that their grievance be resolved as a diplomatic issue, and not left to the uncertain arena of the courts. Yet settlement by diplomacy proved to be elusive. Contarini grumbled that Digby had brought presents for the king and the chief lords of government. Charles I told Contarini that he could not deny appeals to him from Digby for justice, Perhaps the king was being punctilious, but his impartiality is open to ques. tion: he had originally wanted to send Digby with a wide-ranging commis- sion under the great seal, not merely letters of marque, but had been dissuaded partly because of the infringement of the privileges of the lord high admiral - his favourite, the Duke of Buckingham. Contarini ultimately took the line of refusing to accept publicly a trial in court, but behind the scenes doing his best to influence the o ~ t c o m e . ’ ~

Court hearings and diplomatic manoevres were still proceeding when Rubens arrived in England in May 1629 on his mission to make peace be- tween England and Spain. Contarini viewed his arrival with suspicion and did his utmost to sabotage the mission.16 He was to find that Rubens had his uses. On 22 June the painter made a deposition in support of the claim by Bartholomew Spinola and others for restitution of goods. Procedure in the Admiralty court was for a witness to answer on oath one or more series of questions before the judge of Admiralty or his deputy. Answers were taken down in writing, and the judge then considered this and other evidence before reaching a decision. Rubens’s answers fall into two sections: the first consists of his evidence in support of Spinola, but the questions to which this part of his deposition was a response have not been found; the second were his answers to the hostile set of questions summarized below,17 which were clearly put on behalf of Digby:

1. Where was the witness born and to what state is he subject? 2. Is Genoa under the protection of the king of Spain, and is Genoa in

an offensive or defensive league with Spain, and for how long?

I’ Ibid. 1628-9, 555-6; 1629-32, 164-6. I‘ Ibid. 1628-9, 568-9; 1629-32, 23. I’ Ibid. 1628-9, 549, 568-9, 586-8, 597-9; 1629-32, 23, 30, 115-6; Voyage, xxxii-xxxiii.

I’ PRO, High Court of Admiralty, Interrogatories, vol. 9. The papers are unnumbered. Attached l6 CSPV, 1629-32, 81.

is another set of questions - perhaps a first draft.

Rubens in court 295

3. Does the witness know Bartholomew Spinola of Madrid and how long Spinola has lived in Madrid?

4. Is Spinola ‘factor and sworne servant’ of the king of Spain, and is he a member of the order of St Jag0 [Santiago] or some other order in Spain?

5. Has not Spinola lived in Spain for many years, and kept his house, family and bank in Madrid or some other part of the king’s dominions, and is his estate and fortune or the greatest part in Spain?

6. Is Spinola described as a ‘vezino’l8 of Madrid or elsewhere in Spain, and has he not for many years paid the taxes and duties to which vezinos are subject, and enjoyed the same liberties?

7. Has not Spinola liberty to trade to the West Indies like other Spanish subjects?

8. Does not Spinola keep a house and family in Madrid as if he were a duke, and have coaches, horses, pages and liveries, and appear in the court of Spain like a lord?

9. Is Spinola a knight of any of the three religious and military orders in Spain, viz. St Jago, Alcantara and Calatrava?

10. Do Genoese living in Spain as merchants register themselves as of some city or corporation to avoid the alc~nvala?’~

11. Do Genoese registered in any city or corporation of Spain usually describe themselves as of that place, and enjoy the privileges etc. of a citizen?

Rubens’s deposition, taken down in English before Dr Sames, surrogate [i.e. deputy] to the judge of Admiralty, was as follows:

Petrus Paulus Rubins, vnus consiliariorum Hisp. Regis et secretarius Regis eiusdem. Annos agens 51 aut circiter.

1. That [‘from th’ erased] for all the tyme that this examinate hath [‘has b’ erased] had any knowledge of any affaires in the worlde, the Citty of Genua hath bin a free state and noe way subiecte or subordinate to the Kinge of Spaine or to any other state whatsoever.

