Printer Friendly

Authorising the printed image in early modern Venice.

There is general consensus amongst lawyers that statutory protection to enforce the rights of authors to control the copying of their works began with the Copyright Act 1709 (the 'Statute of Anne'), and that works of art were first provided with copyright protection by statute even later with the Engraving Copyright Act 1734 and Engraving Copyright Act 1766. (1) The universal 'fountain of copyright' in relation to artwork, however, existed prior to the early eighteenth century and Hogarth's engravings. (2) The Early Modern Venetian privilege system covered a broad range of media and technological innovations including printed books, art, mechanical inventions and architectural innovations. This paper will focus on how the privilegio relates to artwork and artists. Although the differences between the legal parameters of the Early Modern privilegio and contemporary copyright must be noted, the privilegio should be viewed as the European origin for the modern law of copyright as this privilege relates to art. (3)

The earliest legal records that document petitions for privileges regarding art and visual materials began in the Republic of Venice. The advent of the privilegio (literally 'privilege') in relation to the printed visual image emerged in fifteenth-century Italy, resulting from the need for copyright protection following the arrival of the printing press. (4) With innovations in printmaking technology and wider accessibility to paper in the sixteenth century, increasingly strict reactive laws were introduced to further regulate the printed image. (5) Expansion of mandatory print licensing developed alongside copyright protections. While it is true that the Republic of Venice was not the first to offer copyright protection, at the beginning of the Italian Renaissance other nation States had not yet formalised a system for legal protectionof art and literary works against unauthorised copying. (6) However, by the end of this period, legal and social precedent had been set for the emergence of concepts such as artist's agency.

From the early sixteenth century, in an effort to control the content and authentication of printed materials, all multiples sold or publicly circulated in Venice and their territories were required to submit to a bureaucratic licensing process, under threat of confiscation, public burning of prints and potential imprisonment. (7) However, voluntary application for exclusive copyright privileges on the part of artists, printmakers or publishers necessitated supplementary legal procedures. The petitioner would create a mock-up of the image for submission to an official censor at the Reformatori dello Studio di Padova, who examined the design for religious, moral and political acceptability. (8) If approved, the applicant would acquire a licence and could submit an additional petition to the regulatory body for the exclusive privilegio to produce and distribute the material. Given that the Venetian Government bestowed privileges, decrees were valid only within the Republic's domain. (9) Privilegio is a blanket term for various legal privileges bestowed by the Venetian Government:

(1) a print publication monopoly conferred by the Venetian Government to an individual for a specified period of time;

(2) a 'copyright proper' that guaranteed ownership of one's own inventions and designs;

(3) a copyright that bestowed on a publisher, or secondary producer, the exclusive rights to the work of another individual;

(4) 'copyright granted to an editor or translator' for valid intellectual property claims;

(5) technical patents pertaining to the manufacturing innovations for works on paper, the invention of machinery and large-scale technological infrastructure such as mills and drainage. (10)

Contemporary copyright and patent law were both covered under the Early Modern privilege system. This paper focuses on one type of medium frequently considered for privileges: the printed image. Prior to circulation, a print impression of the finished product featuring a cum privilegio, or 'with privilege', inscription was submitted for reference in the event of a subsequent allegation of illicit copying. (11)

Upon completion of each city-state's bureaucratic protocol, the privilege holder would print an inscription--full or abbreviated --indicating that the image was sanctioned and protected by the respective city-state. The cum privilegio inscription was not designed to specify the name of the privilege holder; when translated the inscription merely means 'with privilege'. The wording of the privilege is focused on the power of the provider rather than the beneficiary. A cum privilegio inscription was required on each print sheet for all circulated copies. Prominently displayed upon the page, the privilegio needed to be seen in order for its authority to be enforced. As a result, the cum privilegio inscription was required to be etched into the completed plate On occasion, the artist allocated space within the print's composition in preparation for the forthcoming inscription while, in other instances, the markings appear displaced beyond the perimeter, as though an afterthought.

The appearance of the cum privilegio inscription served as a symbol, substantiating in visual terms the authority of the Venetian government. This visual aid acted as an extension of the city-state's regulatory control of printed images produced and circulated within Renaissance society. To gaze upon the cum privilegio equated to witnessing the regulatory body's influence in action. Sight of the inscription represented how the Republic of Venice possessed the right to designate ownership of an image, or visually constructed idea.

While some scholars differentiate between contemporary copyright and Early Modern privileges by specifying that copyrights protect intellectual property while privileges safeguard investments, in actuality, these rationales are interchangeable depending on the situation. (12) The applications submitted for Early Modern Venetian printing privilegi introduce the discourse regarding an author's agency or inherent 'right' as inventor, which underpins the subsequent Anglo-American copyright system. The conversation begins with the words of the Venetian artist in the sixteenth century and, although there is discussion regarding the subsequent development, is formalised into law by the Government of the United Kingdom in the eighteenth century.

Print legislation decreed by the Venetian government did not differentiate between print types (books, cartography, freestanding images). These categorisations have since been projected onto the then singular medium. As such, most legislation regarding words on paper should be viewed as relevant to picture prints. While the Republic of Venice was not the first nation to grant privilegi, it was the inventor of the picture (map and image) print privilege. This section is intended as an overview of numerous acts of legislation pertaining to the development, regulation and eventual dismantling of the Venetian print privilege system.

The first printing privilege was granted in 1486. (13) From 1500 until the enactment of statutory reforms in 1517, privilegio applications to the Collegio of Venice were frequent. Handled on a case-by-case basis, each privilegio signified a special 'privilege' or favour granted to deserving applicants. Apparently, privilege holders' designations as Speciales Personas were not as noteworthy as the government would have hoped. (14) In response to the generous number and variety of privileges awarded by the Collegio during the previous two decades, the Senate of Venice introduced judicial reform in the form of a new law on Is' August 1517. (15) This statute declared that only the Senate could grant privilegi, thereby annulling all earlier privileges. (16) Henceforth, privileges would be granted only to works containing either entirely new content, or materials that had not previously been published. (17) In an effort to limit the number of privileges approved, applications were required to be voted on by the entire Senate and to receive at least a two-thirds majority. (18) Only materials set for publication with a privilegio from the Collegio could have their status reconfirmed by the Senate. The statute also sought to enforce several requirements that, as of 1517, were not always strictly followed by privilege holders. In particular, the grantee undertook that the print would be manufactured and sold within Venice and its territories, thus guaranteeing employment while ensuring that the mercantile community handle the transit of these goods through the Veneto. (19) As a result, engravings printed in other nations were not eligible for a Venetian privilegio. Once the import landed in territories controlled by the Venetian citystate, local printmakers and publishers could copy the work, and submit the reproductions for exclusive publication rights, since the material had never technically been published within Venice.