2. That this examinate [‘hath knowen’ erased] conceiveth and is of opinion that those Genuizes who live within the territories of the Kinge of Spaine for accomodation of trade doe [‘t’ erased] not therby become vncaple of the administracon of any [‘p’ erased] office, place or dignity in the state of Genua where they were borne but retaine their liberties and priviledges in Genua in as ample manner as y f they had never liued out of Genua for hee saieth that he hath knowen divers Genuizes whom [‘he’ erased] hee knewe liuinge in [‘ffl’ erased] the Lowe Countries within the territories of the Kinge of Spaine for the accomodacon of trade and hath since knowen and seene them in Genua in office of

Vecino, or citizen. I’ An impost or tax.

296

3. 4.

5.

6-8.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Geoffrsl Harris

magistracye in Genua and he beleeueth such is the condicon of Bar- tholmew but doth not know the same.. . [Cannot depose further] ffor that he knoweth none of the parties named in this article but the said Bartholmew Spinola. [No ‘evidence]. That hee hath knowen divers Genuizes that have liued in Spaine and there have had the honor of knighthood conferod [sic] vppon them by the Kinge of Spaine that have since returned to Genua and there haue bin magistrates of Genua and administred the offices and places of magistrates of that Citty, neither have they by receiveinge knighthood from the Kinge of Spaine become subiectes to the Kinge of Spaine. And this he affirmeth to bee true of his certeine knowledge. That albeit the subiectes of Genua bee ymploied in some service of the Kinge of Spaine, yet they continue their righte, interest and priviledge of the Citty of Genua and are [‘helde’ erased] free to returne to Genua whensoever they shall desire or thincke fitt. And this he aErmeth vppon his oath to bee true. [No evidence].

Ad interriam That he was borne [‘in Antwerpe in Brabante’ erased] at Cullen in the tyme of the troubles of Antwerpe and is a subiecte to the Kinge of Spaine. That he doth neither knowe nor hath heard that Genua is vnder the protection of the Kinge of Spaine nor that the Genuizes are in any league offensive or defensive with the Kinge of Spaine. That hee hath knowen the interrte*’ Bartholmew Spinola in Madrid aboute a yeare but [‘he’ erased] knoweth not how longe he hath dwelte there, but beleeveth hee hath longe dwelte there. That he knoweth not that the interrteZ1 Bartholmew Spinola is a sworne servante to the Kinge of Spaine but knoweth that the said Bar- tholmew Spinola doth the Kinge of Spaines business to provide monies in general1 for him and perticulerly for that Kinges houshoulde, and hee thincketh hee hath seene him in the Kinge of Spaines courte [erasure] ware [sic] the [‘order of the’ erased] habitt of St Jag0 [sic - Santiago], but is not certeine thereof. That hee knoweth that for these twelue monethes that this examinate hath knowen the said Bartholmew Spinola, hee hath dwelte in Madrid and kepte his setled house and family there and [‘his’ erased] (as he thincketh) his bancke there. And saieth that most parte of Genuizes that liue in Spaine that lende the Kinge of Spaine moneyes have landes there mortgaged for their security. And soe he thincketh hath the said Bartholmew Spinola but is not certeine thereof.

? Interrogatoria, i.e. interrogatories, formal questions. *’ ? Interrogate, i.e. that which is in question.

Rubens in court 297

6-7. [No evidence]. 8. That the interrtezl Bartholmew Spinola doth liue like a cavaleero in

Madrid and keepeth a coach and seruantes in a gentile manner.

[Signed] Petro Pauolo Rubins George Gage Johes AureliusZz

9-11. [No evidence].

If the main Venetian contention that the ships should not have been stopped in the first instance was accepted, then Spinola would have his goods restored. But if that argument was not conceded, then Rubens’s evidence that Genoa was not subject to Spain, and Genoese merchants living in Spain did so as foreigners, supported a useful fallback position.