Between 1517 and 1527, noticeably fewer privilegio requests were submitted than in previous decades, but the more stringent consent process still proved inadequate. (20) From 29th January 1527 (1526 m.v. (21)), in an effort to control the circulation and authentication of printed materials, all multiples sold or publicly circulated in Venice (whether produced in Venice or elsewhere) were required to submit to a systematic, bureaucratic licensing procedure under threat of confiscation and fine. (22) In 1534 and 1537, additional statutes imposed time limits regarding the initial use (within one year) and overall length of the privilege. (23) The topic of regulatory control, involving the scrutiny of print-industry products on grounds of political, religious and moral acceptability, was readdressed by the Council of Ten in 1543 (1542 m.v.) with the approval of an appended statute stipulating increased fines and potential imprisonment of the printmaker. This edict also introduced sanctions for the misrepresentation of works as printed within Venice and the Veneto when they were in fact published outside the Republic. (24) Three years later, in 1547, a further reactive law was enacted in response to the deficient effect of the statute's predecessors. (25) This supplementary edict introduced more stringent punishments for violators, comprising substantial fines, immediate confiscation, public burning of prints and potential prison sentences. A significant impetus for the rapid succession of legislation that increased censorship and introduced punishments such as book burning, was the Venetian government's attempt to formalise into law a strong Catholic response to the Reformation.

Although the government continuously decreed mandates that adjusted the procedure for adjudicating print privilegio grants and punishments, the actual terms of the privilegio remained consistent. The specificity of terms proposed for the privilegio was largely left to the applicant. (26) The petitioner had to indicate the preferred duration of the privilegio, the types of sanctions to be imposed, the monetary amount to be levied in counterfeit cases and how any such fines should be divided amongst various people and institutions. Recipients of fines included, but were not limited to: the privilege holder, the accusatore (person(s) who identified the counterfeit), the Avogadori di comun (public prosecutors), the magistrate or office that brought the case and the Signori della Notte (Lords of the Night, designated officials for the monitoring of public order). (27) Although applicants could specify shorter intervals, the majority of privileges were requested for periods of ten or fifteen years. (28) From existing documents, it appears that the Senate never granted longer periods than requested. Sanctions proposed by the petitioner generally included the confiscation of all plates and counterfeit copies. If the counterfeit publisher was apprehended, the privilege holder could bring a case against the copyist before any personally selected magistrate. Print imitations could be confiscated from either the publisher, or any print shop attempting to sell them. Fines were imposed on not only the producer, but also any retailer. For forgeries produced outside Venice and its territories, a fine could still be incurred for all copies sold inside the city-state. Methods of monetary compensation in ducats could be structured in a number of ways. Most often, a fine would be collected for each impression printed or sold. An additional fine was sometimes also specified for each confiscated plate. On occasion, the monetary compensation was instead a larger lump sum for each infringement. Periodically, both categories of fines were imposed simultaneously. Fines were most often divided into three equal parts and given to individuals and institutions such as the privilege holder, magistrate, accuser, Arsenal and Ospedale della Pieta (orphanage). Additional penalties such as imprisonment were at the discretion of the magistrate when considering the circumstances of each case. (29) Edicts in 1517, 1527, 1534, 1537, 1543 and 1547 were enacted when each previous statute was not effectively enforced. (30) The legislation was ultimately a failed attempt motivated by the perceived need to censor the circulation of information (licence legislation) and regain control of the printing privilege system (privilege legislation). (31) For this reason, from fines and confiscations to imprisonments and public burning, the penalties for violations grew in severity and visibility. Similar to the requisite display of the cum privilegio inscription etched on prints, punishments set forth in edicts had be witnessed for their influence to be activated.

This paper agrees with Brown's supposition that the press legislation enacted in 1603 behaved as an endpoint for the Venetian Government's control of print copyright when the Senate delegated away command and oversight of the privilegio system to the Guild of Printers and Booksellers. As Brown explains:

   in 1603 the Senate
   undertook a general reform
   of the art [printmaking] ...
   the reasons for this state
   of things were given in
   the preamble as (1) the
   continued emigration of
   printers from Venice; (2) the
   carelessness and avarice of
   publishers, who no longer
   pride themselves on the
   quality of books which they
   produce, but aim at cheap
   workmanship and high
   prices; (3) the inferiority
   of Venetian editions owing
   to the want of good proof
   readers and correctors. (32)


Among the lengthy remedies provided for in the legislation, printers who were not matriculated in the Guild were required to pay expensive taxes, thus encouraging mass guild registration (clause 9). The revision allowed, for the first time, copyright protection for previously published material that had been out-of-print for at least ten years (clause 11) and imposed further restrictions on print copyright qualifications (clause 13). (33) The Venetian Government relied on the newly strengthened Guild to ensure that printers complied with the new statutes, to prevent and discourage copyright infringement in other cities of the Republic and to implement punishments for violations. (34) The intention behind empowering the Guild of Printers and Booksellers was to enhance the "preservation and regulation of the art". (35) However, the Guild was powerless to collect dues and fulfil responsibilities. The Venetian Government merely reacted to this noncompliance with the customary threats of further fines and penalties, which had little or no effect. (36) Thus, the 1603 edict marked the beginning of the end for effective State regulatory control of the privilegio. Brown directly links the legal implications on the printing trade with copyright by asserting that the Venetian Government's strategy for combating issues regarding the Venetian printing press and printers led to the administration's loss of authority over copyright. (37) Similar government jurisdiction was not re-established until the term 'copyright' was coined in the United Kingdom at the beginning of the eighteenth century. (38)

Many of the privileged prints are not currently considered the finest examples produced during the Early Modern period, or even the highlights of an individual artist's oeuvre. Present connoisseurial tastes often deviate from the contemporaneous preferences of artist and consumer. (39) Additional resources required in applying for copyright meant that artists and publishers were selective in their requests for privileges. Applications for the legally designated privilegio were based on the privilege holder's speculation regarding which multiples would be successful, or in an effort to prevent others from copying designs that had proven worthwhile. As today, one could not predict with certainty which artwork would sell. In consequence, prints designed by or after artists ranging from the renowned Titian (1485/1490-1576) to the lesser-known Michele Crecchi Lucchese (ft. 1534-1564) contain a cum privilegio inscription. (40)

Why did certain artists, printmakers and publishers choose to spend additional time and money to ensure that their print designs could not be copied for approximately fifteen years? Indeed, these engravings and etchings would become the only certified versions allowed for production and distribution. (41) Many scholars consider the expense to be worthwhile on financial grounds, where the producer applied for a privilege to protect the substantial investment involved in design and production. (42) Although monetary objectives were certainly an incentive, this article demonstrates additional moral rights arguments as poignantly expressed in the documentation submitted by Titian for his 1567 privilegio.

Titian approached Cornelis Cort (1533-1578) to engrave plates after designs from his previously commissioned work. (43) Although there does not appear to be surviving documentation stipulating the terms of their agreement, Titian's subsequent status as the privilege holder clarifies the contract's arrangement. Cort was employed by Titian to create plates from which Titian would print and sell impressions. This close collaboration between Titian and Cort suggests that, despite the sparse treatment of printmakers in Vasari's The Lives of the Artists, the role and reputation of engravers has been underestimated. (44) In addition, since collecting prints in an album was substantially less expensive than assembling paintings on one's wall, the opportunity to accumulate Titian's and Cort's prints provided greater accessibility to view Titian's compositions. Titian recognised early on that exclusive reproduction rights ensured that only high quality multiples of his art would be available for study and appreciation throughout Europe. His innovative stances on artistic integrity and intellectual property incentivised other artists to apply for privileges.

From the beginning, the painter planned to request a privilegio for his collaboration with Cort. Within several hours of obtaining a licence from the Chiefs of the Council of Ten on 22nd January 1567 [1566 m.v.], Titian submitted an appeal to the Senate of Venice for a privilegio. (45) With his entreaty, Titian conveyed in a letter entitled 'Supplication for privilege from Mr. Titian Vecellio, painter' his sentiments regarding printmakers who publish other people's intellectual property: (46)

   certain men of little skill in art, in
   order to avoid hard work and out
   of greed for money, have adopted
   this profession [printmaking],
   defrauding of honor the original
   author ... by worsening them,
   [and] stealing the labor of others,
   in addition to swindling the public
   with forgeries of little value. (47)


In his letter, Titian presents the legal reasoning that the unauthorised copier damages the honour and reputation of the original author and defrauds the consumer. (48) The average picture print privilegio remained in effect for ten to fifteen years, or until the grantee's death. (49) Any individual (artist, engraver, printmaker, print-shop owner, merchant, etc.) with the first claim in the form of invention could submit an application to the Senate of Venice for a privilegio. Titian was aware of the 'free-for-all' surrounding picture print privileges during the 1560s, where the modern concept of the 'original' design did not exist, only the first version. To this end, he rapidly submitted an application for the privilegio and secondary appeal that, likely due to his advanced age, would excuse him from needing to reapply for further privileges. Instead, he would merely be obliged to submit his newest print mock-ups to the Inquisitors' review for religious and moral acceptability and inclusion on the original privilegio, thereby limiting the bureaucracy involved and greatly quickening the process. (50) For the elderly Titian, who most scholars agree died at the age of ninety-one and only nine years following his application for a privilegio, the Senate's decision regarding exclusive reproduction rights determined whether or not he would be allowed to create and control copies of his oeuvre within the Venetian territories for the remainder of his life.51

If successful, Titian would secure copyright and quality controls for the replication of select artwork. During the intervening years he could satisfy market demands with printed versions of many of his most popular works, whilst also ensuring that those versions produced after his privilege expired would need to meet the quality of his existing product's quality in order to sell. When given the choice, consumers prefer to purchase prints directed by the original, highly regarded artist, than by some relatively unknown printmaker. In this manner, Titian could enhance and broaden his reputation with prints of design value and high quality.

As a result of the quietly and carefully planned manoeuvres that Titian hastily put into action upon receiving his licence, his application appears to be the first privilegio petition considered by the Senate of Venice for print designs after his works. This privilegio would be granted specifically for the medium of printing. When a print design is copyrighted, only that exact rendition may be circulated since the legal protection extends to all versions of that composition in printed form. In consequence, if someone else had hypothetically acquired a permit, even Titian himself would thereby have been legally forbidden to produce competing copies for circulation of some, or even the entirety of his painted opus. In such a case he would not have benefited financially from the printed publication of his works, would not control the quality of production or materials, nor would he be able to mitigate the risks associated with seemingly minute alterations to his compositions that could be misconstrued by the religious establishment or the public. Devoid of control, any other inferior copies containing each of these factors independently, or in combination, could have a deleterious and pervasive effect on his reputation and legacy.52 Relatively few viewed his paintings in the original, whereas numerous individuals observed multiples of his work as they changed hands at all levels of society from apprentice shopkeepers to the patriciate.

Financially, the copyist affected the actual and potential revenue of Titian and his associates. Actual revenue refers to the monetary gain for Titian from all printed copies sold together with the income earned by labourers employed to construct the prints in his workshop.

The "men ... stealing the labour of others" refers to both Titian's revenue as well as that of those in his workshop. Titian was not an engraver or printer. From the initial engraving by Cort to the finished product, others were in all likelihood paid by Titian to create authorised prints under his watchful gaze. Titian's workshop supported many craftspeople within Venice at various stages of production and distribution. (53) Upon sale of the prints, Titian received a significant portion of the profits. Without the protection of the privilegio, the potential revenue would have decreased if copies of poor quality created by 'forgers' circulated and affected the artist's reputation, ability to obtain future commissions, and overall sales of printed reproductions that portrayed existing and future paintings by Titian. (54)

Titian remarks that the "men of little skill in art ... swindle the public with forgeries of little value". The unauthorised copiers intentionally defraud the consumer by including conventional image print paratext--descriptive text featured on the print that is generally located toward the bottom of the image, or just beyond the periphery of the pictorial composition--such as Titian's representative 'Titianus Inven'. (55) The only paratext automatically covered under the letter of the law is the cum privilegio inscription as the words represented a legal decree by the Senate of Venice. The name of Titian, or any other artist or engraver, held no such judicial protection. In consequence, any individual could legally appropriate 'Titianus Inven' and, if successful in applying for a privilege, also include a cum privilegio inscription. The unauthorised copier would effectively construct a print with paratext attributions identical to a reproduction designed by Titian and engraved by Cort. Titian's name accompanied by an abbreviation for invenit ('he devised') notified the viewer that Titian was the author of the original design and, in this case, wrongfully implied that he was also associated with the print's production. Unknowing consumers who believe the full implications of the paratext's inclusion would be deceived into purchasing poor quality reproductions with significantly less resale value. With his request of 1567, Titian submitted a novel claim that those prints not authorised by him would not only be poor copies, but effectively 'forgeries' and, therefore, monetarily and qualitatively worthless in value. (56) In the present state of knowledge, no 'forgeries' exist of the prints protected by Titian's 1567 privilegio. The inference of his legal action was that he established a distinction between authenticity and forgery, authorised and unauthorised reproductions.