A student of maritime history is not well qualified to say what, if any, light the deposition throws upon Rubens. Three comments are, however, appro- priate. First, the deposition was in English, but it should not be concluded that Rubens necessarily spoke English - rather the contrary. It is recorded elsewhere in the archives of the Admiralty court that John Aurelius and George Sage, who signed the deposition as well as Rubens, acted as inter- p r e t e r ~ . ~ ~ The employment of two interpreters in the court was most unusual. Secondly, Rubens says on oath that he was born at ‘Cullen’, i.e. Cologne. But in fact his birthplace was Siegen. Rubens’s father had been exiled there from Cologne after his release from prison for seducing (or being seduced by) the wife of William the Silent. Rubens’s mother had done her utmost to obliterate the memory of the discreditable stay in Siegen. Christopher White has written that ‘just how much it meant to the two sons, only infants when they left for Cologne, is made clear by their avoidance of acknowledging Siegen as their place of birth . . . they did their utmost to eliminate it from the family history’. It is unlikely that Rubens would com- mit perjury, so perhaps his mother had managed to conceal the truth from her sons.24 Thirdly, who was the Bartholomew Spinola whom Rubens knew so well as to be prepared to testify on his behalf? The Spinolas were a pro- lific clan, and had been one of the most numerous Genoese families in Spain in the early sixteenth century. Rubens had visited Genoa in 1606-7, and had several times painted Brigida Spinola Doria and other ladies of the Spinola family.*5 Could there be a connection? There was a very notable Genoese Bartholornew Spinola in Madrid in the second quarter of the seventeenth century. In 1627 Philip IV appointed him factor general, and later created

” Exam, fols. 211’-212”. The common form openings and endings of answers to questions are

*’ PRO, High Court of Admiralty, Act Books, under 22 June 1629. “ C. White, Peter Paul Rubmc, Man and Artist (1987), 2; E. Cammaerts, R u h , Pain& and Dipkmat

” Corpus Rubienanum: F. Huemer, Pwtrails, vol. I [1977], 169-75.

omitted - they add nothing.

(1932). 17-18.

298 Geoffrsl Harris

him comte de Pozuela. He died in 1644.26 Another witness in the Admiralty court, Francisco Alduino, merchant of the St Michael Archangel, declared that the Bartholomew Spinola in the case was factor general to the king of Spain. That should settle the matter, but there is a residual doubt: another witness hints at collusion between Digby and a ‘Signor Francisco’, maybe even a bribe. If ‘Signor Francisco’ was Alduino, his evidence may be tainted.27 Yet the overwhelming probability is that the man whose goods were taken in the Jonas was indeed the future comte de Pozuela.

It would be pleasing to record that the result of the legal action was that Bartholomew Spinola’s goods were restored, and that the deposition by Rubens swayed the balance. It proved otherwise. Final judgement was known on 25 July 1629. The Venetians recovered the Jonas, the goods of the Venetian merchants and even of the Portuguese merchants living in Venice - Portugal was then a Spanish possession. But the Genoese merchants living in Spain, including Spinola, lost their goods.28 Giovanni Soranzo, who had by now succeeded Contarini as ambassador, obtained a copy of the reasons of the judge for his decision. The judge seems to have accepted the evidence of Alduino and other witnesses concerning Spinola, but Rubens’s admission of Spinola’s long residence in Spain, his involvement in the king’s financial affairs and his membership of the order of Santiago would not have helped. Soranzo prepared a rebuttal of the judge’s arguments, emphasizing that there was the evidence of Peter Paul Rubens who said that all the Genoese who live in Spain do so as foreigners, and that he (Rubens) knows Spinola per- sonally. But Soranzo soon lost hope of reversing the j ~ d g e m e n t . ~ ~ If Bar- tholomew Spinola was the factor general of the king of Spain, the result should have been no surprise.

In letters of 1626-7, Rubens had complained of the harsh practices of English seamen, and condemned ‘their insolence and barbarity’.w His e x perience in the Spinola case can have done nothing to persuade him to change his views.

*‘ M. Deveze, L’Espognc dc Philippe IV (1970), I, 191; II, 530. ’’ Exam, fols. 140, 231‘-’.

CSPV, 1629-32, 143-5. Ibid. 1629-32, 164-6, 190, 193, 198; PRO. State Papers Domestic, Chas I, vol. 155, no. 34.

uI R. S. Magurn, The Letters OfPeter Puul Rubenr (1955), 156, 187-8, 209.