If the Senate of Venice accepted Titian's request for a privilegio under the conditions put forth in his letter, the governing body of Venice would be legitimising his perspective and creating a legal precedent that his positions on this subject were valid and could potentially be upheld in legal proceedings. Roman law (the foundation of certain aspects of the law for many continental European States) differs from common law in that precedent is not a source of law and lower courts are not bound to follow previous decisions of superior courts. However, the development of a consistent body of judicial decisions can impel the enactment of new legislation. Stein asserts in Roman Law in European History, "in the Italian city-states, the people recognized no superior, they made laws as they chose ... The Venetians knew their own needs best." (57) New laws were enacted on the basis of case law which indicated the Republic of Venice's position on a particular legal issue. Titian was knowledgeable as to the structure of the law and worked to develop new legal protections for artists and consumers during his final years.

On 4th February 1567 [1566 m.v.], merely two weeks after the petition's introduction before the Venetian Senate and with a vote of 165 in favour, fourteen against and seven abstentions, Titian received exclusive entitlement for fifteen years. (58) The privilegio stipulated a fine of 50 ducats for each counterfeit plate and one ducat for each print seized within Venice and its territories. (59) Confiscation and financial penalty would be incurred by any person circulating the prints, whether printmaker or merchant. All monetary compensation would be divided equally among Titian, the Arsenal and the Ospedale della Pieta (orphanage). (60) With new protections covered under the conditions of the privilegio, Titian produced quality reproductions, continued to profit from previously commissioned work through the sale of engravings and expanded the visual dialogue between artists. He won his case in every sense of the word. Titian was not the only applicant during the mid-1560s to successfully acquire a picture print privilegio using intellectual property arguments; however, he was certainly the most influential artist and, by far, the most textually explicit.

Titian's petition for a privilegio specifically requested copyright only in respect of Cort's engraving, The Holy Trinity (c. 1567, fig. 1), after Titian's painting, The Glory (c. 1551-1554, fig. 2). (61) However, Titian's application did request appendices for "various other pieces ... [created at] great labor and expense." (62) As early as the seventeenth century, eight print designs were identified as attachments to Titian's 1567 [1566 m.v.] privilegio, (63) Today, nine prints are considered as having been protected under this privilegio: St Jerome Reading in the Desert (c. 1565, fig. 3), Roger Saving Angelica (c. 1565, fig. 4), The Holy Trinity (otherwise known as The Adoration of the Trinity, Triumph of the Holy Trinity and La Gloria) (c. 1567, fig. 1), Mary Magdalene (c. 1566, fig. 5), Diana Discovering Callisto's Pregnancy (c. 1566, fig. 6), Prometheus Enchained on Mount Caucasus (otherwise known as Prometheus Chained to the Rocks of Caucasus and Tityus Punished in Hell) (c. 1566, fig. 7), Tarquinius and Lucretia (otherwise known as The Rape of Lucretia) (c. 1571, fig. 8), The Martyrdom of St. Lawrence (c. 1571, fig. 9), Cyclops Forging the Arms of Brescia (otherwise known as The Cyclops Forging Arms) (c. 1572, fig. 10). (64) All nine prints were engraved by Cornelis Cort and under Titian's supervision while Cort resided within Titian's household. (65) The cum privilegio inscription is located in varying positions along the foreground of each of these prints. Since Titian applied for only one privilegio between 1567 and his death in 1576, all privileged prints produced under Titian's direction were protected by the same decree.

Tarquinius and Lucretia (fig. 8), otherwise known as The Rape of Lucretia, based in reverse on the painting, Tarquin and Lucretia (c. 1571, fig. 11), is listed amongst the prints subsequently added to Titian's copyright. (66) Titian's painting and print design depict a pivotal moment in the historical tale of the rape of Lucretia. A synopsis of this legend is provided in the catalogue entry on the painting, Tarquin and Lucretia, from Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge: Catalogue of Paintings, Volume II: Italian Schools,

   Sextus Tarquinius, son of Tarquinius
   Superbus, last King of Rome
   (traditionally 534-510 B.C.), inflamed
   by the beauty and virtue of Lucretia,
   compelled her to submit to his desires
   by the threat to kill her and make the
   murder appear an act of retribution for
   adultery with a servant. The next day,
   Lucretia related the outrage to her
   husband and her father, and stabbed
   herself. (67)


Titian set his portrayal in Lucretia's bedchamber. Although some cusping supports the probability that a strip of canvas has been removed along the bottom of the painting, the print reveals how Titian intended the onlooker to peer up several steps into the foreboding scene of Lucretia struggling with Tarquinius on her bed, his knee thrust between her thighs, as he threatens her with a dagger in mid-air. (68) The servant mentioned by Tarquinius in his plot to murder and frame Lucretia for adultery lurks amongst the backdrop.

Several inscriptions are incorporated into the visual narrative. Cort's identifier, 'Cornelio Cort fe' (fig. 12), accompanied by the date, is placed along the interior of a slipper haphazardly discarded on the highest step, leading to Lucretia's bed. Meanwhile, Titian's name accompanied by an abbreviation for invenit ('he devised'), 'Titianus Inven' (fig. 13), appears as though carved upon the rim of a tabletop in the lower left foreground. (69) Interestingly, in the painted original, Tarquin and Lucretia, Titian's signature, 'TITIANVS--F' (fig. 14), is assigned the identical placement along the interior of the slipper located in the lower right foreground as Cort's identifier occupies in the printed version, Tarquinius and Lucretia. The substitution of Titian's signature with Cort's name and the dual use of abbreviations for fecit ('he made') appears to demonstrate Cort's role in the creation of the printed version, giving him deserved recognition by Titian for his engraving.

Whereas Titian and Cort integrate their names into the composition, the cum privilegio (fig. 15) inscription is conspicuously placed outside the visual narrative. (70) For unknown reasons, the cum privilegio inscription was engraved 'cun privilegio'; possibly resulting from confusion between Italian and Latin. Titian and Cort's prominent display of the cum privilegio in the periphery of the image could solely be viewed as a demonstration of legitimacy, exclusivity and authorship. The cum privilegio is included to reap the legal benefits of copyright protection and establish consumer confidence. It was appended to the plate at the composition's lower periphery after the initial mock-up was approved by the Government. In the lower right corner, the copyright symbol follows the same starkly linear progression (fig. 16) as two rows of stairs and three bed cushion folds located immediately above. Although Titian's scene invites the viewer into the private space of Lucretia's bedchamber by linearly linking the cum privilegio inscription to the visual narrative directly above, the inscription was nonetheless marginalised, segregated to a corner of the etched boundaries of the image. It is the impression of this author that Titian and Cort may not have wanted to associate their imagery too closely with the Venetian Senate's endorsement. The cum privilegio inscription here is necessary for the public, yet unnecessary for the art.

The Republic of Venice required the printing licence while the artist compelled the printing privilege. An official licence represented State control over the circulation of visual content, whereas the privilegio provided exclusive publication and authenticity designation to the privilege holder. In the earliest decades of the privilegio, entitlement was awarded solely to any individual who submitted a mock-up design of original or unpublished work; whereas, in Titian's innovative case, the privilegio instead certified the artist's status as author and privilege holder of the original design of Cort's engraved plate.

Yet, the relationship between the artist and the privilege system represents a complex binary implicit within the interrelation of Tarquinius and Lucretia's licence and privilegio. Although Titian was the instigator of this 'special privilege', the Government still, as with the licence, bestowed the 'privilege' rather than affirmed the 'right'. In other words, Titian's access to his intellectual property was neither intrinsic nor automatic. The State controlled the rights to Titian's own creation and could decide on any heir.

Titian, as grantee, visibly demonstrates the importance of the privilegio for his purposes in Tarquinius and Lucretia. This interplay between legal script and visual narrative could be seen as a metaphor for Titian's views regarding certain printmakers, who 'defraud the honour' of other artists' designs. The inscription's linear placement leads the eye upwards and directly to Lucretia. In this sub-narrative, Lucretia represents Titian, while Tarquinius embodies violators or forgers. Titian renders a scene where the onlooker is already aware of the historical tale's conclusion: the rape and suicide of Lucretia. However, Titian halts his portrayal at the precise moment when these acts become foreshadowed to the viewer, yet neither action has taken place. This scene can be viewed as a complementary visual metaphor to the textual arguments communicated within Titian's appeal to the Venetian Senate. Titian appears to hint that such desecration of honour, while imminent, has not yet occurred for the countless artists and printmakers, and their intellectual property within the Venetian territories. By establishing an effective art-legal system, the Venetian government would not devalue the thriving artistic and trade culture in Early Modern Venice and the Veneto in the manner that the rape of Lucretia signalled the decline of the Roman Kingdom.

In Early Modern Venice, intellectual property became a commodity that could be bought and sold. The development of the 'artist' and art copyright occurred simultaneously and often in parallel, intersecting only when the artists such as Titian promptly applied for a privilegio. The privilege system secured, yet also removed intellectual property rights for artwork from the hands of the artist and bestowed them on whoever had the foresight to apply earliest for a privilegio. The inventor was not the automatic owner of artwork transmitted from the mind to the plate and, thereby, printed on the page. The intersecting developments of print reproduction rights in civil law and the promulgation of the artist's agency led to significant advancements in cases for visual intellectual property protection by Titian and his contemporaries.

Sarah Alexis Rabinowe, PhD Candidate, University of Cambridge. An earlier version of this paper was presented at 'Art and Law: Art in Peril' An Interdisciplinary Conference, University of Cambridge, 22-23 June 2015. Special thanks to Professor Deborah Howard for her thoughtful review of this paper. The author is grateful to the Gladys Krieble Delmas Foundation for its economic support of the research presented in this article.

(1) For a detailed explanation of the UK Copyright Act 1709 see Lyman Ray Patterson, Copyright in Historical Perspective (Vanderbilt University Press, 1968), pp. 3-5; Simon Stokes, Art and Copyright (2nd edn, Hart Publishing, 2012), p. 27; Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, The Making of Modern Intellectual Property Law (Cambridge University Press, 1999), p. 33. In addition, see Stokes for an analysis of the Engraving Copyright Act 1734 (otherwise referred to as the Engravers' Copyright Act) and the Engraving Copyright Act 1766, Stokes, above, at pp. 27-28. Bently and Sherman, above at p. 71, similarly state, "the first artistic works protected by statute were 'engravings' (1735)".

(2) The earliest recorded use of the phrase 'fountain of copyright', is located in Horatio Forbes Brown, The Venetian Printing Press 1469-1800 (Gerard Th. van Heusden, 1891), p. 174.

(3) In Armstrong's introductory investigation of the early printed book privilege system, her revisionist examination clarifies the interlinked origins of the European copyright law that precedes the traditional Anglo- American narrative, Elizabeth Armstrong, Before Copyright: The French Book Privilege System, 1498-1526 (Cambridge University Press, 2002), 118. Armstrong even conjectures that France possibly learned directly from the foreign privilege precedent set by Venice. For a direct comparison between the Early Modern privilege system and contemporary copyright law see Lisa Pon, Raphael, Durer, and Marcantonio Raimondi: Copying and the Italian Renaissance Print (Yale University Press, 2004), p. 18; Christina K. Lindeman, The Cultural Politics of Prints, The 2007-08 Samuel H. Kress Foundation Postdoctoral Fellowship Exhibition (University of Arizona Museum of Art, 2008), n.p.

(4) On the arrival, widespread use and high output of printing presses in Italy see Elizabeth L. Eisenstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change: Communications and Cultural Transformation in Early Modern Europe (Cambridge University Press, First Published: 1979 and Reprinted: 2009), pp. 166 and 176; Brian Richardson, Printing, Writers and Readers in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge University Press, 1999), pp. 3-5 and 21-24.

(5) On the effect of technological and aesthetic advancements in printmaking during the Renaissance see David Landau and Peter Parshall, The Renaissance Print, 1470-1550 (Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 1-3 and 15. Gerulaitis examines licensing and censorship legislation for printed materials, Leonardas V. Gerulaitis, 'Privileges and Censorship', in Printing and Publishing in Fifteenth-Century Venice (American Library Association, 1976), pp. 31-56.

(6) Although the terminology was not yet defined, printing necessitated the legal definition and differentiation between material belonging in the public domain versus private intellectual property, Eisenstein, above, note 4, at pp. 120-121.

(7) Christopher L.C.E. Witcombe, Copyright in the Renaissance: Prints and the Privilegio in Sixteenth-Century Venice and Rome (Brill, 2004), p. xxii; Guido Ruggiero, 'Law and Punishment in Early Renaissance Venice' Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 69, Issue 2 (1978), pp. 247-248.

(8) Michael Bury, The Print in Italy, 1550-1620 (British Museum Press, 2001), pp. 129-131.

(9) Lisa Pon, 'Prints and Privileges: Regulating the Image in 16'h-Century Italy' Harvard University Art Museums Bulletin, Vol. 6, No. 2, Two Exhibitions (1998), p. 43.

(10) Gerulaitis, above, note 5, at pp. 33-35. Gerulaitis expanded Brown's original privilege catalogue in The Venetian Printing Press 1469-1800 containing the four privilege types (listed here as numbers 1,2,3 and 5) by including an additional privilege category (listed here as number 4), Brown, above, note 2, at pp. 51-55.

(11) Witcombe, above, note 7, at p. 31.

(12) For a direct comparison between the Early Modern privilege system and contemporary copyright law see Pon, above, note 9, at p. 42-43; Lindeman, above, note 3, at n.p.; Michael Bury, 'Infringing Privileges and Copying in Rome, c. 1600' Print Quarterly 22, no. 2 (2005), p. 134.

(13) Gerulaitis, above, note 5 at pp. 34-36; Landau and Parshall, above, note 5, at p. 43.

(14) Witcombe, above, note 7, at p. 28, confirms the often speculated status of Venetian printing privilegio grantees with his observation: "In the index compiled for each register of the records for the Venetian Senate, individuals for whom privileges were granted for printing are listed in the section headed, 'Speciales Personae'.

(15) For additional historical context see Gerulaitis, above, note 5, at p. 35. Concerning the paralysing effects caused by the plentiful privileges on the Venetian printing industry, and the 1517 reforms see Armstrong, above, note 3, at pp. 6-7; Rinaldo Fulin, Documenti per servire alia sloria della tipografia veneciano (tip. di M. Visentini, 1882), p. 93.

(16) Armstrong, above, note 3 at pp. 6-7; Rosa Salzberg, 'Extreme Disorder and Confusion: Policing the Ephemeral City' in Ephemeral City: Cheap Print and Urban Culture in Renaissance Venice (Manchester University Press, 2014), p. 131; Richardson, above, note 4, at p. 43.

(17) Armstrong, 'The Criterion of Newness,' above, note 4 at pp. 92-95; Gerulaitis, above, note 5, at pp. 34 and 45; Richardson, above, note 4, at p. 43.

(18) Fulin, above, note 15, at p. 93; Armstrong, above, note 3, at p. 7; Gerulaitis, above, note 5, at p. 45; Pon, above, note 3, at p. 17.

(19) On the manufacturing and distribution requirements for a privilegio see Witcombe, above, note 7, at p. 42.

(20) Gerulaitis, above, note 5 at p. 46.

(21) The abbreviation m.v. is the shortened form of more veneto, which refers to the Venetian calendar year that began on 1 March. As a result, prior to the introduction of the Gregorian calendar, Venetian archival records consider Jan. and Feb. as part of the preceding year: see Manffedo Tafuri, Venice and the Renaissance, Jessica Levine (trans.) (MIT Press, 1995), p. 283.

(22) Marin Sanudo recounted in his diaries that this censorship law was instigated as a long-term reaction to the complaints submitted by Franciscan monks to the Council of Ten against a text by Alvise Cynthio delli Fabritii entitled Delia origine de li volgari proverbij, Sanuto Marino, I diarii di Marino Sanuto, 58 Vols, Rinaldo Fulin and others (ed.), (F. Visentini, 1879-1903), Vol. 43, col. 448. Documentation of this law is recorded in ASVe, Consigilio dei Dieci, Comuni, reg. 2. On stipulations proposed by the 1527 edict see Gerulaitis, above, note 5, at p. 54; Salzberg, above, note 16, at p. 131.

(23) Richardson, above, note 4, at p. 43.

(24) Primary documentation of this edict is recorded in several locations: ASVe, Consigilio dei Dieci, Comuni, reg. 15. Further information on the stipulations of the 1543 edict is located in Paul F. Grendler, The Roman Inquisition and the Venetian Press, 1540-1605 (Princeton University Press, 1977) p. 78; Gerulaitis, above, note 5, at p. 54; Salzberg, above, note 16, at p. 141.

(25) This law is recorded in ASVe, Consigilio dei Dieci, Comuni, busta 43, fol. 24v and ASVe, Capitolari del Esecutori contro la Bestemmia, busta 54, vol. 1, fol. 37r.

(26) On the variation of specifications included in privilegio requests by applicants see Witcombe, above, note 7, at pp. 28-29.

(27) Ibid at p. 30.

(28) For a comparison of the privilege durations bestowed by Italian city-states, England and France in the early sixteenth century see Armstrong, above, note 3, at pp. 118-125.

(29) Witcombe, above, note 7, at p. 30.

(30) Gerulaitis, above, note 5, at pp. 54 and 46.

(31) Ibid, at pp. 45-46, 53-54, 56.

(32) Brown, above, note 2, at p. 175.

(33) Ibid, at pp. 176-177.

(34) Ibid, at p. 177.

(35) Ibid. at p. 175.

(36) Ibid. at p. 177.

(37) Ibid. at p. 180.

(38) Statute of Anne, above, note 1.

(39) Gerulaitis, 'Content Analysis of the Venetian Incunabula', above, note 5, at pp. 57-159, examines privilege designations and the output of Venetian book printing to draw conclusions about public taste in Venice during the Renaissance.

(40) Contemporaneous individuals such as Marin Sanudo (1466-1536) write of Titian's reputation in written publications and private diaries, Marin Sanudo, Cita Excelentissima, Selections from the Renaissance Diaries of Marin Sanudo, Patricia H. Labalme and Laura Sanguined White (eds), Linda L. Carroll (trans.) (Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008), pp. 456-458. In accounts written during his own lifetime, however, Lucchese was not widely discussed. Davidson notes that Vasari did not even think to write Lucchese's name at the end of a chapter in The Lives of the Artists, Bernice F. Davidson, 'Introducing Michaeli Grechi Lucchese' The Art Bulletin, Vol. 46, No. 4 (1964), p. 550.

(41) Gerulaitis, above, note 5, at p. 33.

(42) Witcombe, above, note 7, at pp. 3 and 53, dedicates the first line of his book to this assumption: "From its inception in the fifteenth century printmaking was predominately a commercial activity [and reiterates later]... The main purpose of copyright during the Renaissance was to protect the financial investment made in a printing project". Likewise, Gerulaitis, above, note 5, at pp. 3-5, states: "the early printers were primarily interested in financial gain, in producing books [and prints] that sold well. In Venice only two printmakers ... can be considered to have any incentive other than pure gain ... even printers who were connected with religious establishments seem to have published mainly with an eye for profit".

(43) Earlier in his career, Titian similarly approached Ugo da Carpi (1480-1532) to create woodcuts of his designs and likewise was granted privileges for the products of their collaboration. On the roles of Cort and Ugo in the production of Titian's prints see David Rosand and Michelangelo Muraro, Titian and the Venetian Woodcut: A Loan Exhibition (The Foundation, 1976), pp. 19-21; Landau and Parshall, above, note 5, at p. 150; Bury, above, note 8, at p. 70.

(44) In The Lives of the Artists, Vasari includes only one printmaker. For additional information refer to Carol M. Richardson, Kim W. Woods and Michael W. Franklin, Renaissance Art Reconsidered: An Anthology of Primary Sources (Blackwell Publishing, 2007), pp. 133-134. This statement is not intended to imply that Titian and Cort were equal in reputation: Titian's legal and fiscal control over works created in collaboration with Cort, and Cort's subservient position as long-term guest in Titian's household, demonstrate a clear differentiation in status.

(45) The privilegio decree is recorded in two locations: ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, reg. 46, fol. 111 r (135r. n.n.); ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, filza 48. For all recorded documentation regarding Titian's case (the letter from Titian, letter of inspection by the inquisitor Valerio Faenzi from the Reformatori dello Studio di Padova, government copy of the decree granting Titian a privilegio, and government copy of the secondary decree regarding addenda to the privilegio) see ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, filza 48. Witcombe, above, note 7, at pp. xxii-xxiii has written in detail on the decree that grants his privilegio.

(46) ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, filza 48.

(47) This author's transcription of the original text is as follows: "Conciosia che alcuni huomini poco studiosi dell'arte per fuggir la fatica et per avidita di guadagno si metteno a questa professione defraudando l'honore del primo autore di dette stampe col peggiorarle, et l'utile delle fatiche altrui, oltra l'ingannare il popolo con la stampa falsificata et di poco valore", ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, filza 48. For the English translation of the excerpt from Titian's application letter for a privilegio provided in this paper see Pon, above, note 9, at p. 47. Full translation of the petition can be found in Rosand and Muraro, above, note 43 at p. 23, n. 4 above.

(48) For additional historical and legal context regarding Titian's 1567 [1566 m.v.] licence and the privilegio applications and decrees see Witcombe, above, note 7 at p. xxii-xxvii; Rosand and Muraro, above, note 43, at pp. 22-23; Lindeman, above, note 3, at n.p.

(49) ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, reg. 46, fol. 111r (135r. n.n.); ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, filza 48.

(50) ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, filza 48.

(51) Panofsky also considers Titian's decisions with respect to his work in view of his impending death. In this case, Panofsky examines Allegory of Prudence (c. 1565-1570) as associated with property transfer and inheritance negotiations undergone by Titian with his family during his final years, Erwin Panofsky, 'Chapter IV: Reflections on Time' in Problems in Titian: Mostly Iconographic (New York University Press, 1969), pp. 107-108. Additional scholarship has considered at length the role of the Old Master, Titian's advanced age in his painterly style, career and life, and, as with Vasari, the views held by others regarding Titian's later works, Sheila Hale, Titian: His Life and the Golden Age of Venice (Harper Press, 2012); Tancred Borenius, 'Some Reflections on the Last Phase of Titian' Burlington Magazine, Vol. 41, No. 233 (1922); Hans Tietze, 'Master and Workshop in the Venetian Renaissance' Parnassus, Vol. 11, No. 8 (1939), p. 34; Erin J. Campbell, 'The Problem of Old Age' in 'The Art of Aging Gracefully: The Elderly Artist as Courtier in Early Modern Art Theory and Criticism,' The Sixteenth Century Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2 (2002), pp. 323-324; Walter Friedlaender, 'Poussin's Old Age,' Gazette des beaux-arts, Vol. 60 (1962), p. 249; Erica Tietze-Conrat, 'Titian's Workshop in His Late Years' The Art Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 2 (1946), pp. 76-88; Philip Sohm, The Artist Grows Old: The Aging of Art and Artists in Italy, 1500-1800, (Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 8-9, 43-44, 63, 83-103, 145, 161. Sohm, above, note 51, at p. 83, examines the continual debate that has surrounded Titian's true age since before the artist's death. No matter what the artist's actual age when he died, without the privilegio, Titian would have lost control of printed replications of his compositions for the remainder of his life.

(52) Witcombe, above, note 7, at p. xxvii.

(53) Tietze-Conrat, above, note 51, at pp. 76-88; Matthias Wivel, Colour in Line: Titian and Printmaking (unpublished dissertation, University of Cambridge, 2011), pp. 285-286.

(54) Lindeman, above, note 3, at n.p., in a brief section on Titian, adopts a similar argument regarding the negative effects of poor-quality reproductions on the original author and his work, remarking that "a print acted as a preview or promotional device for an artist's work". Witcombe, above, note 7, at p. xxvii, also writes an excellent summation of the commercial devaluation of Titian's 'original print' and reputation if a copy of poor quality came to market.

(55) For a full description and literary review pertaining to forms of paratexts by the term's inventor, literary theorist Gerard Genette, refer to Gerard Genette, Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation, J. Lewin (trans.) (Cambridge University Press, 1997); Gerard Genette, 'Introduction to the Paratext' New Literary History, Vol. 22, No. 2, Probings: Art, Criticism, Genre, M. Maclean (trans.) (1991). In particular, Genette quotes Philippe Lejeune at p. 261 in Introduction to the Paratext, where he considers the threshold, including writing located along the border, as "the fringe of the printed text which, in reality, controls the whole reading". Genette's term 'paratext' has more recently been appropriated by art historians to the study of descriptive text on picture prints. Previously transcribed and published sixteenth-century Venetian legislation prescribes regulations pertaining to fraud cases such as the 10 Nov. 1499 edict, which "encourages denunciations of fraud before them [the Senate] by private persons" by declaring that accusers receive at least half of all monetary compensation recovered, remain anonymous and, no matter what their role in the fraudulent activities, be absolved from guilt, Donald E. Queller and Francis R. Swietek, 'Two Studies on Venetian Government', Etudes de philologie et d'histoire (Librairie Droz, 1977), pp. 77-78.

(56) ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, filza 48.

(57) Peter Stein, Roman Law in European History (Cambridge University Press, First Publication: 1999, Reprint: 2010), pp. 71-72.

(58) ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, filza 48; Rosand and Muraro, above, note 43, at pp. 22-23. In 'Chapter IV: Reflections on Time', Panofsky above, note 51, at p. 108, poses the theory that Titian desired this copyright partially in order to strengthen the financial future of his family. However, subsequent scholarship has revealed that privileges could not be inherited, which demonstrates that Panofsky's speculation on this matter should be reconsidered.

(59) ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, filza 48.

(60) ASVe, Senato Deliberazioni Terra, filza 48; Witcombe, above, note 7, at p. xxiii. The process of naming three beneficiaries for the damages was standard practice in copyright decrees: Deborah Howard, 'Sebastiano Serlio's Venetian Copyrights' Burlington Magazine, Vol. 115, No. 845 (1973), p. 512.

(61) Pon, above, note 3, at pp. 361-362.

(62) Witcombe, above, note 7, at p. xxiii.

(63) For a comprehensive catalogue of Titian's privileged prints refer to Carlo Ridolfi, Le meraviglie dell'arte, ovvero, Le vite degli illustri pittori veneti e dello stato (Venice, 1648), Hadeln, Detlev von (ed.) (G. Grote, 1914), Vol. 1, p. 203.

(64) In 'Introduction' and 'Appendix A', Witcombe, above, note 7, includes the list provided, at pp. xxiii-xxv and 308.

(65) In a letter dated [21?] July 1886 from Charles Fairfax Murray to William Spanton, Murray confirms, "it [Tarquin and Lucretia] is the famous picture of Tarquin and Lucretia which Titian himself had engraved by C. Cort in his house in 1571", Fitzwilliam Museum, Tarquin and Lucretia Object File, Accession Number 914, Charles Fairfax Murray Letter (1886). In another correspondence dated 26 Nov. 1964 from J.W. Goodison in his capacity as Deputy Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum to Geoffrey W.G. Agnew, Esq. of Messrs Thos. Agnew & Sons, Ltd, Goodison writes, "It [the Fitzwilliam Museum's version of Tarquin and Lucretia] was almost certainly the picture which Titian sent to Phillip II of Spain in 1571, and it was engraved in this year by Cort when he was working in Titian's house for this purpose ... The Cort engraving is certainly after our [the Fitzwilliam Museum] painting", Fitzwilliam Museum, Tarquin and Lucretia Object File, Accession Number 914, J.W. Goodison Letter (1964).

(66) For the attribution of Tarquinius and Lucretia as based on the painting, Tarquin and Lucretia, see Michael Jaffe and Karin Groen, 'Titian's Tarquin and Lucretia in the Fitzwilliam' Burlington Magazine, Vol. 129, No. 1008 (1987), p. 164. Titian created two paintings on the theme of the rape of Lucretia. The other variation of the workshop painting Tarquin and Lucretia (c. 1570) at the Musee des beaux-arts (Bordeaux)--which I have not yet seen--has been extensively compared to Tarquin and Lucretia (c. 1571) at the Fitzwilliam Museum by Craig Hartley, Titian: Prince of Painters, Supplement to the Catalogue, (National Gallery of Art, 1990), n.p; Madeleine Hours, 'Etude sur deux tableaux du Titien intitules: Tarquin et Lucrece' Bulletin du Laboratoire du Musee du Louvre (1964), pp. 18-30. In addition, there exists copious correspondence dated between 1938-1965 (mostly 1964-1965) in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Tarquin and Lucretia Object File (Accession Number 914), which compares Tarquin and Lucretia (Fitzwilliam) and Tarquin and Lucretia (Bordeaux). This discussion focuses on the Tarquin and Lucretia in the Fitzwilliam Museum collection since the print Tarquinius and Lucretia was designed after this version, J.W. Goodison Letter (1964), above, note 65.

(67) J.W. Goodison and G.H. Robertson, Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge: Catalogue of Paintings, Volume II: Italian Schools (Cambridge University Press, 1967), p. 174. For an additional synopsis of the rape of Lucretia see John Pope-Hennessy, Keith Christiansen, Walter Liedtke and Gary Tinterow, 'European Paintings', Notable Acquisitions (Metropolitan Museum of Art), No. 1984/1985 (1985), pp. 22-23. A full account of the legend is recorded in Livius, Titus (Livy), History of Rome, Book I, sec. 57-60. For a translation of Livy's History of Rome, Books 1-5 see Titus Livius, History of Rome, Books 1-5, Valerie M. Warrior (trans.) (Hackett Publishing, 2006).

(68) Goodison provides a thorough description of the areas of canvas cut away on all sides from the painting, Tarquin and Lucretia, including the knotted curtain immediately located above Tarquinius' head, much of the manservant holding back the curtain to the right, portions of the cushions and slippers to the left, and the two steps along the bottom, Goodison and Robertson, above, note 67, at p. 173. In his capacity as Deputy Director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, Goodison also discusses this subject in a letter dated 28 April 1966 to Mr Teodor Ionescu of the Muzeul Brukenthal in Romania where a transalpine copy of Tarquin and Lucretia painted in reverse and, therefore, likely designed after a print of Tarquinius and Lucretia, is located, Fitzwilliam Museum, Tarquin and Lucretia Object File, Accession Number 914, J.W. Goodison Letter (1966). In addition to the sections recorded by Goodison, the comer of a table along the lower foreground of the painting that holds Titian's name in the printed version appears to have also been removed. In the publication of the Hamilton Kerr Institute's April 1984 report, Jaffe and Groen disagree with Goodison's conclusion based on Cort's engraving that the painting was subjected to "considerable mutilation", using as evidence the lack of a large amount of cusping along the bottom, left and right side of the painting. They report that only a few centimetres have been cut away around the edges. Although the lower edge of the painting was noted to be more considerably "trimmed", Jaffe and Groen warn against automatically viewing the print as a photographic reproduction of the original painting, citing other small adjustments made to the painting's composition in order to better fit the print medium, Jaffe and Groen, above, note 66, at pp. 164 and 167. That said, Titian did not instruct Cort to significantly alter any of his other paintings for the print medium before or after Cort designed the printed version. While debate remains regarding the extent to which the painting has been altered, Goodison, Jaffe and Groen agree that the painting has been trimmed.

(69) The intricacies of the designations invenit and inventum in sixteenth-century prints are explained in Pon, above, note 9, at pp. 52-53.

(70) It was standard practice to place the cum privilegio inscription either towards the bottom of the pictorial composition or just beyond the periphery of the image, and for an artist or printmaker to place the copyright designation in an identical orientation and location for all privileged print designs. Titian was different; the cum privilegio inscription appears in a distinct position on Titian's nine copyrighted prints. Owing to this break from tradition, it is reasonable to examine in more detail Titian's possible intentions behind the inscription's placement.
COPYRIGHT 2016 Institute of Art and Law
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Rabinowe, Sarah Alexis
Publication:Art Antiquity & Law
Geographic Code:4EUIT
Date:Jul 1, 2016
Words:9430
Previous Article:The Museums Association's Code of Ethics 2015.
Next Article:Enforceability of vesting laws: proceedings before the Belgian courts.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |