Collecting Clues. In Search of an Art Collector in Seventeenth-Century Vienna

Orsolya Bubryák

This volume contains an analysis of an art collection from the seventeenth century, whose erstwhile owner and location are both unknown. All that survives of the collection is its anonymous inventory, but the descriptions within it allow us to deduce that the works were of exceptionally high quality. My research reveals a complex network of contacts stretching from Berlin to Amsterdam, involving some of the most prominent art collectors in Europe; it outlines a collection of paintings that was built up in Vienna and probably sold in Prague; and it shines new light on the provenance of some extraordinarily important artworks (including an antique imperial cameo, and works by artists such as Christoph Paudiss, Bartholomäus Spranger, Hans Baldung Grien, etc.).

Orsolya Bubryák Collecting Clues In Search of an Art Collector in Seventeenth-Century Vienna Institute of Art History, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences ORSOLYA BUBRYÁK Collecting Clues In Search of an Art Collector in Seventeenth-Century Vienna DE SIGNIS 6 DE SIGNIS 6 Series editor: Edit Szentesi ORSOLYA BUBRYÁK Collecting Clues In Search of an Art Collector in Seventeenth-Century Vienna Institute of Art History, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences Budapest 2018 Publication of this volume was made possible with the support of research programme K 105005 from the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office, and the Committee for the Publication of Books and Periodicals at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences Cover illustration: Hans Baldung Grien, The Suicide of Lucretia (detail), 1530 Raczyński Foundation at the National Museum in Poznań © the author, the editor and the photo rights holders All rights reserved Publisher: Árpád Mikó Institute of Art History, Research Centre for the Humanities, Hungarian Academy of Sciences ISSN 2498-7840 ISBN 978-615-5133-14-5 Translator: Steve Kane Typography: János Hollós Printing: Kódex Könyvgyártó Kft. Production leader: Attila Marosi Printed in Hungary Contents FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 THE INVENTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artists’ names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Estimated values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Support media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Breakdown according to genre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 19 21 22 23 24 26 THE ARTWORKS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I. Antiquitates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Ein onix Ardonix […], worauf Constantini Magni bildnus” . . . . . . Gottfried von Edelstein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II. Pretiosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Admirable ferra effigies vnser liben frauen” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Ein langliche schahlen von Agats” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III. Imagines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defining the collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kunstkammer vs. Gallery (I) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The development of galleries in Central Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kunstkammer vs. Gallery (II) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “gallery” as an architectural feature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The “gallery” as a collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm as a model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cabinet d’amateur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Ein Cabinet, worin von diuersen famosen maistern bildern” . . . . . The Harrach copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 31 31 39 51 51 52 55 55 55 60 63 63 64 68 72 72 77 77 The Rothschild copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 The Kolowrat copy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Parallels with the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm . . . . . . . . . . 90 “Bacchinalia mit etlichen Satÿren” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 “Von Jacobe de Gordanno le Roy” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 “Wie ein altes weib, ein jungen menschen einen beutl gelt darreichet” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 “Wie Joannes Pharonis schäze verachte” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Works produced in Vienna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 The Netherlandish colony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 “Ein altes weib so ducaten wegt” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 German painters resident in Vienna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 “Ein Prognosticus der seine hand herzeiget” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 “Ein bub so sizent ist und ein Kaz” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 The art import trade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 “Ein schwabische hochzeit” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 “Ein landschafft warin eine plinderung” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 “Thriumphus Davidis” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 “Der Fischzug Petrus” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 “Vnser lieben frauen bild mit Jesu, Joseph vnd Joanne” . . . . . . . . . . 124 Painters who were contemporary with the inventory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 The unique features of the collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Rarely occurring artists’ names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Works with a local connection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132 “Wie Noe in der Archen gehet, – wie die Archen schon weeg gehet” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133 Works by painters from Nuremberg . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 “Ein sizender Haaß in einem gebusch” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 “Die prædicatio S(anc)ti Joannis” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 “Ein bauersman mit einer Baürin” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138 “Eine bußfertigte Magdalena auf holz” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 The Fürlegerin copies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Rudolfine Painters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 “Ecce homo von Spranger” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 “Wie Mercurius die Venus bedint” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157 “Raptum Proserpine” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 “Wie Actæon die Diana im baad besucht” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 “Wie Jesus Joannem tauft” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174 Copies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177 Copies of pieces in the imperial collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 “Ein Weiblein so die Hand auf einen Mohren legt” . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 6 “Ein stuck auf kupfer des Sauls bekehrung” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Venus mit dem Cupido in amore” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “2 nackhende Kindlein, so einen pfeil spizen” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Wie Lazarus von hunden geleckt würd” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Von Passand extra rar de Jerosolomitaner” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Wie ein alter man ein iunges Weib carisirt” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Wie ein alter Man einem iungen weiblein ein ring ansteckt” . . . . “Wie Lutherus vnd sein Katerl einer Masquarte beÿwohnen” . . . . Pendant paintings and series . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . “Von dem berühmbten Balthinus Defarrare Romano” . . . . . . . . . . “Wie Eua im Paradeis den apfel dem Adam gibt” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 193 196 201 214 221 225 226 231 234 247 SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251 APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Manuscript sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273 Printed sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276 INDEX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327 PHOTOGRAPHIC CREDITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 FOREWORD This book was written against my original intent. Researching the history of a collection shares certain similarities with the work of a detective, and the task cannot be considered complete until we know the identity of the “culprit” – in this case, the collector. Even if we are unable to make a positive identification, there are still many ways in which the subject can be presented, but a monographic treatment seems to be the least practicable of all the possible options. Why would anyone write a whole book about an unsolved question and then leave the reader dangling without a satisfactory resolution? Is there any justification in admitting to the wide world that the research has “failed”? Here I merely pose the questions, and it is up to the reader to decide. In this volume I analyse a seventeenth-century art collection whose owner is unknown; by drawing conclusions from the information contained in the inventory of the collection, I endeavour to find my way to actual works of art and, through them, to the identity of the collector. I think it best to confess, right from the start, that my attempt met with only moderate success. I first came across the source text in the course of my research in the Esterházy archives, and it caught my eye mainly because it stood out so sharply compared with the other inventories around it. This document, despite its frequent lapses into linguistic haphazardness, was compiled with obvious professionalism, and contains artwork descriptions whose level of precision was rare in Hungary – indeed in Central Europe – in the second half of the seventeenth century. Almost every single painting is accompanied by the name of an artist and a value estimate, the latter information proving inestimable in making deductions about the quality of the works. As I read through the descriptions, a number of questions occurred to me: are the paintings referred to in the list originals or copies? How reliable are the attributions? Can the works still be identified from the available information? And who on earth could have owned all these paintings? By way of experiment, I set about trying to identify one of the most remarkable items on the inventory, described in the text as an antique cameo of Constantine the Great; to my delight, this produced an immediate and unambiguous (positive) result. I then embarked on tracing the history of the artwork back from its present location to its earliest known mention, and as I did so, I gradually pieced together a network of contacts stretching from Berlin to Amsterdam, involving some of the most prominent art collectors in Europe. I kept returning to the inventory, selecting a new artwork each time, relying on its description to make a conditional identification with an existing work; the more or less detailed provenance of every new find added further collectors to the scope of my research, which in turn drew my attention to additional artworks, which may have originated from other collectors, although they seemed not to be unrelated to the collection under investigation. The story fell into place almost by itself: the threads sometimes came together with others already known, 11 FOREWORD and sometimes unravelled in completely new directions, before returning to weave an ever tighter web around the mystery art collector. It soon became clear that that amount of information already accumulated far exceeded the bounds of what I had originally envisaged as a conference paper, and before too long I had amassed a quantity of data that would no longer fit within the confines of an extended essay. My manuscript was drafted with the aim of serial publication in mind, but by the time it reached its third, and then its fourth planned section, the only logical outcome remaining was to issue the findings in the form of a monographic work, and what is more – due to the modest abilities of its author – one without a proper ending. This volume concludes with the source text itself: there are so many artwork descriptions in the inventory that are still unanalysed and undiscussed, and any of them could be the one whose provenance leads us to the seventeenth-century art collector we seek. It is my hope that, far from being a deficiency of this volume, this aspect will turn out to be a boon, inspiring the reader to contribute their own thoughts to solving the puzzle. It behoves me to explain the linguistic inconsistencies that permeate the entire volume. The events are played out in Central Eastern Europe between the seventeenth and nineteenth centuries. The people and places involved are of different nationalities, but in the sources, they nearly always all feature in the German language. Many of them are quite well known among scholars, and their local and Germanised names are equally widespread (examples being Czernin/Černín, Kolowrat/Kolovrat, Nostitz/Nostic, Waldstein/Valdštejn, and so on). When such names occur in the text, for the sake of readability, I have preferred to use the standard Germanised variants; when referring to less familiar names, however, I have maintained the original spelling, although it would not have been impossible to come up with Germanised equivalents (Slavata/Slawata, Vršovec/Wrschowetz, Žerotín/Zierotin). The names of institutions that feature in the main text are mostly given in English translation, again for the sake of readability, but in the footnotes, the locations where the artworks, archive sources, etc. can be found today are specified in the respective local language (e.g. Museum of Fine Arts/ Szépművészeti Múzeum, National Gallery in Prague/Národní galerie v Praze, etc.). During the years I have spent gathering the information for this research, I have been fortunate to enjoy the support of numerous institutions and scholarships. Between 2014 and 2016 I was the beneficiary of the János Bolyai Research Fellowship granted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (HAS), and in 2017 I received a creative grant from the National Cultural Fund of Hungary. My longer research visits abroad were facilitated with the Isabel and Alfred Bader Art History Research Award of the HAS, and with grants from DAAD (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst) and the Collegium Hungaricum Wien. The costs of translating and publishing the volume have been financed partly by the Hungarian National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH) (Project no. K 105005), and partly by the Committee for the Publication of Books and Periodicals at the HAS. During the course of my work, many people have made valuable contributions with their advice and observations, and I have striven, in the relevant footnotes, to express my gratitude to them all. I am additionally indebted to Edit Szentesi, editor of the De Signis series, for her critical reading of my manuscript, and to Steve Kane, for his careful translation and suggestions for improvements. This book would never have seen the light of day without the encouragement I received from my husband, for which I will be eternally grateful. 12 INTRODUCTION One of the most exciting periods in the history of collecting art is the second half of the seventeenth century, when the encyclopaedic Kunstkammer of Late Renaissance princely courts gradually began to evolve into the more specialised collections of the eighteenth-century, epitomised by the magnificent Baroque painting galleries. As the requirements of representational prestige developed, so too did the preferences of collectors; there were also concomitant transformations in the buildings used to house art collections, while the art trade finally became a profession in its own standing. Unfortunately for us today, there are precious few sources available to help us understand the processes in play at the time, and this is especially true for the Central European region. Every tiny nugget of information about the art market in those days may therefore be of crucial importance, and we must not overlook any details that may offer clues about how early modern collections came into being (or became dispersed). One of the peculiarities of this field is that many of the available sources are anonymous. The interested parties, both buyers and sellers, often preferred to remain incognito, for all manner of reasons. It was not uncommon for collections of paintings – sometimes numbering two or three hundred works – to change hands between two members of the aristocracy, based on agreements that were kept completely private and confidential. In Central Europe, however, there is the additional hindrance in that researchers usually have to cope without the professionalism of the printed inventories which, in Western Europe at the time, were routinely drawn up when major collections of art were sold. All too often, the list of items accompanying a transfer of artworks in Central Europe was compiled in a slapdash manner by an inexpert hand, omitting both the name of the owner and the date of sale. These nameless and often undated inventories have rarely been used in art historical research, although it is far from certain that they are actually useless as sources of information. Below I outline an experiment undertaken to analyse one such anonymous inventory. The inventory in question became known to researchers during investigations into the history of the Esterházy family. The document survived in the archive of Prince Paul Esterházy (1635–1713), Palatine of Hungary, among the papers documenting his purchases, although the list clearly has nothing to do with the prince, or at least it would appear that not a single artwork on the list ever came into his possession.¹ It is also uncertain how the inventory ended up among the documents of Paul Esterházy. The most likely scenario is that the works on the list were offered to him for sale, but he subsequently bought none of them, presumably due to their high price. It is for this reason that most Esterházy experts, 1 For the collection of paintings owned by Paul Esterházy, see: Körner–Kopp 2010; Buzási 2015. 15 INTRODUCTION despite knowing the source document quite well, have only dealt with it in passing. It was mentioned, for example, in the monograph on the Esterházy collection written by Simon Meller, touched upon once by Theodor von Frimmel, briefly discussed in the summary by Klára Garas and in the analysis by Stefan Körner and Margit Kopp; most recently Enikő Buzási made reference to it in her study on Paul Esterházy.² To date, however, the inventory has not yet been used in connection with research into other collections, for there has been no way of knowing who actually owned the paintings listed therein. The question that interested me was whether the source text could provide sufficient information for us to piece together the identity of the erstwhile owner of the collection, and to place the listed works within the context of the history of art collecting in Central Europe. It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss all of the paintings on the inventory, which number over two hundred in total, but through a few selected examples – in cases where the text facilitated a conditional identification of the works – I shall attempt to present the possibilities and limitations of textual analysis. The main starting points for my analysis were the language and information contained in the inventory itself, in particular the paintings and the artists’ names, although the potential also existed for additional information to be gleaned from any works that could be identified. The condition, quality and provenance of such works, as well as – in some instances – whether the work referred to in the inventory proved to be an original or a copy, sometimes provided information, albeit conditional, about the other paintings. It is my hope that, when the research is completed, the combined hypotheses will lead to the original owner of the collection. My research so far has not yet resulted in conclusive evidence concerning the identity of the owner, so in the present paper I will withhold from speculation. 2 Meller 1915, XV; Frimmel 1922 (Referring to the verbal communication by Simon Meller, he described it as the earliest Esterházy inventory); Garas 1999, 103; Körner–Kopp 2010, 222; Buzási 2015, 145. 16 The Inventory 1. Inventory from the Esterházy archives titled „Laus Deo 1669 In Wien” Hungarian National Archives, Budapest General characteristics The inventory was drawn up in 1669 in Vienna, and titled Laus Deo 1669 In Wien. Specification vber volgenten gemahlen vnd raren quadren vnd Diuersen famosen Maistern, wie hernach folget, although the owner is not named.³ (fig. 1) It lists over two hundred paintings and three objects made from gemstones, all of which are, judging from their descriptions, highly valuable and spectacular. The latter objects are expanded upon in detail, while the paintings are usually limited to a brief description of the subject matter, accompanied by the name of the painter, or at least the place where the painting was made. There is no information in the inventory about the dimensions of the paintings, which sadly robs research of the chance to make a positive identification of most works, as it was not uncommon for a painter to execute the same theme on more than one occasion, and when several variants exist, the dimensions are decisive. The only help offered by the text is when it mentions that one work is the same size as the preceding one in the list, or when it indicates that two paintings are contained within the same frame. The inventory also includes estimated values for the works, given in imperial thalers, which seem to be relatively high compared with the prices that paintings commonly fetched on the Viennese art market at the time. In most cases, we are also informed of the medium on which each work was painted. The inventory is a transcript, and the signatures at the end of the document are not original; consequently, any correction, addition or deletion that may have been made to the original inventory is impossible for us to know. The language is mostly German, with a few foreign expressions (in Latin or French), and the orthography is inconsistent, being particularly disjointed in the case of words with a foreign origin. There are also certain obvious omissions in several parts of the text, which were presumably made due to inattention on the part of the copier, not due to errors by the original writer of the inventory. The name of the artist is absent, for example, from item no. 69 (Ein Juden schul sehr rar und Curios von […] – the rest is missing), and we can only guess at how the description of The Conversion of Saul (item no. 86) continued, for it finishes with the word “sehr” (very). Several works have no price (item nos. 186–7, 200), and yet the final sum stated at the end of the inventory is 3 Budapest, MNL OL, P 125. Esterházy Archives, documents of Palatine Paul. Miscellaneous documents. Inventories and lists, fasc. 115, no. 11670. Included in the appendix. 19 THE INVENTORY higher than the total obtained by adding up the individual prices that are given; this implies that these items originally had an estimated value, which was lost during copying. The list was compiled by four individuals who are not known elsewhere, but who seem to have been experts familiar with the art market: Caspar Sudermann, Caspar Loix, Jo[hann] Ge[org] Teich and Ulrich Lidl.4 The latter surname prompted Klára Garas to posit that the inventory may relate to the activities of the Lidl (Lidel) family of art dealers, who originated from Augsburg and were also active in Vienna.5 Here tentative observation has recently – as often happens – transformed into a more or less determined assertion, and it has become generally accepted that this list represents a summary of the stock available from the Lidl painting dealership at that given moment. To be precise, however, the people who signed the document did not state anywhere that they were offering the works for sale, only that they were estimating and evaluating them (æstimieret und geschäzt). Naturally, this fact alone does not rule out the possibility that these were the wares of an art dealer, and indeed the “professionalism” evident in the descriptions and the way the estimated prices are highlighted would seem to point in this direction; in my opinion, however, the description of one of the items on the list contradicts this view. All the way through the document, the text is rather detached and impersonal, until it suddenly changes at one point into the first person singular. Item 30 asserts that it was a gift from Emperor Ferdinand II to the writer’s ancestor (probably his grandfather), taken from the imperial gallery: Ein stuck auf Leinwant, Petrus vnd Paul(us) so von Ferdinando Secundo her meinem Anherrn seel(ig) aus der Callarie præsentirt worden, von Coretschio æstimirt – 400. The emperor passed away at the start of 1637, which places us several decades away from the likely date of the gift, which was a rather generous and noteworthy one. I have the feeling that the writer was not a merchant, but an aristocrat giving an account of his forefathers. Unfortunately, the inventory does not contain any other personal points of connection, for it contains no family portraits and not even any portrait of a ruler that might bring us closer to identifying who the collector was. 4 Meller 1915, p. XV. Based on the place where the inventory was made, he regarded them as Viennese experts, although he did not deal separately with the persons in question. 5 The activities of the Augsburg-based art dealer Melchior Lidl (Lidel) are relatively well documented, and the name Matthias Lidl also occasionally appears in archival documents; hitherto, however, to the best of my knowledge, there is no mention of any family member with the name Ulrich. Melchior Lidl transported paintings to Vienna from Regensburg or Augsburg in 1665, 1666 and 1669. Duverger 1972, p. 173. On 6 February 1667 he sold ten paintings to Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, while on 26 July of the same year, Matthias Lidl (Liedeln) sold him some more paintings. Fleischer 1910, p. 39; Haupt 1998, pp. 80, 83, 241–3. Melchior Lidl was active in Amsterdam in the 1670s: Priever 2001, pp. 179–80. During this time, he was assisted in his art dealership activities by his son-in-law, the painter Johann Spillenberger, who delivered paintings sent from Amsterdam to clients in Vienna. Baljöhr 2003, pp. 56–7, 70. Lidl was back in Augsburg after 1680; in that year he held negotiations with Karl von Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn, Bishop of Olomouc, concerning works that were undelivered due to the death of Spillenberger. Breitenbacher 1925, I, p. 47; Baljöhr 2003, pp. 305–6. 20 THE INVENTORY Artists’ names The inventory reveals the valuers to be as well informed as could be, and of the 209 items in the list, less than 10% do not feature the name of any artist. It must be recognised that the practice of making such a high proportion of attributions was not peculiar to the collections of the aristocracy, but was rather typical of dealerships, who kept precise records of whose works they were offering for sale. Even among dealers, however, it was not common to have such a high proportion of attributions, and the inventories of the Forchoudt company, for example, which brought consignments to Vienna from Antwerp, included the name of the painter in, on average, 50–60% of cases.6 There are no comprehensive statistical analyses available for Central Europe, but they do exist in connection with the art market in the Low Countries, which had a far more highly developed art trade and is also far richer in terms of extant sources: even there, an attribution rate of around 70% would be considered exceptional, and such figures do not appear until the 1670s.7 The fact that close to 90% of the pictures on the Esterházy inventory include the name of the painter (regardless of whether or not the attribution is correct) is extremely remarkable. It is a different matter, however, that there are many distorted name variants in the inventory. This can be partly ascribed to the circumstances under which the inventory was made: when stocktaking, valuers often dictated their descriptions in situ, while the scribes, to whom the painters’ names often meant nothing, would attempt to write them down phonetically. This explains, for example, why Raphael d’Urbino became “Turbino” (no. 73), Cavaliere (Pietro) Liberi became “Gaballiz Libro” (no. 84) or Willem van der Cruys became “Fonderkreuz” (no. 112). Certain names, with no apparent justification, become distorted from one language towards another, which could be explained by possible inscriptions written on the back (?) of a painting, or by one or more of the valuers speaking a language other than German as their mother tongue. Albrecht Dürer, for instance, who is mentioned twice (nos. 2, 97), is given in the Italian form “Alberto Duro”, while Jacob Jordaens appears as “Jacobe de Gordanno” (no. 200), and the German painter Martin Dichtl is given the Flemicised name of Maert Dichtl (nos. 58, 202). A fair proportion of Italian and Flemish names, meanwhile, undergo Gallicisation: examples are Jean Bellino (Giovanni Bellini) (no. 77), Jean de Parmenzo (Parmigianino, i.e. Girolamo Francesco Maria Mazzola) (no. 59), Jean de Cordua (Johann de Cordua) (no. 33), and the cognomen of Volckard Adriaen van Lier the Younger (“le Jeune”) (no. 203). 6 See the delivery notes cited in Denucé 1931. 7 A large quantity of sources are cited in: Bredius 1915–22, vols. I–VIII; Duverger 1984–2002, vols. I–XII. Analyses confined to particular cities have been carried out by: Filipczak 1987, p. 44 (Antwerp); Montias 1982, p. 227 (Delft); Montias 2004–5, p. 325 (Amsterdam): the ratio of attributed paintings increased significantly everywhere during a period lasting from 1640 to 1660. There are of course differences between the different types of sources (estate inventory, trial document, custodial proceedings, auction catalogue, etc.), with larger proportions of artists’ names found in lists drawn up for commercial purposes and those containing artists’ estates, but the trend in every case is upwards. If we concentrate solely on the inventories produced by art dealerships, the increase is even more noticeable: DeMarchi–Miegroet 1996, p. 51, for example, examined the sales of the Musson–Fourmenois company between the 1640s and the 1670s, during which period the proportion of attributed paintings rose from less than 10% to around 70%. 21 THE INVENTORY Unravelling these distorted names presents researchers with a serious challenge: the identities behind “Deferto” (no. 61), “De Jota” (no. 68), and “Vaito Haafen” (nos. 186–7) are, for now at least, shrouded in mystery and subject only to guesswork. When attempting an identification, it is best to be prudent: if the name is misinterpreted, the works will be sought in the œuvre of the wrong artist. The name “Coretschio”, for example, given in the afore-mentioned item 30, seems at first sight to refer to Correggio, which is not unreasonable. However, when it is borne in mind that the name also crops up in another listing (no. 8), this time in the fuller form of “Hannibal de Correschio”, then it is wise to question whether the authors of the inventory were really referring to Correggio (Antonio Allegri) or perhaps to Annibale Carracci. The way in which the painters’ names are written is somewhat inconsistent, which does not set them apart from the orthographic practice followed in contemporary inventories. The same name may be written in different ways, and the Christian names of the artists are often given erroneously, if at all, with examples being Hieronymus instead of Anthonis van Dyck (nos. 32, 48), Hans instead of Christoph Schwarz (nos. 86, 142), and Johann instead of Frans Snyders (no. 192). At the same time, little distinction is made between artists who share a family name, as is the case with the Brueghel family, who feature most frequently as “Brigel” (nos. 4, 13, 22, 71, 136, 166), with one mention of “Samet-Brigel” (“Velvet Brueghel”), referring to Jan Brueghel the Elder (1568–1625) (no. 94), and one mention of the “older” Brueghel, probably the father, Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1525–69) (no. 116), and one mention of “the Younger Brueghel”, presumably Jan Brueghel the Younger (1601–78) (no. 108). On three occasions, however, one comes across an unknown member of the Brueghel family, spelt in different ways, the most likely interpretation of which is Aurelius (?): (no. 82: “Orrelio Brigel”, no. 171: “Orelli Prigl”, no. 196: “Arrellio Prigel”). To the best of my knowledge, there was no painter in this otherwise quite populous family of artists who went by such a name, so the possibility must also be considered that this was a distorted variant of “drollig”, a nickname of Pieter Bruegel the Elder. Estimated values Among the painters’ names there is a remarkably high ratio of “stars” of the art market (Titian, Raphael, Parmigianino, Rubens, Van Dyck, Correggio/Carracci, etc.), which may not necessarily inspire confidence in the credibility of the inventory. However, these names are used not to designate the people who actually made the paintings (and it is clear that the authors of the inventory had no intention of implying that the work came from the master’s own hand), but rather the inventors of the works. When the valuers attribute a painting to Titian, they are merely saying that the composition was originally invented by Titian. Although it was customary in the art trade by this time to distinguish between an original and a copy, explicit written information of this kind is rare in this inventory. The estimated values of the paintings are included, however, which provides a reflection of the judgement of the valuers. 22 THE INVENTORY The Jupiter and Venus by Hendrick Goltzius (no. 133), for example is valued at just 30 thalers, which allows us to deduce that it was not considered to have been painted by the artist’s own hand. However, the high or low price is not definitive by itself, for it must always be compared with the “prestige” of the painter in question. In the case of Volckard Adriaen van Lier, for example, a relatively little known artist who was active in Vienna in the 1660s, and who is represented in the collection by a noticeably large number of works, the same price of 30 thalers accorded to his Sunset (no. 53) indicates that it was, in all likelihood, an authentic piece by him. The authorship of the Raphael painting on copper (no. 73), meanwhile, may still raise doubts in our minds despite it being the most expensive painting in the list, valued at 600 imperial thalers. Such high prices would normally be commanded only by Old Masters and/or Italian paintings, while works that can be regarded, based on the artist’s name, as “contemporaneous” with the inventory, and which were probably painted locally, were usually valued somewhere between 10 and 40 thalers. Besides the question of authorship, many other factors also influenced the estimated price of a work, such as its condition, its size and its material – the first two of these are not discussed at all in the inventory. The descriptions also do not enable us to differentiate between works that are identified as copies: we are not informed whether a work was an autograph copy by the master himself or one produced by his workshop, whether a replica was made after the original work or after a reproduction print, or even whether any of these works were “phantom copies”, intended to imitate the style of a given master – this does not mean, however, that the compilers of the inventory did not know which was which when they were giving their estimates.8 It is for this reason that the values given only allow us to make assumptions about the originality of the paintings, and a price of 100 thalers is not enough for us to ascertain for sure if a work is authentic or copied. One thing we can say with certainty is that the average price estimate for the inventory as a whole works out at 80 thalers (120 florins), which is a rather high sum: this leads us to conclude that the collection of paintings was of high quality.9 Origins The highest prices on the inventory were accorded to Italian Masters, although the proportion of Italian works within the collection is remarkably small, making up around 10% of the paintings. Moreover, although the collection included, with a few exceptions, the most important Italian Masters (Titian, Veronese, Raphael, etc.), the descriptions would lead us 8 For more about the factors that influenced prices, with seventeenth-century Netherlandish examples, see: De Marchi–Van Miegroet 1996. 9 Vít Vlnas examined the average prices of Bohemian aristocratic collections around 1670, and calculated the average price of paintings in the most valuable collections (Kolowrat, Liechtenstein, Waldstein) as 100 florins (c. 68 thalers). Vlnas 2014, p. 329. 23 THE INVENTORY to conclude that the majority of their paintings were replicas. By contrast, the proportion of Netherlandish works is very high (around 48%), which can be explained in part by the local art market conditions. Beginning in the 1660s, regular consignments of paintings were brought to Vienna by art dealers from Antwerp, and their selection, quite logically, was dominated by Flemish painters. Even before this time, Netherlandish paintings had long been fashionable in Vienna, and the artists who produced such works were held in high esteem in the court of Rudolf II, with a further boost in popularity being stimulated after 1656, when Archduke Leopold Wilhelm brought his collection home from Brussels. Among the Netherlandish works, the ratio of paintings that presumably originated in Holland was relatively high (15%), even without including works by members of the colony who lived and worked in Vienna, which were clearly made locally; when these are included, the proportion of Dutch paintings increases to over 30%. For most of the seventeenth century, Dutch paintings were destined primarily for the domestic market, and it was not until the last decades of the century that international attention became widespread – according to research carried out by Everhard Korthals Altes, this interest was not unrelated to the publication of the Teutsche Academie (1675, 1679),¹0 written by Joachim von Sandrart, who had studied in Utrecht and Amsterdam, and who described the œuvres of many Dutch painters in his two-volume work. The afore-mentioned Lidl trading company also began to import artworks into Vienna from Amsterdam in the 1670s.¹¹ The proportion of works attributable to German painters is also distinctly high, coming second only to the Flemish paintings at around 25%, which stands out in comparison with contemporary Viennese art collections, and may be symptomatic of the collector’s personal preferences. Support media Based on the inventory, 37% of the paintings are on canvas, 34% on wood and 18% on copper, while six works were painted on stone and one on paper; in a few instances this information is absent. The most remarkable pieces in terms of support material were clearly those on stone (nos. 156–61), but sadly further details are unforthcoming, and the brief descriptions reveal neither the subject matter nor the type of stone: Sechs stuck gleicher gröse steinene stuck, worauf in der natur des steins köstlich illumminirt extra Curios – 200. The fashion for painting on stone originated in Italy, and involved a variety of stone materials (alabaster, marble, lapis lazuli, slate, etc.). In the court of Rudolf II, Hans von Aachen produced compositions in this way, and via his agents the emperor also came by 10 Korthals Altes 2011, pp. 165–6. 11 See: footnote 5. 24 THE INVENTORY two paintings on stone from Rome, by Antonio Tempesta (1552–1615).¹² The Florentine Medici court often gave paintings on stone as diplomatic gifts.¹³ In the seventeenth century the technique was mastered by members of the Bramer family of Delft (primarily Leonaert Bramer, 1596–1674) and by Jacob Matthias Weyer of Hamburg (1620–70), and their speciality was the use of shiny black slate. Due to the lack of a precise description in the inventory, it is impossible to make any direct link with the collection in question here, but since they fall within the “sphere of influence” of eighteenth-century Vienna, I would like here to mention a series of six biblical scenes on octagonal slate by Weyer, bought by Hermann Hannibal Blümegen (1716–74) for his chateau in Vizovice, five of which are still there.¹4 (Where the text states that the painted image followed the “nature” of the stone, this probably refers to the use of a type of stone that was veined, of the kind used by Hans von Aachen and Tempesta.) The high proportion of paintings on copper and wood indicates that they were probably small “cabinet paintings”.¹5 Although small paintings had long been sought after as curiosities, the emergence of cabinet paintings can be associated with the appearance of art collectors among the bourgeoisie. The wealthy middle classes in the major commercial centres had art collecting ambitions – and the purchasing power to go with it – that rivalled those of the aristocracy, and this transformed the art market in several ways. Their means of representation, spheres of interest and – last but not least – the size and design of the spaces where they held their collections were all different from those of the nobility, and so demand for small-sized paintings increased more than any other kind. Cabinet paintings were extremely popular in Antwerp in the first decades of the seventeenth century, and there were entire workshops dedicated to turning out large quantities of small paintings.¹6 This process of bourgeoisification took place much later in Central Europe, where the aristocracy and the Church remained the main art patrons all the way through to the end of the century. The fashion for cabinet paintings did arrive here too, after some delay, mainly through the art trade, but a pronounced presence of such works could only be detected in art collections as the century drew to a close. 12 Seifertová 2007a; Lohff 2015, p. 69. In the Kunstkammer of Rudolf II, descriptions were given of a total of eight paintings on stone, five of which were made by Hans von Aachen. Bauer–Haupt 1976, pp. 139–40. 13 Lohff 2015, pp. 92–101. 14 Státní zámek, Vizovice, inv. 2351–6, oil on slate, 28×28 cm. One piece is lost. They featured on the first known inventory of the items in Vizovice Chateau (1784). Jírka 1993, cats. 65–8. Two further pieces were in Frimmel’s collection. Frimmel 1908, p. 147. For the painter see: Trümper 2011, pp. 91–102. 15 For more about the fashion for miniature paintings in the Central European context see: Seifertová 1997a. 16 Härting 1989, pp. 15–8. 25 THE INVENTORY Breakdown according to genre The new middle-class clientele that emerged in the Low Countries at the end of the sixteenth century, and their particular demands and preferences, not only had an effect on the size of paintings, but also engendered some new genres of painting (still life, landscape, genre painting), which more closely reflected the interests of this new customer base. Throughout the seventeenth century, these new genres garnered ever increasing popularity among aristocratic art collectors as well. Classifying the paintings in our inventory along thematic lines, the majority (around 40%) were history paintings, predominantly on mythological subjects, which were more commonly found among the aristocracy, while the proportion of landscapes, lower down the genre hierarchy, was relatively low (around 17%). The absence of portraits has already been mentioned: there is not a single family portrait in the entire inventory, nor any portrait of a ruler, which is not at all typical of an aristocratic collector, unless we assume that such portraits were intentionally excluded from the list, because they were not for sale. While there are no named portraits, however, there are a few character heads (tronies), which amount to a paltry 5% of the total number of works. Still lifes, at around 8%, are also low in number, although this was nothing unusual, as the proportion of such paintings rarely rose above 10-12%, and even then it was mainly among the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, the level of genre pieces represented in the collection (14-15%) is striking, and almost as high as the ratio of landscapes. Representative statistics summarising several hundred inventories and breaking down the art collections of a specific place and time according to genre are known mostly from Holland. Due to the different circumstances under which paintings were collected by members of the Protestant Dutch middle classes, these research results cannot be directly adapted to a gallery which, in all likelihood, was assembled in Vienna. Nevertheless, I believe that the calculations performed there can provide us with a broad guide. It was this part of the continent that led the way throughout the seventeenth century in generating demand for genre pieces and pushing up their prices ever higher. In the 1620s, the proportion of genre pieces in collections in Delft and Amsterdam languished around 3-4%, but by the 1670s this figure had jumped to 7-10%. (Even this figure is barely half of the proportion found in the collection we are investigating.) Over the same period, the popularity of history painting gradually declined, from an initial “market share” of 46-47% to a mere 11-16% towards the end of the century. The undisputed winner among the genres at the end of this transformation process in Holland was the landscape, whose distribution rose from 20-23% in the 1620s to 32-40% by the end of the 1670s.¹7 Our inventory can therefore be regarded as having a hybrid make-up: it shares a similarity with the collections put together at the beginning of the century in having a large proportion of history paintings and a low number of landscapes, while genre pieces are represented at a rate that substantially surpasses even the end-of-century average in the Dutch cities where this type of painting “came of age”. The high proportion of 17 North 2001, p. 103. 26 THE INVENTORY table 1. Comparison of paintings by genre in Dutch inventories, in the art collection of Count Berka as well as in the inventory of the Esterházy archives 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 history landscape still life portrait Delft (1640–1649) Amsterdam (1630–1639) Esterházy-inventory Berka collection (1692) genre history paintings may have something to do with how open to the public the collection was intended to be: royal and princely collections still strictly observed the hierarchy of the genres long into the second half of the eighteenth century.¹8 When it comes to the aristocratic collections that existed within the borders of the Habsburg Empire, there are no broadly based statistics available that compare with their Netherlandish counterparts, so in order to provide a control sample, I have relied upon the inventory of a single noble gallery, whose parameters share a number of parallels with the data pertaining to our collection. In 1692, the Bohemian count, Franz Anton Berka, offered to sell his gallery to Johann Adam Andreas, Prince of Liechtenstein.¹9 The inventory was drawn up under similar circumstances to the one we are investigating, for in this instance too, the owner was attempting to sell his works from a distance, with the help of a written list. The average price per painting was also relatively high (around 156 florins), although this was probably skewed by the presence of a few works deemed extraordinarily valuable. The two collections are also outwardly similar in content, for Berka’s list likewise extends to over two hundred paintings. His gallery is devoid of family portraits – although there 18 Cremer 1989, pp. 122–3. 19 Count Berka and his collection will be discussed in detail later (see pages 116–7), so the composition of his gallery is only broadly outlined here. The inventory has been published several times: Wilhelm 1911, pp. 113–9; Slavíček 1983, pp. 231–7; Haupt 2012, pp. 538–44. 27 THE INVENTORY are a couple of paintings of rulers – and a large number of his acquisitions can be documentarily linked directly to Vienna, where the owner of our collection is also assumed to have bought many, or at least some of his works. An analysis of the different genres in Berka’s collection shows that around a third were history paintings (33%), while the proportions of landscapes and still lifes were 23% and 11% respectively; 15% of the works were portraits (mostly of unknown sitters) and tronies, whereas genre pictures constituted only around 3% of the total. Comparing this breakdown with the Dutch statistics reveals that Berka’s collection was substantially similar to those typically found in Delft in the 1640s and Amsterdam in the 1630s (table 1).²0 In summary, Berka’s choice of paintings followed the same tendencies as those observed in Holland in the 1630s and 1640s, only half a century later. 20 North 2001, p. 103. 28 THE ARTWORKS I. Antiquitates The last two pages of the inventory feature not paintings, but rare and precious objects made from gemstones (extra pretiosa vnd rara Stucken). These descriptions were either subsequently added to the original inventory of paintings, or – in light of the fact that they lack the expertise shown by the valuers of the paintings – they were intentionally omitted in the first place. Whatever the case, this section comes after the signatures and contains no price estimates, justifying this by suggesting that the items are “inestimable”. The numbering also recommences at this point. The description of the three items – emphasising how exceptional they are – begins with an announcement that one of the items was even published as an engraving in the “descriptions” of the “famous Santrat” (Joachim von Sandrart), who considered the work to be inestimable, and who claimed that he had never seen anything more extraordinary. (Darbeÿ seint diesse dreÿ extra pretiosa vnd rara Stucken von welchen der berühmte Santrat in seinen beschreibungen in kupfer außgehen vnd inæstimable gehalten auch zu finden, vnd nichts Cauriaseo zu sehen.) The “descriptions” in question were none other than the two-volume opus by Joachim von Sandrart (1606–1688), titled Teutsche Academie. Despite the fact that the inventory fails to specify which of the three items Sandrart praised so highly, on account of the accompanying engraving (fig. 5) in the second volume of the Teutsche Academie (published 1679), it can nevertheless be identified with comparative ease. ²¹ “Ein onix Ardonix […], worauf Constantini Magni bildnus” This is the penultimate listing on the inventory, and it is indeed an extraordinary item, a veritable curiosity: it is an antique giant cameo. The inventory explains that the sardonyx stone, said to weigh 1600 carats, depicts Emperor Constantine the Great as seen in the Capitol of Rome, with two eagles holding laurel wreaths, one on each side; the carving is more than a thousand years old and the value and workmanship are priceless: 2do. Ein onix Ardonix, so 1600 grad in sich halt, worauf Constantini Magni bildnus, wie es noch in Capitolio zu Rom zu sehen, neben 2 Adlern mit Lorber kranzen extra Curiose geschniden, welcher schnit über 1000 Jahr alt, vnd der Stain noch die Kunst nicht kan æstimirt, noch würdigers was gefunden werden. 21 Sandrart 1679, II, unnumbered sheet after page 82. 31 THE ARTWORKS In his Teutsche Academie Joachim von Sandrart devoted lengthy analysis to the stone, enabling us to learn numerous further details about it.²² For example, Constantine the Great is standing on his triumphal chariot, holding a sceptre in one hand and Palladium in the other; beside him stands Victoria (or another figure crowned with a tower), who is placing a laurel wreath around the emperor’s head. He makes special mention of the ruler’s beard, and in the knowledge that it is not really part of the iconography of Constantine the Great, he asserts that this is authenticated by his depiction on the victory column in the Capitol, in which he is sporting the same kind of beard as he is on the gemstone. (This explains why the Esterházy inventory also mentioned the Capitol.) In front of the triumphal chariot can be seen two enormous flying eagles, each of which is carrying in its talons a laurel wreath and a torch. Sandrart specifies the size and weight of the cameo, and echoes can be found in his description of some of the favourite turns of phrase from our inventory, which states that it is a “true authentic original”, and especially precious due to its antiquity, for it has been preserved for over a thousand years. Its greatness is of a kind “never seen”, and it would be hard to find anything similar, therefore whoever sees it who understands such things will find it “inestimable”. Based on the sources and on the engraving, the gem can be identified as conclusively as possible as the one in the Collection of Classical Antiquities in the State Museums of Berlin (fig. 2), although the emperor is today deemed to be not Constantine the Great, but Hadrian.²³ The four-layered, oval sardonyx cameo was made in the mid first century CE, originally, it is believed, for Emperor Claudius, although at some time between 117 and 138 CE it was altered by commission from Emperor Hadrian. This alteration primarily affected the details around the ruler’s head: the portrait of the emperor was visibly reduced in size, and is more deeply embedded, while it was carved with greater expertise. According to today’s definition of the stone, it depicts Emperor Hadrian being crowned by Oecumene, the personification of the inhabited world, and being flown by two enormous eagles to the celestial empire of Jupiter. It measures 18.5×21.5 cm, almost the same size as the Gemma Augustea (19×23 cm) in Vienna.²4 The stone was brought to Berlin in 1713, acquired by King Frederick I of Prussia (1657– 1713) shortly before his death, from an unknown source. Between 1696 and 1701 Lorenz Beger (1653–1705), librarian and antiquarian to Frederick I, published the collections of the ruler (at that time still Elector of Brandenburg, becoming King of Prussia in 1701) in a set of engraving-illustrated volumes collectively titled Thesaurus Brandenburgicus Selectus, although the cameo does not feature in them. In 1703, the collection of antiquities was moved to a newer, more prestigious location in the palace in Berlin, and Beger compiled a record of the carved stones that filled ten “charts”, none of which contained a description of the gem in question here.²5 Upon Beger’s death he was succeeded by his nephew, Johann Carl Schott (1672–1717), who attached supplements to his uncle’s records of 1703, includ- 22 23 24 25 32 Sandrart 1679, II, pp. 83–4. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung, FG 11056. Platz-Horster 2012, cat. 57. with detailed previous literature. Heres 1981; Platz-Horster 2012, pp. 12–3. I. ANTIQUITATES ing the one below, which clearly refers to the cameo. The tropes familiar from Sandrart, pertaining to its “extraordinary size” and “inestimable value”, also recur here: Ein überaus großer Sardonyx. Ist in vergüldet Silber gefasst, und ein Stück von unschätzbahrem Werth. War das letzte Stück so Se Königl. Majst. Friedrich der Erste Glorwürdigsten Andenkens zu dero Cabinet angeschaffet und gekaufet haben.²6 The king passed away on 25 February 1713. If we take Schott’s remarks as true, the cameo was the king’s last ever acquisition, and arrived probably in early 1713 or perhaps at the end of 1712. By this time the king was gravely ill and unable to leave Berlin, so the cameo must have been bought via agents or brought to him by emissaires.²7 From his biography we know that in the final months of 1712 he played host to Peter I, Tsar of Russia (1672–1725), who came incognito; the English emissary (Gesandter) to Hannover; and Hugo Damian von Schönborn (1676–1743), ambassador to Lower Saxony representing the Holy Roman Emperor, with whom a possible alliance against the Swedish was discussed.²8 The king’s health deteriorated in early 1713, and he received no further diplomats. None of his known correspondence makes any mention of his acquisition of the cameo. At some unknown point in its history, the stone broke into several pieces. The damage is not mentioned by Sandrart, nor in the Esterházy inventory, nor by Schott in the Berlin inventory he made around 1713, and our first knowledge of the breakage dates from 1816.²9 Prior to this, in November 1806, as part of the “cultural appropriations” carried out by Napoleonic forces in Germany, the cameo was taken to Paris, together with paintings from the gallery in Berlin, under orders from Dominique Vivant Denon (1747–1825), before restitution in 1815.³0 As the first mention of the stone being damaged was made in the following year, I would provisionally associate the breakage with these transportations. The description of 1816 also refers to a carnelian mounted at the top of the sceptre,³¹ although this is now missing, and it was not mentioned in the inventory in the Esterházy archive. The mountof the cameo was probably made in the first half of the seventeenth century (fig. 3), and is defined in the literature as originating from a workshop in South Germany, perhaps from Nuremberg (?).³² The openwork decoration on the reverse is extremely rare, and similar mounts are only found in the imperial collection on the Gemma Augustea and on the so-called Claudius-Caligula cameo, also from the first half of the seventeenth century, although the decoration on the Berlin cameo has a far greater three-dimensional quality than that on the other two, and so was probably not made in the same workshop.³³ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Heres 1989; Platz-Horster 2012, pp. 12, 80. Elsner 2012. Detailed itinerary on CD-ROM supplement. For details about the legation, see: Roegele 1955, pp. 426–67. Der Stein ist in viele Stücke zerbrochen, wird aber durch eine sehr starke, Silber vergoldete Fassung zusammengehalten. Cited from an inventory of 1816 in: Platz-Horster 2012, p. 80. Savoy 2010, cat. 685. (In the catalogue of the museum the emperor was believed to be Commodus.) Platz-Horster 2012, p. 81. Platz-Horster 2012, p. 81. The dating of this mount to the first half of the seventeenth century was confirmed in a letter of 30 December 2016 by Lorenz Seelig, whom I would like to hereby thank for his help. The mount of the Viennese cameos was probably made in Vienna in the first half of the seventeenth century. Zwierlein-Diehl 2008a, pp. 98, 265, 154, 306; Rainer 2008, p. 232. For more about the antique gems that can be traced back to the age of Emperors Rudolf II and Matthias, see: Bernhard-Walcher 2007, pp. 61–8. 33 THE ARTWORKS 2–3. Sardonyx cameo of Emperor Hadrian, mid 1st century CE, altered between 117 and 138 CE; and its mount, first half of the 17th century, altered c. 1815–6 State Museums of Berlin, Collection of Classical Antiquities 34 I. ANTIQUITATES 4–5. Joachim von Sandrart: Sketch (c. 1678) and engraving (1679) of the Hadrian Cameo State Art Collections of Dresden, Collection of Engravings and Joachim von Sandrart: Teutsche Academie, II. Nürnberg, 1679 35 THE ARTWORKS This mount, however, seems to be different from the one described by Sandrart. Not only Sandrart’s engraving of the stone survives, but also his preliminary sketch³4 (fig. 4), and although only the rim of the mount can be seen in both illustrations, this still allows us to determine that the lobed border depicted is different from the simpler one that exists today. The drawing shows certain elements that Sandrart omitted from the engraving (such as the two hooks soldered to the mount, used for hanging up the cameo); comparing the drawing with the present condition of the cameo, certain differences in the surface of the stone can be detected: the section above the emperor’s head reaching to the rim of the mount is far greater in the drawing, the emperor’s sceptre and the two sides of the surface are more intact, etc. Moreover, in the Teutsche Academie Sandrart went out of his way to mention that, when held up to the light, the cameo shone in transparent ruby red, yet the back of the present mount is fully sealed and does not allow light to pass through at all.³5 All this indicates that, as described by Sandrart, the gem was slightly larger than and encased in a different mount from the present one. After comparing the proportions of the cameo and the drawing, Gertrud Platz-Horster came to the conclusion that the discrepancies must have resulted from Sandrart’s imagination: bearing the relevant compositional factors in mind, the artist “corrected” the scene, and instead of the plain border he drew a more ornate one.³6 With regard to the supplementation of the “lost” parts of the gem, her arguments seem convincing, but there is no explanation as to why Sandrart would have described the stone as “transparent” if the mount at the time (the same as the present one) made this impossible. It may, therefore, be worth keeping open the possibility that the mount of the cameo has been changed or at least altered since 1679, thus explaining the difference between its present condition and that described and drawn by Sandrart. Justification for having a new mount made may have arisen, for example, when the cameo broke into several pieces, which – as we have seen – probably happened in the early nineteenth century. A more sturdy mount than the original one would have been needed to keep the pieces of the stone firmly in place. It is perhaps no coincidence that the first description of the mount to use the phrase “very strong” is the one written in 1816. However, as the existing openwork derives from the first half of the seventeenth century, it must be supposed that the stone was fitted into a mount produced some two hundred years earlier – there are documented precedents for such an action.³7 The most likely explanation is that when the cameo was damaged, the new mount was produced incorporating the 34 Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Kupferstich-Kabinett, inv. C 7203. Red chalk and graphite on paper, 154×186 mm, cut off at the top left and right corners. Bought from the widow of Gottfried Wagner (Leipzig) in 1728. Mazzetti di Pietralata 2011, p. 182, cat. 297. 35 For a detailed description of the differences, see: Platz-Horster 2012, p. 81. The Esterházy inventory is no help, for it says only that the stone was in a gilt silver mount. Scholl’s description also fails to provide further details. 36 Platz-Horster 2012, p. 80. In November 2015 I exchanged several letters about this matter with the author, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her observations and advice. 37 The Claudius cameo originating from the Arundel collection, now in the Art Institute of Chicago, for example, was put in its Baroque mount some time between 1899 and 1925, although the mount was originally made for a different cameo. Platz-Horster 2007, pp. 22–8. 36 I. ANTIQUITATES original one: the airy, ornately crafted openwork was reinforced with a solid back and a stronger fixing framework. The later alteration to the mount is also indicated by the fact that part of the rim has been removed to make room for the laurel wreath being placed on the emperor’s head. In view of the fact that the Hadrian cameo is the most outstanding and best documented item on our inventory, it may play a key role in helping to deduce the erstwhile owner of the collection itself. One important factor concerning imperial cameos of this size is that they are rarely found during excavations. The most valuable pieces probably derived from the imperial treasury in Constantinople. Between 1204 and 1453 (the dates of the Sack and the Fall of Constantinople), carved stones from the age of classical antiquity flowed almost constantly into Europe from the Holy Land, via trade, as gifts, or as the spoils of war.³8 Many of the giant gems known today can be traced in Europe back to the Middle Ages, or at the latest by the 15th-16th century. Their survival can often be attributed to the fact that the figures depicted in them were given a Christian interpretation, and the cameos were consequently presented to cloisters or places of pilgrimage as gifts from a ruler or prelate.³9 Later they were sold or seized from these homes and ended up – sometimes following a rather circuitous route – in the even more eminent surroundings of some or other ruler’s personal collection. 40 The Ptolemy cameo in Vienna, for example, was, in the Middle Ages, one of several ancient gems adorning the Shrine of the Three Kings, in Cologne Cathedral, but was stolen from it in 1574. In 1586 it turned up in Rome when a Flemish trader offered it for sale, first to Fulvio Orsini (1529–1600), and then to Alessandro Farnese (1520–89). It was eventually bought in 1587 by Vincenzo I Gonzaga (1562–1612), but in 1630 it was stolen once again during the Sack of Mantua. It next appeared in the possession of Francis Albert, Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg (1598–1642), leader of the imperial forces, who presumably gave it (this was at least his alleged intention) to the empress, who originated from the house of Gonzaga. The stone has certifiably been in Vienna since 1668.4¹ The Gonzaga cameo in Saint Petersburg was probably once owned by Isabella d’Este, and it was also in Mantua until 1603, from where it was obtained by Emperor Rudolf II as a “gift”. After the Sack of Prague it came into the possession of Christina, Queen of Sweden (1626–89) – at least the inventory compiled in 1653 states that it came from there.4² Lemburg-Ruppelt 2002. Zwierlein-Diehl 1997; Zwierlein-Diehl 2008b, pp. 237–84. For a summary of the gems presented below, with bibliography, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 237–47. Zwierlein-Diehl 1997; Venturelli 2005, pp. 58–60; Zwierlein-Diehl 2008a, pp. 63–73. In a letter addressed to William Petty, Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel stated that it was in the possession of the Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg, together with two agate vases, opining that the duke intended to present the cameo as a gift to the empress. Springell 1963, pp. 253–4, letter XXV. (One of the “agate vases” referred to – of fivelayered sardonyx – passed from the duke’s widow to Sophie Elisabeth, Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg in 1666; since 1874 it has been kept in the Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum in Braunschweig, see: Isabella d’Este 1994, cat. 99 [Alfred Bernhard-Walcher]; Venturelli 2005, p. 215.) The gem is first mentioned in Vienna in the travel journal of the Englishman Edward Brown (written 1668, published 1686): Brown 1686, p. 249. 42 This is disputed by several commentators, who say that the gems were taken to Vienna on the orders of Emperor Matthias long before the Sack of Prague, so they would not have been found by the Swedish forces. 38 39 40 41 37 THE ARTWORKS After the queen’s death it was inherited by Cardinal Decio Azzolino (1623–89), who left it to his nephew, who subsequently sold the collection to Livio Odescalchi (1658–1713), Duke of Bracciano. In 1794 it was bought by Pope Pius VI (Giovanni Angelo Braschi, 1717–99) for the Vatican, from where it was probably taken to Paris as part of the ceasefire accord signed with Napoleon in 1796. In 1803 it was documented in the Château de Malmaison as belonging to Napoleon’s wife, Joséphine de Beauharnais (1763–1814), who gave it to Tsar Alexander I of Russia (1777–1825) around 1814.4³ The first known mention of the Gemma Augustea is in the 1243 inventory taken at the Basilica of Saint-Sernin in Toulouse, and it probably originated from Constantinople. In 1470 an unsuccessful attempt to acquire it was made by Pope Paul II (Pietro Barbo, 1417–71), and in 1533 it came into the ownership of King Francis I of France (1494–1547) through not entirely honourable means. In 1590, when Fontainebleau was pillaged, this was one of the items taken, and it reappeared in Venice around 1600, before it was bought by Emperor Rudolf II for the absurdly high price of 12,000 ducats.44 The largest (31×26.5 cm) ancient imperial gemstone cameo, the Grand Camée in Paris, can be traced to Constantinople, and was first documented in Sainte-Chapelle in 1279. The Roman triumphal scene carved into it was interpreted in the Middle Ages as Joseph’s Triumph over the Egyptians, from the Old Testament. When the treasury was auctioned off in 1791, it was saved into the Cabinet des Médailles, from where it was stolen in 1804. (Its Byzantine mount was destroyed at this time.) The culprits were caught in Amsterdam, and the stone was returned to the French National Library.45 Finally, to mention a lesser known exemplar, since the fourteenth century, the socalled Thamyras Sapphire (intaglio) has adorned the Reliquary of Christ’s Crib that was received in 1368 by Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor (1316–78), as a gift from Pope Urban V (Guillaume de Grimoard, c. 1310–70). From 1424, it was kept in Nuremberg together with the coronation regalia as part of what was known as the Reichskleinodien, where it was locked away from public view and long forgotten. In 1800 it was moved to Vienna, where it featured in an exhibition held in 1827, but it was not until 1973 that Otto Kurz discovered that the “sapphire” was in fact an antique gem. During the latest investigations, however, it transpired that it is actually an imprint made from a glass-like paste (in the eighteenth century?). The true gem was therefore stolen at some point in the past.46 The point I am trying to make with these examples is that, while the history of imperial cameos is often shrouded in mystery and doubt, especially concerning the circumstances by which they changed hands, the stones themselves never ended up in “bad company”, and this sheds a particular light on the paintings that were in the same collection, for it is hard to imagine that an object of such “high rank” would ever have been found among a collection of mere copies and relatively worthless paintings. 43 44 45 46 38 Oleg Neverov argues convincingly that the cameo was included in the inventory of the queen: Neverov 1984, pp. 77–9; his assertion was reinforced with the publication of sources pertaining to the acquisition of the gemstone: Arsentyeva 2008, pp. 29–30; Zimmer 2009. For details of the cameo, see: Brown 1997; Arsentyeva 2008. Eichler–Kris 1927, pp. 52–3; Bernhard-Walcher 2007, p. 63; Zwierlein-Diehl 2008, pp. 119–23. Babelon 1897, no. 264; Vollenweider–Avisseau-Broustet 2003, II, pp. 219–20; Fernandez 2012, pp. 15–21. Zwierlein-Diehl 2007, pp. 246–7. I. ANTIQUITATES The Teutsche Academie also provides us with some valuable and hitherto unexploited information. The work states that Sandrart had seen the cameo “recently” (that is, shortly before publication of the second volume in 1678)47 in Nuremberg, in the possession of the noted art expert Baron Gottfried von Edelstein, who was passing through the city.48 To date, none of the extensive literature on the cameo has devoted any particular attention to identifying Baron Edelstein, probably because he was not generally regarded as an existing person. Sandrart’s account, in which the “Edelgestein” was owned by a person named “Edelstein”, has been treated by researchers as a witty play on words or a creative pseudonym, used to conceal the identity of the author himself, Joachim von Sandrart.49 Based on the written sources, starting with Sandrart’s own writings, it would appear that the painter did indeed have his own collection of art, and by no means an insignificant one.50 There is also evidence that the King of Prussia bought some smaller cameos for his collection of classical antiquity from Sandrart’s widow.5¹ However, there were no stones of any truly high value among them, and none of the paintings listed in the inventory in the Esterházy archives could be identified among the pieces in the collection of works published by Sandrart or in the estate of his nephew.5² This leads me to the conclusion that Sandrart could not have been the owner of this collection. Gottfried von Edelstein There is, furthermore, no reason to regard Gottfried von Edelstein as a fictive person, for the baron did indeed exist. He was born Gottfried Hertzog around 1637, to a bourgeois family in Zittau; his father, Heinrich Hertzog, was a grocer, but Gottfried opted to pursue a 47 The imperial privilege on publishing that appears in the volume, issued by imperial vice-chancellor Leopold Wilhelm von Königsegg-Rothenfels and secretary Wilhelm Schröder, is dated 20 August 1678. 48 According to Joachim von Sandrart, Baron Edelstein not only showed him the gem, but also attached a de- 49 50 51 52 scription of it, written in his own hand (ausführlichen Bericht eigenhändig davon erstattet). Sandrart 1679, II, p. 83. Consequently, it is unknown which part of the exhaustive description communicated by Sandrart in his volume derived from Edelstein, and which from Sandrart. Edelstein was regarded as a genuine person by Sepp-Gustav Gröschel, although he made no attempt to identify him: Brandenburgisch-Preussische Kunstkammer 1980, pp. 105–7, cat. 33. Sandrart is identified as the original owner of the stone by Platz-Horster 2012, p. 80. For the inventory of Sandrart’s art collection, see: Sandrart 1679, II, pp. 87–91. Part of the collection was passed on to his nephew, Johann Jacob von Sandrart; even more works originating from the uncle can be identified in the nephew’s estate inventory of 1698 (published in: Peltzer 1925, pp. 152–65). The lion’s share of the estate was inherited by his widow, Esther Barbara Blommaert, who survived her husband by almost half a century and died in 1733. Her “Kunstkabinett” in Nuremberg was famous, but when Johann Georg Keyßler visited it in 1730, apart from a few of Sandrart’s paintings and drawings, he only found the collection of natural objects that the widow had amassed. Keyssler II, 1751, pp. 1407–8. Gems of a relatively low value were bought from the widow for the Berlin Kunstkammer in 1700, 1707 and 1709. Platz-Horster 2012, pp. 80, 82. The sole exception is the painting by Christoph Schwarz titled The Rape of Proserpina, to which we shall later return, and the Lucretia attributed to Cranach, which was also in Sandrart’s collection, although as the latter was such a popular subject, no conclusions can be drawn from its presence. 39 THE ARTWORKS 6. Coats of arms of Gottfried Hertzog von Edelstein, 1671 and 1692 Austrian State Archives, General Administrative Archive, Vienna career in government. In 1672 he entered the service of John George II, Elector of Saxony (1613–80), representing (as resident) the diplomatic affairs of the Dresden court in Hamburg.5³ The first mention of him that I could find dates from 1660, when, under the name of Gottfried Hertzog von Sittau, he published his eulogy on the death of King Charles X Gustav of Sweden (1622–60), who was descended from the house of Palatine Zweibrücken, commissioned by an unnamed person of high rank, and dedicated to the widowed queen (Hedwig Eleanor of Holstein-Gottorp).54 His predicate of nobility was indeed Edelstein: he was elevated to the nobility in Vienna in 1671 (rittermäßige Adelsstand, comes palatinus) by Emperor Leopold I, formally as “Gottfried Hertzog von Edelstein auf Hoberg”, although he gradually omitted the “Hertzog” and began to adopt the title of “Baron”, although he had no actual right to do so.55 In 1692 he received an augmentation of honour (Ritterstand), again by Leopold I (fig. 6).56 53 Carpzov 1716, p. 127. 54 Hertzog 1660. 55 Wien, ÖStA, AVA, RAA, Kt. 183. Herzog von Edelstein. As he acted so haughtily, his brother-in-law mockingly referred to him as “Godofredus de Hertoge, imaginarius Baro de Edelstein”. Olsson 1952, p. 228. 56 Wien, ÖStA, AVA, RAA, Kt. 93. Edelstein. 40 I. ANTIQUITATES In 1677 in Amsterdam he married Jakoba Bake (Baeck) van Wulverhorst (1647?–after 1702), the daughter of a wealthy local merchant, Joost Bake (1597–1681), and Magdalena van Erp (1605–84).57 His wife’s family moved among the intellectual elite of Amsterdam’s bourgeoisie: her brother, Laurens Bake van Wulverhorst (1629–1702), was a noted poet (fig. 7);58 her uncle, Pieter Cornelisz. Hooft (1581–1647), was a poet and dramatist, as well as the founder of an acknowledged literary circle – he and Jakoba’s grandfather, Laurens Bake the Elder (1570–1642), were both close friends with Joost van den Vondel (1587–1679), the greatest Dutch poet of his times.59 Vondel dedicated one of his poems – inspired by Titian’s Mary Magdalene (to be precise, a copy of it) – to Magdalena van Erp, Jakoba’s mother.60 The family was also connected to Joachim von Sandrart, who painted portraits of both Hooft and Vondel during his sojourn in Amsterdam (fig. 8–9),6¹, and who also designed the frontispiece for Vondel’s collection of poetry, Verscheyde Gedichten (1644).6² In return, the poet composed epigrams for the engraved publications of Sandrart’s compositions and for his self-portrait (fig. 10),6³ as well as a long valedictory poem when the painter left Amsterdam in 1645.64 Sandrart owed his acquaintance with Vondel to his cousin, the engraver and art dealer Michiel le Blon (1587–1656),65 with whom he travelled to Rome in 1627, and who also smoothed the painter’s way when he arrived in Amsterdam in 1637. Le Blon brought Sandrart his first clients, among whom was Peter Spiering (Spierinx, Spierinck) (1595–1652), a Swedish resident of The Hague and a major art collector, who commissioned portraits of himself and his wife from the painter.66 Michiel le Blon was himself an agent of the Swedish crown, who not only assisted in obtaining information but also in conveying artworks and artists.67 In addition, he was on good terms with the German city states and with English 57 Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek, II, 1912, pp. 80–1; Olsson 1952, p. 228. 58 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-0B-60.067. Engraving, 180×133 mm 59 For more about the activities of Hooft and Vondel, touching in several places on their connection with the 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 Bake family, see: Sterck 1918; Niederländisches Museum 1937, pp. 19–56; Muller 1930–1. I–II. For mentions of Sandrart in the œuvre of Vondel, see: Hofstede de Groot 1893, p. 427. Montias 2002, p. 303, note 759. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-1906-1060. Engraving, 278×195 mm (Hooft); inv. RP-P-OB-23.276. Engraving, 280×199 mm (Vondel). Klemm 1986, cats. 29–30; Middelkoop 2009, pp. 98–105; Kok 2013, pp. 121–2. Klemm 1986, pp. 90, 339. Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, inv. III 1323. Engraving, 269×220 mm. http://portraits.hab.de/ werk/18718/ (last retrieved on 30 March 2018). The text of the Vondel epigram composed for the self-portrait is known, but the portrait itself only survives as a copy. The engraving shown here, made about two decades afterwards, was published with the epigram of Sigismund von Birken. Klemm 1986, pp. 141–3, cat. 58. Klemm 1986, pp. 90–1, cat. 30, and p. 356, cat. Q11; Middelkoop 2009, p. 97; Meier 2011, p. 160. Klemm 1986, p. 90. The portraits are known only from Sandrart’s descriptions: Meier 2011, p. 153. (Sandrart 1675, I, p. 321. PURL http://ta.sandrart.net/-artwork-162); Sandrart remained in contact with Spiering, and in the Teutsche Academie there are several mentions of the resident’s famous “Kunstcabinet” in The Hague. Between 1646 and 1651 the diplomat to The Hague conveyed several Italian drawings (Raphael, Michelangelo) originating from Sandrart’s collection to Christina, Queen of Sweden. Neverov 1984, p. 82; Klemm 1986, p. 83; Noldus 2006a, pp. 177–8. His service to the Swedish crown was arranged by Axel Oxenstierna, presumably upon Vondel’s recommendation. A contract was signed in 1632, but they were probably in contact by around 1630. Le Blon was engaged 41 THE ARTWORKS 7. Jan Caspar Philips after Matthias Wulfraet: Portrait of Laurens Bake, 1737 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 8. Reinier van Persijn after Joachim von Sandrart: Portrait of Pieter Corneliszoon Hooft, between 1647 and 1668 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam art collectors: it was through him that Holbein’s Darmstadt Madonna arrived in Amsterdam, and he acted as intermediary in the purchase of works for the Earl of Arundel and the Duke of Buckingham, the latter of whom acquired some objects from antiquity from the collection of Rubens.68 Through Le Blon, Sandrart stayed in touch with Amsterdam’s literary elite even after his departure, including with the Bake family. As we have seen, in the Teutsche Academie Sandrart praised Edelstein highly, acknowledging the baron as “a formidable and by Christina, Queen of Sweden, and also by the Swedish military commander Carl Gustaf Wrangel (1613–76). For a detailed account of his activities and network of contacts, see: Steneberg 1966; Fontaine Hervey 1969; Noldus 2006b; Noldus 2011; Kok 2013, pp. 119–22. Le Blon collaborated closely with Spiering, who, as resident, was his superior. The inventory of Queen Christina’s art collection compiled by Du Fresne in 1652, which indicates the provenance (or agent) of the works in her collection, often mentions both Spiering and Le Blon (as “Spiring” and “Blom”). For the inventory, see: Geffroy 1855, pp. 120–93; Granberg 1897, App. II. 68 Sandrart 1675, I, pp. 252, 293; Peltzer 1925, pp. 102, 158; Denucé 1949, pp. XX–XXI; Fontaine Vervey 1969, p. 103; Muller 1989, p. 78; House of Art 2004, p. 263. At the same time, he is associated with one of the most notorious forgeries of the period, a copy of Holbein’s Darmstadt Madonna, which he commissioned from Bartholomäus Sarburgh. Bätschmann 1998, pp. 58–63. 42 I. ANTIQUITATES 9. Theodor Matham after Joachim von Sandrart: Portrait of Joost van den Vondel, between 1647 and 1676 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 10. Jacob von Sandrart after Joachim von Sandrart: Portrait of Joachim von Sandrart, 1668 Herzog August Library, Wolfenbüttel highly knowledgeable connoisseur of medals, gemstones, sculpture, painting, architecture and all manner of antiquities”.69 The painter was also on good terms with the baron’s wife, who – like other members of her family – was fond of composing poetry: Edelstein’s wife was one of three people whose epigrams Sandrart included in his Iconologia Deorum, published in 1680 (fig. 11).70 69 Sandrart 1679, II, p. 83: ein sonderbarer und hoch verständiger Liebhaber der Medaillons, Edelgesteine, Sculptur, Mahlerey, Architectur, und aller Antiquität. 70 Sandrart 1680, p. [1]. Jakoba Bake called herself “friend and servant” of Sandrart, and in her signature she not only included her own family name, but also the noble forename (and fictive baronial title) of her husband: Vriendinne en Dienaresse, Jacoba Hertzogs van Edelsteyn en Hohergh gebooren Bake van Wulverhorst, Libre Baronesse. Sandrart dedicated the volume to Frederick (III), Elector of Brandenburg, who was later crowned Frederick (I), King of Prussia, who later owned the cameo. The two other elogia were written by the Roman patrician Niccolò Cevoli de’ Marchesi del Carretto and the Dresden-based art collector Johann Christoph Schumann. 43 THE ARTWORKS 11. Poem by Jakoba Bake in honour of Joachim von Sandrart Joachim von Sandrart: Iconologia Deorum, Nürnberg, 1680 44 I. ANTIQUITATES The word Sandrart used to describe Edelstein, “Liebhaber”, may imply that the baron had an art collection of his own of some kind: the writer used the German equivalent of the Dutch term “liefhebber”, which held connotations implying that person was an “art collector”. This liefhebber had close links to artists: after 1600 he was as much a member of the Lucasgilde in Antwerp as the painters were.7¹ No other sources, however, confirm whether or not the couple owned a collection of art. In 1992, however, Jaap van der Veen’s research into the archives of Amsterdam produced an extremely interesting piece of information: in February 1678 – that is, roughly around the time that the cameo was rediscovered – a certain “Baron Edelstein” (who I imagine to be our protagonist) held negotiations with the widow and one of the sons (Lambert Witsen [1638–97]) of the late Cornelis Jan Witsen (1605–69), Mayor of Amsterdam, and offered a sum of 25,000 guilders for the various coins and rarities in the deceased’s “cabinet”, including a large quantity of carved agates (verscheiden medalien en andere rariteyten, misgaders een groote quantiteit gesneden agaten).7² Mayor Cornelis Jan Witsen, a leading officer in the Dutch East India Company, is known best to art historians as Rembrandt’s creditor and as the man who launched bankruptcy proceedings against the painter,7³ but he had other strong connections to the art world. Not only did he commission works of art – from, among others, Artus Quellinus and Bartholomeus van der Helst74 –, he also ensured that the teaching of art played prominently in the education of his sons: his son Jonas, for example, was sent to the workshop of Jan Lievens to learn drawing. As a result of the mayor’s efforts, four of his five sons later went on to develop their own cabinets, each with its own unique image – the only one whose activities as an art collector are not mentioned in the sources is Cornelis, who died young.75 Witsen was distantly related to but close friends with the merchant Gerrit Reynst (1599–1658) (fig. 12),76 who, together with his brother, Jan Reynst (1601–46), a resident of Venice, created an outstanding “Cabinet” that consisted mostly of antique statues and Venetian paintings, the core of which was made up of the erstwhile collection of Andrea Vendramin (1556–1629), sold in 1629.77 After Jan Reynst passed away, the collection was brought to Amsterdam, where it was combined with the purchases Gerrit had made locally (such as items from the collection of Lucas van Uffelen, which also originated from Venice, and which was sold at auction in Amsterdam in 1639).78 Around that time, the 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 Schütz 1992, p. 161. Veen 1992a, p. 66. Crenshaw 2006, pp. 51–7, 69–71. The marble busts of Artus Quellinus Cornelis Witsen and his wife are now in the Louvre Museum. Van der Helst included Witsen in several of his group portraits, and his representative portrait of Witsen’s wife is now in the Royal Museums of Art and History, Brussels. Bresc-Bautier 1982, pp. 278–83. Veen 1992b, pp. 255–6. For the collection of the four Witsen sons (Jan, Jonas, Lambert and Nicolaes), see: De wereld binnen handbereik 1992, Bijlage I, pp. 332–3; for the printed catalogues (1717–61), see: Ibid. p. 345. Amsterdam Museum, Amsterdam, inv. SA 2101, oil on canvas, 171×283 cm. Signed bottom left: Bartholomeus van der Helst, 1655. For the collection of the Reynst brothers, see: Logan 1979; Berghe 1992, pp. 25–8. The auction was attended both by Rembrandt (who drew a copy of Raphael’s portrait of Baldassare Castiglione, which was sold at the time), and by Joachim von Sandrart, who purchased a few paintings. Despite the 45 THE ARTWORKS 12. Bartholomeus van der Helst: Four Aldermen of the Kloveniersdoelen in Amsterdam, 1655 (from left to right: Gerrit Reynst, Cornelis Jan Witsen, Roelof Bicker and Simon van Hoorn) Amsterdam Museum, Amsterdam possibility of selling (part of ) the collection was raised, and Sandrart’s cousin, Michiel le Blon, offered works for sale to Christina, Queen of Sweden in 1650, for a total value of 4000 imperial thalers, although the sale fell through in the end.79 In 1658 the collection was inherited by Gerrit Reynst’s widow, who disposed of several pieces shortly afterwards, in 1660: the paintings and sculptures presented to King Charles II of England, in a diplomatic gesture known as the Dutch Gift, were largely chosen from the Reynst collection, amounting to a value of 80,000 guilders – some of these works are still in the British Royal Collection. The remainder of the Reynst cabinet was auctioned off in May 1670.80 Some of the antique statues sold at the time were acquired by one of Mayor Witsen’s sons, Nicolaes Witsen (1641–1717), who also went on to be elected Mayor of Amsterdam.8¹ fact that a printed catalogue must have been produced for the auction, the inventory of the Uffelen collection is unknown at present, and only a few paintings from it can be identified. Berghe 1992, pp. 23–5; Montias 1999, pp. 146–7; Montias 2002, p. 16; Kok 2013, pp. 123–4. 79 Noldus 2011, p. 174. 80 A substantial part was purchased by Gerrit Uylenburgh, who later sold the works on to Frederick William, Elector of Brandenburg. Lammertse 2006a, pp. 79–103. 81 Logan 1979, pp. 53–4, 211, 213, 221; cats. 95, 98, 117. 46 I. ANTIQUITATES Little is known, however, about the personal collection of the father, Cornelis Jan Witsen. If the identification posited by Jaap van der Veen proves correct, Witsen was the owner of a cabinet containing coins, carved stones, gemstones and other rarities, which the family planned to sell in 1677: that year saw the publication of a printed catalogue, titled Catalogus lapidum pretiosorum, listing items that Veen – taking numerous other circumstances into account – has concluded was Witsen’s cabinet. For reasons unknown, however, the planned auction was called off.8² Then the heirs made contact with Edelstein, who in February 1678, according to the protocol cited by Jaap van der Veen, agreed on a price in principle, although the transaction clearly never took place, for ten years later (in 1688) another attempt was made to auction off the collection, which still consisted of exactly the same items as in the earlier catalogue.8³ One possible explanation for the confusion is that Witsen’s heirs sold a different collection of items to Edelstein from the one featured in the anonymous printed catalogue. (This would not have been impossible: the eldest Witsen son, Jan, died in 1676, and as he was unmarried, his personal collection passed to his family.)84 Since neither the 1677 nor the 1688 printed catalogues mention the imperial cameo, and there is no known inventory of Jan Witsen’s collection, the emergence of the cameo cannot be directly connected to the Witsens’ cabinets. The source in question bears witness to one thing for certain: in early 1678, Edelstein was eager to purchase some art objects, and as far as the imperial cameo is concerned, it is by no means incidental that the collection that caught his eye was one that included coins and carved stones. At the same time, however, it seems to me that the amount he offered to the Witsen heirs (25,000 guilders) was far beyond his means. It appears more likely that Edelstein was acting as an agent. There are many historic examples of diplomats supplementing (or even substituting) their political duties with the conveyance of artworks. The main question, therefore, is the identity of the person on whose behalf he was mediating. Unfortunately, however, in view of the career Edelstein pursued, it would be difficult to come up with a more challenging conundrum. Between 1672 and 1692 – as mentioned above – he was officially the Hamburg resident of the Dresden court.85 From time to time, though, he would appear as the diplomatic representative of other rulers, and in the meantime, he constantly furnished the imperial court with various information. In his 82 The catalogue (Catalogus lapidum pretiosorum 1677) was published anonymously, and the cabinet described in the volume was identified by Jaap van der Veen as Witsen’s collection. The Catalogus lapidum pretiosorum of 1688 was published with the same title and content as the catalogue of 1677, implying that the family had, in the intervening period, been unable to sell the collection, either as a whole or in part. Veen 1992a, p. 66. 83 There is no way of knowing why the sale fell through. Veen 1992a, p. 296, note 59. 84 During a trip to Amsterdam undertaken in 1671, the renowned French numismatist Charles Patin recorded that it contained paintings, books, coins, busts and antiquities. Of all the “Cabinets” he viewed in the city, he deemed Witsen’s to be the greatest, writing that when he saw it, he could scarcely decide if “the Cabinet serves to adorn the house, or the house to adorn the Cabinet” (On ne sait si c’est le Cabinet qui sert d’ornement à la maison, ou la maison au Cabinet). Patin 1674, p. 162; for more on Patin’s trip to Amsterdam, see: Gelder 1992, pp. 276–7, 282. 85 Matzke 2007, p. 414; Repertorium der diplomatischen Vertreter 1936, I, p. 464; Olsson 1952, p. 230. 47 THE ARTWORKS own formal request for his augmentation of honour, written in 1698, he made reference to the reports he had submitted to the imperial vice-chancellor Gottlieb von Windischgrätz (1630–95) and to “Count Kinsky” (Wenzel Norbert von Kinsky [?]), although via the secretary of the Reichshofrat (Court Council of the Holy Roman Empire), Wilhelm Schröder (c. 1603–79), he had already been in contact with Windischgrätz’s predecessor as vice-chancellor, Leopold Wilhelm von Königsegg-Rothenfels (1630–94).86 In fact, Edelstein’s verifiable connections with Vienna go back as far as his entry into the service of the Elector of Saxony.87 After his marriage, Edelstein’s attention turned towards Sweden (his wife’s family owned lands in the Taberg mining district): in 1677 he requested an entry permit from Bengt Gabrielsson Oxenstierna (1623–1702), and in 1679 he applied to Magnus Gabriel de la Gardia (1622–86) for permission to settle there. He was also granted residency, it seems (at least, reference to this effect can be found in the papers from the trial he initiated against his brother-in-law around 1700), although when exactly is unknown; information that he lived in Sweden on a more permanent basis is only available from the early 1690s onwards.88 Until that time, in 1684 he was in The Hague and Amsterdam as the emissary of Friedrich II, Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg (1633–1708), and at the end of the same year he was representing the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel in the Republic of Holland, where he also called himself an adviser to the Elector of Brandenburg.89 In 1688 he was diplomatic representative for Saxe-Gotha in the court of the Elector of Cologne,90 in 1689 he was still present in Cologne as the emissary of Philip William, Elector of the Palatinate, to the Republic of the Netherlands,9¹ later that same year he travelled as the Elector Palatine’s special envoy to The Hague, and in 1690 to Koblenz.9² His diplomatic 86 The letters he wrote to Schröder in 1672–3 have survived: Wien, ÖStA, HHStA, RHR u. RK, Verfassungsakten, Kt. 4/1. Korrespondenzen, Edelstein. He requested an augmentation of honour and confirmation of his knighthood in 1698, citing his commendable service to the court, and the important information he had provided earlier “in the northern affair”. He also mentioned here that he had continued to provide reports at the request of the emperor: […] schon vor mehr alß 20 Jahren, wegen einer, das gemeine wesen betreffende und im Norden negotiirte Sache, die darüber von mir damals eingeschickte allerunterthänigste information, Eur. Kayserl. May. so allergnedigst anzusehen geruhen wollen, daß Sie dero besonderes wolgefallen durch eigenes rescript an mich, und Kaiserl. Unterschrifft versichert, auch mithin in solcher correspondentz zu continuiren, befohlen haben. Dasselbe ist von mir zu jederzeit, und überall wo ich occasion dazu gehat, geschehen […]. Wien, ÖStA, AVA, RAA, Allgemeine Reihe, Kt. 93. Edelstein auf Hoberg. 87 In the letter he wrote to Schröder from Hamburg on 12 April 1673, he announced that he would henceforth represent the court of Dresden. Wien, ÖStA, HHStA, RHR u. RK, Verfassungsakten, Kt. 4/1. Korrespondenzen, Edelstein, fol. 463. 88 Olsson 1952, pp. 230–1. 89 He signed a letter to his sister on 25 November 1684 thus: Gottfried von Edelgestein auf Hochberg, Röm. Kays. Majest. auch Churfürstl. Durchlaut zu Brandenburg sc. Rath und jetziger Zeit hochfürstl. Durchl. von Hessen-Cassel, an die hochmögenden Herren Generalstaaten der vereinigten Niderland Ablegatus Ordinarius. In: Carpzov 1716, p. 127. His letters from the same year sent from The Hague and Amsterdam to Landgrave Frederick II can be found in the Hessisches Staatsarchiv, Darmstadt: https://arcinsys.hessen.de/arcinsys/detailAction.action?detailid=v4844357 (last retrieved on 5 December 2017) 90 Repertorium der diplomatischen Vertreter 1936, I, p. 464. 91 Arnhem, Geldersarchief, 0559, Familie Van den Heuvel Rijnders, Inventaris, 3.5, no. 31. URL http://www. geldersarchief.nl/zoeken/?mivast=37&mizig=210&miadt=37&miaet=1&micode=0559&minr=12675571&miview=inv2&milang=nl (last retrieved on 5 December 2017). 92 Olsson 1952, p. 230. 48 I. ANTIQUITATES missions were presumably related to the War of the Palatine Succession, and during negotiations he could make good use of the Swedish contacts he had built up by that time. From the 1680s his relationship with his wife’s family grew increasingly tense, and he sued them first for his dowry and then for his inheritance, all the while slipping in his financial fortune. Around 1700 he attempted to breathe new life into the ironworks in Taberg, which ended in bankruptcy, and due to his legal disputes with his brother-inlaw he spent ever more time in Stockholm, before being forced to flee abroad to escape his creditors in 1702.9³ For a while, his skills probably found him work in the Swedish diplomatic corps, and some have suggested that he was King Charles XII’s emissary to the Ottoman Empire.94 It seems, though, that he continued in the meantime to represent the interests of the Dresden court. Using the delivery of food as an excuse, he frequently visited, for example, the Saxon General Ludwig Nikolaus von Hallart, who was being held captive in Narva. In 1703 it transpired that the general was conducting secret correspondence with the King of Poland via a merchant from Gothenburg, and before too long it turned out that the only possible intermediary had to be Edelstein. An investigation was launched against the “baron”, who by that time had sought refuge in Poland, and the witness statements recorded at the time allow us to conclude that Edelstein was by then even in contact with Tsar Peter I of Russia. The last known mention of Edelstein comes from December 1703 in The Hague, where he was purchasing weapons for the Russian Tsar to use in the war against Sweden.95 Unfortunately, until light can be shed on Edelstein’s employer and on where exactly he was travelling from and to around 1678, with the imperial cameo in his travelling bag, this line of investigation must be suspended. What we can state so far with some certainty is that the cameo first appeared in Nuremberg, where it was “in transit”, and that the person carrying it served regularly as a diplomat for the imperial house in Vienna, the court of the elector in Dresden, and the highest ranking representatives of Sweden’s political elite. As we can prove that Edelstein was in Amsterdam in early 1678, it is also possible that the Dutch city was his point of departure when he met Sandrart in Nuremberg. If this is the case, his destination would have been Vienna, for Nuremberg is not on the way to Dresden, or Stockholm, or Edelstein’s base in Hamburg. This idea is supported by the next documented presence of the cameo, also in Vienna, namely on the inventory we are examining in this study. However, taking into account both the fact that Sandrart never mentioned any other artworks in Edelstein’s possession, neither on this occasion nor at any other time, and the apparent unlikelihood that Emperor Ferdinand II would have given an extraordinarily valuable painting to one of his ancestors in Zittau, it can be assumed that Edelstein’s only link to our collection was this cameo, and therefore he cannot be the key to unlocking the origin of the paintings. 93 Olsson 1952, pp. 236–44. The trial was eventually won by Laurens Bake, who died just a few months later. 94 Olsson 1952, p. 244. 95 Olsson 1952, pp. 245–8. 49 THE ARTWORKS From a source-critical perspective, however, analysis of the section of the text pertaining to the cameo provides us with several lessons. Firstly, the inventory is reliable. The description of the most remarkable and most exceptional object on the inventory has proven correct on several fronts: its “thousand-year past”, its reference to Sandrart, and its seemingly exaggerated adjectives. This, if nothing else, indicates that the descriptions of the paintings may also be expected to produce similar results. Secondly, however, the inventory is not reliable. The date on the inventory says 1669, but its reference to Sandrart’s publication, which was not published until 1679, clearly demonstrates that the text – at least in the form that survives – could not have been written before 1679. (The section describing the gemstones might be regarded as a later supplement, but we shall return to this though during our discussion of the paintings.) As the cameo was definitely in Berlin in 1713, the inventory was most likely compiled at some point between 1679 and 1713. 50 II. Pretiosa “Admirable ferra effigies vnser liben frauen” The other two objects that are listed at the end of the inventory, after the paintings, both of which were likewise made from gemstones, have so far proven impossible to identify, although based on their descriptions, we can form an approximate picture of what they were like. An oval agate, mounted in gilt silver, is, like the imperial cameo, described in the inventory as “inestimable”, although in this case the piece is exceptional not for its age or size, but for its sacral content. 1o. Ein Agath Inoualle worauf in der natur des steins Admirable ferra effigies vnser liben frauen, wie sie groß leibs wahr, formirter zu sehen ist […] gahr schön verguld eingefast. According to the description, the stone portrayed the figure of the Madonna of Parturition (Madonna del Parto), “miraculously” appearing in the natural form of the agate, that is, unworked by human hand. Although only the material (agate) and the shape (oval) are specified, it is likely that this was also a cameo. The word “ferra”, the attribute of the term “effigies”, in this form is clearly a mistake – the number of errors committed throughout the document when Latin phrases are used is remarkably high – and was presumably caused by a mispronunciation. The “v” in the original Latin word “vera” (true) would be pronounced as an “f” in German. This means that the female figure on the stone was held to be a vera effigies, that is a “true likeness” of Our Lady, Mary. A presumably similar object, an agate cameo portraying the Madonna and Child (fig. 13), survives, for example, in the Viennese Kunstkammer: it was produced around 1590 for Emperor Rudolf II by the Milanese engraver Alessandro Masnago (active c. 1560–1620).96 According to the biography of the artist published in La Nobiltà di Milano (1595) by Paolo Morigia, Masnago worked exclusively on imperial commissions at the end of the sixteenth century. Several items commissioned by Rudolf II are listed, including a cameo of the Virgin among Clouds that is identified in the literature as the object described above: una nostra Madonna col Bambolino Giesù in braccio, posta in una nuuola.97 Masnago owed 96 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, Kunstkammer, inv. XII. 815. Virgin and Child among Clouds. Agate, 3.3 cm×4 cm. Enamelled gold mount (5.5×5.5 cm). Eichler–Kris 1927, pp. 123–4, no. 218; Kunst des Steinschnitts 2002, pp. 163–4, cat. 79; Venturelli 2013, p. 59. 97 Morigia 1595, p. 294. 51 THE ARTWORKS his fame to his sculptural carvings, whose quality rivalled that of classical gemstones. In the opinion of Morigia, the engraver had caught the attention of Rudolf II not so much because of his virtuoso skill but because of his ability to “sense” the picture inside the stone and bring it to the surface. His cameos – including the afore-mentioned example in the Kunstkammer – generate the impression of the portrait appearing “naturally” on the stone, with hardly a trace of the human hand.98 The authors of the Esterházy inventory probably recorded the presence of a similar cameo whose female figure they attributed to a “miracle”. “Ein langliche schahlen von Agats” In his manuscript treatise on art (Werk von der Architektur), the learned patron and connoisseur Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein (1611–84), dedicated a detailed analysis to the public rooms of aristocratic houses, and discussed how buildings should be designed, furnished and decorated. In his estimation, a princely treasury merited dishes and vessels made from the finest materials, in particular those that excelled by virtue of their size, or the rarity, colour and hardness of their stone materials. Von vornehmen Geschiern ist auch schen zu haben, dehren Stuk rar sein, theils wegen der Gress, theils ob Raritet des Steins, der Farb und der Hartigkeit, was in dergleichen pfleget geschatzet zu werden.99 In the Esterházy inventory, the last pretiosum described in the list, an engraved agate, complied with this idea in full: its “inestimable” worth was warranted not only by its noble material but also by the remarkably large dimensions of the dish. According to the description, the parent rock on the object’s interior bore a Vesperbild (Pietà), while its exterior – following the “natural” form of the stone’s patterning, similarly to the previous item on the list – was decorated with an artistically carved image of the Holy Trinity. Its mount was decorated with Bohemian garnets. So ist auch ein langliche schahlen von Agats zu sehen, worin von der mutter des Agats das Vesper bild, auswendig aber in der natur des Agats die Allerheÿligste dreÿfaltigkeit, auf das Kostlichste geschniden, vnd auf das Kunstreichste formiret, wegen puritet grose des steins als maisterhafft(liche) arbeit nicht kan geschäzt werden. […] mit bohaimb(ischen) Cranaten versezt. Tableware and decorative dishes produced out of gemstones (agate, jasper, lapis lazuli, rock crystal, etc.) and intended exclusively for the purposes of representation became increasingly popular among rulers and princes from the first half of the sixteenth century, who wanted to add some special glory to their Kunstkammer. In the eyes of the most sophisticated collectors, the desirability of these objects lay not only in their almost impossible price, but also in the circumstances required to produce them: due to the hardness of the stones involved, bringing them to perfection required exceptional skill and an abundance of time. Such items were produced by specialists in the workshops of Milan, but as 98 Prag um 1600a 1988, cats. 338, 346, 348, 350, 351; Kunst des Steinschnitts 2002, pp. 97, 162–72, cats. 77–89. 99 Karl Eusebius von Liechtenstein: Werk von der Architektur, published in: Fleischer 1910, pp. 89–209, citation: p. 207. 52 II. PRETIOSA 13. Alessandro Masnago: Virgin and Child amoung Clouds, agate cameo, c. 1590 Enamelled gold mount: workshop of Jan Vermeyen, c. 1602 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 14. Ottavio Miseroni: Green Agate Bowl, c. 1605 Enamelled gold mount: workshop of Jan Vermeyen Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna their popularity increased, it became ever more difficult for the master craftsmen to meet demand, which made the price of these already phenomenally expensive works soar even further. Despite this fact, the shortage of skilled hands meant that rival workshops were only set up in very few places: in Florence by Grand Duke Francesco I de’ Medici (1572), and in Prague by Emperor Rudolf II (1588). In both cases, masters were brought in from Milan on lucrative contracts, with the Caroni brothers finding employment in Florence and Ottavio Miseroni (c. 1568–1642) and his brothers setting up shop in Prague.¹00 (The cup illustrated [fig. 14], attributed to Ottavio Miseroni [agate carving] and the workshop of Jan Vermeyen [mount], was probably made in Prague for the imperial Kunstkammer, but it cannot be identified in the inventory of the Kunstkammer of Rudolf II.)¹0¹ The Miseroni workshop operated throughout the seventeenth century until 1684, for after Ottavio’s death the business was taken over by his son, Dionysio Miseroni (c. 1607–61), and later his grandson, Ferdinand Eusebio Miseroni (1639–84).¹0² The latter two even served as imperial master of the treasury (Schatzmeister), while Dionysio’s versatility meant that he was also engaged to lead the construction of buildings.¹0³ 100 Kunst des Steinschnitts 2002, pp. 80–2. 101 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. KK 1650. Moss agate from Kozakov, in an enamelled gold mount, h: 10.1 cm, l: 16.7 cm, w: 13.3 cm. For previous literature, see: Kunst des Steinschnitts 2002, p. 270, cat. 153. 102 Kunst des Steinschnitts 2002, pp. 252–4; Urban 1973. 103 Distelberger 1978. 53 THE ARTWORKS From the 1660s onwards, the workshop slowly diminished in significance, and rival workshops began to operate, and gemstone wares were now being made not only in Prague but also in Vienna. The names of several masters (Pietro Paolo Lucini, Andrea Besana, Giovanni Battista della Rovere, Paul Schmid, Pietro Pandolfini, etc.) are known from the written sources, but hardly any of their works can be identified. Masters continued to arrive in Vienna from Milan, but also, for example, in Innsbruck from Florence.¹04 The diverse precious and semi-precious stones mined in the Kingdom of Bohemia, all of which, by decree of Rudolf II, were owned by the imperial house, were now used for commissions other than those from the emperor: the Bohemian garnet¹05 referred to in our inventory, for example, was an important export commodity of the court chamber in the 1670s. The trade in and working of garnet had previously been strictly regulated, as Rudolf II granted the privilege to sell Bohemian garnet only to Freiburg im Breisgau and Waldkirch in South Germany. In 1602 a fifteen-year monopoly was granted to the gemstone carver and geologist Matthias Krätsch.¹06 Similar exclusive rights were obtained on 4 June 1680 by Georg Eustach Withaler, whose monopoly licence to mine and distribute garnets was issued by Emperor Leopold I.¹07 In view of the fact that the item we seek appeared on a Viennese inventory from the second half of the seventeenth century, and that its mount was decorated with Bohemian garnets, it seems most likely that the object in question was also the product of a workshop in Prague or Vienna. 104 Kunst des Steinschnitts 2002, pp. 323–9. 105 Bohemian garnet (Czech garnet), is a deep red gemstone mined in the area around Litoměřice, Turnov and Jablonec, in modern-day Czechia. 106 Bukovinská 1986, p. 60; Bukovinská 1998, p. 89. 107 Urban 1973, pp. 517, 526. 54 III. Imagines Defining the collection Kunstkammer vs. Gallery (I) Aside from the two agate objects and the ancient cameo mentioned above, the document we are investigating here was an inventory of only paintings. It included no rarities, no mechanical automata, no natural relics (such as shells, corals or minerals), no scientific instruments, and not even any medals or sculptures. If we discard the notion that the entire inventory is just a list of the stock of an art trading company, then this latest fact may refer to a type of collection that was novel at the time, namely the cabinet of pictures (Gemäldekabinett), an early version of the “gallery” in the modern sense of the term, which only began to spread in Central Europe in the closing decades of the seventeenth century, and which comprised only paintings (sometimes sculptures), which distinguished it from the Kunst- und Wunderkammer of the Late Renaissance. The encyclopaedic Kunstkammer that developed in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, which aimed to reveal the whole universe in miniature, did feature paintings, but these served mostly to document “antiquities” or “curiosities” (portraits of historic personages or depictions of unusual natural phenomena or freaks of nature) or were included as part of the artificialia (illustrating the virtuosity of the creative artist). Within this latter category, however, the painting was just one of many items, commonly classified these days as works of applied art (carvings, dishes, statuettes, weapons, medals, textiles, and so on, made from various organic or inorganic materials). Besides the category of artificialia (products of human creativity), equal emphasis would also be accorded to objects from nature (naturalia) and science (scientifica). The earliest Kunstund Wunderkammer were established by European rulers and princes (fig. 15), whose example was followed by members of the nobility and, to a limited extent, the middle classes (scholars, doctors, wealthy merchants), who assembled their own, smaller cabinets, only a few of which offered the same degree of universality found in the princely Kunstkammer.¹08 108 For more about the development of the Kunstkammer and its different types, see: Schlosser 1908; Scheicher 1979; Bredekamp 1993; MacGregor 1994; MacGregor 2007; Haus Habsburg 2016. 55 THE ARTWORKS As the seventeenth century progressed, however, general perceptions about the cognoscibility of the world underwent substantial change. This brought about a parallel transformation in the way collections were conceived, with the emphasis shifting from encapsulating the universe in its entirety (microcosmos) to presenting its different component parts as broadly as possible; from a focus on the “curious” and “unique” to an awareness of multifariousness in all things. Existing Kunstkammer were mostly maintained, but their contents were sorted into categories and new items were acquired to meet the new criteria more consistently. Collections became “specialised”, and different groups of objects began to be separated physically (spatially) from each other as well.¹09 In the Kunstkammer, decorativeness gradually overrode scientific aspects, with natural curios, coins, minerals and mechanical contraptions set apart as self-standing collections in their own right, while greater prominence was given to paintings. Items made of precious materials or endowed with sacral meaning were kept, but were generally transferred to a Collection of Preciosities (Preziosensammlung), a dedicated cabinet in the private quarters of the owner’s main residence. Objects of naturalia and scientifica (natural rarities, minerals, technical instruments, etc.) were housed in special cabinets (for flora and fauna, rocks and minerals, and so on) newly created to aid scholarly learning, in many cases together with the primary source of information, the library (fig. 16). There was also diversification among the artificialia, with coins and medals, engravings and maps, among others, now handled – and displayed – separately. In several cases, the new type of Kunstkammer, with its multitude of separate collections, would be rehoused in a building of its own: the Kunstkammer in Stuttgart, for instance, which had hitherto been part of the princely residence, was transferred to the Altes Lusthaus in 1669. It was now that the desire was expressed to separate the different groups of objects: Kunst zu Kunst, Natur zu Natur lociert. ¹¹0 The paintings, however, remained in the palace.¹¹¹ The same happened in Dresden, although much later (1710), when the dynastic Kunstkammer was removed from the residence, with only the paintings and sculptures retained, which were hung temporarily in the Redoutensaal (masquerade ballroom) and in a number of cabinets until the specially designed, representative gallery was ready.¹¹² Nevertheless, Augustus II the Strong (1670–1733), Elector of Saxony and King of Poland, was still thinking along the lines of a universal collection: in 1717 he had plans drawn up for a complex of buildings at his residency consisting of 32 rooms in all (the gallery for his collection of paintings and sculptures, and many different sections for the separate collections), although it was never constructed.¹¹³ Even when the Kunstkammer remained inside the residence, its composition was altered, and it was rearranged in accordance with the specialised units within the collection. In Berlin at the end of the seventeenth century, the first set of objects to be broken away consisted of classical antiquities and medals; the newly created Cabinet of Antiquities and Medals (Antiquitäten- und Medaillenkabinett) (fig. 17) was soon augmented with hundreds of new antique pieces from the collection of Pietro Bellori. In the early eight- 109 For the process by which Kunstkammer became more specialised, see: Scheicher 1979; Bredekamp 1993; 110 111 112 113 56 MacGregor 2007. pp. 30—43; Spenlé 2008, pp. 44–8. Fleischhauer 1976, pp. 79–80, citation: p. 80. Fleischhauer 1976, p. 85. Spenlé 2008, p. 36; Spenlé 2015, p. 53. Spenlé 2008, pp. 38–42; Spenlé 2015, p. 52. III. IMAGINES 15. The Kunstkammer of the Elector of Saxony in Dresden Eberhard Werner Happel: Größeste Denkwürdigkeiten der Welt oder so genandte Relationes Curiosae […], III. Hamburg, 1687. 16. The Imperial Library and Cabinet of Rarities in Vienna Edward Brown: Durch Niderland, Teutschland, Hungarn etc. gethane gantz sonderbare Reisen […], Nürnberg, 1686. 57 THE ARTWORKS eenth century, the conversion of the Berlin residence (led by Andreas Schlüter at first, and then by Friedrich Eosander) resulted in the collection of antiquities being housed in a room of “equal rank” to the Kunstkammer. Among the ornate rooms on the top floor, to the right and left of the great hall, three were now given over to the Antiquitäten- und Medaillenkabinett; four others housed the Kunst- und Naturalienkammer, consisting of ivory and amber objects, the natural history collection, the musical and mechanical instruments, and miniature models.¹¹4 The paintings were displayed in the rooms of the state suite and in the representative gallery on the second floor. Although, according to a travel journal of 1687, a “gallery” housed the collection of paintings even before reconstruction, so the separation of the paintings must have taken place by the 1680s. ¹¹5 The most valuable objects of all (crystal, agate, gold and silver) were kept in the private quarters of Frederick I, although their exact location is not known more precisely.¹¹6 Taking over the function traditionally served by the treasury, the Preziosenkabinett became an important status symbol, and – like the one in Berlin – consisted mostly of gemstones, gold- and silverware and jewellery. The pretiosa, due to their extremely high value, hardly ever passed outside the walls of the residence: they were either contained in one of the rooms constituting the state suite, or were kept in close proximity to the ruler’s sleeping quarters.¹¹7 The latter was exclusive housing indeed, for only the most honoured guests were permitted entrance, and an invitation to view the Preziosenkabinett counted as an exceptional privilege. The tradition of collecting paintings and classical statues was well established in Italy by the sixteenth century, and this model was adopted in Spain by Philip II, during his time as king. The precursors in aristocratic Italian palazzi and the Spanish royal collection both served as models for the galleries set up in the 1620s and 1640s by King Charles I of England and many of his noblemen, as well as in the Low Countries.¹¹8 In collections that were exclusively of paintings, the demands placed on the artworks were different from those in the old-fashioned Kunstkammer. Whilst interesting subject matter remained a criterion, greater emphasis was now placed on the quality and authenticity of paintings, and on variety among the genres. In the 1650s, the Italian-style gallery was embraced by the Habsburgs (Archduke Leopold Wilhelm and Emperor Ferdinand III), and the fashion reached France in the 1660s and 1670s under King Louis XIV. It was only later, in the first decades of the eighteenth century, that the custom spread to the Germany principalities, Prussia and Poland. The direction in which art collections developed can be traced not only theoretically by observing changing concepts for collecting, but also through the movement of some concrete groups of artworks. In the 1620s and 1630s, members of the English nobility and Flemish merchants had bought up countless works from art collections sold in Venice, Rome, Mantua, and so on, and when their collections came up for sale in the mid-seventeenth century, the same works migrated further to France and the Habsburg Empire. 114 115 116 117 118 58 Theuerkauff 1981, pp. 19–21. Bauer 2015, p. 95. Theuerkauff 1981, pp. 23–4. Syndram 1999, pp. 77, 107–8; Spenlé 2008, p. 48. Lightbown 1989; Checa Cremades 1992; Brown 1995, pp. 105–9. III. IMAGINES 17. The Cabinet of Antiquities and Medals in Berlin Lorenz Beger: Thesauri Regii et Electoralis Brandenburgici, III. Coloniæ Marchicæ, 1701 59 THE ARTWORKS Then, in the first half of the eighteenth century, German kings and electors enriched their own collections of paintings and antiquities by creaming off some of the most desirable works from those older galleries. King Augustus III of Poland (1696–1763), for example, bought hundreds of paintings in the 1740s for his gallery in Dresden, many of them from art collections in Prague. Among the works he acquired from the royal castle gallery were some that had been obtained in 1650 by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm on behalf of Ferdinand III from the erstwhile collection of the Duke of Buckingham, who in turn had purchased a large share of his paintings from Venetian galleries. To give just one example: Palma Giovane’s large painting of Henry III during his visit to Venice (State Art Collections of Dresden) was among the works bought by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm at the Buckingham auction; the work was taken to Prague, from where agents of Augustus III acquired it for the Dresden gallery.¹¹9 Whereas relatively large amounts of paintings were available to art collectors, high-quality classical sculptures were harder to come by, and the most ambitious German rulers embarked on a kind of “arms race” to take control of these “resources”. The Bellori collection was not the first major acquisition bought for the Antiquitättstube in Berlin, because in 1671 a number of classical statues were obtained from the afore-mentioned Reynst cabinet, many of which originated from the Vendramin collection in Venice.¹²0 The Dresden collection, which had been somewhat lacking in antiquities, was made more “competitive” in 1728 when the Chigi and Albani collections were procured.¹²¹ Not everybody was able to or wanted to join in the rivalry, however: for example, Lothar Franz von Schönborn had a gallery built exclusively for paintings in Pommersfelden: nichts anderst […] als mit lauther gemähl.¹²² The development of galleries in Central Europe In Central Europe this transformation became noticeable when Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (1614–62) brought his gallery to Vienna, consisting mostly of works by Netherlandish and Italian painters, which he had accumulated in Brussels. It is thanks to him, through the collections of paintings that he bought partly for his brother and partly for himself, that the new type of collection appeared within a decade in Vienna and in Prague. Between 1647 and 1656 the archduke served as governor of the Spanish Netherlands, during which time many items from the noblest English collections became available on the market as a result of the English Civil War; what is more, they were sold in Antwerp, close to his residence in Brussels.¹²³ 119 120 121 122 123 60 Fairfax 1759, p. 8, no. 1; McEvansoneya 1996b, p. 141; Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister 2007, II, p. 397. Logan 1979; Lammertse 2006a, pp. 79–103. Spenlé 2008, p. 97. Cited in: Spenlé 2008, p. 60. Brown 1995, pp. 147–83. III. IMAGINES His first opportunity to make a significant acquisition came in 1649, when items from the Buckingham collection came up for sale.¹²4 He purchased the artworks not for himself, but on behalf of his brother, Emperor Ferdinand III (1608–57), who forwarded the necessary funds. The contract was signed in July 1650, and the archduke dispatched the paintings home in 1651. From Vienna, the emperor sent the works on to Prague, to replenish the collection in the Royal Castle there, which had recently been looted (1648) by soldiers of Christina, Queen of Sweden. Whereas the process of change in the type of collection had elsewhere taken place over decades, as a consequence of the destruction of war, here it all happened in a few years, with the Kunstkammer of Rudolf II being replaced by a modern painting gallery with a focus on Italian works.¹²5 Objects befitting the Kunstkammer in Prague Castle still remained, but these were mostly rarities and the collection of naturalia, which the emperor’s descendants considered of insufficient worth to be transported to Vienna. The most valuable pieces were transferred to the Schatzkammer in Vienna in the first half of the seventeenth century, to create a central treasury that represented the wealth and power of the house of Habsburg.¹²6 Judging from the inventories, such objects were kept separately from the paintings: in the rooms where the paintings were displayed, only paintings were inventoried, with the exception of a few sculptures and one spinet. The rarities and the items in the collection of naturalia (allerhand raritaeten und meerfischen und anderen gewächsen) – which, according to the inventories, also included statues, bas-reliefs and damaged objects – were stored in crates in vaulted premises referred to as the Schatzkammer, which began to function increasingly as a warehouse.¹²7 The archduke obtained many of his paintings for his own collection, including the majority of his Italian pieces, from the collection of James, first Duke of Hamilton (1606–49), but he also liked to buy local Netherlandish works, and he even employed artists in his Brussels court.¹²8 In 1659, after his return home, he had his collection hung on the second floor of the Stallburg (royal stables). The inventory made at this time clearly shows that the lion’s share of his collection consisted of paintings, although there were also sculptures, drawings, gems, ecclesiastical valuables (clenodia), items of jewellery and books.¹²9 These Garas 1987; McEvansoneya 1996a; McEvansoneya 1996b. For the new gallery established in Prague, see: Neumann 1966, pp. 27–40; Garas 1967; Garas 1987; Preiss 1993. Lhotsky 1941–5, I, pp. 299–302. The eighteenth-century inventories are published in: Köpl 1889. reg. 6231 (1650), reg. 6232 (1718), reg. 6234 (1737). The inventory from 1718 reflects the arrangement made in the early 1660s, cf. the unpublished inventories, whose content is essentially the same: Praager Schloß 1685, which actually records an even earlier status, as its first 515 items were probably copied from another (lost) inventory, made in 1663, to which were added the items brought to the gallery around 1676. Neumann 1966, p. 28; Fučíková 1996, p. 14; Swoboda 2008. p. 74. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Gudrun Swoboda, of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, for granting me access to a photocopy of the Prague inventory from 1685 held by the Museum. 128 Mareš 1887, pp. 343–63; Lhotsky 1941–5, II, pp. 355–82; Garas 1967; Garas 1968; Schütz 1998; Schreiber 2004, pp. 89–129; Lowitzsch 2004, I, pp. 41–62; Fabiankowitzsch 2014; Del Torre Scheuch 2014; Gruber 2014. 129 The 1659 inventory of the Kunstkammer was published in: Berger 1883, pp. LXXIX–CLXXVII, reg. 495. For more about the collection of drawings belonging to Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, see: Ferino-Pagden 2000, pp. 431–42; for his treasury, see: Distelberger 1985, p. 46. 124 125 126 127 61 THE ARTWORKS were, however, listed and maintained separately from the paintings.¹³0 According to the record produced on the archduke’s death, the lower floor of the Stallburg held the treasury (Schatzkammer) and the silverware store (Silberkammer), while other valuables were deposited in the Kunstkammer situated in the “front gallery” (vordere Gallerie) and in two smaller cabinets on the second floor.¹³¹ The room in the Stallburg defined as the treasury contained relatively few items of truly high value, because the archduke’s main treasury was still at the Amalienburg (Schatzgewölb in der neueren Burg), where he lived, although a part of it was removed to the Stallburg shortly before the archduke’s death.¹³² *** In conclusion, it can be seen that the differences in collecting concepts that were still rather marked during the Late Renaissance had more or less levelled out by the second half of the seventeenth century. Albeit with a variety of emphases, specialised collections had emerged all over Europe, which separated different groups from one another: rarities, natural items, tools to aid scientific research, and – last but not least – works of “art” in the stricter sense of the word. After the removal of naturalia and scientifica, followed by autonomy for a part of artificialia, the new type of art collection in the Baroque era comprised only three major units: the collection of classical antiquities (antiquitates), the paintings and sculptures (imagines), and the “valuables” (pretiosa).¹³³ These are the three categories that are present in the inventory under investigation. The different Kunstkammer of the Habsburg dynasty also went through the same process of transformation, relatively early compared with those in the German principalities or even in France. The new Baroque “galleries” established by the imperial house in the 1650s were not exactly open to the public, but they could be visited with the right credentials and in return for a “tip”, and members of the aristocracy who obtained the necessary permits subsequently ordered copies of certain works. The archduke’s gallery in Vienna and – just as importantly – the royal collection in Prague set the standard for the composition and organisation of collections, which was emulated by aristocrats throughout the empire. The archduke’s tastes and preferences, from this point on, radiated outwards from the twin focal points of Vienna and Prague, establishing the fashion for Netherlandish and Italian (primarily Venetian) painting in Central Europe. 130 The treasury inventory was issued on 30 April 1660, and was published in: Zimerman 1888, pp. LXVII– LXXXIV, reg. 4717. For the composition of the collection, see the introduction: Ibid. pp. LXVII–LXVIII. Some of the objects were owned before he travelled to Brussels. The 1647 inventory of the Kunstkammer and the library was published in: Mraz–Haupt 1981. 131 Kunst Cammer in der vorderen Galleria, neben und in des Hoffcaplan van der Baaren Zimmer. Cited after: Lowitzsch 2004, I, p. 67. 132 Polleross 2016, pp. 275–8. 133 Spenlé 2008, p. 43. 62 III. IMAGINES Terminology Kunstkammer vs. Gallery (II) It is a different matter that the appearance of the new type of collection was not automatically followed by a change in the terminology. Although the majority of Kunstkammer had been converted to “universal museums” by the close of the century, the different cabinets and repositories still tended to be known by the same term.¹³4 Even the collections in the royal castle in Prague and the Stallburg in Vienna, which now concentrated almost exclusively on paintings, continued to be referred to in “official” documents – that is, inventories and other rulings pertaining to the collections – using the term Kunstkammer. During the seventeenth century, there were several phrases in circulation that applied to the spaces that now held solely collections of paintings, depending on the size, arrangement and function of the space in question. In Germanophone areas, the words “Kabinett” or “Kammer” were used for the smaller, more intimate premises that held paintings (Gemäldekabinett, Kunstkabinett, Bilderkammer, etc.); larger, more prestigious rooms, where emissaries were received or court celebrations and balls were held, were generally referred to as “Saal” (Prunksaal, Riesensaal, Redoutensaal, etc.); narrow spaces that measured 50–100 metres in length, meanwhile, were defined as “Galerie” (Bildergalerie, Gemäldegalerie). King Frederick III of Denmark commissioned a long hall for his paintings in Copenhagen, which was built between 1665 and 1680; this hall was uniquely given the hybrid title of a Gallerie-Kammer.¹³5 Where the use of words is concerned, it is worth taking another look at the statement in the Esterházy inventory which we have already analysed for a different reason, namely the assertion that one of the most valuable paintings in the collection (no. 30), attributed to Correggio (or maybe Carracci), was received by the ancestor of the person in question as a gift from the “Callarie” of Emperor Ferdinand II. The “Callarie” clearly refers to one of the imperial collections of paintings, but the question is which one. During the reign of Ferdinand II, the Prague-based collection of paintings inherited from Rudolf II was still reasonably intact, but the “official” name for the collection, throughout the seventeenth century and well into the eighteenth, consistently remained the kaiserliche Schatz- und Kunstkammer.¹³6 It would not be unprecedented for Ferdinand II to give away a work from his uncle’s collection in Prague, but it would be unusual for a later owner to 134 Spenlé 2008, p. 43. 135 Spenlé 2008, p. 44. 136 Zimmermann 1905, pp. XX–LI, reg. 19421 (1621); Praager Schloß 1685; Köpl 1889, pp. CXXXI–CXLI, reg. 6231 (1650); reg. 6232 (1718); reg. 6234 (1737); reg. 6235 (1763). 63 THE ARTWORKS record its place of origin using a different name to the one by which it was officially known. One painting that is known to have been donated in such a way, for example, has the following text written on the back: Aus Khaisserlichen Khunst Cammer Kaiser Rudolf d. H. Pryloski geben.¹³7 The word Callarie could also be understood as meaning the treasury (Schatzkammer) in the Hofburg, as it contained a number of paintings, moreover some extremely valuable ones (by the likes of Correggio, Parmigianino, Dürer, etc.), which were transferred to Vienna from Prague in several stages following the death of Rudolf II. Referring to this collection as treasury was justified in this case, because – despite the diversity of genres it held – the emphasis was not on the encyclopaedic nature of its contents, but on the extraordinarily high material value of certain pieces, which went against the customary scientific criteria of a Kunstkammer. Between 1640 and 1642, Emperor Ferdinand III ordered new rooms to be set aside for the treasury, separating its “ecclesiastical” treasures from the “secular” ones, and during this period the collection was sometimes referred to as the Kunst- und Schatzkammer; during a brief period in the mid-seventeenth century, we can come across the distinction between the Antiquarium and the Thesaurus.¹³8 After its installation in the Stallburg in 1659, however, people reverted to calling it the Schatzkammer.¹³9 The “gallery” as an architectural feature The term “gallery” was nevertheless known and used, only in Prague and Vienna it referred just as much to an architectural feature, specifically a long, narrow, corridor-like room, illuminated with plentiful windows, and designed for displaying several parts of the collection. This was in accordance with the original meaning of the term, since the French word galerie basically defined a type of space, in this case a covered corridor, open at both sides, supported by arcades of columns, and often erected in a picturesque setting, mostly linking two blocks of a building, and allowing people to move from one side to the other, even in bad weather, and to enjoy a refreshing walk in the open air. The gallery was therefore not originally expressly designed for hosting a collection, but came to be decorated with sculptures and hunting trophies. In France, though, a variation of the gallery that was lined not with arcades but with windows, and decorated with frescos, appeared as early as the mid-sixteenth century (Fontainebleau), which was even suitable for displaying paintings, tapestries and so on (fig. 18). Galleries had heating installed, no longer resembled corridors, and were used as 137 Cited by Fučíková 1998, p. 179. 138 Beginning in 1653, Ferdinand III planned to publish a volume illustrated with engraved reproductions of the items deposited in his Schatzkammer, but only a few sheets were produced. The surviving sheets refer to the emperor as the commissioner, while the location where the works were kept is described as an “antiquarium” and as a “treasury”: ex ejusdem Antiquario Viennensi; in Thesauro Viennensi. Polleross 2014b, 132, 136. 139 Lhotsky 1941–5, I, pp. 237–380; Distelberger 1985; Kirchweger 2014; Polleross 2016 (esp. pp. 280–1). 64 III. IMAGINES 18. The Gallery of King Francis I in the Chateau of Fontainebleau, 1580 (Reproduced after MacGregor 2015) venues for family and social gatherings.¹40 Similar arrangements became widespread in Italy in the second half of the sixteenth century, but there the gallery was commonly converted from a loggia, and so was only lit from one side. Around 1600, it was standard practice for noble palaces in Rome to be designed with a gallery to hold the art collection, and the designation of the term gradually shifted from form to function. In parallel with this, buildings designed for recreational purposes became places where collections were displayed and also served increasingly as status symbols. Collections in Italy – as mentioned earlier – focused mainly on ancient statues and paintings, although in the Galleria della Mostra in Mantua, for example, the line of windows opposite the paintings was not only filled with busts, but with display cabinets containing the collection of naturalia and pretiosa.¹4¹ 140 For the emergence and development of this type of space, with French and Italian examples, see: Prinz 1970. 141 Prinz 1970, p. 56. 65 THE ARTWORKS Italian-style enclosed galleries with windows along just one side were also installed in the imperial residences, built in Vienna between 1583 and 1585, and in Prague between 1589 and 1606, both commissioned by Rudolf II.¹4² The galleries were three-storeys high. The Gang or Gangbau, as they were known, retained their original French role as corridors, allowing passage between the palace and other buildings housing some parts of the imperial collection, while the corridors themselves were also used to display the pieces of the collection, so the ruler could proceed from his private suite to the imperial collection without the need to venture outside.¹4³ The Gangbau or Langbau in Prague led from the palace to the large hall above the stables (Spanish Hall) which served as a Pinacoteca. It consisted of a corridor measuring approximately 100 metres in length and 5 metres in width, divided in two by what was initially called the Mathematical Tower. The two galleries formed in this way on the second floor were decorated, according to an inventory of 1621, by paintings alone, which were displayed in three rows, on the cornice and on platforms placed at different heights.¹44 The galleries themselves were referred to as the front corridor (vorderer Gang) and the other corridor (anderer Gang), while the little passage between them was defined as between the two “galleries” (zwischen den zwei gallarien).¹45 From here a stairway led to the first floor of the gallery building, where the Kunstkammer and the three vaulted rooms of the so-called vordere Kunstkammer were arranged.¹46 After the regrouping of the artworks that took place following the death of Rudolf II, the looting by Swedish forces and the installation of the paintings bought by Emperor Ferdinand III (under the aegis of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm) from the Buckingham collection, the ensemble of works located here changed substantially. According to the inventory of 1718, the Kunstkammer now contained only paintings (and a few statues), arranged in the so-called retirada and in a total of four galleries (Gallerien oder Bildergängen). Thus, by this time the paintings not only occupied the galleries on the second floor and the former Spanish Hall, but also the Rudolfian Kunstkammer, while the rarities and naturalia, and so on – as mentioned earlier – were kept in the Schatzkammer, installed in the three vaulted rooms of the earlier vordere Kunstkammer, which increasingly functioned as a strongroom. In Vienna, the Neuer Gang was a building measuring about 46 metres long and 3.6 metres wide, whose different floors, rather than the building itself, were referred to as “galleries”; it linked the palace to the so-called Kunsthaus built by Emperor Ferdinand I (1503–64) in 1558. The gallery building was entered on the ground floor from the lower garden, and on the second floor from the residence and the upper garden. At first, only the first floor was arranged as a treasury, but the master builder Pietro Spazio carried out a survey in 1640 in which he already defined the ground floor of the narrow building as a Galleria oder an- 142 The architectural design of the galleries was probably influenced directly by the Uffizi of Florence, as from 1585 143 144 145 146 66 a Florentine architect joined in the works, named Giovanni Gargiolli. The fittings were more closely modelled on precedents in Mantua and Turin. Krčálová 1982, p. 275; Polleross 2016. p. 262. Fučíková 1985; Bukovinská 1997; Holzschuh-Hofer 2014. Fučíková 1985, pp. 48–51; Bukovinská 1997, pp. 199–208; Bukovinská 2003, pp. 203–5. Zimmermann 1905, p. XLII. Fučíková 1985, p. 49; Bukovinská 1997, pp. 199–200; Bukovinská 2003, pp. 210–2; Polleross 2016, p. 257. III. IMAGINES 19. Nicolaus van Hoy–Frans van der Steen: The Gallery of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in Vienna David (II.) Teniers: Theatrum pictorium, Antverpiae, 1660 dere Schatz Camer bey Gartl,¹47 while a travel journal of 1660 referred to the area above the Schatzkammer as the Obere Galleria.¹48 These “galleries”, however, were not necessarily and not exclusively dedicated to displaying paintings. Based on contemporary travel journals, the “long gallery” of the treasury was filled mostly with cupboards and cabinets of drawers (Schreibtische) containing valuables and rarities, such as vessels made of ivory or gemstones, watches and jewellery, crowns, jewel-encrusted weapons, and so on; paintings were only hung on the spaces between the cabinets. Most of the paintings, meanwhile, were described as being in the side chamber (Neben-Cammer) of the treasury.¹49 The term “gallery” was not always used consistently: the 1677 inventory of the Schatzkammer in Vienna refers to a room equivalent to the “long gallery” simply as a “hall”, whereas a Viennese travel diary describes the same room alternately as a “gallery” or a “hall”.¹50 147 148 149 150 Karner 2014a, p. 226. Einmal Weimar 2005, p. 97; Karner 2014a, p. 227; Polleross 2016, p. 268. Polleross 2016. 273. Kurtze Verzeichnus der vornembsten Stuck, so in Ihro kayserlichen Mayestät weltlich- und geistlichen Schatz-Cammer zu Wien denckhwürdig zu sehen […] 1677. Published in: Luschin 1899, pp. CXCI–CXCVI, reg. 18307; Reiffenstuell 1702, pp. 50–8. 67 THE ARTWORKS As the painting in our inventory was clearly described as coming from the “gallery” of Ferdinand II, we can rule out the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in the Stallburg, although it must be noted that contemporary sources also continued to all this place a Kunstkammer. Here, the galleries were constructed from the rows of arcades that encircled three sides of the courtyard, by converting the openings into glass windows (fig. 19).¹5¹ In addition to the three galleries thus formed, the archducal collection was also housed in a further seven rooms, with the paintings separated from the treasury items and other rarities, similar to the arrangement in Prague. The “gallery” as a collection Both in Prague and in Vienna, then, specially constructed parts of the royal residences served representational purposes, were long like corridors, and even (in the case of Prague, especially) contained paintings, that is, they were “galleries” in all but name, for the collections – as we have seen – were not referred to using this term during the period under investigation. However, if we peer beyond “official” nomenclature and examine also the terminology used in “civilised public discourse”, as spoken by members of the court aristocracy and written in the contemporary literature on art and natural philosophy, then the word “gallery” appears in a variety of meanings, depending on the user’s level of education, the language context and personal experience.¹5² Considering the fact that our inventory was made, by its own assertion, in Vienna (and in 1669), the question that interests us most here is when it became common practice to identify a gallery with a collection of paintings in this part of the world and in this period of time. With this in mind, I have tried, as far as possible, to narrow down my research, and to restrict my examples to the writings of the aristocrats who moved in court circles in Vienna, foreign travellers who came to visit the imperial collections, and men of letters (authors, scholars, etc.) who passed through this locality. It appears that the term “gallery” kept its original meaning as an architectural feature for a significantly long time. In 1655, for example, Johann Franz von Lamberg (1618–66) clearly used the word to describe an arcaded, columned corridor, and made no mention of a collection at all.¹5³ In 1674 the professor of theoretical medicine Johann Daniel Major (1634–93), originally from Wrocław (Breslau), attempted to systematise the different museum-related terms, and he defined a gallery as a room containing curiosities, suitable for perambulation.¹54 Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, in a letter he wrote to his brother upon 151 Karner 2014b, pp. 305–10. 152 For an interpretation of the word “gallery”, with mostly eighteenth-century examples, see: Frimmel 1904, pp. 274–6. 153 Polleross 2010, p. 193. 154 Johann Daniel Major: Unvorgreiffliches Bedencken von Kunst und Naturalien-Kammern insgemein (Kiel, 1674). Published in: Valentini 1704, p. 9; cf. Seifertová 1997a, p. 10. 68 III. IMAGINES arriving in Brussels in 1647, also used the term to refer to part of a building, but one that was specifically assigned for hanging paintings, when he mused over having a gallery of his own constructed.¹55 The word was interpreted in a similar way by Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, in his treatise on architecture, where he deemed it ideal for a noble chateau to have two galleries: one for sculptures and one for paintings.¹56 His son, Johann Adam Andreas I, Prince of Liechtenstein (1657–1712), took his father’s advice to heart, and in 1686 he installed two galleries (obere und andere Gallerie) in his castle in Valtice (Feldsberg).¹57 During these same decades, however, there are examples of the word “gallery” being used to describe collections of paintings irrespectively of how they were displayed. In the travel journal of Johann Sebastian Müller (1634–1708), who arrived from Weimar in 1660, the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm is defined as a Kunst Kammer und Schilderey. He did not use the term “gallery”, but due to the dominance of paintings, he considered the word “Kunstkammer” to be insufficient, and so added the phrase “picture collection” (Schilderey).¹58 In the same year, Marco Boschini (1602–81), author of El Navegar pitoresco, praised the paintings belonging to the archduke, and unhesitatingly called the entire collection a Galaria.¹59 In 1667, when the collection was viewed by Alessandro Segni, court librarian to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, he defined it as the Galleria dei quadri di Sua Maestà (His Majesty’s picture gallery).¹60 In a diary entry from 1674, the imperial ambassador to Madrid, Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach, also described the entire collection in the Stallburg as des Kaisers Galeria von dem Erzherzog Leopold.¹6¹ Towards the end of the century, the expression even appears in documents of an official nature: in 1687, for example, Christoph Lauch was appointed inspector of the kayserliche Gallerie (his predecessor in the post, Jan Anton van der Baren, had worked under the title of kaiserliche Mallerey-Inspector).¹6² The transition did not take place overnight, however, and there was an overlap that lasted for decades: one travel journal that was published in 1702, for instance, still referred to the collection as the kaiserliche Kunst-Kammer, from which we can infer that the visitor was led through the rooms by a guide who defined the collection in such terms.¹6³ A similar phenomenon occurred in the case of the collection in Prague, which was always “officially” termed the Kunstkammer, although in his Teutsche Academie of 1675, Joachim von Sandrart defined it more than once as a gallery.¹64 Quite typically, however, in the biog- 155 Wenn ich ein wenig Geld habe, werde ich mir in Brüssel eine Galeria nach meinem Humor bauen lassen und 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 alle meine neuen Gemälde hineintun. Cited in: Schreiber 2004, p. 96. Fleischer 1910, p. 182. Haupt 2012, p. 22, reg. 126. Einmal Weimar 2005, p. 83. Boschini 1660, Vento primo, p. 39. Boschini never visited Vienna in person, but knew the archducal collection from talking to the painter Pietro Liberi, who resided in the city. Tipton 2010, p. 148. Harrach-Tagebuch 1913, p. 91. However, he is inconsistent in his terminology: in a later inventory of his, which listed a painting of the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, he identified the work as a picture of the archduke’s “Kunstkammer” (see page 80). Schlager 1850, p. 20. Reiffenstuell 1702, pp. 58–60. Sandrart 1675, I, pp. 243, 305 (Galleria zu Prag), 310 (Kunst-Galleria in Prag), 305 (Kunstkammer/Galeria). 69 THE ARTWORKS raphy of Sandrart at the beginning of the volume (which the latest research suggests was not written by Sandrart but by Sigmund von Birken),¹65 the same collection is referred to using the terms Kunstzimmer and Kunstkammer.¹66 This shows that while it was self-evident for Sandrart, the artist who had made the initial sketches for the Galleria Giustiniana (1631), to call a collection of this kind a “gallery”, it was just as obvious for Birken, the poet from Nuremberg, to define it as a Kunstkammer. The replacement of the word “Kunstkammer” with the new terminology was a phenomenon that Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, not only observed, but also regarded as foreign – what is more, as a German initiative. In his treatise on architecture he referred to the “Galleries, as the Kunstkammer are called in Germany” (Gallerien, so man in Deutschlandt die Kunstkammer nennet).¹67 The choice of words clearly posed difficulties for Paul Esterházy when he was describing his own art collection in the wills he wrote: in 1664 he used the term Kunsztkammer, while in 1678 he preferred “gallery”; finally, in 1689, he opted for the phrase Cabinet seu Chunst Cammer. All the while – as pointed out by Enikő Buzási – the content of his collection remained fundamentally unchanged.¹68 It seems that in Vienna and its environs, the archducal collection was the first to be customarily referred to as a “gallery”. It must be noted, however, that the term initially appears in texts written by visitors from Italy, or by aristocrats who spent a lot of time there. For Boschini, who came from Venice, it was second nature to define the collection as a gallery; Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach, meanwhile, was often in attendance at the court in Mantua through his mother, Lavinia Tecla Gonzaga, and he probably grew accustomed to hearing the term gallery used in an Italian context. Joachim von Sandrart’s choice of words presumably also reflects his experiences in Italy. The systematic reorganisation of the imperial collection, during which the paintings in the treasury and the valuables in the picture gallery were regrouped, began during the reign of Emperor Charles VI. From this point on, the collection of paintings in the Stallburg is referred to in official papers only with the words “Gallerie” or “Pinacotheca”, although – as can be seen, for instance, from the inventory drawn up by Ferdinand Storffer between 1720 and 1733 (Bilder-Gallerie in der Stallburg) – its contents were not restricted to paintings and sculptures: the corner rooms, for example, housed precious metalwork, naturalia, rarities and numismatic items.¹69 The name of the collection in the royal castle in Prague, meanwhile, at least in the headings of the inventories, remained unchanged throughout the eighteenth century, when the ever dwindling collection of paintings continued to be inventoried as the Kunst- und Schatzkammer.¹70 Meier 2004. Sandrart 1675, I, pp. 7, 17. Fleischer 1910, p. 192. The texts of all three wills are cited in: Buzási 2015, pp. 117–22. Storffer 1720–33, I–III, cf. Prenner 1728–33 I–IV; Lhotsky 1941–5, I, pp. 393–6; Swoboda 2008, pp. 96–109; Swoboda 2010, p. 18. For lists of consignments of artworks targeting the separation of different sections of collections during the time of Maria Theresa (1748–50), see: Zimerman 1889, regs. 6245–6, 6250. 170 In 1763 the Kunstkammer and Schatzkammer are distinct from the Bildersaal, cf. Köpl 1889, reg. 6235. 165 166 167 168 169 70 III. IMAGINES Aristocrats in Central Europe first began to apply the word “gallery”, in its modern sense, to their own art collections, not when they were developing an inherited Kunstkammer, but when they were setting out with the express intention of establishing a collection of paintings. When Humprecht Johann Czernin von Chudenitz (1628–82) returned home from diplomatic service in Venice, he had an illustrated list published of the paintings he had bought there, to which he gave the title of Imagines Galleriae (1669), indicating that he himself defined his collection as a gallery.¹7¹ Yet even in his case, the starting point was probably the architectural space: for his palace in Prague, he planned both a galleria grande and a galleria piccola to house his paintings. His years in Venice are also likely to have swayed his choice of nomenclature, for collections of paintings there had been referred to as “galleries” for a good part of a century. After the end of the seventeenth century, the modern sense of the word gained ever increasing currency, and by the 1720s – as shall become abundantly clear later – it was the accepted norm to refer to collections of paintings as “galleries”. *** As we saw in the preceding chapter, until the early 1660s the collections of the imperial house in Vienna and Prague underwent a process of modernisation, in which different groups of objects were separated from each other, and paintings – in line with the changing European trends in collecting – assumed the dominant role. The change in function was not, however, immediately followed by a change in name, and the phrase “Kunstkammer” lived on for a surprisingly long time. Collections of paintings and sculptures in the southern and western parts of Europe had long been referred to using the word “gallery”, and eventually the term became established in Central Europe as well: the collection in the Stallburg was officially known as a “gallery” from the 1700s onwards, and instances of the word being used in its modern sense can be found scattered throughout the surviving documents from the latter decades of the seventeenth century. The original meaning of a “gallery”, however, was an architectural feature, a corridor-like space designed for displaying artworks; examples of the term being used in this way first appear in connection with the Viennese court in sources from the end of the sixteenth century. At this time, however, galleries were not necessarily for hanging paintings, and the galleries in the Schatzkammer in Vienna, for example, were lined with cabinets; moreover, paintings were not always hung in galleries: Archduke Leopold Wilhelm installed his collection in the Stallburg in three galleries and a further seven cabinets. The fact that the owner of the art collection we seek defined the imperial collection as a Callarie therefore implies a modern attitude, and aside from visitors from Italian-speaking lands, this meaning of the word was not used by people in Central Europe until the closing decades of the seventeenth century. At the same time, it is not clear which imperial 171 For the Czernin collection, see: Novák 1915; Artis pictoriae amatores 1993, pp. 131–69; Juffinger 2006; Slavíček 2007, pp. 39–55; Seifertová 2007b, pp. 94–8. 71 THE ARTWORKS collection was meant, for during the reign of Ferdinand II, neither of the Kunst- und Schatzkammer in Vienna and Prague would be referred to as a “gallery” (and the collection in the Stallburg did not yet exist). Considering the fact that the collection of paintings in the royal castle in Prague was, like the archducal Kunstkammer in Vienna, colloquially known as a “gallery” by the end of the seventeenth century, and that this term, with regard to its contents, is more suited to the collection in Prague than the treasury in Vienna, it is perhaps slightly more likely that the painting received as a gift from the emperor had originally hung in Prague. Unfortunately, the work we seek (Saints Peter and Paul, by “Corretschio”) cannot be unequivocally recognised in the inventories of the imperial collection. The only item which might be connected with them is included in the 1621 inventory of the Kunstkammer in Prague: Zween männer in einem finstern stückl vom Corregio. (Orig.)¹7² The later fate of the painting is unknown. The collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm as a model Cabinet d’amateur Archduke Leopold Wilhelm not only brought a new type of art collection from Brussels, but also the modern means of representation associated with it. Assisting him in this was his court painter, David Teniers the Younger (1610–90). The painter had been invited to and employed by the archduke’s court in Brussels. Teniers already had a reputation, mainly as a painter of “peasant pictures”, a type of genre work. He was also well connected, being married to Anna Brueghel, daughter of Jan Brueghel the Elder. In the archducal court he had other duties besides fulfilling commissions for paintings. If necessary, he also participated actively in extending the collection and purchasing works (acting on behalf of Leopold Wilhelm during the acquisition of the Hamilton collection), and he also played a major role in shaping the propaganda of the archducal collection. Awareness of the collection – thanks to Teniers’s great efforts – was not in the least restricted to visitors of the Stallburg in Vienna. The greatest amount of publicity for the archducal collection was generated by the publication of engraved reproductions of the paintings, an enterprise overseen by David 172 Zimmermann 1905, p. XLV. no. 1160. 72 III. IMAGINES Teniers the Younger. Work for this project began in Brussels, under the direction of Teniers, and it first appeared in 1660 as a volume entitled Theatrum Pictorium, after the archduke had returned home. The engravings were based partly on oil copies produced by the painter after the original works in the collection, and partly on drawings made by the artists who accompanied the archduke to Vienna. Several engravers worked in parallel on the edition, which reproduced a total of 243 Italian paintings.¹7³ Copies of the volume were presumably handed out as gifts, and the compositions became widely known; before long, copies of the reproductions could be found on the art market. The other venture undertaken by Teniers was to create a “portrait” of the collection, in what is termed a cabinet d’amateur, or gallery painting (cabinet painting). Several versions of the work were painted, with the first completed in 1651; eleven canvases are known that were painted by Teniers himself, while there are a number of additional copies by other painters.¹74 The genre sprang to life in Antwerp in the early seventeenth century, and initially had a distinctly local flavour; in the majority of works, a fictive Kunstkabinett can be seen, composed of paintings actually held in different collections.¹75 Even the paintings Teniers produced of Leopold Wilhelm’s gallery are not precise renderings of reality. Although the paintings depicted were indeed part of the archduke’s collection, their proportions were sometimes altered by the artist in order to achieve an ideal arrangement, and based on research, even the gallery (theoretically one of the rooms in the Palace of Coudenberg, Brussels) is a fictional space.¹76 The spatial arrangement of one version of the gallery painting derives, for example from the Kunstkabinett composition made around 1630 by Hans Jordaens the Younger and Cornelis de Baellieur, which later joined the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (fig. 20),¹77 but it can also be discerned in a cabinet painting dated to the 1620s (London, National Gallery) is (fig. 21),¹78 and Teniers himself also used it in other works. 173 Schütz 1980; Klinge 2003; Lowitzsch 2004, I, pp. 113–8; Klinge 2006; Waterfield 2006; Bähr 2009, pp. 23–42; Schuster 2016, pp. 46–63. 174 Díaz Padrón–Royo-Villanova 1990, pp. 36–43; Scarpa Sonino 1992, pp. 85–101; Schreiber 2004, pp. 100–1. 175 Speth-Holterhoff 1957, pp. 50–60; Filipczak 1987, pp. 47–50; Härting 1989, pp. 83–91; Schütz 1992, p. 168. 176 The location of the paintings of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm is most recently discussed in: Lowitzsch 2004, I, pp. 82–7, 122–37; Schreiber 2006, pp. 351–5. Nadja Lowitzsch argues that the room depicted is not the gallery in the Palace of Coudenberg, but the Nieuwe Gallerie inden Wijngaerdt, that is, the new gallery in the vineyard, built by the archduke himself. The author, however, overlooks the fact that according to the payments she quotes, the new gallery was constructed between 1653 and 1655, while the paintings by Teniers are dated 1651 and 1653. Renate Schreiber rules out the possibility that the building work took place at an earlier date, and that the payments were delayed by several years, by pointing out that the archduke’s finances were in no position for him to carry out any major construction work, due to regular delays in his salary as governor. The function of the “new gallery” in the vineyard is also unsettled, but it seems that at no time, neither then nor later, did it serve public, prestigious purposes. 177 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 716. Welzel 1997, pp. 184–5. The similarity is all the more striking when compared with the sketch by Teniers that survives in the Valvasor collection, in which the paintings are also still lined up in four rows. See: Pokorny 2006–7, p. 186 (fig. 15). 178 The National Gallery, London, inv. NG1287, oil on wood, 95.5x123.5 cm. The London painting is presumed to have been painted by two masters collaborating, and names that have been put forward include Hans Jordaens 73 THE ARTWORKS 20. Hans Jordaens the Younger–Cornelis de Baellieur: Interior of a Collector’s Cabinet, c. 1630 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna The gallery paintings show the works in the collection that were deemed to be the most valuable, the vast majority of which (though not all of them) are Italian paintings;¹79 they are presented in different versions, varying not only which paintings are included, but also the figures visible in the foreground of the gallery. Almost all of them feature the proud owner, Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, and the painter, David Teniers the Younger, but they are joined by a number of different people, as yet only partly identified, who change depending on who the painting was made for. The different versions were produced for representational purposes, and sent as gifts to royal and princely courts throughout Europe, as well as to other art collectors, with the people depicted “updated” accordingly.¹80 One recipient was Leopold Wilhelm’s elder brother, Emperor Ferdinand III, whose copy is today in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, although it was kept in Prague and Hieronymus Francken, although authorship is disputed, and in the museum’s register it is listed as a work by an unknown artist. For a summary of its attribution see: Marr 2010, pp. 17–20. 179 In one such painting in Munich (Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Staatsgalerie im Neuen Schloss Schleißheim, inv. 1839), for example, there is a predominance of Flemish works. Lowitzsch 2004, I, p. 125. 180 Occasionally this also implied updating the language, as was the case with the work sent to Madrid, on which even Teniers’s signature was in Spanish. Garas 1967, p. 42; Thomas 2004, p. 58; Schreiber 2006, p. 350. 74 III. IMAGINES 21. Flemish School: Cognoscenti in a Room hung with Pictures, c. 1620 The National Gallery, London in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (fig. 22).¹8¹ The gallery painting of King Philip IV of Spain (1605–65) is first documented in the royal collection in Madrid in 1653 (Prado National Museum, Madrid), making him one of the first to receive a copy.¹8² Leopold Wilhelm’s younger sister, Archduchess Maria Anna, and her husband, the Duke of Bavaria, were probably among the other recipients. Four copies of the gallery paintings are held in Schleißheim, though none of them are documented before the eighteenth century, so it can only be assumed that they were gifts (if not all, then some) to the ducal couple.¹8³ Antoon (Anthonius) Triest (1577–1657), Bishop of Ghent, who was close 181 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 739, oil on canvas, 124×165 cm (143.5×184.5 cm). It already featured on the 1685 inventory of Prague Castle: Teniers. NB. Orig. Ihr durchl. Ertzherzog Leopolds Conterfect sambt dess(en) Galleriae und anderen Contrafect. Praager Schloß 1685. no. 370. For eighteenth-century mentions of the gallery painting, see: Köpl 1889. reg. 6232, no. 320 (1718); reg. 6234, no. 388 (1737). 182 Díaz Padrón–Royo-Villanova 1990, pp. 54–77; Scarpa Sonino 1992, pp. 88–90; Theatre of Painting 2006, pp. 74–7. 183 Díaz Padron–Royo-Villanova 1990, pp. 78–87; Scarpa Sonino 1992, pp. 95–7, 100–1, 104–5. According to Karl Schütz, one of them does not actually show the collection of the archduke, but only certain paintings from it. Schütz 1992, p. 166. 75 THE ARTWORKS 22. David Teniers the Younger: Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in his Gallery in Brussels, c. 1651 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna to Archduke Leopold Wilhelm and shared a passion for collecting art, was another of the early recipients, and his version is dated 1651 (Egremont collection, Petworth House, West Sussex).¹84 Among the people depicted in the painting sent to King Philip IV is Alonso Pérez de Vivero, Count of Fuensaldaña (1603–61), General of the Spanish Netherlands (and also a keen art collector), while on the one sent to Ferdinand III are Canon Jan Anton van der Baren (1615–87), inspector of the archducal collection, and Count Johann Adolf von Schwarzenberg (1615–83), Leopold Wilhelm’s Lord Chamberlain and close confidant.¹85 Antoon Triest’s version shows more or less the same selection of paintings as in the emperor’s variant, and the figures are also the same, with the addition of the bishop. It cannot be ruled out that certain exemplars were made after the departure of Leopold Wilhelm in 1656, and not even commissioned by him: a few of the gallery paintings depict 184 Theatre of Painting 2006, pp. 70–3. 185 Díaz Padrón–Royo-Villanova 1990, pp. 37–9; Schütz 1992, pp. 166–8; Welzel 1997, p. 182; Schütz 1998, pp. 187–8. For Count of Fuensaldaña see: Vergara 1989, pp. 127–32. On the gallery painting in Madrid, Renate Schreiber identifies the person near Fuensaldaña as Schwarzenberg (Schreiber 2004. 101), but, in my opinion, the figure represents more likely the painter, Teniers. 76 III. IMAGINES neither the archduke nor any of his entourage, although some unknown figures can be seen; one of the versions in Munich shows a painter (not Teniers) and his model, an elderly peasant.¹86 At times, Teniers used the so-called pasticcios (sketches in oil),¹87 he had made of the items in the collection for compositions other than those of the archducal gallery: a work titled The Artist in his Studio features a couple of paintings from Leopold Wilhelm’s collection (such as Anthonis van Dyck’s Samson and Delilah), but without the noble context.¹88 “Ein Cabinet, worin von diuersen famosen maistern bildern” One version (perhaps a copy?) of the gallery paintings even found its way into the collection we are investigating here, or at least so it would seem (no. 7). The description reads: Ein stuck auf leinwand von dem Tenirs ein Cabinet, worin von diuersen famosen maistern bildern darzu ersehen, warbey sein aigenes Contrefee – 100. Klára Garas, in her study of the Esterházy collection, associated this item affirmatively with the gallery painting of Leopold Wilhelm, and suggested that the work might be the one in the Harrach collection.¹89 The Harrach copy The piece in question is a version, in fact a copy of a version, of David Teniers the Younger’s painting of The Gallery of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm.¹90 (fig. 23) The literature records the work as being an acquisition of Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach (1637–1706).¹9¹ The count, Lord Chief Steward to Emperor Leopold I, served two separate periods as an ambassador in Madrid (1673–6, 1697–8), which – combined with his refined taste – had a fundamental influence on his pursuits as a collector.¹9² He is regarded as the true founder of the Harrach Gallery, although there is no known inventory of its content in those days. The paintings were listed during the life time of his son, Alois Thomas Raimund von Harrach (1669–1742), also a significant collector of art (and no less significant a diplomat), after his will of 1738 included the gallery in the Freyung palace as part of the fideicommissum. The first known inventory of the collection was made in 1749, and it contains the acquisitions made by both men; the available sources do not 186 In another painting in Munich (inv. 1840), some of the pictures depicted have been found by Karl Schütz to 187 188 189 190 191 192 be laterally reversed, which implies the use of the Theatrum Pictorium published in 1660; Schütz also opines that one of the paintings (Esther before Ahasuerus, also shown here) was copied from the Vienna gallery painting. Schütz 1992, p. 169. The somewhat misleading definition (pasticcio) is explained and clarified in: Bähr 2009, p. 35. Lowitzsch 2004, I, p. 117. Garas 1999, p. 162, note 4. Graf Harrach’sche Familiensammlung, Rohrau, inv. WF 131, oil on canvas, 67.5×86.5 cm. Ritschl 1926, p. 20; Heinz 1960, p. 75. For more about the collecting practices of Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach, with previous bibliography, see: Lindorfer 2014. 77 THE ARTWORKS 23. After David Teniers the Younger: Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in his Gallery in Brussels, second half of the 17th century Family collection of Count Harrach, Rohrau always enable us to determine who bought which particular work.¹9³ Information about the works acquired by Ferdinand Bonaventura, either received as gifts or purchased at estate auctions in Madrid (almoneda), can be gleaned partly from the diaries he kept as ambassador, and partly from invoices and correspondence, as well as a few fragmentary inventories held in the Harrach archives. His collection is dominated by Spanish and 193 The paintings assigned to the fideicommissary were listed in 1749; see: Harrach 1749. The list was signed by Ernst Guido von Harrach on 22 September 1749, confirming receipt in full of all 296 paintings on the list. (The inventory is earlier and more detailed than the one compiled in August 1753, which, in Lindorfer 2014, p. 102, was regarded as the earliest, and which only listed the paintings in the palace on the Freyung; see: Harrach 1753.) The 1749 list already included the paintings intended for the fideicommissary by the wife of Alois Thomas Raimund, Ernestine von Dietrichstein (1683–1744), and also, besides the paintings in the palace in Vienna, the works located in the chateau in Bruck an der Leitha and the garden house on Ungarngasse, Vienna. The list remained valid until 1783, as verified by the note at the end of the document, dated 18 April 1783, by Johann Carl Auerbach. The garden house was sold in 1839, and the paintings previously kept there was transferred to the building on the Freyung at that time. 78 III. IMAGINES 24. David Teniers the Younger: Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in his Gallery in Brussels, 1653 Private collection, formerly in the Rothschild collection, Vienna Italian paintings, which to this day lend the Harrach collection its unique image, but his collection was also enriched through his mother’s side of the family (Lavinia Tecla Gonzaga). His name appears regularly among the customers of Forchoudt of Vienna, and surviving invoices and delivery notes show that he also bought directly from dealers in Antwerp.¹94 The copy of David Teniers the Younger’s gallery painting first appears in an undated, untitled list of paintings that can be dated with a high degree of probability to the last quarter of the seventeenth century: Die Erzherzogliche Kunst Camer in klein von Teniers. Copey.¹95 Following this, the name of the painter of the original work and the identity of the Kunstkammer depicted were forgotten for some time, although the work is constantly present in the collection of the Harrach Palace in Vienna. In the eighteenth century, among 194 Denucé 1931, passim; Wien, ÖStA, AVA, FA Harrach, Fam. in. spec. 774, 775. 195 Wien, ÖStA, AVA, FA Harrach, WA Böhmen, Kt. 3804. For the dating of the list of paintings, see page 102. 79 THE ARTWORKS the works held in fee tail at the Harrach Palace, the painting was listed firstly as a work by Frans Francken (Cabinet mit Bildern von Franckh), and later as a copy by Jan Thomas after David Teniers the Younger (Eine Bildergallerie, Jan Thomas nach David Teniers).¹96 Though there is no reason to doubt that the painting listed in the Esterházy inventory did indeed show the famous gallery of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (as a working hypothesis, I also regard this as likely), it is nevertheless worth noting that the description fails to include information whose absence seems unjustified. The inventory does not state, for example, whose “Cabinet” can be seen in the painting. The gallery of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm was well known among the Viennese aristocracy, as seen in the case of the copy in the Harrach collection: in the seventeenth century people knew exactly whose paintings were visible in the picture. It is also noteworthy – although, once again, not something that would discount the identification – that when the “Cabinet” was described, only the painter’s presence was mentioned (warbey sein aigenes Contrefee), whereas the majority of the paintings that Teniers made of the gallery of Leopold Wilhelm – including the Harrach copy – also feature other figures, among whom at least the archduke is always recognisable. Setting these doubts aside, even if the item in question is accepted as being a painting of the gallery of Leopold Wilhelm, the specimen in the Harrach collection is not the only possible candidate. After all, the inventory in the Esterházy archives does not state whether the painting is original or a copy, although the price of 100 thalers seems to imply that the work was of very fine quality. The painting owned by the Harrach family was unsigned, knowingly purchased as a copy, and usually listed as being a copy; it is therefore far from certain that such a work would have been valued at the price contained in the inventory.¹97 196 The attribution, description and inventory number of the painting in the collection changed several times, but the changes are recorded in the inventories, often by including earlier inventory numbers, and with their help it is possible to trace the fate of the painting all the way through. Harrach 1749, no. 272. Ein Cabinet mit bilder, von Franckh in einem Stückh; with the same serial number and attribution: Harrach 1783, no. 272. Ein Bilder Cabinet von Franx; with a new serial number, but also indicating the old one, now attributed to Jan Thomas: Harrach 1829, no. 115 (old no. 272) Leinwand. Eine Bildergallerie darstellend. Jan Thomas nach David Teniers. 2’ 1”×2’ 8”; once again with a new number, but still mentioning the previous one: Harrach 1889, no. 131 (old no. 115) Das innere einer Bildergallerie, Teniers der Jüngere führt Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelm von Österreich, General Statthalter der Niederlande in derselben umher, wie sie im Jahre 1656 zu Brüssel bestand. Ein junger Mann hält ein Blumen Stück von Hofnaegel ihm vor, ein anderer steht bei einem Tisch mit Zeichnungen. Leinwand, 2‘ 8“ hoch, 3‘ 3“ breit. Nach Teniers von Johann Thomas. The printed catalogues of the collection use the latter inventory number (no. 131). Spaček 1889, p. 27 (WF 131); cf. Ritschl 1926, p. 20; Heinz 1960, p. 75. 197 The nineteenth-century manuscript inventories and Spaček 1889, 27 considered it to be a copy by Jan Thomas. The painting is described as a “pretty artless copy” (ziemlich trockene Kopie): Frimmel 1896, p. 26. It is considered to be a workshop product by: Ritschl 1926, p. 20 and Heinz 1960, p. 75. 80 III. IMAGINES The Rothschild copy The model of the Harrach gallery painting was a variant dated 1653 and signed by Teniers, which for many centuries circulated in the immediate vicinity of Vienna. In my view, this work could just as easily be the object listed in the inventory (fig. 24).¹98 The last known owner of the work was the Rothschild family, after which it spent several decades in the possession of the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.¹99 In 1999 it was restituted to the Rothschild heirs, who sold it soon afterwards at auction in Christie’s of London, since which time it has been held in a private collection.²00 The provenance of the painting can be traced with certainty as far back as 1818.²0¹ The painting was bought by Anselm von Rothschild (1803–74) from Sámuel Festetits (1806– 62), who sold his collection at auction in Vienna in 1859, although this particular transaction probably took place before the auction was held. ²0² According to his catalogue, the work was acquired by Festetits at the auction of the collection of Mihály Viczay the Younger (1757–1831), held in Bratislava (Pozsony; Pressburg) in 1833. (The work appears in the printed catalogue, but despite the clearly visible signature, it was, for reasons unknown, attributed to Frans Francken the Younger.) ²0³ Viczay had earlier acquired the painting at the auction of the estate of Antal Apponyi (1751–1817) in Vienna in 1818.²04 The first known owner of the painting, if my assumptions are correct, was a Bohemian aristocrat, Felix Sekerka ze Sedčic (1654–1720), Count of Vršovec. The Count of Vršovec can be regarded as one of the first Bohemian aristocrats to become an art collector in the modern sense of the term, having assembled a sophisticated gallery around the turn of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that far exceeded Private collection, oil on canvas, 70.9×87.6 cm, signed bottom right: “David Teniers fec. 1653.” Featured in the museum exhibition from 1948, inv. 9008. Rothschild 1999, lot 224; Kunth 2006, p. 218. Based on the data in Apponyi 1818 the provenance of the painting was traced back by Theodor von Frimmel from Baron Anselm von Rothschild to Antal Apponyi (albeit omitting Mihály Viczay): Frimmel 1896, p. 35. The same data were included in the summary catalogue at the Kunsthistorisches Museum: Gemäldegalerie KHM 1991, pp. 119–20. Viczay’s ownership is now included among the data, but chronologically is erroneously placed before the Apponyi auction: Rothschild 1999, lot 224; Kunth 2006, p. 218. The correct chain of provenance was reconstructed by Edit Szentesi, and I would like to thank her for providing me with information about the Hungarian owners of the painting, presented below. 202 Festetits 1859, p. 15, no. 88. Teniers (D. der Jüngere). Auf Leinwand, 27 Zoll hoch, 33 Zoll breit. Eine Gemäldegallerie vorstellend. Aus der Sammlung des Grafen Vitzay. For unknown reasons, the catalogue was published in two versions, one of which contained seven fewer lots (including the gallery painting by Teniers), which presumably were eventually not offered for sale at the auction. Rothschild 1999, lot 224 states the purchase price was 550 florins. 203 Viczay 1833, p. 7, no. 93. “Frank – Kunstkabinet”. 204 Apponyi 1818, p. 9, no. II/9. D. Teniers: Ein Gemählde-Cabinet / Hoch 2 Schuh 2 Zoll, breit 2 Schuh 8½ Zoll auf Leinwand. A pencil-written note in the copy held in the library of the Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna, gives the starting price and selling price of the work at auction (800 and 1100 florins respectively), as well as two pieces of information about its later owners: 1858 by Gf. Festetits / 1859 by Br. Rothschild. Rothschild 1999, lot 224 states the selling price was 1200 florins. 198 199 200 201 81 THE ARTWORKS his financial means and social position.²05 Despite his name stretching back into ancestral times in the Bohemian nobility, he was somewhat a homo novus among aristocratic circles; the family had only been elevated to the rank of count in 1666, in recognition of the exceptional military service performed in the fights against the Ottomans by a collateral ascendant named Jaroslav Sekerka. At the same time, the right was granted for the counts to style themselves Graf von Wrschowetz. (The noble title was something that Jaroslav Sekerka was obsessive about: in 1661 he had a volume published detailing his lineage from the ancestral Vršovec family, which rested mostly on documents that he had fabricated himself.)²06 Felix Vršovec, however, neither held court office nor excelled in battle, and it is also difficult to ascertain where his wealth came from. He was mostly interested in poetry, botany and paintings. He must have had good connections to the court aristocracy: his son, Karl Felix, was baptised on behalf of the emperor by Anton Johann von Nostitz, who was also a noted art collector. In 1690 he had a palace erected in Prague, where he installed his gallery, although he had certainly already begun to accumulate his collection of paintings.²07 Vršovec’s collection is known from two sources. Around 1700, he offered his gallery (or at least part of it) for sale to Lothar Franz von Schönborn (1655–1729), Archbishop of Mainz. The list of paintings drawn up at this time (Lista der Mahlerey in der Gallery) was identified in the Pommersfelden archives by Theodor von Frimmel, who subsequently published the inventory. ²08 The list comprised 94 works, complete with dimensions, media and price estimates, the latter of which were added to the inventory in a different ink. In 1723, a few years after the death of Vršovec, his gallery was sold by his widow at auction, for which a new list, now printed, was compiled, including a total of 380 paintings.²09 The dimensions and, in most cases, the media are also included, allowing comparison with the earlier inventory. (As there is a lot of overlap between the two lists, and none of the paintings in the art collection at Pommersfelden can be identified from the first list, it is likely that Schönborn declined the chance to purchase any of the works offered to him.) The gallery painting by Teniers appears in both these inventories: in the auction catalogue of 1723 it is tersely described as Cabinetstücklein vom Teniers, while it is included in the list sent to Schönborn as Ein [Stück] Auf Lainwandt Von Tenniers Cabinet des Ertz Herzogs Leopoldy.²¹0 Vršovec clearly regarded this piece as extremely valuable, for to it he attached the unrealistically high price of 1000 thalers. The dimensions are identical in both the Vršovec inventories: 2’ 5”×2½’ 5” – converted using Prague measurements, this Hojda 1991, pp. 257–67; Seifertová 1997a, p. 17; Seifertová 2007b. Wrschowetz-Sekerken 1661. Seifertová 2007b, p. 98. Frimmel 1892b, pp. 24–5. There was no name on the inventory, but Frimmel identified the owner from the paintings on the list, which ended up in Dresden. Hanns Fischer saw the inventory when he was writing his dissertation (1927), but since then it is lost: Bott 1997, p. 259. 209 Wrschowetz 1723. There is a typewritten copy in the archive of Prague National Gallery: Machytka 1985–6. The source was processed by: Ketelsen–Stockhausen 2002, and is also accessible on the Getty Provenance Index database: http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/provenance. (Sale Catalog D-A9) 210 Wrschowetz 1723, A68; Frimmel 1892b, p. 24, no. 45. 205 206 207 208 82 III. IMAGINES comes to around 71.2×86 cm, which tallies with dimensions of the piece in the former Rothschild collection.²¹¹ (Given in most catalogues as 70×86 cm, at the Christie’s auction in 1999 it was stated as 70.9×87.6 cm.) The main buyer at the auction of the Vršovec estate in 1723 was Raymond Leplat (c. 1664–1742), purchasing on behalf of the Dresden gallery.²¹² Clearly not everything was sold, for much later, in 1732, Vršovec’s widow sold some paintings from her home to Franz Joseph von Waldstein (1719–58),²¹³ who added to this purchase in 1736 by acquiring a further unit from the collection consisting of forty works.²¹4 One year after his second purchase, in 1737, the printed catalogue of Waldstein’s castle in Duchcov (Dux) suddenly included a gallery painting depicting the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, which was completely absent from his previous inventories: Ein Cabinet-Stuck von vielen Bildern, worauf des Ertz-Hertzogs Leopold Wilhelms Portrait, wie auch seines Obristen Hofmeisters von Schwartzenberg, und des damahligen Kammer-Mahlers, von Denniers.²¹5 Such a gallery painting is also missing from later inventories of Waldstein’s castle in Duchcov, implying that it left the Waldstein gallery soon after 1737. The most likely time for this was March 1741, when a total of 268 paintings from the Waldstein collection were sold for 22,000 florins to King Augustus III of Poland (Frederick Augustus II, Elector of Saxony) (1696–1763). The list of the paintings sold on this occasion contains only brief titles and the estimated values. Two items attributed to Teniers may be candidates for the composition in question: Ein Cabinet von Tenniers – 80 fl and Ein Cabinet Stuck von Tenniers – 100 fl.²¹6 Lubor Machytka has identified the latter as item 151 from the afore-mentioned Waldstein catalogue of 1737, specifying it as a painting now in Dresden which was once held to be by Teniers, but is now attributed to Ferdinand Apshoven the Younger.²¹7 It seems that this painting did indeed come from the Waldstein collection, but it does not show the collection of Leopold Wilhelm, nor does it include portraits of the archduke or his lord chamberlain, Johann Adolf von Schwarzenberg. 211 Frimmel 1892b, p. 25 identified the painting in the Vršovec list as a gallery painting by Teniers that was auc- 212 213 214 215 216 217 tioned from the gallery in Pommersfelden in 1867, but according to the auction catalogue, it was painted on copper and smaller than the one owned by Vršovec (40×50 cm). Schönborn 1867, p. 89, no. 225. Frimmel’s identification is also refuted by the fact that the painting featured in the Vršovec estate auction of 1723, which implies that Schönborn did not buy the painting around 1700. Toman 1887; Woermann 1887. Waldstein also bought Vršovec’s house in Prague and paid 5000 florins for the paintings. Prague, 10 August 1732. Machytka 1986, pp. 67–8. Prague, 14 July 1736. He bought forty paintings for 5000 florins, paying in instalments over ten years. Machytka 1986, p. 68. Lubor Machytka’s copies of the receipts in the archive of the National Gallery in Prague: Machytka 1985–6. Waldstein 1737, no. 151. Transcription: Machytka 1985–6. Waldstein 1741, published in: Machytka 1986, pp. 69–71. The term Cabinet Stück on this inventory clearly indicated a gallery painting (and not a small “cabinet painting”), as confirmed by the fact that a gallery painting by Johann Heinrich Schönfeld also sold to Dresden was described in the register as a Cabinet Stück (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. 1991). Incidentally, the painting is not small at all: 124×92.5 cm. Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. 1101, oil on canvas, 50.5×81.5 cm. 83 THE ARTWORKS 25. Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, David Teniers the Younger (on the right), Johann Adolf von Schwarzenberg and Jan Anton van der Baren (on the left), and other unknown men (Detail of fig. 22) Instead we can see a painter in his studio, seated before his easel. It is a copy of a composition Teniers produced in 1635, which Apshoven, who worked as Teniers’s assistant until 1657, may have copied in his master’s studio.²¹8 As the other figures are missing, and the dimensions are also substantially different, it is hard to imagine that this work could have been associated with a painting of Leopold Wilhelm’s gallery, so despite the almost certain Waldstein provenance, I would not identify it with item 151 from the catalogue of 1737. As the list of paintings sold by Waldstein in 1741 included two “Cabinet” paintings attributed to Teniers, the Apshoven work was probably the second one. When it comes to the painting of the gallery of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, however, there seems to be no further trace in Dresden. (The same is true of several other works bought from Waldstein, but we shall return to this subject later.) 218 The original work is in a private collection, and its first known mention is from an auction held at Christie’s, London in 1829. For details of the painting, see: Scarpa Sonino 1992, pp. 83–4. 84 III. IMAGINES 26. Frans van der Steen: Portrait of Johann Adolf von Schwarzenberg, 1670. Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato: Historia di Leopoldo Cesare […], vol. I. Vienna, Giovanni Battista Hacque, 1670 27. Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, David Teniers the Younger and an unknown man (Detail of fig. 24) The Waldstein inventory states that the archduke and the artist were accompanied in the painting by Johann Adolf von Schwarzenberg, which poses another interesting question. Schwarzenberg (still a count when the gallery paintings were made, and elevated to the rank of prince in 1670) was not only Lord Chamberlain to Leopold Wilhelm, but also a lifelong loyal servant and close friend, to whom the archduke was so attached that he made him the benefactor of his first will.²¹9 His inclusion in the gallery paintings would be justified for several reasons, and there are some paintings in which he does indeed appear: he is usually identified as the male figure on the left edge of the version in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (fig. 25), holding a key in his hand, a symbol of his position.²²0 219 Berger 1887, p. 54; Mareš 1887, pp. 349–51. 220 He is identified as Schwarzenberg by: Díaz Padrón–Royo-Villanova 1990, pp. 37, 39; Schütz 1992, p. 167; Welzel 1997, p. 182; Schütz 1998, pp. 187–8. 85 THE ARTWORKS 28. After (?) David Teniers the Younger: Archduke Leopold Wilhelm in his Gallery in Brussels Formerly in the Kolowrat Chateau, Rychnov nad Kněžnou Archive photo from 1937 The known engraved portrait of Schwarzenberg (fig. 26) does not contradict this identification, but the copperplate engraving of him was made some two decades than Teniers’s gallery painting, so the figure is obviously much older in appearance. The man accompanying Teniers and the archduke in the Rothschild variant and its “derivatives” is not him (fig. 27). His identity is a mystery for now, but he must have been a member of the archduke’s closest circles: his facial features appear recognisably in other paintings of Leopold Wilhelm’s entourage, such as one of the paintings showing the archduke hunting, which is now in the Louvre Museum in Paris.²²¹ The best explanation I have found so far for the information in the Waldstein inventory is that the compiler of the list simply took it for granted that the third person in the painting, beside the archduke and the painter, was the lord chamberlain. 221 Schreiber 2004, p. 36. 86 III. IMAGINES The Kolowrat copy The situation is complicated by the fact that in addition to the Harrach and the Rothschild/Vršovec/Waldstein candidates for the “position” of the Teniers work we seek, there is another aspirant, less well known than those mentioned so far, but also emanating from a substantial gallery, namely the one created by the Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky family. Until the twentieth century the painting was kept in the chateau in Rychnov nad Kněžnou (Reichenau an der Knieschna), but its whereabouts since the Second World War are unknown. Its composition is known only from a black-and-white photograph of 1937, which was published a few years ago by Josef Záruba-Pfeffermann (fig. 28).²²² While the surviving archive photograph does not permit the authorship of the painting to be confirmed, it is sufficient to determine the picture’s place among the known gallery paintings. Due to some unhappy co- 29. After Adriaen Isenbrandt: Mary Magdalene Reading, first half of the 16th century incidences, this work was excluded from sciThe Princes Czartoryski Museum, entific research into Teniers’s gallery paintNational Museum in Kraków ings. Theodor von Frimmel never visited the gallery in Rychnov Chateau, so he did not mention this piece in his list of works of the gallery of Leopold Wilhelm.²²³ By the time the major summaries of Teniers’s gallery paintings were written, the Kolowrat version was not included because it was no longer around.²²4 The more recent literature tends to refer to the work²²5 as a copy of the Rothschild (Vršovec) composition, although the photographic evidence would seem to suggest that, unlike the Harrach copy, this is more of a “variation” of the Rothschild. If we compare the archive photograph of the Teniers work with the original painting, there is one particularly significant difference: although the room, the arrangement of the 222 Záruba-Pfeffermann 2009, p. 16. I would like to thank the author for making the photograph available to me for the purposes of this publication. For more about the Kolowrat collection, see also: Novotný 1942–3; Blažíček 1957, 3–6; Jansová 2014. I have not yet had the opportunity to study the unpublished but oft quoted summary in the archive of the National Gallery in Prague (Weiss 1953–5). For the gallery painting of Teniers, see Weiss 1953–5, no. 401. 223 Frimmel 1896, pp. 13–42. 224 It is not mentioned in the paper on the gallery published in 1943 (Novotný 1942–3). 225 Seifertová 1997b, p. 45; Polleross 2014a, p. 8. 87 THE ARTWORKS pictures, and the positions and movements of the figures are identical, almost two thirds of the paintings reproduced in the gallery are different. This is not a problem in itself, for Teniers also varied which works he included in his gallery paintings; however, none of the “new” paintings visible in the photograph can be found in any other variant of the gallery paintings, and I have not yet found any evidence to suggest that they were ever owned by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm. I have so far succeeded in identifying two of the paintings visible in the archive photographs: one is a Mary Magdalene Reading attributed to the circle of Adriaen Isenbrant, now in the Princes Czartoryski Museum–National Museum in Kraków (fig. 29),²²6 the other is a painting of three male figures by Hans Baldung Grien, now in Poznań (fig. 107).²²7 The former joined the museum from the Czartoryski collection, the latter was previously owned by Athanasius Raczyński. The only thing they have in common – at least for now – is that both works first appear in Polish aristocratic collections in the nineteenth century. There is no evidence that these works were ever in the possession of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm. Knowing the later destiny of the Hans Baldung painting, I would question whether the Teniers gallery painting in the archive photograph was actually made in the seventeenth century. The three male figures are the “remnants” of a larger composition which originally showed The Suicide of Lucretia, and the central character is missing. According to the sources, the painting was truncated in the nineteenth century, at some point between 1816 and 1839, shortly before it was purchased by Athanasius Raczyński. (For a detailed history of the painting, see pages 240–6). The painting in the archive photograph shows the work in exactly the same diminished state as it is now, which means that the gallery painting must have been executed after the truncation took place. I have not yet come across any information concerning when the painting in the archive photograph was first documented in the Kolowrat collection. The painting has hitherto been presumed to have been in the possession of the Kolowrat family by the first half of the eighteenth century, because the painter Anton Franz Hampisch (active 1723–68), the director of the Kolowrat gallery in Rychnov, produced his own paraphrase of the work. Borrowing the composition, the positioning of the figures and even the attire from Teniers, Hampisch created a “portrait” of the Kolowrat gallery, replacing the works owned by the archduke with pieces from the Kolowrat collection.²²8 Having examined the selection of works featured in the “portrait”, Záruba-Pfeffermann concluded that the Hampisch gallery painting was made after 1720, but still in Prague, that is, before the collection was transported to Rychnov around 1745. ²²9 Hampisch was one of the painters involved in compiling the inventory and price estimates of the Kolowrat collection in Prague in 1727, when he would have had 226 Muzeum Książąt Czartoryskich–Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie, Kraków, inv. MNK XII-A-615. oil on wood, 45×33.2 cm. A very similar work, attributed to Ambrosius Benson, is known from the Czernin collection: Juffinger–Waldersdorff 2015, p. 32. Based on the darker colour of the dress, however, I believe that the Kolowrat gallery painting shows the work now in Kraków. 227 For details, see: footnote 824. 228 Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. O 1724, oil on canvas, 80×101 cm. Slavíček 1996a, pp. 86–7; Seifertová 1997b, p. 44; Slavíček 2007, p. 271, note 50; Záruba-Pfeffermann 2009, p. 23. 229 Záruba-Pfeffermann 2009, p. 23. 88 III. IMAGINES access to all the compositions in the collection, so the date of the painting can be narrowed down to between 1727 and 1745.²³0 However, if this lost painting of the gallery of Leopold Wilhelm was a nineteenth-century “forgery”, Hampisch could not have used it as a model for painting the Kolowrat gallery in the first half of the eighteenth century, while at the same time the work is conspicuously similar to the Teniers composition. When Hampisch worked in Prague in the 1720s and 1730s, he may have known the “original” that was, presumably, owned by the widow of Felix Vršovec right up until 1736, and it is not inconceivable that he borrowed the composition from here. The Kolowrat family had, incidentally, previously possessed a gallery painting attributed to Teniers, which featured on an inventory of the Kolowrat Palace in Prague that was taken in about 1719–20, when it was sold, together with many other paintings, by the Kolowrat brothers, Franz Karl II (1684–1753) and Norbert Vinzenz (1696–1727) von Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, to Franz Joseph Czernin (1697–1733).²³¹ The work is mentioned in two inventories that were made around this time.²³² In one it is described as no. 36. Eine Kunstkammer von Teniers, while in the other it is together with a painting attributed to Giorgione under the listing no. 5. Die Kunstkammer von Teniers und Georgion, with the two works jointly valued at 1500 florins.²³³ It cannot be proven beyond all doubt, however, that the painting showed the gallery of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm: other compositions by Teniers have been known to be described as eine Kunstkammer von Teniers. Moreover, it was only later, after 1727, that Hampisch worked for the Kolowrat family, so it is unlikely that he would have used the painting sold to Czernin as the model. The variant in the Czernin gallery can be traced in the inventories for a while longer, before it disappears without a trace after the end of the eighteenth century.²³4 I am not aware of its present whereabouts. *** 230 Artis pictoriae amatores 1992, pp. 128–9, cat. III/3-4 (Lubomír Slavíček); Slavíček 1996a, p. 87; Seifertová 1997b, p. 44; Záruba-Pfeffermann 2009, p. 17. 231 In many places only the younger brother appears as the seller, but a letter survives in relation to the lists, written by Norbert Vinzenz to Count Czernin on 7 July 1720, which clearly states that he is acting on behalf of both of them. According to the document, Czernin paid 15,000 florins for 109 paintings, of which he paid 5000 florins up front, followed by monthly instalments of 1000 florins each. SOA Třeboň, odd. Jindřichův Hradec, RA Černín, Kt. 761, fols. 210r–1v. Different amounts are published by: Záruba-Pfeffermann 2009, p. 23. For more about the purchase, see also: Frimmel 1896, p. 41; Novák 1915, p. 216. 232 Kolowrat 1720a; Kolowrat 1720b. The second list contained an additional fourteen paintings. A summary of the contents of the lists is given in: Novák 1915, p. 216, no. 13a and 13b. 233 Kolowrat 1720a, fol. 236r, no. 36 and Kolowrat 1720b, fol. 239r, no. 5. They probably constituted a pair of pendants: elsewhere in the same list, pendants (compagnon) come under the same item. In the first list, the Teniers painting comes immediately after a work (no. 37) attributed to Giorgione: Ein treffliches Marienbildt von Georgion, and the “Georgion” in the second list probably also referred to this work. The source is also cited in Frimmel 1896, p. 41, although it must be borne in mind that the author overlooked the fact that the description and price for item number 5 are for two paintings. 234 It still featured in the inventory compiled in 1733, after the death of Franz Joseph Czernin: Czernin 1733, fol. 269v. Kunst Cammer vom David Teniers, in vergolten rahm – 200 fl. For more about this inventory, see: Novák 1915, pp. 212–3, no. 12. Inv. Fd. 89 THE ARTWORKS In summary, it is impossible to determine with absolute certainty which of the gallery paintings referred to above is identifiable as the Teniers work listed on the Esterházy inventory. All we can aver is that two, perhaps three versions of the gallery painting were present in the “sphere of influence” around Vienna in the first half of the eighteenth century: a signed original dated 1653 (Vršovec-Rothschild, perhaps the same one as in the Waldstein collection), a copy of this (Harrach), and an as-yet-unidentified variant (owned by the Kolowrat family and then the Czernin family). It may be imagined that calculating the probabilities would be aided by examining whether any of the other paintings described in the Esterházy inventory also found their way into any of the afore-mentioned collections (Vršovec, Harrach, Waldstein, Kolowrat). In this case, however, this proves little help, for – as we shall see – there are positive examples for all the collections concerned. Parallels with the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm Based on what we have discussed so far, the archducal collection seems to have played an obvious role as a model for the collection under investigation in this paper, and was even present “in person” through the gallery painting by Teniers; nevertheless, the extent to which the role model influenced the composition of our collection as a whole is open to question. A statistical comparison between the gallery of Leopold Wilhelm and the attributions of our collection reveals a substantial overlap in the artists’ names they both feature. 60% of the names in the Esterházy inventory (55 out of 92) can be found in the lists of paintings in the archducal collection. If we discount artists who are absent from the archducal collection for the obvious reason of not being active before the second half of the 1660s, when Leopold Wilhelm died, the ratio is even greater, at 70% overlap. When looking at this figure, however, it must be borne in mind when the quantity of paintings and the origin of the artists are entered into the equation, the overlap is mostly restricted to Flemish and Dutch works, so the collection under investigation was dominated by Netherlandish masters, and not the Italian painters promoted in Teniers’s gallery paintings and in the Theatrum Pictorium. This is explained not only by the collector’s personal taste but also by the situation in the art market: Italian paintings were regarded as extremely expensive, whereas Netherlandish paintings, thanks to the active agency of Flemish dealers, could be purchased relatively easily and at more favourable prices. It seems even less likely that copies of pieces in Leopold Wilhelm’s gallery were made for the collection in question, even though we know from the written sources and from a number of surviving replicas that members of the court aristocracy would occasionally commission their own copies of paintings in the Stallburg. In our list, however, judging from the artists’ names and the titles of the works, there are relatively few paintings that can be positively identified with items in the archducal collection; moreover, for a variety of reasons, it seems unlikely that any of the works we seek could have taken its model from one of the paintings in Leopold Wilhelm’s possession. 90 III. IMAGINES 30. Jan Thomas: Bacchanal, 1656 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna “Bacchinalia mit etlichen Satÿren” An example of the works in question is a canvas by Jan Thomas titled Bacchanal with Satyrs, valued at 30 thalers: No. 60. Ein stuck auf leinwandt Bacchinalia mit etlichen Satÿren von Jean Thomas von Ipper – 30. A composition on the same theme that was painted by the artist in 1656 (fig. 30)²³5 can be found in the 1659 inventory of the archducal collection.²³6 In 1748 the painting was installed in the secular Schatzkammer, in 1765 it was taken to Bratislava Castle, and in 1781 it was returned to Vienna.²³7 However, the similarity is almost certainly limited to the subject matter: Jan Thomas worked in Vienna in the 1660s and 1670s, and anybody desiring one of his paintings could have bought one directly from the artist, rendering it unnecessary to have a copy made of the work in the archducal collection. In any event, the Bacchanal was one of Jan Thomas’s favourite themes, of which he produced several variations: examples can be found in the gallery of the Archbishop of Olomouc in Kroměříž (Kremsier) and in the collection of Egk und Hungersbach, while 235 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 1727, oil on canvas, 78×118 cm. 236 It is mentioned in the archducal collection: Ein Tryumph vnndt Aufzug desz Bacchi […] von Johann Thomas Original. Berger 1883, p. CLI, no. 765. 237 Engerth 1884, II, pp. 492–3, no. 1313; Mechel 1783, p. 210, no. 27; Gemäldegalerie KHM 1991, p. 120. 91 THE ARTWORKS 31. Jacob Jordaens: The Feast of the Three Kings (Le Roi Boit), c. 1640–5 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna in the nineteenth century mentions were made of others owned by Friedrich August Kleinschmidt and Vinzenz von Auersperg.²³8 In the eighteenth century, a further example in the imperial collection was attributed to Jan Thomas: in June 1748 it was transferred, 238 There were two versions in Kroměříž: Gemäldegalerie Kroměříž 1999, pp. 330–4, cats. 335–6 (Lubomír Slavíček). In 1679, a pair of paintings attributed to Jan Thomas was inventoried in the possession of Johann Carl von Egk und Hungersbach: Fleischer 1910, p. 219, nos. 27–8 and p. 221, nos. 65–6. (The latter depicted child satyrs, so they are of less interest to us here.) Kleinschmidt 1838, p. 5, no. 91 does not provide us with any further details about the painting. The copy owned by the Fürstenberg family, originating from Vinzenz von Auersperg, is mentioned in: Frimmel 1890–1, p. 291. The pendant to the painting of 1677 depicted the Marriage of Neptune, and according to Lubomír Slavíček, between 1832 and 1843 both works were deposited with the Society of Patriotic Friends of the Arts in Prague (nos. 1806–7), cf. Gemäldegalerie Kroměříž 1999, p. 332. I could not find them in the printed catalogue of the exhibited works of the Society (Privatgesellschaft 1835). Further paintings of the Bacchanalia attributed to Jan Thomas turned up at twentieth-century auctions (Vienna, London), see: Gemäldegalerie Kroměříž 1999, pp. 332–3, cf. https://rkd.nl/explore/images/61541; https://rkd.nl/explore/excerpts/538243. (Last retrieved on 30 April 2018.) 92 III. IMAGINES 32. Paulus Pontius after Jacob Jordaens: The Feast of the Three Kings, mid 17th century Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam together with the first mentioned Bacchanal, from the Stallburg gallery to the Schatzkammer, and in 1783 Mechel recorded both in his gallery inventory.²³9 Reading Mechel’s description today, however, it seems clear that the painting was not by Jan Thomas, but a work on the same theme by Frans Wouters, which also originated from the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm. This indicates that the paintings of The Triumph of Bacchus that are attributed to Jan Thomas in the written sources might not all stem from his hand. As the description of the work in the Esterházy inventory provides no further details, it is impossible to positively identify this canvas with any of the surviving versions of Bacchanalia by Jan Thomas, or indeed with any that are only known from the sources. 239 Zimmermann 1889, reg. 6245, p. CCXLVIII. 1 pachanalia (van Damas), and 1 pachanalstuckh mit villen figuren (van Damas); Mechel 1783, p. 208, no. 20. and p. 210, no. 27. 93 THE ARTWORKS “Von Jacobe de Gordanno le Roy” Another popular composition, likewise known in several autograph variants, was the picture by Jacob Jordaens titled The King Drinks (Le roi boit) – this, at least, is the subject that I infer from the brief description in the inventory: No. 200. Ein orig(inales) stuck von Jacobe de Gordanno le Roy, extra maisterhafft – [no price given]. The type of painting called The King Drinks is also found in the literature as The Bean King or The Feast of the Three Kings; these titles refer to the Flemish custom re-enacted every Epiphany (6 January), when the “king” of the revellers was chosen with the help of a bean hidden in the bread. Whoever found the bean took “power” and had the right to choose his “queen” and his “courtiers”. Whenever he took a drink, everyone around him would shout, “Le roi boit!” and had to drink with him, hence the title of the painting. Jacob Jordaens painted variations on the theme several times during his career, and among those that survive, one of the best known, made around 1640–5, originated from the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (fig. 31).²40 Further autograph works on the same subject can be found in the State Art Collections of Kassel (c. 1630–40), the Hermitage, Saint Petersburg (c. 1638), the Louvre, Paris (1638–40), the Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Brussels (1640) and the Museum of Fine Arts, Tournai (1650); a version made around 1645 is in a private collection in New York, and copies made in his workshop are known in Celle, Braunschweig and Warsaw.²4¹ A copperplate engraving of the Brussels variant was made in the mid-seventeenth century by Paulus Pontius (fig. 32).²4² Although the work we seek could ostensibly be a copy of the piece in the archducal collection, the wording in the inventory leads me to regard this as improbably. After all, this is the only painting in the inventory whose description not only refers to it as a masterpiece (extra maisterhafft) but also as original. In this case, the compilers must have had a reason for emphasising that this was not a copy, but an original composition. This makes it all the more unfortunate that this item was one of the few not to be given a price estimate (it was probably omitted during the transcription process), for this would have provided an important point of reference when interpreting the values of the other artworks. Since all of the known, original paintings by Jordaens are particularly large, we can not unreasonably hypothesise that the work in question would have been of similar proportions – perhaps its extraordinary size, compared with the rest of the cabinet paintings, was the factor that prompted the makers of the inventory to emphasise the authenticity of the work. 240 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 786, oil on canvas, 242×300 cm (without frame). Mentioned in the archducal collection: Ein grosses Stuckh […], warin ein Königfässt, wie es in den Niderlanden auf den heyligen drey Königen Abent celebriert wirdt. […] Original von Jacques Jordans, Mahler von Antorff. Berger 1883, p. CXXI, no. 117. 241 Riedel 2012, pp. 67–70, cats. 11.1–15. 242 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-1998-738. Engraving, 402×595 mm. 94 III. IMAGINES “Wie ein altes weib, ein jungen menschen einen beutl gelt darreichet” Once again relying on its description, another work on the list shares a striking resemblance to a piece in Leopold Wilhelm’s collection, in this case a moralistic painting by Lucas Cranach the Elder from the popular series of compositions known as Ill-Matched Couple; here we see the less common version, which pokes fun at the relationship between a young man and the Amorous Old Woman, as the image is often titled (fig. 33). ²4³ In the archducal inventory, this painting was given a detailed description: the young man has his left arm around the old woman’s right shoulder, while she places some money in his right hand. Ein Stückhel […] warin ein junger Gesell ein altes Weib liebt, seine linckhe Handt auf ihre rechte Schulter halt, vnndt sye ihm in der rechten Handt Gelt gibt. […] Vom Lucas Crainich Original.²44 The painting was moved from the archducal collection to the imperial gallery, then to the royal castle in Bratislava (1781), from where it was later transferred to Buda; in 1848 it was presented by the presidium of the Buda chamber to the Hungarian National Museum, and it is currently held by the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest.²45 The inventory in the Esterházy archive 33. Lucas Cranach the Elder: Ill-Matched describes a very similar painting on wood, Couple (Amorous Old Woman), c. 1520–2 Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest in which an elderly woman is giving a purse of money to a young man, in order to win his affections. No. 24. Ein stuck auf holz von Lucas von leüden sehr antiq(ue) vnd extra rar, wie ein altes weib, ein jungen menschen einen beutl gelt darreichet – 100. The high price estimate indicates that the work was regarded as genuinely old and remarkable, although the note attributes the work not to Lucas Cranach the Elder but to Lucas van Leyden. 243 Szépművészeti Múzeum, Budapest, inv. 137, oil on wood, 37×30.5 cm (without frame). 244 Berger 1883, pp. CXLVIII–CXLIX, no. 711. 245 Pigler 1967, pp. 163–4; Garas 1968, p. 266, no. 711; Garas 2001, p. 394; Benkő–Garas–Urbach 2003, pp. 30–1 (with previous bibliography). The date when the painting was transported from Vienna to Bratislava is sometimes given in the literature as 1770, but a description of the painting can be recognised among the paintings transferred on 30 September (?) 1781: 1 kleines Stückchen von Lucas Kranach, vorstellend eine Alte, so einen Jüngling mit Geld verführen will. Auf Holz, hoch 1 Schuh 3 Zoll, breit 1 Schuh. Hassmann 2013–4, p. 201. 95 THE ARTWORKS I do not know any composition in Leyden’s œuvre that matches the description given in the inventory. Based on the given parameters, the painting in question was not necessarily a copy, and its similarity in theme to the piece in the archducal collection may merely be coincidence. “Wie Joannes Pharonis schäze verachte” Item 80 in our list describes a painting on wood attributed to Frans Francken the Younger (1581–1642). Its subject matter is difficult to pinpoint, for the painting is said to show Saint John the Baptist despising the treasures of the pharaoh: Ein stuck auf holz wie Joannes Pharonis schäze verachte, extra schön von jungen Francken – 100. In my opinion, however, the scene in the painting is not from the Bible, but one described by both Herodotus and Plutarch, in which Croesus shows off his wealth to Solon. (It may seem surprising, but this is not the only occasion when the authors of the inventory failed to recognise or misinterpreted a biblical theme: item 100, which is almost certainly a composition of the Holy Family, was given the title of an Old German Man and his Family, while in item 98 the compilers asserted that Saint John the Baptist is being baptised by Jesus!) Such a composition is known by Frans Francken the Younger, and the most popular version, which also served as the basis for most copies, was brought to Vienna with the rest of the archducal collection (fig. 34).²46 Leopold Wilhelm’s inventory identified the subject correctly – die Historia von Creso, Solon vnndt Cyrus – but attributed the work to Francken the Elder.²47 Frans Francken the Younger produced several compositions on this theme, but only the one in Vienna was painted on wood; workshop variants or copies of almost all the compositions have survived, some of which were also painted on wood,²48 and they must also be considered in connection with our inventory. In view of the popularity of the composition, we cannot state beyond all doubt that the work in the Esterházy inventory was a copy after the work in the archduke’s possession, for the painting we seek could easily have been imported to Vienna by an art dealer. Its estimated value of 100 thalers suggests that it was at least a copy of high quality, and it might even have been an autograph work. 246 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 1049, oil on wood, 86.5×120 cm. Signed bottom left: D. o. FFRANCK. IN 247 Berger 1883, p. CXLVIII, no. 707. 248 Härting 1983, cats. A235–8b, cats. B235–8; Härting 1989, p. 333, cats. 317–8. 96 III. IMAGINES 34. Frans Francken the Younger: Croesus Showing his Treasures, c. 1620 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna *** In summary, it seems to me that the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm – aside from the fact that the modern gallery he brought to Vienna set the trend for other art collections for decades to come – need not be regarded as a “direct” model. While the fashion for Flemish paintings was undoubtedly not unconnected to the arrival in Vienna of the archduke’s collection, anyone in Vienna in the 1660s who wanted to expand their art collection would have had little choice but to buy paintings from the artists who were represented in the archducal collection. There were two main reasons for this: on the one hand, the art dealers in Vienna mostly sold works by Flemish painters (for example, the works of Jordaens and Francken came more likely than not from the art market to Vienna), and on the other hand, there were increasing numbers of artists available locally. 97 THE ARTWORKS Works produced in Vienna The Netherlandish colony When Leopold Wilhelm returned to Vienna in 1656, Teniers stayed in Brussels in the service of Juan José de Austria (John of Austria the Younger), the new governor of the Southern Netherlands, but several of the engravers who worked for him followed the archduke to his homeland. They were soon joined by more artists, and up until Charles VI came to the throne, there was a sizeable Netherlandish art colony in Vienna.²49 The majority of them integrated into their new surroundings, and many married into the families of the city patricians, never to return to their homeland. In the collection presently under examination, the proportion of works made in Vienna in the 1660s or 1670s is exceptionally high (around a quarter of the total), and a very high number of these were the products of workshops belonging to members of the Netherlandish colony. Among them was Nicolas van Hoy (1631–79), originally from Antwerp, who found employment in Brussels after returning from a study tour in Rome, working for Leopold Wilhelm, and participating in preparing the illustrations for the Theatrum Pictorium. The earliest known information about his presence in Vienna dates from 1656, and in January 1657 he married the daughter of a wealthy Viennese merchant.²50 He appears in the inventory in the description of a painting of Lot and his Daughters (no. 81), painted on copper.²5¹ In Rome Van Hoy had made the acquaintance of the Rotterdam-born Jan van Ossenbeeck (1624–74), who accompanied him to Brussels and also took part in producing the Theatrum Pictorium.²5² Ossenbeeck followed Van Hoy to Vienna some time later, even lodging at his home for a while. His presence is documented from 1662, and in 1670 he was elevated to the 249 Hajdecki 1905–7, parts I–III; Galavics 1993; Lowitzsch 2004, I, pp. 22–4; Haupt 2006. 250 Hajdecki 1905–6, part I, pp. 19–23; Galavics 1993, p. 91; Haupt 2006, pp. 41–2. 251 In Munich in 1884, a composition on copper of Lot and his daughters (39×38 cm) was auctioned from the Stern- berg-Manderscheid collection. Sternberg-Manderscheid 1884, p. 41, no. 359. As the auction catalogue provides no information about the painter, the school or even the approximate date, it cannot be identified as the work attributed to Nicolas van Hoy. It is still worth bearing in mind, however, because at least one painting from the collection under investigation in this paper (Martin Dichtl’s genre painting, see pages 110–1) was later acquired by the Sternberg collection, and the auction in Munich also featured two works by Frans Francken which can be tentatively associated with the inventory on account of their descriptions (Ibid. no. pp. 357–8). 252 After the Theatrum Pictorium was published, he worked for a while on a very similar project, producing engravings of works from the Viennese collection of court quartermaster Johann Kunibert von Wenzelsberg (1614–83). Frimmel 1898, p. 6; Artis pictoriae amatores 1993, cat. I/1-16 (Lubomír Slavíček); Galavics 1993, p. 91. and Ibid. cat. 119 (Géza Galavics); Slavíček 1996a, p. 79. Wenzelsberg was the agent of Karl von Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn, Bishop of Olomouc. Breitenbacher 1925, I, pp. 23, 44–53, 61–3. After his death, some of the items sold off from his collection (1687) were acquired for the bishop’s collection. Kindl 2014b, p. 95. 98 III. IMAGINES rank of court painter. According to his contemporaries (Balthasar de Moncony, Joachim von Sandrart) he was an excellent imitator of the art of Pieter van Laer, also known as Bamboccio. Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, was also extremely fond of Ossenbeeck’s paintings: in the 1660s and 1670s he bought several of his works, either directly from the painter or from the dealers who represented him.²5³ There are ten works on the Esterházy inventory (nos. 64–5, 103–4, 111–2, 114, 163, 169–70) that mention Ossenbeeck, although more than half of these were landscapes, in which Ossenbeeck painted only the staffage. The price of his works, according to the listings, ranged between 10 and 20 thalers, implying they were probably small in size, for the Prince of Liechtenstein was known to have paid 100 thalers each for a few larger canvases by the artist.²54 Several paintings on the inventory are attributed to the Dutch painter Volckard Adriaen van Lier (active 1651–76), whose works are first recorded on the Amsterdam art market in 1645,²55 although his Viennese works are presumed to have originated from the imperial city itself, not from import: his presence is documented between 1651 and 1676, and he was appointed “Kammermaler” as early as 1652.²56 He was known primarily as a landscapist, and his works on the Esterházy inventory were all landscapes (nos. 52, 55, 93, 169–70). The animal still life described in item 203 was probably painted not by Volckard Adriaen van Lier, but by his son (“Delier le Jeune”). Originating from Ypres (Ypern), Jan Thomas (1617–78) studied in Antwerp, probably in the Rubens workshop. In the second half of the 1650s he was in the service of Johann Philipp von Schönborn, Archbishop-Elector of Mainz (1605–73), and the artist is known to have been active in Vienna between 1661 and 1678.²57 In addition to the Bacchanal, mentioned above, a painting on copper depicting The Dance of the Satyrs and a still life (nos. 19, 207) are attributed to Jan Thomas in our inventory, with prices quoted between 20 and 50 thalers. “Ein altes weib so ducaten wegt” Johann de Cordua (1630?–98?) began his career in Brussels, around 1660 he worked in the court of Albert Sigismund of Bavaria (1623–85), Bishop of Freising, and his presence in Vienna is documented from 1663. In 1677 he was made an artist exempted by the Court (hofbefreiter Künstler), and in the meantime he seems to have spent a lengthy period in Prague.²58 253 Hajdecki 1905–6, part II, pp. 126–8; Fleischer 1910, p. 51; Ember 1974; Galavics 1993, p. 92; Morsbach 2006, pp. 48–51; Kindl 2014a, pp. 162–6. 254 Fleischer 1910, p. 51. 255 Uylenburgh & son 2006, p. 186; Montias 2002, p. 125. 256 Hajdecki 1907, part III, pp. 9–10. His landscapes are mentioned in the Liechtenstein collection (Fleischer 1910, pp. 52, 56, 215, 220), and his paintings were sold by, among others, Johann Spillenberger (Baljöhr 2003, pp. 57–8, 309). 257 Hajdecki 1907, part III, pp. 11–2; Galavics 1993, p. 93; Sošková 2000, p. 72; Galavics 2005; Buzási 2005; Morsbach 2006, pp. 51–4; Galavics 2006–7. 258 The uncertainties are caused by difficulties in separating the different name variants that appear in the sources (Corda, Corduwa, Cortuova, Courda, Curta), which probably refer to more than one painter. Dlabacž 1815, I, 99 THE ARTWORKS He died in Vienna in 1698, in the house of the widow of Johann Maximilian von Lamberg.²59 He is known primarily as a painter of genre pieces and still lifes, but the sources also write about portraits he painted. Two works by him are listed in the Esterházy inventory: one depicted an Astrologer (no. 33), which at present is impossible to trace.²60 The other, a painting of an Old Woman Weighing Money, seems to have survived in the Harrach collection in Rohrau (fig. 35).²6¹ The composition in question is item 40 in the Esterházy inventory, and was valued at 60 thalers. Ein stuck auf leinwant, ein altes weib so ducaten wegt, sehr curios gemacht von Jean de Cordua – 60. The painting is signed “Jo[hann]es de Corduba” and was probably made during Cordua’s sojourn in Vienna in the 1660s.²6² The figure of an old woman weighing money represents Avarice, one of the Seven Deadly Sins, and a popular moralising theme in art. The description in the inventory was first identified with the painting by Klára Garas.²6³ No other painting on the same subject by Cordua is known from any other collection, and the description matches the painting in every parameter (artist, title, medium). It is presumed to have come into the possession of the Harrach family after being bought by Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach. The count has been regarded as one of the chief patrons of Johann von Cordua ever since 1905, when Alexander Hajdecki published the results of the data collected by the then-director of the Harrach gallery, Josef Dernjač (1851–1920), which included information about fourteen works by Cordua and cited an “eighteenth-century” document in the Harrach archives, which has so far eluded more precise identification. Based on this list, eleven of the works were his own inventions, with the remaining three being copies of compositions by other painters.²64 Since Hajdecki’s publication, several researchers have attempted to pinpoint the inventory that contains the items in question, but without success.²65 Furthermore, the pictures themselves have proven only partly identifiable: only four of the fourteen paintings can be matched with actual works in the Harrach collection, one of which is the Old Woman Weighing Money. During my archival studies, I believe that I have stumbled upon the “original” document used by Hajdecki, which immediately provides a solution to some of the issues outlined just above. The data derive not from different inventories of the Harrach collection (in Vienna, 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 pp. 294–5; Schöny 1970, I, pp. 37–8; Hajdecki 1905–6, part I, pp. 25–6; Hajdecki 1905–6, part II, pp. 108–18; Voskuil-Popper 1976; Morsbach 2006, pp. 54–61; Morsbach 2008, pp. 217–22, 418–24; Kindl 2014a, p. 181. Hajdeczki 1905–6, part I, p. 109; Polleross 2010, p. 193. According to his death certificate he died at the age of 49, meaning that the painter would have been born around 1649; this does not reconcile easily with other biographical data about Cordua, such as his marriage in 1663, or the reference to him working as a painter in the court of the Bishop of Freising by 1660. It does not feature among the data collected in: Morsbach 2008. Graf Harrach’sche Familiensammlung, Rohrau, inv. HF 957, oil on canvas, 107×84 cm, signed top right: “Joes de Corduba”. Ritschl 1926, p. 5; Heinz 1960, p. 28; Morsbach 2006, p. 56; Morsbach 2008, p. 421. The work is dated differently, to around 1680–1700, in: Barock 1999, pp. 414–5, cat. 151 (Wolfgang Prohaska). Garas 1999, p. 162, note 4. Hajdecki 1905–6, part II, p. 113. Voskuil-Popper 1976, p. 72; Morsbach 2006, p. 55; Morsbach 2008, p. 219. 100 III. IMAGINES 35. Johann de Cordua: Old Woman Weighing Money, 1660s Family Collection of Count Harrach, Rohrau 101 THE ARTWORKS Bruck, Rohrau, etc.), but from an undated, untitled list of pictures, which has survived only in a later (twentieth-century) transcription. The same handwriting can be recognised in other copied documents among those in the Harrach archive that pertain to the art collection, which were presumably made by an archivist or perhaps a gallery director.²66 Cordua’s name does indeed appear fourteen times on the list, and it was this information that was published by Hajdecki, removed from its original context. (This is the same list on which the afore-mentioned copy of the Teniers gallery painting also appeared. See “The Harrach copy” above.) In my opinion, however, the true original of the list in question would have originated somewhat earlier than the “eighteenth-century” dating supposed by Hajdecki. Copied onto green paper, the list of paintings is untitled, it includes neither the place nor the date of issue, has no prices, and merely lists around sixty non-numbered paintings.²67 The artists whose names appear on the list (Volckard Adriaen van Lier, Johann von Cordua, Jan van Ossenbeeck, Johann Spillenberger, Johann Heinrich Schönfeld, Willem van Herp, Willem van der Cruys, etc.) all lived in the seventeenth century – some of them will be familiar from the Esterházy inventory –, and the majority of them were active in Vienna in the 1660s and/or 1670s, although there are a few Flemish artists among them, whose works may have been imported. A clue to the identity of their owner may be provided from the two family portraits heading the list: Contrafé von Don Camillo undt D. Catharina Gonzaga di Novellara (maternal grandparents of Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach); there are also two mentions of “His Deceased Eminence”, who is, I believe, the uncle of Ferdinand Bonaventura, Ernst Adalbert von Harrach (1598–1667), Archbishop of Prague and Trent, who died in October 1667.²68 Putting this information together, we may cautiously conclude that the list was originally made after October 1667, and contains the paintings owned by Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach. On the reverse of the same sheet, copied in identical handwriting, is another list, titled Verzeichnus der Bilder, which overlaps the previous, undated list slightly, as four or five out of the eighteen paintings on it are also on the obverse. This list is dated, it includes prices (in imperial thalers), and it explains that the paintings in the list, compiled by “Mrs Pilat”, were transported on 18 March 1668 from “Prug” to Vienna. “Prug” presumably refers to the Harrach chateau in Bruck (an der Leitha), which more commonly appears in contemporary sources as “Prugg”. Paintings were frequently moved between Vienna and Bruck during the eighteenth century: some of the Harrach paintings held in fee tail were kept in Bruck, and the collection was occasionally slightly reorganised. There is apparently no reason to doubt 266 For example, among the documents on picture sales in the 1920s: Wien, ÖStA, AVA, FA Harrach, WA Böhmen, Kt. 3804. It is conceivable, however, that Hajdecki and Dernjač still used the original inventory. 267 Wien, ÖStA, AVA, FA Harrach, WA Böhmen, Kt. 3804. (After the manuscript of this book had been complet- ed I unexpectedly came across the original documents presented here as surviving only in later transcription. Since there was no possibility of changing the text, here I only indicate the fact that the originals corroborated my assumptions concerning the lists discussed below: the undated inventory undoubtedly contains the paintings owned by Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach and the list from 1668 was indeed compiled in Prague.) 268 One item mentions the deceased in the form of a monogram: “Ihr Em(inenz) seel. A. C.”. The letters stand for “Adalbert Cardinal”. 102 III. IMAGINES the identification of the place, although “Mrs Pilat” has less connection with Bruck than with the afore-mentioned Archbishop Harrach of Prague (and Trent). The noble Pilat von Tassul family, known in Italian as Pilati di Tassullo, originated from South Tyrol and had traditionally served the Prince-Archbishops of Trent since the start of the seventeenth century; they were granted imperial nobility in Prague in 1602 by Rudolf II, and in 1642 Friedrich Pilati, counsellor of Trent, and his brother, Nikolaus Pilati, steward to the Archbishop of Trent, were made nobles of Trent. In 1705 they received incolatus into the Bohemian nobility, and in 1710 they were elevated to baronial rank, with estates in the county of Glatz in Silesia.²69 Despite this, it seems that they remained in service to the Archbishop of Trent: the families noble title in Trent was affirmed in favour of Karl Pilati in 1670 by the new prince-archbishop, Sigmund Alfons von Thun (1627–77). If my assumptions are correct, Karl Pilati also served the previous archbishop, Ernst Adalbert von Harrach, and may well have been related to “Mrs Pilat”. If this is the case, it is less likely that she would have been present on the Harrach family estate in Bruck, but rather in the archbishop’s seat in Prague. Following the death of a prelate, it would have been part of the normal duties of a steward to draw up an inventory of his estate and forward it to his heirs. As the document only survives in its twentieth-century transcription, this may even be explained by a simple slip of the pen: in this case the place of origin was not “Prug”, but “Prag” (Prague), which was distorted by the copier in a direction that may have seemed more logical. As far as we are concerned, however, it is far more germane that the paintings in the consignment list, wherever they came from (Bruck or Prague) were transported to Vienna. Since the undated inventory contains items which recognisably derived from the delivery list, it seems logical that the inventory was compiled after the paintings were delivered to Vienna (18 March 1668). Thus far, of all the paintings on the undated inventory, I have found only one that might help to pinpoint the date when the document was issued. The work in question is a small diptych of The Annunciation and The Visitation, currently attributed to Ambrosius Benson (active 1519–50).²70 According to research carried out by Günther Heinz, this work was bought by Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach at an almoneda in Madrid in 1674. Den 29 May kaufe ich au seiner Almoneda 2 gleiche Stükel: Eines der englische Gruss, das andere die Heimsuchung auf Holcz, braidt 6 ½ Zoll, hoch 1 Schuch 8 Zoll um 100 Reales vellon.²7¹ In my opinion, a description of the same work can be found in the undated inventory in question: 2 gleiche Stück der englische Gruess, als der Engel und H. Muetter Gottes in verguldten Ramen von unbekandter Handt. 269 “Pilati de Tassulo” in: Wurzbach 1870, XXII, pp. 288–9; “Pilati von Tassul” in: Meraviglia-Crivelli 1886, p. 185. 270 Ambrosius Benson: The Annunciation and The Visitation, diptych. Graf Harrach’sche Familiensammlung, Rohrau, inv. WF 127, oil on wood, 54×16.7 and 54.1×16.5 cm. 271 Cited, without source reference, in: Heinz 1960, p. 15, no. 159. In the diary of Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach for the years 1673–4 (printed in: Menčík 1913), there is no mention of this at the date indicated, so either the diary was not the source in this instance, or the date is wrong. 103 THE ARTWORKS If the date cited by Heinz is correct, the presence in the collection of the diptych means that the inventory was made after 1674, and this date can be extended further when we take the circumstances of the purchase into account: Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach served as ambassador in Madrid until the end of December 1677, and the painting (more precisely, the part of his collection that was acquired in Spain) was presumably only brought home after that. I therefore believe there is justification for narrowing down the inventory’s date of issue to after 1678 and before 1707, on the assumption that it was probably made while Ferdinand Bonaventura was still alive. The list certainly does not cover the count’s entire collection of art, for it omits a number of works, still in the collection in Rohrau, whose purchase in the 1670s is verified with documentary evidence. At the same time, almost two thirds of the pictures in the list are completely absent from the Harrach inventories of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, while several pieces appear, at later dates, in other Vienna-based collections: for example, the Vanitas still lifes by Johann von Cordua, depicting skulls and described as pendants, are highly likely to be identical to the works that fit this description in the Brukenthal Museum in Sibiu (Nagyszeben).²7² Despite the presence of the Benson work that was bought in Madrid, it cannot be concluded that the other paintings also originated from Madrid, which is a theory that arises from time to time in connection with some of the works on the list, including the gallery painting by Teniers.²7³ The afore-mentioned fourteen works by Johann von Cordua, for example, were almost certainly produced in Vienna, where he lived, and there may have even been a personal connection of some kind between maecenas and artist, judging from the high number of works (far more than by any other painter).²74 The provenance of the four works by Cordua that are still in the Harrach collection, according to the gallery catalogues, only records that in the early twentieth century, the paintings were brought from the Harrach estate in Hrádek (Hrádek u Nechanic) to Vienna, and then from there to Rohrau. Their origins are also referred to by the letters in their inventory numbers: HF (Hrádek, Fideicommiss). The chateau in Hrádek was only built in the mid-nineteenth century, however, and subsequently decorated, in part, by the paintings already held in fee tail, supplemented with new purchases by Johann Nepomuk von Harrach (1828–1909), who built the chateau. Very few sources for the works in the chateau are known, although all four paintings were included in the inventory of 1905.²75 272 The skull is a common motif in Cordua’s paintings of the Vanitas type, featuring in several pictures, although the only known pendant variants are those in Sibiu, Romania. Voskuil-Popper 1976, pp. 62–3. In the Harrach inventory: 4 gleiche Stückel von Juan de Cordua, 2 mit dottenköpff und 2 mit dotten Haasen undt Vöglen. 273 Madrid is surmised as the origin by, among others, Ritschl 1926, pp. 20–1, no. 62 (Willem van Herp); Ibid. pp. 31–2, no. 115 (Frans Ykens: Still Life); Ibid. p. 39, no. 347 (Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder: Salome); Scarpa Sonino 1992, p. 93 (gallery painting by Teniers). The painting by Willem van Herp already featured on the 1668 list (no. 3), so it demonstrably was brought to Vienna from “Prug”, and what is more, it arrived before Count Harrach began his service in Madrid (1673–7). 274 The painter died in 1698 in the house on Teintfaltstraße, close to Palais Harrach, that belonged to the widow of Johann Maximilian von Lamberg (mother-in-law to Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach). Polleross 2010, p. 193. 275 Graf Harrach’sche Familiensammlung, Rohrau, inv. HF 56, 82, 855, 957. Ritschl 1926, p. 5, no. 7; 28, no. 95–6; 34, no. 182; Heinz 1960, p. 28, nos. 151, 153–5. 104 III. IMAGINES Before this date, however, the documentary evidence is varied. In the untitled list of paintings described above, which I have provisionally dated to between 1678 and 1707, the four works were described as: “Two Beggars” (Zwei Bettler. Original von Juan de Cordua);²76 “Two Peasants Smoking and Drinking Beer” (2 Bauren so Tobak und Pier trinken. Orgnl. von Juan de Cordua); „A Beggar with a Pipe“ (Einen Bettler mit der Tobakpfeifen von Juan de Cordua. Orgnl.); and “Elderly Dutch Woman Counting Money” (Ein alte hollandische Frau so Geldt zehlt, von Juan de Cordua. Orgnl.).²77 Cordua’s name does not appear in the inventories again until the turn of the nineteenth/twentieth centuries, although a description of the Two Beggars and the Two Peasants, which were painted as a pair, can be recognised in the inventory of Bruck from 1830 (Zwei alte Männer, wovon einer den Hut in der Hand halt, 1’ 11”×1’ 10” and Zwei alte Männer, wovon einer Toback raucht, 1’ 11” × 1’ 10”).²78 The descriptions found in the inventory of the palace in Vienna in 1753 are less detailed, but the Zwey Bauren Stück, recorded as items 202 and 203, might allude to the same works, while the painting of a Pipe-Smoking Beggar in the same inventory may also be a match (Ein Stück, wo einer toback raucht), although this must be considered with similar reservations.²79 In the case of the painting of the Old Woman Weighing Money, however, I have not come across any reference to the work until its (re)appearance in 1905, which is a remarkable difference, especially when compared with the excellent documentation of the gallery painting by Teniers, outlined earlier. At present it seems that although the pictures came from an identical source, the paths they subsequently took varied until they came together again in the twentieth century. With regard to the inventory in the Esterházy archives, the whereabouts of the painting in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, when it became part of the collection, would be of key importance. 276 In several places Hajdeczki was imprecise in publishing the text passages of the paintings by Cordua, for ex- ample writing One Beggar for this work, whereas the source text says Two Beggars (and there are indeed two figures in the picture). Consequently, he was unable to identify this painting in the collection, even though he knew that the work existed. Hajdecki 1905–6, part II, p. 113. Basing her assumption on Hajdeczki, Christiane Morsbach also listed the Two Beggars among the lost works (Morsbach 2008, cat. II. 2.17v), and instead catalogued the existing work under the title of Two Peasants. (Ibid. cat. II. 2.6.) The original title of Two Beggars is more justified, as one of the male figures is holding his upturned cap in front of him in an entreating gesture. 277 Hajdeczki 1905–6, part II, p. 113: Eine Alte so Geldt zählt. Original. 278 Harrach 1830, nos. F134–5. 279 Harrach 1753, nos. 202–3 (629–30) and no. 194 (627). 105 THE ARTWORKS German painters resident in Vienna Alongside the Netherlandish colony, German painters sometimes appeared in the city, who had learnt their trade in the great centres of art (Antwerp, Amsterdam, Rome), studying in the workshops of reputable masters. The short-lived Johann Wilhelm Baur (1607–42) was born in Strasbourg and studied in Rome, arriving in Vienna in 1637.²80 A small painting of dancing satyrs listed in the Esterházy inventory has been attributed to him (no. 167). Johann Jakob von Eisen (Eysen) (active 1630–80) was in the service of Gundakar, Prince of Liechtenstein (1580–1658) in the first half of the 1630s, before travelling to Rome to study.²8¹ His presence in Vienna is documented between 1640 and 1680. One enthusiastic purchaser of his paintings was Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein.²8² Works by him in the Esterházy inventory consist of genre paintings (nos. 5, 17) and mythological scenes (nos. 11, 75). Johann Heinrich Schönfeld (1609–84), who came from Biberach an der Riss and who also studied in Rome, has two works on the list (nos. 85, 122), although he is likely to have stayed a shorter time in Vienna, in the first half of the 1650s.²8³ His pictures, however, continued to be offered for sale by Viennese art dealers, such as Renier Megan.²84 Karl Andreas Ruthart (1630?–1703) came from Danzig (Gdańsk), studied in Rome between 1653 and 1659, was present in Vienna after 1659, and moved to Antwerp in 1663, where he was a member of the local guild in 1663–4. Between 1665 and 1667 he was back in Vienna, before returning to Rome, where the last mention of him, from 1703, is as a member of a monastic order.²85 He was a specialist in hunting scenes and paintings of animals fighting, and item 198 on the inventory under investigation here is probably a composition of this kind (Leinwand von Carl Rudart), although the exact subject is not specified by the description. “Ein Prognosticus der seine hand herzeiget” Another artist who resided in Vienna for a few years was Christoph Paudiss (1630–66), who studied in Rembrandt’s studio in Amsterdam; during his brief life, he appeared in Stuttgart, Prague, Dresden and – allegedly – Hungary too. He spent the last years of his life in the court of Albert Sigismund of Bavaria, Prince-Bishop of Freising. The Esterházy inventory included 280 Bonnefoit 1997, p. 96. 281 Winkelbauer 1999, p. 427. 282 In 1665 Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, paid 150 florins to Eisen for ten paintings, and he bought fur- ther paintings from him between 1677 and 1679; see: Fleischer 1910, pp. 38, 53, 65, 219–21. Haupt 1998, II, reg. 547. 283 According to Pée 1971, p. 15, all the works Schönfeld made between 1653 and 1655 were acquired for the collections of Austrian or Bohemian aristocrats, suggesting that he spent quite some time in Vienna, or at least sojourned there regularly, although this is not documented. His presence in Vienna is mentioned in a document of the Court Chamber: Haupt 1979, p. LVIII, nos. 444–5 (letter of safe conduct from Augsburg to Vienna, for the import of paintings, 23 April 1652). 284 Pée 1971, cats. 57, 58, V100, V107 285 Frimmel 1886; Morsbach 2008, pp. 200–3. 106 III. IMAGINES a Portrait of a Man by Paudiss (no. 39), which – if I have identified the work correctly – was made in 1661, when the artist was in Vienna. The man in the portrait raises his hand up high in a distinctive gesture, hence the title: “Prognosticus” (soothsayer); the painting was valued at 200 thalers, an exceptionally high price compared with his contemporaries: Ein Stuck auf holz ein prognostic(us) der seine hand herzeiget extra rar von Christoph Pauliz – 200. The work was painted on wood and is signed and dated, and is now held in the National Gallery in Prague (fig. 36).²86 The work was documented in the eighteenth century as belonging to the Nostitz collection, also in Prague.²87 The collection of paintings belonging to the Nostitz family was established with purchases made by Johann Hartwig von Nostitz-Rieneck (1610–83), Lord Chancellor of Bohemia, who installed his gallery in the palace he built in Prague in 1662.²88 The nobleman was also an important patron of the arts, and is known to have commissioned works from Michael Willmann (1630–1706) and Karel Škréta (1610–74); from the late 1660s, it would appear that he also regularly made purchases on the international art market, although we only have concrete data concerning the pictures he bought under the agency of the Forchoudt company.²89 His estate contained around three hundred and fifty paintings in all, some of which were kept in the palace in Prague, and some in Falknov (Sokolov/ Falkenau).²90 The origins of most of the paintings are unknown, and only a small number of works can be identified from the terse descriptions in the extant inventories. The collection was expanded substantially by his son, Anton Johann von Nostitz-Rieneck (1659–1736), when he was the fideicommissary. The heir initially pursued a career as a diplomat, and between 1685 and 1690 he was in Stockholm, not only improving relations between the two countries as the emperor’s ambassador to Sweden, but also working, for example, on the repatriation of archives that had been plundered from the imperial castle in Prague in 1648.²9¹ The first data on his activities as a collector are from the 1710s, and it appears that he obtained paintings from the collection of Prince Eugene of Savoy, while in 1718 he purchased several works from the afore-mentioned Felix Vršovec.²9² Even more important than these acquisitions, however, was the set of works he inherited in 1706 from his childless half-brother, Count Franz Anton Berka, who had built up his collection over several decades.²9³ 286 Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. DO 4127, oil on wood, 98×80 cm, signed bottom right: Criststoffer Paudiß 1661. 287 Peltzer 1937–8, p. 276, no. 28; Seifertová 1977; Sumowski 1983, IV, no. 1579; Jandlová Sošková 2015, cat. 54. 288 For more about the Nostitz collection, see: Frimmel 1892c; Bergner 1905; Frimmel 1909; Slavíček 1983; Machytka 1983; Slavíček 1993a; Barocke Bilderlust 1994; Slavíček 1995; Slavíček 2007, pp. 57–80. 289 Published in: Slavíček 1983, p. 227. Appendix I. 290 Nostitz 1683. For the transcription, see the archive of the National Gallery in Prague: Machytka 1980. 291 For details about the items in the Imperial Archive (Reichsarchiv) bought back by Nostitz, see: Gesamtin- ventar HHStA III, 1938, pp. 265–71. Nostitz’s acquisition was also noted by his contemporaries: Sternberg 1793–4, p. 79. 292 Frimmel 1890, pp. 37–8, no. 103, pp. 38–9, no. 136; promissory note of Anton Johann von Nostitz to Felix Vršovec, for a sum of 1800 florins: SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nostic, kt. 158, sign. A0 38, inv. č. 1097. Transcription: Machytka 1980. For the provenance of the Nostitz pictures, see also: Slavíček 1983, p. 219. 293 For more about Berka’s collection, see pages 116–7. 107 THE ARTWORKS 36. Christoph Paudiss: Portrait of a Man in Beret with Plumes, 1661 National Gallery in Prague 108 III. IMAGINES After the death of Anton Johann Nostitz (1736), inventories (albeit not excessively informative ones) of his possessions were drawn up in Prague and Falknov.²94 Shortly afterwards, the collection became severely depleted. In 1738 a substantial part of the collection of paintings in the Nostitz Palace came up for auction, and there are records from the years that followed indicating that additional sections were sold off.²95 In 1740, for instance, several paintings were bought by Friedrich Karl von Schönborn (1674–1746), Prince-Bishop of Würzburg, and nephew of the art collector Lothar Franz von Schönborn, and moreover the brother-in-law of the then-owner of the collection, Franz Wenzel von Nostitz-Rieneck (1697–1765).²96 In October 1744 the Prussian army sequestered around forty-five pictures, which were replaced in fee tail with other paintings. An inventory was also made of the estate of Franz Wenzel von Nostitz (25 October 1765), which was made up of a large number of different paintings from those left by Anton Johann von Nostitz, for the reasons described above.²97 The portrait by Paudiss is first mentioned in the 1765 inventory of Franz Wenzel Nostitz-Rieneck. It was listed in the “Bilder Gallerie”, a narrow corridor leading from the master bedroom, as: Kopf mit einem Hüttl undt feedern.²98 The painter’s name was not stated next to this entry (and is only rarely mentioned elsewhere in the inventory), but when the fiduciary inventory (that is, the inventory of the property subject to fideicommissum) was made in 1819, the description given was more precise: Christoph Bauditz: Eines jungen Mannes Portrait mit einem Federhut, die Linke vor sich flach ausgestreckt – 200 CM.²99 I have no information concerning the fate of the painting before 1765, and it cannot be identified from earlier inventories. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that these inventories contain many paintings that are only cursorily described (e.g. “Portrait of a Man”), it cannot be ruled out that the painting was part of the Nostitz collection even before 1765.³00 Nostitz 1736a and Nostitz 1736b. Transcription: Machytka 1980. Nostitz 1738a (with handwritten notes on selling prices). Transcription: Machytka 1980. Its inventory is published in: Slavíček 1995, Appendix III. Nostitz 1765a and Nostitz 1765b. Transcriptions in: Machytka 1980. Bergner 1905, p. 41, no. 157 (218); Jandlová Sošková 2015, no. 54 (with previous bibliography); identification is facilitated by the fact that the 1765 inventory also features – as later insertions – the item numbers used in the 1819 inventory (Nostitz 1819). 299 Nostitz 1819, no. 238 (28). Its estimated value was given in the Conventionsmünze (CM), which means that it had previously been among the paintings held in entail. The collection was then unified with the paintings in the allodial house, also in Prague. The estimates of the paintings in the collection, meanwhile, were given, in the same place, in Wiener Währung (WW). 300 There is a portrait of a man by Paudiss of the same size, also from 1661, in a private collection in Budapest: Sumowski 1983, IV, no. 1580. Young Man in a Beret, oil on wood, 97×80 cm. It was first recorded at the auction of the Brunszvik collection in 1902. Whether or not the two paintings ever belonged together has not yet been clarified. The possible relationship between the works was noticed by Theodor von Frimmel: Frimmel 1909, p. 7. 294 295 296 297 298 109 THE ARTWORKS “Ein bub so sizent ist und ein Kaz” Three paintings (nos. 51, 58, 202) in the inventory are attributed to “Mert Dichtl”, that is Martin Dichtl (c. 1639–1710); little is known about the artist, except that he lived in Nuremberg (perhaps his home town?) and Vienna, and most of the signed and dated works by him are from the 1660s.³0¹ Two of the paintings were images of beggars, while the third was a genre scene – all three works fit perfectly into his known œuvre. I have so far identified one of the paintings as a genre piece depicting a little boy with a cat (no. 202), now in the Sternberg collection in Častolovice (Tschastolowitz) (fig. 37).³0² The work was valued at 40 thalers, and its description is an excellent example of how the authors of the inventory could encapsulate the paintings in just a few concise, well-chosen words: Ein stuck auf leinwand ein bueb so sizent ist, und ein Kaz mit essen will, sehr guet von Mertdichtl – 40. The painting is signed and dated 1668. The best known and most active art collector in the Sternberg family was Franz von Sternberg-Manderscheid (1763–1830), a founding member of the Society of Patriotic Friends of the Arts (Privatgesellschaft patriotischer Kunstfreunde) and one of its most active participants. The society was established at his initiative in 1796, and its members were mostly aristocrats, including Franz Anton von Kolowrat-Novohradsky, first elected chairman of the society; Friedrich Johann von Nostitz-Rieneck, the owner at the time of the Nostitz collection; Johann Rudolf von Czernin, who made his palace available for society business; and Franz Vrtba, an art collector. A few members came from the bourgeoisie, such as Tobias Gruber, a former Jesuit priest, who served as one of the first curators of the collection, and the painter Johann Jakob Quirin Jahn, who assisted in restoration work. Among the society’s plans was the establishment of a public gallery exhibiting items from the members’ own collections, the creation of an academy of art and the provision of support to the upcoming generation of painters. ³0³ When the society was established, Sternberg-Manderscheid immediately deposited his art collection with them, consisting of over 300 paintings, forming part of the gallery that could be visited by the public. He was also the main purchaser of works at the “licitations” organised by the Society, where he bought more than 150 paintings over the years.³04 (Using membership fees, the Society obtained artworks at reduced prices, which were then sold at auction, with members given the right of first refusal. Under society rules, paintings purchased in this way had to remain on loan at the society gallery for at least eleven years (often longer), and the owners could only remove them after such a period) It was for this reason that the Sternberg collection accumulated pictures from a diverse range of other collections, whose provenance has so far hardly been researched at all. ³05 301 Morsbach 2008. pp. 152–60. 302 Sternberg collection, Častolovice, inv. C 1219/953, oil on canvas, 77×98 cm, signed: “Martin Dichtl 1668”. Seifertová 1989, p. 120; Morsbach 2008, p. 275. 303 For the company, see: Barvitius 1889, pp. XIII–XXXV; Vlnas 1996; Slavíček 2002–3, pp. 25–50. 304 Slavíček 2002–3, 28. 305 Research is complicated by the fact that the Sternberg-Manderscheid estate was scattered far and wide as a result of several auctions held in the mid-to-late nineteenth century (Dresden, 1836, 1838, 1840, 1842, 1846 – engravings; Dresden, 1847, Munich, 1884 – paintings). 110 III. IMAGINES 37. Martin Dichtl: Little Boy with a Cat, 1668 Chateau Častolovice I have not succeeded in uncovering any further information about the provenance of the painting by Martin Dichtl, except that it featured among the exhibits in the society’s first printed catalogue of 1827: Ein Bauernknabe sitzt am Boden bey seiner Suppenschaale, und schlägt mit seinem Löffel nach einer Katze, die zur Schaale will; von Martin Dichtel, 2‘ 5“ hoch, 3‘ ¾“ breit.³06 Based on the serial number of the work (no. 1315) in the Einreichungskatalog (in which the paintings deposited with the society were recorded), Sternberg-Manderscheid probably bought the work in 1816 in Prague.³07 306 Privatgesellschaft 1827, p. 85, no. 1315. It can also be found in the society’s catalogues of 1831 and 1835, with the description supplemented with a date in the latter. Privatgesellschaft 1831, p. 54, Zimmer XI, no. 61. and Privatgesellschaft 1835, p. 86, Zimmer XI, no. 59/1315. 307 Slavíček 2002–3, p. 49, does not mention the painting by Dichtl (no. 1315), but all the items between numbers 1251 and 1323 originated from 1816. 111 THE ARTWORKS The art import trade A significant proportion of the artists whose names appear in the inventory never visited Vienna, so their paintings must have been bought through the art trade. The demands of aristocratic buyers, whose desire for representation and aesthetics was now matched with a well-trained eye, were best met by the workshops of Antwerp. The same city was also the origin of the most important art dealers in Central Europe: Jan Vlooitz, Bartholomeus Flocket, Frans de Neve, Willem van der Cruys (Creutz) and members of the Forchoudt family.³08 Many of the dealers were painters themselves, and not only sold works imported from their homeland, but also paintings by contemporaries living in Vienna. Besides Vienna, Prague was another good market, as demonstrated by the fact that not every company chose Vienna as its base, with Van der Cruys, for example, setting up shop in the Bohemian capital.³09 To meet growing demand, art dealerships would buy up entire estates of artists, encompassing original works, sketches in oils, and copies of famous paintings alike. The dealers also commissioned copies for sale, a service which they regularly reminded their clients about, and works were brought to Vienna, among other destinations, via Cologne, Frankfurt and Nuremberg. Companies that could import regular consignments of art from the Low Countries – thanks to having family or business connections, for instance – proved particularly competitive. Those without good family connections were known to establish subsidiaries near the centres of production to act as intermediaries. An example was Melchior Lidl, whose name has been put forward in connection with the Esterházy inventory, who found it difficult to cope with increasing demand, and who therefore moved his base from Augsburg to Amsterdam in the 1670s. His agent in Vienna was his son-in-law, Johann Spillenberger, who was known mainly as a painter; in 1677 Spillenberger sold 67 paintings in one lot to Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, while he could also count the Czernin, Harrach, Nostitz and Berka families among his clients.³¹0 Some paintings were made by Italian masters, but the vast majority were by Netherlandish artists (Marten de Vos, Frans Floris, Heemskerck, Brueghel, Poelenburg), and Spillenberger also sold works by painters living in Vienna (Ossenbeeck, Van Lier), with whom he was probably in direct contact. In a marked difference from the Flemish traders, however, the range of works offered by Lidl and Spillenberger always featured a high proportion of German artists (Johann Heinrich Schönfeld, Johann Ulrich Mayr, etc.). The largest enterprise importing artworks into Central Europe was the Forchoudt company, whose activities are also the best documented, as the extant archives of the business are very extensive.³¹¹ The first member of the family to break into the art market was Alexander Forchoudt (1643–83), originally an apothecary, who appeared in 308 309 310 311 Floerke 1905; Denucé 1931; Denucé 1949; Thieme 1959; Duverger 1972; Slavíček 1993b. Denucé 1931, p. 18. Fleischer 1910, pp. 54–7; Haupt 1998, pp. 241–3; Baljöhr 2003, pp. 56–8, 307–11. Denucé 1931. 112 III. IMAGINES Vienna in early 1660. For a while he was unemployed, before he entered the service of an unspecified Hungarian count, whom he followed to Hungary. When payment was unforthcoming, he returned to Vienna and found work in the “Black Elephant” pharmacy. In December 1660 he was joined by his brother, the painter Guillam Forchoudt the Younger (1645–after 1677), who had previously worked in a painter’s studio in Nuremberg. Their father, Guillam Forchoudt the Elder (1608–78), had already done business in Vienna in earlier years, through the art dealers Jan Vlooitz and Nicolaas Muytincx, but that was before paintings came into fashion, and most of what he sold was lace and furniture. The brothers opened their own business on Judenplatz in 1664, having obtained the title of “Court Jeweller”. Besides paintings they dealt in jewellery, timepieces, pearls and the like. Owing to Alexander’s frequent bouts of illness, two more brothers came along to assist: Marcus (1651–1706) was a trained painter, while Melchior (1641–1709) was a jeweller. Business boomed to such an extent that their brothers-in-law were also called upon to help. A significant part of the paintings on the inventory probably arrived in Vienna from the international art market, through one of the afore-mentioned companies. They included, for example, the works by Frans Francken the Elder and the Younger (nos. 76, 79, 80, 101, 172–3), the Brueghel family (nos. 4, 13, 22, 71, 82, 94, 108, 116, 136, 166, 171, 196), Peter Paul Rubens (nos. 54, 88, 149–50, 177), Joos de Momper (no. 195), Erasmus Quellinus (nos. 144–5), Pieter Boel (no. 109), Anthonis van Dyck (nos. 32, 48), David Teniers the Younger (no. 31), Frans Snyders (no. 192), Jan Porcellis (no. 87), etc. Some of these works were probably copies. Identifying paintings is often fraught with difficulties resulting from the enormous quantities of variants and copies of each work that were produced in the painter’s studio, and without knowing the exact dimensions it is impossible to narrow down to a manageable degree the number of paintings that need to be examined. To illustrate this, let us take item 166 on the inventory as an example: Ein Winter stuck auf holz extra guet von Prigel – 20. According to the literature on the subject, the composition titled Winter Landscape, originally painted by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, exists in 123 known copies, of which 43 are attributed to Brueghel the Younger.³¹² (One of them, for example, passed from the Sternberg-Manderscheid collection, referred to above, into the National Gallery in Prague.)³¹³ Judging from its paltry valuation of 20 thalers, however, the item listed in the Esterházy inventory might not even have been a studio-made copy. One work, however, which must have been regarded as a replica of high quality was The Feast of the Gods by Peter Paul Rubens (1577–1640), painted on wood and valued at 100 thalers (no. 54): Ein Panquet der Götter, auf holz, von dem berühmbten Ruwenz sehr Curios – 100. Its model was perhaps The Feast of Acheloüs (c. 1614–5), now considered to be a joint work by Peter Paul Rubens and Jan Brueghel the Elder (fig. 38).³¹4 The original 312 Ertz 1988/2000, pp. 604–30, cats. 682–805a. 313 Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. O 67, oil on wood, 39×57.5 cm. Slavíček 2000, p. 113, cat. 83. 314 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, inv. 45.141; oil on wood, 108×165.8 cm. Previous bibliography: Rubens & Brueghel 2006, cat. 3 (Ariane van Suchtelen). With a different date and attributed to Jan Brueghel the Younger: Ertz 1984, pp. 411–2, cat. 252; Ertz 2010, IV, pp. 1334–5. 113 THE ARTWORKS 38. Peter Paul Rubens‒Jan Brueghel the Elder: The Feast of Acheloüs, c. 1614–5 The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York painting (or a version of it?) once adorned the Brussels gallery of Archduke Albert, and it features in a contemporary gallery painting together with other works from the governor’s collection.³¹5 The copy of the composition painted on canvas turned up at the Klinkosch auction in Vienna in 1889.³¹6 A Feast of the Gods painted on wood and attributed to Rubens was imported by the Forchoudt company in 1698 (Twee pinieeltiens van Rubens: een goden Bancket en Jason),³¹7 but I only mention this as an illustration, for vast quantities of copies after Rubens were available on the contemporary art market, and the painting we seek could just as easily have been procured for the collection from a different source. 315 Maeyer 1955, p. 118 and table VII. 316 Nachlass Klinkosch 1889, no. 221. The model was identified by: Frimmel 1914, II, p. 321, no. 800. 317 Denucé 1931, p. 222. 114 III. IMAGINES “Ein schwabische hochzeit” At times, the primary obstacle to identification is not the high frequency of the composition, but the inadequately precise description of the work given by the compilers of the inventory, because it was not uncommon for artists to paint several different variations on popular themes. In order to make a positive identification at least of the correct model, a level of detail would be required that is usually missing from the descriptions. We therefore often have to fall back on speculation and conjecture. As an example here, I turn to item 71, a Swabian Wedding painted on canvas and attributed to “Brigel”, probably made by Pieter Brueghel the Younger after his father’s composition. The high price ascribed to the painting implies high quality, but the title and description do not provide sufficient information to facilitate a precise identification of the model. The Peasant Wedding was one of the most popular subjects to emerge from the Brueghel workshop, and a number of variations are known, so the work in question here could refer to a scene of the wedding feast in the barn or in the open air, the wedding dance (also in a barn or outside), or the presentation of the wedding gifts. The compositions were originally invented by Pieter Bruegel the Elder, and were copied quite frequently by Brueghel the Younger, who sometimes stayed remarkably close to the originals.³¹8 The most famous example – the autograph work by Pieter Bruegel the Elder – is a scene of a wedding feast held in a barn, and is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna.³¹9 The work was acquired in Brussels in 1594 by Archduke Ernest (1553–95), and when he died it was inherited by Rudolf II; later, in 1659, it turns up in the inventory of the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm.³²0 The composition was therefore in Prague in the early 1600s, and in Vienna in the second half of the seventeenth century – it would not be inconceivable for a copy of it to have been commissioned by a member of the Viennese aristocracy. I am inclined, however, to look elsewhere for its model, although the only thing to go on is the word “Swabian”, used by the compilers to describe the wedding. There is no reason to suggest that the peasant surroundings in the Bruegel compositions mentioned above were particularly Swabian at all, and the clothes worn by the figures in the painting were also unlikely to have prompted the author of the description to use the term Swabian. What we seek is a quality that is immediately recognisable as “Swabian”, and during my research into the possible connotations of the word I came across the Bavarian phrase Schwäbisch ist gäbisch, which pokes fun at the Swabians for being “gäbisch”, meaning soft-headed or hare-brained.³²¹ Describing a person as “Swabian”, therefore, was akin to calling them a “laughing stock” or a “blinking idiot”. 318 Ertz 1988/2000, II, pp. 631–738. 319 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. 1027, oil on wood, 114 x 164 cm. 320 It appears in the estate inventory of Archduke Ernest (Maeyer 1955, p. 259), so in theory it would have passed to Rudolf II, although the painting cannot be found on the inventories in Prague. In the inventory of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm: Berger 1883, CXLIII, no. 591. cf. Engerth 1884, II. pp. 65–6, no. 742. 321 Seiler 2011, p. 299. 115 THE ARTWORKS Taking this as my starting point, below I make an alternative proposal for identifying the composition, involving a painting that not only does not portray a wedding, but also was not invented by a Bruegel. As we shall see, however, the misinterpretation of both the subject and the author is entirely understandable. This piece deserves our attention for more than the uncertainty surrounding its identity, for it also pertains to the owner of the collection, Franz Anton Berka von Duba und Leipa (1649–1706), to whom we shall return later in connection to other paintings found on the inventory. Franz Anton Berka von Duba und Leipa, Count of Howora, governor and hereditary grand marshal of Bohemia, was of long-standing Bohemian noble stock, with ancestors traceable to the beginning of the eleventh century, when, according to legend one honourable forebear (Howora) saved the life of Jaromír, Duke of Bohemia, during a hunt. Among his other ancestors are Hynek Berka, who built Hradčany (Prague Castle, c. 1320) and Zbyněk Berka (1551–1606), who was Archbishop of Prague.³²² Through his wife, the daughter of the imperial commander Raimundo Montecuccoli (1609–80), Berka had close ties to the Viennese court elite. He spent around thirty years in diplomatic service in various European courts (Denmark, Sweden, Hamburg, France, Holland), but his longest sojourns were in Venice and Rome. By the end of the seventeenth century Berka had amassed an impressive collection of art, with the majority of his Italian paintings acquired on his diplomatic tours, some of which he himself commissioned.³²³ From the 1670s onwards he was regarded by Vienna’s art dealers as one of their most active clients, purchasing primarily Netherlandish paintings.³²4 As an art collector, he was on good terms with John William, Elector Palatine (1658–1716): the two men are known to have exchanged several paintings as gifts. After Berka’s death, his estate was inherited by his half-brother, Anton Johann von Nostitz, and Berka’s collection was incorporated into Nostitz’s gallery, which subsequently became part of the National Gallery in Prague in the twentieth century.³²5 Several (partial) inventories of Berka’s collection are known. In 1692, with his half-brother, Count Nostitz, acting as intermediary, he offered 239 paintings for sale to Johann Adam Andreas, Prince of Liechtenstein, and the list survives in the Liechtenstein archives.³²6 He kept a smaller part of his collection (105 works) at his chateau in 322 For more about members of the Berka family, see: Hieke 1886–8; Winkelbauer 1999, pp. 69–70. Aegidius 323 324 325 326 Sadeler dedicated the series of Christ and the twelve apostles that he made after drawings by Joos van Winghe to Zbyněk Berka. Limouze 1990, p. 354. During his diplomatic journeys, he gave commissions to local masters: he had a portrait bust made in The Hague by Jan Blommendael (today in Jablonné v Podještědi), in Rome he sat for portraits by Jacob Ferdinand Voet and Carlo Maratta, and upon his return home he commissioned Karel Škréta to paint a dual portrait of himself and his wife in costume (dressed as Paris and Helen). Artis pictoriae amatores 1993, cats. V/1-22, V/2-48, V/2-86; Barocke Bilderlust 1994, cat. XVIII; Slavíček 1995, p. 461; Slavíček 2007, p. 69. According to extant records, Berka bought 92 paintings from the Forchoudt company alone. The actual total may have been even higher, for there are some acquisitions that he certainly made (e.g. Rubens: Portrait of Ambrogio Spinola) for which there are no surviving invoices. The purchases made by Count Berka were annotated on the basis of Denucé 1931 by Slavíček 1983, pp. 227–31. Barocke Bilderlust 1994, pp. 11–4. The source is published in several places, see note 19. The later history of these items, including several identifications among them, is traced in: Slavíček 1983. 116 III. IMAGINES 39. Anonymous draftsman: Peasant Wedding, c. 1700 Drawing after a painting attributed to Pieter Bruegel the Elder in the Berka collection National Gallery in Prague Nový Falkenburk (Neufalkenburg), where an inventory was drawn up in 1694, while the paintings held on his estates in Jablonné v Podještědi (Deutsch Gabel) and Nemyslovice (Nemyslowitz) were listed in 1706.³²7 All we know about the part of his collection in Vienna is that they were kept in the summer palace in Josefstadt that belonged to Count Maximilian Anton von Salla.³²8 The most valuable sources we have at our disposal, however, are not the inventories, but the drawn reproductions of pieces in Berka’s gallery, 113 sheets of which survive, also joining the National Gallery in Prague from the Nostitz collection. This exceptional resource from the Berka collection provides a useful visual aid to our research. One of the sheets in the collection of drawings features a scene with an inscription attributing the work to Bruegel the Elder: Dell Brughel Vecchio. Orig. (fig. 39).³²9 This painting 327 Published in: Slavíček 1995, Appendices I, II. 328 Slavíček 1996b, p. 509. 329 Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. DK 5707. Pen and ink wash on paper, 235×348 mm. For the catalogue of drawings of the Berka collection, see: Slavíček 1983, pp. 219–43; Barocke Bilderlust 1994, pp. 130–57; Slavíček 1996a, pp. 78, 82. The author considers it conceivable that some of the drawings were made by Berka himself. 117 THE ARTWORKS appears on the list of works offered for sale to the Prince of Liechtenstein in 1692, which also informs us that Berka defined the subject as a “Peasant Wedding”: No. 73. Una nozze di villani de Brueghel – 400.³³0 While it is not apparent from this description, the drawing of the work undeniably proves that the painting was not a copy of the famous Peasant Wedding, but a scene that occurs far less frequently in the repertoire of the Brueghel family, namely a variant of Le roi boit (Feast of the Three Kings). Such carnival merrymaking, culminating in the newly crowned “king” of a costume-wearing – and extremely inebriated – crowd of revellers choosing a “queen” for himself, was a custom that was not practised in Central Europe, so the composition was misinterpreted as a simple Peasant Wedding.³³¹ At the same time, the uproarious drunkenness and evidently crazy behaviour could explain why the figures in the scene were derided as “Swabian”. Contrary to what the inscription on the drawing says, the composition was not by Bruegel the Elder, but is known from the œuvre of Pieter Brueghel the Younger, and Klaus Ertz recognises four autograph variants and a few copies.³³² The inventor of the scene, set in peasant surroundings, was not Brueghel, however, but Marten van Cleve (1524–81). The original composition seems not to have survived, but two autograph variants and a few replicas are known by him.³³³ One exemplar was in the personal collection of Peter Paul Rubens (who retouched the work in a few places), who also attributed the work to Pieter Brueghel the Younger, as attested by the inventory made by his heir, Arnold Lunden, in 1692.³³4 The author of the inscription on the drawing, therefore, was correct in believing that the composition had become famous through the Brueghel family, and it is perfectly possible that the work in question was a replica from the highly prolific Bruegel workshop. There is no trace of Berka’s painting in any of the later inventories, nor in the Nostitz collection, so we must assume that the count sold the work during his lifetime. I have not yet managed to identify the painting. 330 Slavíček 1983, p. 233; Barocke Bilderlust 1994, p. 130, cat. IV. 331 As seen earlier, the work by Jacob Jordaens entitled Le roi boit was described incorrectly in the Esterházy in- ventory, obviously because the custom was unfamiliar. In the case of a similar composition listed in the inventory of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, it was deemed necessary to include an explanation of what the painting shows: Ein Königfässt, wie es in den Niderlanden auf den heyligen drey Königen Abent celebriert wirdt. Berger 1883, p. CXXI, no. 117. 332 Ertz 1988/2000, I, pp. 534–6, cats. E 576–8. 333 Ertz 2014, pp. 61–2, 182–4, cats. 101–5. Berka’s drawing does not entirely match any of the variants referred to by Ertz. 334 House of Art 2004, p. 233. The piece in the Rubens collection was painted on wood; for the work, see: Ibid. cat. 53 (Kristin Lohse Belkin). Arnold Lunden’s inventory from 1692 is published in: Duverger 2002, XII, pp. 153–5, doc. 4025. 118 III. IMAGINES 40. Joos de Momper: Robbery on a Road, first third of the 17th century National Gallery in Prague “Ein landschafft warin eine plinderung” Another painting that was almost certainly acquired via the art trade, a small landscape on wood by Joos de Momper (1564–1635) (fig. 40), was probably in the collection of Anton Johann von Nostitz, Berka’s half-brother, and is now in the National Gallery in Prague.³³5 The picture shows some travellers being robbed by bandits lying in wait on a country road. The description matches item 195 on the Esterházy inventory, and the oil on wood panel described there was estimated at a value of 60 thalers: Ein landschafft auf holz warin ein plind(er)ung extra guet von dem Monport – 60. The picture is first identifiable with complete certainty in the fiduciary inventory of the Nostitz collection made in 1819: Mompert: Felsige Landschaft.³³6 Identification is facilitated not by the laconic description, but by the dimensions (1’ 5”×2’ 3”), which, when calculated from the Parisian measurements used on the inventory in question, amount to approximately 46×73 cm, which only deviates by half a centimetre from the present size 335 Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. DO 4136, oil on wood, 46×72.5 cm. Attributed jointly to Joos de Momper and Sebastian Vrancx. Slavíček 2000, cat. 221. 336 Nostitz 1819, no. 94 (323). 119 THE ARTWORKS of 46×72.5 cm. It was registered together with another landscape attributed to Momper (no. 93), identical in size to the foregoing, and the joint value of the two works was given as 30 florins (WW).³³7 The other landscape – although indeed measuring the same size – does not seem, based on its composition, to be the pendant to the work we are looking for, so it is unlikely that they were originally intended as a pair.³³8 The presence of the painting can also be surmised in an earlier inventory, compiled upon the death of Anton Johann von Nostitz. The list was drawn up on 6 May 1738 and contains the paintings that were planned to be hung in the “Bilder-Cabinet” of the Nostitz fideicommissary, including two compositions by Momper: Ein Landschaftl von Mombert and Ein gebürgige Landschaft von Momber.³³9 One of these may be the landscape in question, and the summary catalogue of the National Gallery in Prague identifies it tentatively as such.³40 However, a total of four landscapes attributed to Momper (or a follower of his) are known from the Nostitz collection, and the official catalogue refers (with a question mark) to the source given above in every case, although it could naturally only actually pertain to a maximum of two out of the four works.³4¹ The four “candidates” can perhaps be narrowed down by the fact that one of them was registered even in 1819 as a work by an unknown painter, although it has been attributed to a follower of Momper since 1945; it is therefore barely probable that it would have been mentioned as a work by Momper in 1738.³4² This still leaves three landscapes, and selecting which two were actually referred to in 1738, based on the information contained in the inventories, would be pure speculation. In order to determine when the paintings might have joined the Nostitz collection, however, we can avail ourselves of another source, besides the lists: the reverse of the paintings. Unfortunately, the painted or glued numbers that have survived in more or less legible condition are not the numbers used in the inventory of 1738, so in this regard they are not informative; however, all three pictures have a label on their reverse from the same art expert / dealer (?), named Pianni. The label on the reverse of the painting we are concerned with reads: 65 del Mompert C / Pianni; the other two say 49 del Mompert C / Pianni, and […] del Mompart B / Pianni, respectively. 337 The use of the Wiener Währung implies that these works were part of the “allodium”, cf. note 299. This is cor338 339 340 341 342 roborated by the typewritten inscription “ALOD” glued to the reverse of the frame of the painting cited in Slavíček 2000, cat. 221. Národní galerie, Prague, inv. DO 4141, oil on wood, 46×73 cm. For the painting, see: Artis pictoriae amatores 1993, cat. V/2-55 (Lubomír Slavíček); Barocke Bilderlust 1994, cat. 25; Slavíček 2000, cat. 223. Lubomír Slavíček has put forward the Berka collection as its possible origin. Nostitz 1738b, nos. 137, 236. Nevertheless, they cannot be identified in the inventories of 1765 in the Prague house, nor in Falknov, nor in Jindřichovice (Heinrichsgrün) (Nostitz 1765a and Nostitz 1765b), nor were they mentioned in the description of the gallery in the house of the fideicommissary in Prague written by Jaroslaus Schaller in 1795. Schaller 1795, II, pp. 284–94 (Nostitz Palace). Slavíček 2000, cat. 221; Artis pictoriae amatores 1993, cat. V/2-54 (Lubomír Slavíček). Slavíček 2000, cats. 222, 223, 225. For the same identification in the case of the painting with inventory number DO 4188, see also: Barocke Bilderlust 1994, cat. 24; for DO 4141, see: Ibid. cat. 25. Based on the pencil-written identification number, this painting can also be found in the 1765 Prague inventory, but even then it was not considered to be by Momper: [no. 98.] Landtschaft mit röthlichen Felsen. 120 III. IMAGINES The same label is found on the back of numerous other paintings that originate from the Nostitz collection, including those whose provenance can be traced to the collection of Franz Anton Berka in the beginning of the eighteenth century.³4³ Rather than designating where the works came from, therefore, the labels are more likely to be connected to an evaluation or a planned sale, and would have been affixed when the paintings were already in the Nostitz collection. The labels only occur on the reverse of works originating from the Nostitz collection. Pianni used his own numbering, registered the paintings classified into groups A, B, C and D, and wrote his inscriptions in Italian.³44 The labels were mentioned by Theodor von Frimmel (who read the name as Bianni), who postulated that they might stem from an earlier owner or perhaps an art dealer.³45 Today it is considered most likely that the person who applied the labels was the painter-connoisseur whose activities are briefly documented in Prague in 1721 and 1723. At this time, Empress Elisabeth Christine (Elisabeth Christine, Princess of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel) engaged a certain “Monsieur Piany” to help her select paintings from the imperial gallery in Prague and transport them to Vienna.³46 He was identified, firstly by Alphons Lhotsky and later separately by Jaromír Neumann, as Giovanni Maria delle Piane (1660–1745), a Genovese painter also known as “il Mulinaretto”; however, as pointed out by Lubomír Slavíček, there is no available data confirming that Piane was ever active in Prague or Vienna.³47 The name Pianni crops up once more in connection with a Bohemian art collection: in a drawing by Johann Rudolf Spork, he copied a replica of a portrait by Dürer, stating that the replica had been painted by P. Pianni.³48 If the person who applied the labels is indeed the “Monsieur Piany” who was in Prague in 1721, then the labels must have been affixed to the paintings in the early 1720s, and this implies that all three landscapes by Momper became part of the collection while Anton Johann von Nostitz was still alive, irrespectively of the fact that only two paintings by Momper were registered in his estate. 343 Without being exhaustive, a few examples from the catalogue Slavíček 2000: cats. 64, 253, 392–3 – these, 344 345 346 347 348 for example, are documented to have originated from the collection of Count Berka, half-brother of Anton Johann von Nostitz, and were acquired by Nostitz in 1706. Barocke Bilderlust 1994, p. 13. Frimmel 1909, pp. 6–7. Lista derjenigen Mahlereyen, was Anno 1721 den 3 July auss Befelch Ihro Röm. Kayl. May. der Allergnädigsten Röm. Kayserin, durch Monsieur Piany nacher Wienn seynd geführt worden. (The inventory is dated 5 November 1723.) Published in: Köpl 1889, reg. 6233. For the deliveries of paintings made in the 1720s and 1730s, see: Neumann 1966, pp. 41–3. He regarded him as an “expert”, although he made no attempt to identify him: Svátek 1879, p. 264. For more on Delle Pianne, see: Lhotsky 1941–5, I, p. 397; Neumann 1966, p. 41; Slavíček 1983, p. 219. Slavíček 1983, p. 219. 121 THE ARTWORKS “Thriumphus Davidis” Taking into consideration the enormous volume of trade that passed through the Forchoudt company in Vienna, coupled with the fact that the mystery art collector is presumed to have bought large amounts of paintings at the very time the company was operating at its peak, it is disturbing that so few of the extant Forchoudt documents can be associated with works identifiable from the Esterházy inventory. Perhaps the only exception is item 125 on the list, a composition on copper of the Triumph of David: Ein stuck auf kupfer Thriumphus Davidis sehr Curios von Devoss – 40. The name De Vos could refer to several painters, but the most likely, based on his œuvre, seems to be the Antwerp artist Simon de Vos (1603–76). The Forchoudt company consignment dated 7 November 1678 featured a painting by Simon de Vos depicting the “Triumph of David”: 1 plaet Triompf van Davit van Simon de Vos, g. 28.³49 Forchoudt listed the works that had just arrived in Vienna from Antwerp, so if the painting described here is the same as the one on the inventory, this document provides the terminus post quem with regard to the date when the inventory was made. A corresponding work, which may perhaps be identical to the item on the inventory, is held in the Salm-Reifferscheidt collection in Rájec (Rájec nad Svitavou/Raitz) (fig. 41).³50 The oil on copper painting of the Triumphal Entry of David, dated around 1650, first appears in the inventory of the chateau in Rájec that was made between 1837 and 1846: Groß(es) Sitzzimmer … [13.] S(imon) de Vos allegorisch(er) Triumf.³5¹ This implies that the work was in the chateau at the latest during the lifetime of Hugo I Franz von SalmReifferscheidt (1776–1836). The count in question, a good friend of Joseph von Hormayr, stood out among contemporary art patrons not for any interest in Old Masters, but as a supporter of the kind of patriotic history painting propagated by Hormayr, and as a commissioner of works by the earliest exponents of Viennese Romanticism (Karl Russ, Ludwig Ferdinand Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Peter Fendi, Joseph von Führich, etc.).³5² The painting by Simon de Vos may therefore have been acquired by one of his ancestors, although it cannot be ruled out that it came into the possession of the family together with the chateau. Rájec only became the property of the Salm-Reifferscheidt family in 1743, during the age of Hugo’s grandfather, Anton Joseph von Salm-Reifferscheidt (1720–69), through his marriage to Raffaela von Roggendorf (1718–1807). Several of the paintings owned by Anton Joseph came from the Hetzendorf legacy of his mother, Maria Karolina 349 Denucé 1931, p. 150, no. 14. 350 Státní zámek Rájec nad Svitavou, inv. RA 3235, oil on copper, 52×77.5 cm, signed bottom right: “S. D. Vos in et F”. Aristokracie ducha 2015, cat. 281 (Lubomír Slavíček). 351 Slavíček 2014, p. 111 (Appendix 4). 352 The catalogue of nineteenth-century paintings from the Rájec collection that were dispersed to multiple state galleries after the Second World War: Aristokracie ducha 2015. For patriotic history painting in Austria, see: Szentesi 2000, Telesko 2006. 122 III. IMAGINES 41. Simon de Vos: Triumph of David, c. 1650 Chateau Rájec nad Svitavou von Liechtenstein (1694–1735), and he may also have obtained artworks from the collection of his half-brother, Franz Ernst von Salm-Reifferscheidt (1698–1770), Bishop of Tournai. ³5³ “Der Fischzug Petrus” Item 14 on the Esterházy inventory, priced at 400 thalers, making it one of the most valuable works in the collection, was a painting on copper attributed to Jan van der Straet (1523– 1605): Ein stuck auf kupfer von Stratano d(er) Fischzug Petrus sehr rar – 400. The high price 353 The Hetzendorf inventories were published in: Kalábová–Konečný 2012, pp. 180–6. However, I was unable to find in them any item corresponding to the work in question. The bishop’s estate was auctioned in 1771 in Tournai; see: Salm Reifferscheid 1771. The auction catalogue features a painting on copper of The Triumph of David, attributed to Frans Francken the Elder (no. 234); this attribution would not in itself rule out the possibility of it being the Rájec painting (which, in the Rájec inventory of 1890, was attributed to Frans Francken despite it bearing the signature of de Vos), but the dimensions would: according to the catalogue the painting measured 5”×6”, i.e. approx. 12.7×15.2 cm, and was therefore far smaller than the extant painting by Simon de Vos in Rájec. (Such a composition is known by Frans Francken the Younger, cf. for example Härting 1989, p. 231, cat. 11. so the attribution in the auction catalogue was not necessarily wrong.) 123 THE ARTWORKS estimate would indicate that it was regarded as original. Giovanni Stradano, as Jan van der Straet was named in the list, studied in Antwerp and then worked alongside Giorgio Vasari for the dukes of Medici in Florence.³54 At the estate auction of Felix, Count of Vršovec, in 1723, one work had a title that matches the description: Fischung Petri vom Stradano.³55 The medium was not given, but its dimensions, specified in Prague measurements as 1’ 6½”×1’ 5”, equate to a size of approximately 45.2×41.6 cm. Being quite a small painting, it is more likely to have been painted on copper or wood than canvas, so it does not rule out the possibility of proposing that the two works might be connected. I am unaware of what became of the painting later. It was not among the works purchased for the Dresden gallery by Raymond Leplat.³56 It cannot be recognised among the paintings offered by the count to Lothar Franz von Schönborn around the year 1700,³57 so we can presume that the work came into Vršovec’s ownership at some point between 1700 and 1720. “Vnser lieben frauen bild mit Jesu, Joseph vnd Joanne” Item 201 on the inventory is a painting of the Holy Family with Saint John the Baptist by Jürgen Ovens (1623–78), a pupil of Rembrandt, who spent most of his creative life in Schleswig-Holstein and in Amsterdam. Ein stuck auf leinwand, vnser lieben frauen bild, mit Jesu, Joseph vnd Joanne von dem de Ovens sehr Curios vnd guet – 100. This work may have ended up in Vienna through his commercial contacts in Holland: Ovens worked for a time in the workshop of Hendrick and then Gerrit Uylenburgh. Nevertheless, his name appears relatively rarely in Viennese art collections.³58 Only one canvas by Ovens is known that matches the above description: the Holy Family, showing Mary and the sleeping infant Jesus, Joseph, and Saint John the Baptist, which was sold at auction by Christie’s of London on 12 July 2002 (lot 126).³59 It measures 99.3×129 cm (fig. 42). Little is known about the provenance of the work: a painting which is probably the same (the dimensions are identical) was auctioned in Hamburg on 10 November 1788: Maria mit dem Christ-Kinde, welches schläft nebst Johannes und Joseph zu rechten, auf der Flucht nach Egypten; sehr stark und lebhaft gemalt. Auf Leinwand, h. 41 Zoll 2 Lin.; br. 54 Zoll 6 Lin. The owner of the collection being sold was not named in the auction records.³60 Baroni Vannucci 1997; Baroni Vannucci–Sellink 2012. Wrschowetz 1723, no. B24; Ketelsen–Stockhausen 2002, II, p. 1562. Woermann 1887, Toman 1887. Frimmel 1892b. One painting each by him ended up in the Liechtenstein, Harrach and Prince Esterházy collections. Köster 2017, cat. G9. The author of the monograph does not mention it, but the painting was already present in the œuvre catalogue by Harry Schmidt, who also provided additional data concerning its provenance: Schmidt 1922, p. 146, cat. 36. 360 Cited in: Schmidt 1922, p. 146, cat. 36. The item in question is lot 60, and according to Schmidt, the purchaser was named as “Arends”. From the auction records, only the erstwhile residence of the owner is revealed: in einem wohlbekannten Sterbhause in der Catharinenstraße in Hamburg. 354 355 356 357 358 359 124 III. IMAGINES 42. Jürgen Ovens: The Holy Family with the Infant Saint John the Baptist, 1660s/1670s Private collection The composition is a paraphrase of the Madonna del Velo by Sebastiano del Piombo, which Ovens saw some time around 1657–60 in the Amsterdam home of the art dealer Hendrick Scholten (1617–79), who had good connections both with the Uylenburghs and with Rembrandt. He liked the work so much that he made a drawing of it (fig. 43).³6¹ His copy was not a precise replica, for he transferred the scene from an enclosed space into the open air, changed the location of Saint Joseph, and made a few other alterations. He later made use of the main motifs in the composition – the figure of the sleeping Jesus, Mary’s delicate hand gesture as she lifts the veil (more like a scarf in Ovens’s work) covering her child – in other works of his, including his own epitaph, a scene of the Adoration of the Shepherds, and the painting discussed here.³6² 361 Hamburger Kunsthalle, Hamburg, Kupferstichkabinett, inv. 22325. Pen, brown ink and white wash on paper, 252×204 mm. 362 Schmidt 1922, p. 237, cat. 16; Lammertse 2006b, p. 280; Köster 2017, pp. 280–1. 125 THE ARTWORKS Identifying the model is complicated by the fact that Piombo produced several versions of the Madonna del Velo, the best known of which is now in the Museo di Capodimonte in Naples, which several observers regard as the source of the drawing by Ovens.³6³ Compared with the painting in Naples, however, the drawing shows a reversed view, which implies that there was an engraving interceding between the original and the replica. As the inscription on the artist’s drawing emphatically states that it was made after a painting seen at Scholten’s place, we can rule out the possibility that he used a print as his model. There is, though, a version of the Madonna del Velo which shows a reverse view, and this version is an original, painted by Sebastiano del Piombo (fig. 44).³64 It was owned in the 1640s by Thomas Howard, Second Earl of Arundel and Surrey (1585–1646), and it was documented in Amsterdam 1655 among the estate of his widow, Alethea Talbot (1585–1654).³65 Some time later the painting was put on the art market, and in 1670 it was in the collection of Franz von Imstenraedt and his brother, who tried to sell it via lottery in Vienna.³66 (They had offered the same collection for sale to Leopold I in 1667, but the work is not recognisable among the list of paintings which was written – in verse – for this occasion.)³67 The brothers must have procured the painting between 1667 and 1670. Their collection, including the Piombo work, was eventually bought in 1673 by Karl von Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn, Archbishop of Olomouc; the painting is currently held in the Archdiocesan Museum in the same Czech city.³68 Besides the similarity of the composition, the provenance of the work also supports the idea that this Olomouc variant of the painting was the one Ovens saw in Amsterdam between 1657 and 1660. At the same time, it is generally supposed that Ovens could not have made his copy from the original Piombo, because what Scholten had was in fact a replica.³69 This belief is based on an assertion that appears in several different places in the literature, stating that the painting was still owned by the widow of the Earl of Arundel in 1665, so Scholten could only have had a copy in the late 1650s.³70 Alethea Talbot died in 1654, and her estate was inventoried around 1654–5; a few pieces were sold at this time, and a larger proportion in 1662.³7¹ So far I have not come across any document proving that the painting was still owned by the countess’s heirs as late as 1665, so I cannot rule out the possibility that the date 363 The alleged copy owned by Scholten has been associated with the painting in Naples by, among others: Sumowski 1992, IX, p. 4576, cat. 2036; Prange 2007, p. 253. 364 Archdiocesan Museum, Olomouc, inv. A 1076, oil on wood, 120.5×92.5 cm, signed bottom left: Sebastianus faciebat. 365 Cox 1911, p. 323; Weijtens 1971, p. 30. 366 The list is cited in: Frimmel 1910. The painting was eventually bought by the Bishop of Olomouc in 1673, 367 368 369 370 371 together with many other pieces from the erstwhile Imstenraedt collection. Breitenbacher 1930, p. 213; Šafařík 1964, p. 175; Ley 1971, p. 57. More will be written later about Arundel’s collection and about the activities of the Imstenraedt brothers in the art trade; see pages 144–5. Seyfarth 1999. Pujmanová 2008, pp. 322–3, cat. 218; Sebastiano del Piombo 2008, pp. 200–3, cat. 43 (Roberto Contini). It is considered a copy, for example, by: Lammertse 2006b, p. 280. For copies of the Madonna del velo, see: Volpe-Lucco 1980. pp. 114–5; no. 65; pp. 121–2. no. 91. Dated 1665: Pujmanová 2008, 322; Sebastiano del Piombo 2008, 200; Köster 2017, 280. Neither provide the source of the information. For the collapse of the Arundel collection, see: Weijtens 1971; Dudok van Heel 1975; Brown 1995, pp. 61–6. 126 III. IMAGINES 43. Jürgen Ovens: The Holy Family with the Infant Saint John the Baptist, c. 1657–60 Hamburg Art Hall, Kupferstich-Kabinett, Hamburg 44. Sebastiano del Piombo: Madonna del Velo, c. 1520 Archdiocesan Museum, Olomouc was a misprint, and actually referred to the known inventory of Alethea Talbot’s estate from around 1655. If it was indeed a misprint, then it is entirely possible that the heirs sold the painting in 1655 (or soon after), meaning that it could indeed have been seen by Ovens in Scholten’s possession in Amsterdam between 1657 and 1660, and could well have served as the model for Ovens’s copy. Hendrick Scholten himself had no doubts regarding the authenticity of the work he owned, regarding it as an autograph painting by Piombo and one of the most valuable pieces in his collection, so much so that when Scholten commissioned a portrait of himself and his young son from Caspar Netscher, he had his Madonna del Velo included in the background.³7² (Complicating matters further, the Netscher portrait is dated to 1674, by which time the painting was apparently in Olomouc. However, it would appear that the artist did not see the originals of the artworks shown in the painting: the sculpture in the background, for example, was demonstrably made after an illustration in the work titled Icones, made by Jan de Bisschop in 1668–9.)³7³ 372 Lammertse 2006b, p. 281 (fig. 212); Köster 2017, p. 280. 373 Lammertse 2006b, p. 280. 127 THE ARTWORKS Paintings on the art market were apt to traverse vast distances in short periods of time, so it is difficult to reconstruct all the stages they may have passed through. Whether the composition by Jürgen Ovens that appears in our inventory (and was therefore documented in Vienna in the seventeenth century) is the same as the one that was auctioned in Hamburg at the end of the eighteenth century, and again in London in 2002, cannot be proven beyond all doubt. As for the other imported works (the paintings by Simon de Vos and Giovanni Stradano, the “Swabian Wedding” attributed to Bruegel, etc.), it is only the proximity of their later reappearance (in Prague and its surroundings) that suggests a relationship with particular items on the Esterházy inventory, and this link alone is by no means a conclusive factor in the identification of the works. Painters who were contemporary with the inventory It is especially important to examine the œuvres of the painters who were still alive at the time the inventory was made, and to identify the works in question, because the biographical data of the artists and the dates of the paintings may provide the terminus post quem of the source document. As already mentioned, the year 1669 appears in the title of the inventory, but the reference to Sandrart in connection with the cameo described at the end of the text casts the validity of this date into serious doubt, and signifies that the inventory was probably made at least a decade later. We may surmise, of course, that the three “rarities” at the end of the inventory were subsequent additions to the text, and that the list of paintings was indeed made in 1669, but a later date is also justified by the presence on the list of certain members of the youngest generation of artists. Among them is Jacob Toorenvliet (1635–1719), of Leiden, a specialist in small cabinet paintings, who was, according to the literature, present in Vienna only between 1675 and 1679.³74 He was represented in the collection with a pair of paintings on an unspecified theme (nos. 146–7) and two paintings on copper of Jewish men (rabbis?) (nos. 134–5): Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf kupfer extra wohlgemachten Juden köpf von Dovenfluth – 20. The latter may be the same as the small pendant paintings that Theodor von Frimmel reported seeing in the summer of 1917 in the private collection the Viennese dental technician named Burjas. According to his information, both works were painted on copper, measured 21×16 cm, and depicted a rabbi each.³75 The paintings were probably undated (at least Frimmel did not give a date), and their present location is unknown. 374 With data between 1678 and 1679: Hajdecki 1907, part III, p. 12; Haupt 2006, 36; according to Christiane Morsbach, Toorenvliet travelled to Italy in 1670, from where he arrived in Vienna only in 1675. Morsbach 2006, p. 62; Morsbach 2008, p. 222. (For further bibliography on the work of Toorenvliet, which I have not yet had the opportunity to access, see: Karau 2002.) 375 Frimmel 1922, p. 75. 128 III. IMAGINES Toorenvliet’s paintings could have been brought to Vienna by an art dealer, of course, and there are signed works by the artist dating from the 1660s, but it seems more logical to connect works in Viennese collections to the time he spent in the city. Furthermore, it is highly likely that Toorenvliet was present in Vienna even earlier than the surviving archive information suggests, and in 1670 he was one of the artists who participated in illustrating the historical work by Galeazzo Gualdo Priorato entitled Storia di Leopoldo Cesare.³76 The publication was illustrated with historical scenes, portraits, images of castles, and so on, and in its second edition there is an engraved portrait of Péter Zrínyi (1621–71) by Cornelis Meyssens, which was, according to the inscription on the engraving, on a drawing produced in Vienna by Jakob Toorenvliet. This indicates that the painter was already in Vienna around 1670.³77 The arrival in Vienna of Renier Megan (1637–90) can also be dated to shortly after 1669. Originating from Brussels, the painter and art dealer was working in Kroměříž (Kremsier) throughout 1668 and 1669 on commission from Karl von Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn; he must have arrived in Vienna at the very end of 1669 or early in 1670, and his presence in the city is first documented in 1671.³78 He is frequently mentioned between 1673 and 1685 in connection with his activities as an art dealer, and from 1681 he was “Kammermaler” to Leopold I.³79 The collection featured two works that he made jointly with Ossenbeeck (nos. 64–5), who also lived for many years in Vienna: Zwei stuck gleicher größ auf leinwandt sehr Curiose landtschafft von Megan vnd von Osenbeck ausstaffirt – 40. This makes it unlikely that the works were imported, as it is more logical that the two paintings were made when both artists were in Vienna, a fact that pushes the date of these works to some time after 1670. In the case of Frans de Neve (Neff, Neef, Neue), it is unclear whether the elder or younger painter was intended (father and son had identical names). Frans de Neve the Elder (1606–c. 1680?) worked in Antwerp and Brussels (he even painted a portrait of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm), but his paintings could have reached Vienna through the art trade. His son, Frans de Neve the Younger (1632–after 1704), travelled to the imperial city in person, although his presence is only documented between 1679 and 1681, before which he worked in Salzburg.³80 Like Megan, he was also active as an art dealer: Humprecht Johann Czernin (1628–82) and Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, both bought paintings from him.³8¹ 376 Galavics 1993, p. 94. 377 Copperplate engraving, 25.3×17.8 cm. Signed: “I. Toorenvliet delin. – Cor. Meyssens fec. Viennae”. Cenner-Wilhelmb 1970, p. 189, no. IX. 378 Hajdecki 1905–6, part II, pp. 122–4; Haupt 2006, pp. 42–3; several of his paintings are mentioned in Vi- ennese private collections in: Frimmel 1898, pp. 533–4. For his activity in Kroměříž, see: Breitenbacher 1925, I, pp. 50–1, 126, XXXI, LVI; Gemäldegalerie Kroměříž 1999, pp. 216–23; Kindl 2014b, p. 90. 379 Fleischer 1910, pp. 42, 45, 51 (in 1678 he offered twelve paintings for sale from Ossenbeeck), 61, 63, 67; Haupt 1998, II, pp. 264, 267–70, 273, 328; Kindl 2014a, pp. 177–9. He is referred to as “Kammermaler” in: Haupt 2006, p. 35. 380 Frimmel 1916; Galavics 1993, p. 95; Stillfried 2008. He is mentioned as a Viennese painter between 1680 and 1681 in: Haupt 1998, II, regs. 1308, 1729, 1779. He worked on commissions from Franz Anton Berka; see: Barocke Bilderlust 1994, cat. X (Portrait of a Woman). 381 Slavíček 1993b, p. 146; Haupt 1998, II, regs. 1308, 1729, 1779; Stillfried 2008, pp. 68–9; Kindl 2014a, pp. 180–1. 129 THE ARTWORKS Two mythological scenes painted on copper are described on the inventory as being produced by the painter “de Neue” (nos. 42, 91).³8² Two works in the collection (nos. 44, 126) were attributed to a certain “Joseph Cosadino di Aquileia”, alias Giovanni Giuseppe Cosattini (1625–99), court chaplain to Empress Eleanor, who originated from Udine, and was made Canon of Aquileia in 1654. He resided in Vienna from 1668 on, and it was only then that he began to paint. He proved so adept that in 1676 he was appointed court painter, alongside the honorary title of chaplain bestowed on him in 1672.³8³ Based on his biographical details, it should be considered more likely that his works were made in the 1670s and not before 1669. Of all the artists named in the inventory, the Viennese painter Hans Graf (1653–1710) is the most critical when it comes to timing, assuming that this is indeed the master referred to as “Hannß Graffen” (no. 113). Graf was raised locally, and the year of his birth is generally accepted as 1653, albeit with a question mark over it. If correct, however, then in 1669 he would have been a boy of fifteen or sixteen, so it is highly unlikely that anyone would have bought his paintings by that age.³84 The unique features of the collection The pictures examined so far delineate the circles in which our collector moved, but they are not particularly revealing about the personal preferences of the individual concerned. The fashion for Netherlandish paintings could be considered widespread ever since the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm had been installed in Vienna; works by the Dutch, Flemish and even German painters who were active locally could be bought by just about anybody; the same is true for works imported by art dealers. By and large, the same artists’ names keep recurring in all of the major aristocratic collections that were established around this time (Liechtenstein, Harrach, Czernin, Berka, etc.). A closer idea of the personal profile of the collector can be outlined by examining the ways in which the collection deviated from the “fashion”, in particular by focusing on rarely occurring artists’ names, works linked to a particular location, and types of paintings that were purchased in larger quantities than was customary among other collectors. 382 Judging by its description, one of the paintings was probably an Amphitrite or a Triumph of Galatea. A simi- lar painting on canvas (The Rape of Amphitrite) survives in the Premonstratensian monastery in Nová Říše (Neureisch), where it was probably taken from Vienna in 1804. Jírka 1993, cat. 40. (The painting is not included in the database of Stillfried 2008). 383 Aldo Rizzi: “Cosattini (Cossatini), Giuseppe (Giovanni Giuseppe)”. In: DBI, XXX, 1984. pp. 3–4. 384 Renier Megan sold a painting from him as early as 1679. Fleischer 1910, p. 65. 130 III. IMAGINES Rarely occurring artists’ names Some of the names in the inventory are of artists who are little known, if at all. As they were never much sought after as artists, and there was never much demand for their works, there was far less chance that their paintings would have survived – if any are still around today, that is more likely than not the result of mere chance. Nevertheless, the presence of works by such artists in this collection reveals a lot about the personal connections of our collector. Giovanni Giuseppe Cosattini, the court chaplain to Empress Eleanor who also turned out to be an adept painter, has already been mentioned. A certain “Boquamajor” is also listed as the painter of a floral still life on copper – I have not yet managed to identify any artists by this extraordinary name, but one of the chamberlains of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm was called Camillo Boccamaggiore.³85 Another rarely occurring name on the inventory, “Mannigetta”, also crops up in connection with the imperial court: Matthäus Mannagetta (1630–79) was the son of the nephew of Johann Wilhelm Mannagetta (1588– 1666), physician and historiographer to the emperor, and is credited as the painter of an altarpiece, although very few works by him appear in Viennese art collections from the time.³86 In our inventory, he is described as the painter of landscapes and architectural compositions (nos. 45, 50, 66, 102). Besides having close connections to Vienna – which can be said of a large number of the painters named in the inventory – the three artists referred to above, Cosattini, Boccamaggiore and Mannagetta, also moved within the inner circles of the imperial court. With regard to the majority of the artists already mentioned who resided for any length of time in Vienna (Megan, Ossenbeeck, Cordua, Paudiss, etc.), it is impossible to determine whether the works were sold to potential buyers through personal contacts or via the art trade, but in the case of the “semi-professional” art connoisseurs and dabblers in painting, it is extremely likely to have been predominantly the former option. Our impression that the collector we seek was intimate with the Viennese court may be reinforced by the fact that local art dealers would almost certainly not have sold any paintings by Cosattini or Boccamaggiore. 385 Referred to as “Boccamayor” in the diary of Ernst Adalbert von Harrach: Harrach Diarien 2010, III, p. 133. Camillo Boccamaggiore, as Master of the Cupbearers to Ferdinand II, received a wedding gift in 1631, see: Zimmermann 1910–1, p. XXXIV, reg. 19923. 386 He painted the altarpiece for the erstwhile Altar of Saint Andrew (1674) in the Stephansdom, Vienna. It is now lost: in 1885 a winged altar was brought from Wiener Neustadt to stand in its place. Tietze 1931, 64. For his biographical data, see: Giesecke 1982, p. 2. For more about the doctor-historiographer Mannagetta, see: Coreth 1950, pp. 20, 52. 131 THE ARTWORKS 45. Stephan Kessler: Noah Entering the Ark, 1670s Private collection (reproduced after Stephan Kessler 2005) Works with a local connection Another possibility worth investigating is whether there are any artists listed in the collection whose main activity took place away from all of the main centres of art, and whose presence may therefore be regarded as a distinguishing feature. Almost all the art collections of the Bohemian aristocracy, for example, feature at least one work by Karel Škréta, regardless of whether the nobleman in question established his collection in Venice, Rome or Vienna.³87 In the inventory from the Esterházy archives, one name that has a local flavour is that of “Sebastian Kessek”, who is described as being from Bolzano (Bozen). 387 Škréta painted portraits of Humprecht Johann Czernin and Franz Anton Berka, and paintings by him were in the Waldstein, Nostitz, Kolowrat, Clam-Gallas and Sternberg collections, in the archbishop’s chateau at Kroměříž, etc. 132 III. IMAGINES 46. Stephan Kessler: The Flood, 1670s Private collection (reproduced after Stephan Kessler 2005) “Wie Noe in der Archen gehet, – wie die Archen schon weeg gehet” No painter is known by the name “Sebastian Kessek”, but in the 1660s and 1670s there was an artist active in South Tyrol, including in Bolzano but mostly in Bressanone (Brixen), who routinely signed his works with the monogram SK: Stephan Kessler (1622–1700), who around 1670 was considering settling in Bolzano for good.³88 There are two biblical works by him on our inventory (nos. 184–5), whose identical size and related titles designate them as belonging together, one showing Noah and the animals entering the Ark, while the other features Noah’s Ark floating in the distance after the Flood has come: Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse von Sebastian Kessek aus Pozen, wie Noe in der Archen gehet, vnd d(a)s andere wie die Archen schon weeg gehet sehr Curios und rar – 200. There happens to be a pair of pendants on the same theme in Kessler’s œuvre (figs. 45–6). The paintings are in a private collection, not far from Bolzano, but their earlier provenance 388 He applied for citizenship in 1670, but was refused. His sons, however, also painters, were granted citizenship, and they established their workshops in Bolzano. Huber–Ringler 1962, part I, p. 66. 133 THE ARTWORKS is unknown.³89 As this was a local painter, it seems likely that these works were produced for their present home or for a castle nearby, somewhere in South Tyrol, which would of course rule them out of consideration as the works on the Esterházy inventory. Yet it is not inconceivable that Kessler painted the same composition several times during his life. To the best of my knowledge, his works were not yet present in Viennese art collections in the seventeenth century, although he was known on occasion to work on commissions placed in Graz and Salzburg. A painting of Noah’s Ark (presumably without a pendant) even reached as far as Augsburg, donated by Johann Martin Miller, a canon of Augsburg, to the cathedral, where it was hung before the Chapel of the Holy Cross, founded by the same man.³90 Works by painters from Nuremberg Much can be revealed about a collector’s personal tastes and preferences, among other things, by examining which periods or areas were well represented among the works and artists in the collection. The gallery of Humprecht Johann Czernin, for example, showed a remarkable inclination towards Venetian painters, both “modern” (Pietro Bellotto, Giuseppe Diamantini, Johann Carl Loth, etc.) and “ancient” (Francesco Bassano, Andrea Schiavone, Giulio Bonasone, Domenico Fetti).³9¹ Franz Anton Berka, while also collecting Flemish and Dutch works, predominantly purchased paintings by Italian masters, not only Venetians, but also Romans and Bolognese (Francesco Albani, Andrea Sacchi, Domenichino, Giovanni Lanfranco, Carlo Maratta, Pietro Cortona, Giovanni Francesco Romanelli, Carlo Cesi).³9² Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach’s collection contained a large number of Netherlandish pictures, but – uniquely – there were also many works by Spaniards (Alonso Sánchez Coello, Francisco de Palacios, Alonso Cano, El Greco).³9³ These tendencies were surely influenced by the fact that the collectors in question sojourned at length in certain places during the course of their diplomatic service: Czernin in Venice, Berka in Venice and Rome, and Count Harrach in Madrid. In the inventory of paintings found in the Esterházy archive, however, there is barely a trace of the “fashion” for Italian painters. There is a plethora of pictures by Flemish painters, numbering a third of the entire collection, and when these are combined with the Dutch 389 Stephan Kessler: The Entry into Noah’s Ark, 1670s, oil on canvas, 103.5×149.5 cm (unframed) in: Stephan Kessler 390 391 392 393 2005, cat. 7 (Helmut Stampfer). Its model was an engraving by Jan Sadeler (1550–1600) after a composition of Martin de Vos; its pendant is: Stephan Kessler: The Flood, 1670s, oil on canvas, 103.5×149.5 cm (unframed) in: Stephan Kessler 2005, cat. 8 (Helmut Stampfer). In the 1960s the works were in the chateau in Kampen bei Kaltern: Huber–Ringler 1963, part III, p. 288, nos. 70–1. At the time of writing I have not yet received an answer from the owners of the chateau confirming whether or not the paintings are still there. Stoll 2012, p. 12. Seifertová 2007b, p. 96; Slavíček 2007, pp. 39–55 (with additional literature). Slavíček 1983, pp. 223–4; Slavíček 1995, pp. 445–52; Slavíček 1996b, p. 507. Lindorfer 2014, pp. 99–112. 134 III. IMAGINES works (including those by artists active in the local colony), the proportion rises to almost a half of the total. For the reasons discussed earlier, however, this would not necessarily constitute an individual predilection. In my opinion, far more is revealed about the personal tastes of the collector from the uncommonly dominant presence of German paintings. Lucas Cranach the Elder can be regarded as the collector’s favourite German artist, for there are six works by him on the list (nos. 12, 43, 63, 83, 143, 208); the owner seems to have been particularly fond of the moralistic compositions of The Ill-Matched Couple, for he acquired no less than four variations of the work (or even five, if the afore-mentioned painting attributed to Lucas von Leyden was indeed a version of a Cranach composition). There are also works by artists whose names occur relatively rarely in Viennese collections, such as the still-life specialist Peter Binoit (c. 1590–1632), active primarily in Frankfurt and Cologne, who features in the inventory with two compositions of food (nos. 182–3) and a perspectival picture (no. 206).³94 Even among the works attributed to German masters, the quantity of paintings originating from Nuremberg seems disproportionately high. The works attributed to Albrecht Dürer (nos. 2, 97) were obviously copies, but the vast majority of Dürer copies in the seventeenth century were still produced in the artist’s home city,³95 and this may also be where the paintings in the collection originated from. Christoph Friedrich Steinhammer (no. 9), Franz Rösel von Rosenhof (nos. 25, 62, 74, 78) and Johann Franz Ermels (no. 67) were active in Nuremberg all through their careers, and in the case of one painting by Rösel, the inventory emphasises the artist’s place of origin: Franz Christoph Rösl von Nürnberg. The careers of two other men whose names appear several times in the inventory – Hans Hoffmann (? his exact identity is so far only provisionally accepted) (nos. 3, 28, 34, 118, 140) and Martin Dichtl (nos. 51, 58, 202) – also began in Nuremberg, with Hoffmann later moving to Prague, while Dichtl settled in Vienna; the question is whether the works listed were made in Nuremberg or in their new homes. Frederick van Valckenborch, whose composition on copper is listed as item no. 15 on the inventory, was not German by birth, but he did spend the last part of his working life in Nuremberg, so we can also include him here. “Ein sizender Haaß in einem gebusch” Four paintings by Franz Rösel von Rosenhof (1626–1700), who worked mainly in Nuremberg in the second half of the seventeenth century, were registered on the inventory, although in three cases his Christian name was given as “Christoph” and in one case as “Franz Christoph” (nos. 25, 62, 74, 78). Specialising in landscapes and animal scenes, Rösel was in the service of Albert Sigismund of Bavaria, Prince-Bishop of Freising, around 1666; according to an anecdote reported by Sandrart, Rösel’s arch-rival was Christoph Paudiss, and what is 394 Two identically sized still lifes with food (Frühstück) painted on canvas were listed in the inventory. Pairs of paintings by the artist on the same theme are in the Schwarzenberg collection (Česky Krumlov, currently Kratochvíle) and the Salm-Reifferscheidt collection (Rájec), but these are on wood. Bott 1961–2, p. 81, cats. 16–7, and Aristokracie ducha 2015, cats. 24–5 (Lubomír Slavíček). 395 Stüwe 1998, pp. 38–47; Hess 2002,pp. 451–64; Bubenik 2013. 135 THE ARTWORKS more, Rösel eventually emerged as the victor.³96 I have no knowledge of him residing in Vienna, but the painter certainly worked on commissions from the Imperial City: in the 1670s, for example, a large quantity of paintings by Rösel were bought by Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein.³97 The value of his works on the Esterházy inventory was on average between 20 and 40 thalers, but one painting, a depiction of the Four Elements painted on copper (no. 74) was estimated at 100 thalers. 47. Franz Rösel von Rosenhoff : Rösel probably made several versions of Hare in the Bush, 1674 his more successful compositions, for even Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest in this collection there were two canvases of hares (nos. 62, 78). The first of these was listed together with its pendant, a picture of a cat (no. 61), while the other (no. 78) was an independent work, representing the tradition of the Hare in a Bush that can be traced to Nuremberg and Dürer: Ein stuck auf leinwand, ein sizend(er) Haaß in einem gebusch sehr guet ausgearbeitet von Christoph Rösl – 20. A painting on the same subject, dated 1674, was presented as a gift to the Hungarian National Museum in 1884 by László Bikessy, and is now part of the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest (fig. 47).³98 Since no further information about the provenance of the work is available, and as the artist reworked the theme on several occasions, the gift from Bikessy cannot be directly identified as the piece listed in the inventory, although there would be nothing against this supposition either. A painting of a hare by Rösel was also in the Schönborn-Buchheim collection, although in the 1721 inventory it was attributed to Hamilton: Ein Haaß im Wald zwischen Bäumen von Hamilton. Nevertheless, the painting is signed and dated – 1678. Francisc(us) Röseli(us) J. a. Rosenhoff fecit Norinberga – so there can be no doubt about the authorship of the work.³99 A Hare by Rösel also appeared in the collection of works offered for sale by Johann 396 Sandrart 1679, II, p. 78; Garas 1997, p. 49; Morsbach 2008, p. 411. The bishop’s estate inventory contains a small quantity of paintings by both artists, including two portrayals of a sheep being torn apart by a wolf, allusions to the alleged fierce rivalry between them. Albert Sigismund 1686, fol. 53r, nos. 23–4. 397 In 1673 Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, paid him 600 florins, and in 1674 he paid 100 florins to “Roselius” the Younger. Fleischer 1910, p. 42. His works were also found in art collections in Prague: Vršovec had two landscapes by him. Wrschowetz 1723, nos. 36–7. 398 Szépművészeti Múzeum, Budapest, inv. 1054, oil on canvas: 47×61.5 cm. Dated: 1674. May also have been signed, but this is no longer visible, cf. Garas 1997, p. 48; Benkő–Garas–Urbach 2003, p. 111. The work is referred to as being signed “F. Rosenhoof Rooshoof ” in: Országos Képtár 1897, p. 610. 399 Schlossgalerie, Pommersfelden, oil on canvas, 37.3×41.4 cm. Barock in Nürnberg 1962, cat. A 196; in 1721 it was in the chateau of Lothar Franz von Schönborn in Gaibach, as inventoried by Jan Joost van Cossiau: Bott 2000, p. 139, no. 461. 136 III. IMAGINES 48. Friedrich Christoph Steinhammer: The Preaching of Saint John the Baptist, 1622 Whereabouts unknown (reproduced after Faille de Waerloos 1903) Carl von Egk und Hungersbach to the Prince of Liechtenstein (Ein Haas von Fr. Rösel),400 and in the estate inventory of Albert Sigismund, Prince-Bishop of Freising (Ein gemahlter Haaß vom Roßl von Niernberg).40¹ Another example made in 1665 is known from Augsburg, and there is a signed piece from 1676 in the collection of Strahov Monastery.40² According to the sources, the piece in the Viennese collection of Antonia von Lahousen40³ was dated 1674, like the Bikessy gift, as was the copy from the estate of Prosper von Sinzendorf (1751–1822), which was sold at auction in 1823.404 The dimensions of the latter were approximately 55.2×47.3 cm, so it cannot be the same as the Rösel painting now in Budapest. 400 401 402 403 404 Fleischer 1910, p. 221, no. 42. Albert Sigismund 1686, fol. 58r, no. 119. Garas 1997, p. 49. Thieme-Becker 1934, XXVIII, p. 499. Sinzendorf 1823, p. 82, no. 508: Fr. R. de Rosenhoff. T. – L. 21 p., H. 18 p. Petit lièvre assis parmi des plantes, 1674. Il est impossible d’imiter mieux la nature à l’instar de ce peintre. 137 THE ARTWORKS “Die prædicatio S(anc)ti Joannis” Friedrich Christoph Steinhammer (active 1612–40?), about whom little is known at present, worked in Nuremberg in the first half of the seventeenth century, and his compositions clearly demonstrate that he was a follower of Hans Rottenhammer (1564—1625); in contemporary inventories his paintings are often misattributed to the older master for this reason. Recent research, however, has succeeded in identifying some pictures, previously generally attributed to a member of Rottenhammer’s circle, as works by Steinhammer, although his known œuvre still amounts to no more than a handful of paintings.405 The Esterházy inventory listed a Steinhammer composition on copper depicting the Sermon of Saint John the Baptist (no. 9): Ein stuck auf kupfer die prædicatio S(anc)ti Joannis sehr rar von Streichhamer – 100. I have managed to trace the Sermon of Saint John the Baptist referred to in the inventory to Amsterdam, where in 1903 the estate of the Antwerp art collector René della Faille de Waerloos (1830–1902) was auctioned off by Frederik Muller.406 The work fits the description in every way: it is painted on copper, and signed and dated: “F. C. Steinham. F. 1622”; a reproduction of the work was even published in the auction catalogue, so its composition is recognisable (fig. 48). I have no data regarding the present location of the painting, its earlier destiny, or who the owners before Faille could have been. To the extent permitted by the black-and-white reproduction in the catalogue, the stylistic characteristics of the painting are in keeping with Steinhammer’s œuvre, and it can be regarded as an authentic work by him. Seeing that so few paintings are known by the master, this work (which does not yet feature in any of the related literature) may provide a valuable contribution to future research into the artist. “Ein bauersman mit einer Baürin” Item 97 was a Dürer composition on wood, valued at the relatively high price of 100 thalers, implying that it was a copy of high quality. The composition was almost certainly based on an engraving made by Albrecht Dürer in 1519 (fig. 49).407 According to Dürer’s diary entry, the print depicts a peasant (der neue Bauer) selling his wares at the market. The far older woman beside him is about to buy goods from the man, and despite how apparent this may seem, the engraving is still, to this day, frequently referred to in the literature with designations such as “Market Peasants”, “Peasant and his Wife”, and so on.408 Our inventory, however, correctly defined only the man as a market peddler: No. 97. Ein stuck auf holz von Alberto Duro ein bauersman mit einer Baürin so hüner vnd schmalz verkaufft – 100. 405 406 407 408 Two recent studies have dealt with the extant paintings by Steinhammer: Pijl 2007; Fusenig 2010–1. Private collection, oil on copper, 44×57 cm. Faille de Waerloos 1903, no. 40. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-OB-1256, engraving, 116×73 mm. For more about the subject, see: Hausmann 1861, pp. 33–4, B.89; Flechsig 1928, I, p. 246. Basing his assertion on the figures’ movements and the allusions to sexuality (rooster, egg), Jürgen Müller interprets the work as a version of The Ill-Matched Couple. Müller 2011, p. 7. 138 III. IMAGINES The painted version of the composition turned up in Vienna in 1876, entitled Market Peasants, in the possession of Friedrich Lippmann (1838–1903), an art historian and collector from Prague, who was the custodian of the Association of Austrian Museums, and who that same year was appointed director of the Kupferstichkabinett in Berlin. The catalogue of Lippmann’s collection was compiled before his move to Berlin, in connection with the auction being prepared by the Miethke Art Gallery.409 According to the information in the catalogue, the work was painted on wood and measured 39×28 cm; its description matches that of the Dürer engraving, down to the details, and the artist’s signature was visible on a stone in the foreground.4¹0 In Miethke’s opinion, it was a typical example of the imitations of Dürer produced in Nuremberg by Georg Gärtner and Hans Hoffmann in the second half of the sixteenth century,4¹¹ and in this case was particularly well executed and in excellent condition. I have been unable to locate the 49. Albrecht Dürer: The Market Peasant, 1519 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam present whereabouts of the work. A smaller version of the Dürer composition, also painted on wood but of rather poor quality, is held in the collection of the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest.4¹² I consider it improbable that this copy would have been valued at 100 thalers in the seventeenth century, and in my view there is no justification for proposing any connection between this work and the inventory under investigation. 409 Catalog Lippmann 1876. Lippmann’s name does not appear in the title of the catalogue, but a pencil inscription on the copy in the Vienna University Library informs us that he was the owner of the painting listed within. The catalogue also features in the inventory for the auction of the gallery: Natter 2003, p. 234. When Lippmann moved to Berlin, the Miethke Art Gallery took over and sold his collection, although in 1892 (when the inscription was made) Miethke still possessed a few of the paintings. 410 Catalog Lippmann 1876, no. 16. Miethke omitted the medium from the item description, but he did note in the catalogue introduction that all the works listed were painted on wood. 411 For more about copies after works by Dürer, see: Stüwe 1998; Hirakawa 2009. Neither author mentions the painting made after the Market Peasant, however. 412 Szépművészeti Múzeum, Budapest, inv. 71.12, oil on wood, 14.5×9.5 cm. Benkő–Garas–Urbach 2003, p. 38. 139 THE ARTWORKS “Eine bußfertigte Magdalena auf holz” This was not the only Dürer copy in our collection, although the model for the other work is less easy to define. It is listed right at the beginning of the inventory, in a common frame with a work by “Hofman” (Hans Hoffmann?) (nos. 2–3): Ein bußfertigte Magdalena auf holz von Alberto Duro sehr rar – 100. Item ein stuck auf leingewandt gleicher grose von hofman beede in einer ramb – 20. The panel work attributed to Albrecht Dürer was estimated at 100 thalers, whereas the canvas by “Hofman” was evaluated at the much lower price of 20 thalers. Judging from these valuations, both these works must have been copies. The painting attributed to Dürer showed Penitent Magdalene; all we know about the Hoffmann work was that it was “one more”, which I can best interpret as meaning another female figure. I am aware of just a single pair of paintings that could possibly come into consideration here: the socalled “Fürlegerin” portraits by Dürer, which once constituted a diptych (1497) (figs. 50–1).4¹³ The subject of the two portraits is unknown, and modern research has refuted the earlier supposition that they were portraits of the same member of the Fürleger family, painted from different angles and with different hairstyles. The latest conjecture is that the works immortalise two sisters, one of whom is preparing to enter a nunnery, while the other is about to get married. One is seen face-on, her hair undone, hands held in prayer, while the other girl has her hair pinned up and is clasping some plants between her fingers, a symbol of betrothal. Clearly, neither picture shows Mary Magdalene, although the praying woman with her hair hanging down – or more precisely, a copy of her figure supplemented with a chance attribute – could quite easily be interpreted as the biblical figure. The paintings are indeed marked with the coat of arms of the Fürleger family of Nuremberg, but all the evidence indicates that they were painted on later, with some observers suggesting this took place when the family decided to sell the portraits, as a way of immortalising their erstwhile ownership. The first known record of these paintings is from the collection of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel, and the literature associates the purchase, more or less confidently, with Arundel’s diplomatic mission to Vienna in 1636.4¹4 On his journey, the earl passed through Nuremberg, where he bought the library of Willibald Pirckheimer, a friend of Dürer, from Hans Hieronymus Imhoff (1569–1629), as well as a few precious antique cameos from Imhoff ’s collection.4¹5 Thanks to the Pirckheimer inheritance, the Imhoff family had once possessed the most important collection of works by Dürer, but by the time Arundel passed through, their stock had been severely depleted by selling continuously. The earl was evidently disappointed by this fact, for from Nuremberg he complained in a letter about “[…] heere in this towne being not one scrach of Alb: Duers paintinge in oyle to be sold”.4¹6 413 Städel Museum, Frankfurt am Main, inv. 937, tempera on canvas, 56×43 cm (published with different di- mensions – 53.5×40.6 cm – by Brinkmann 2006, p. 78); Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. 1/77, tempera on canvas, 56.6×42.5 cm. With an overview of the previous literature: Anzelewsky 1991, cats. 45–6. 414 For the diplomatic mission, see: Gümbel 1904; Hervey 1921, pp. 357–76; Springell 1963. For a summary of the Arundel collection, with further literature, see: Howarth 1985; Arundel 1985. 415 Ernstberger 1954, p. 186; Budde 1996, p. 88. 416 Letter from Arundel to William Petty, Nuremberg, 27/17 May 1636. Published in: Hervey 1921, p. 366. 140 III. IMAGINES Very little is known about the collection of the Fürleger family, but one thing for certain is that – at least in the early seventeenth century – they had no paintings by Dürer. The Fürlegers of Nuremberg own many paintings, but in the main they are cose moderna with nothing of Dürer, noted Philipp Hainhofer (1578–1647) in 1610, when the merchant from Augsburg was looking for available works by the Nuremberg artist on behalf of William V, Duke of Bavaria (1548–1626).4¹7 In all likelihood, therefore, Arundel did not buy any Dürer portraits from the Fürleger family in 1636.4¹8 Of course, it is entirely possible that Arundel could have bought the paintings at some other time, via intermediaries: his agents made purchases in Nuremberg in 1629, and in 1637 he managed to acquire the Dürer works that Imhoff had sold in the early 1630s to Matthias van Overbeck, a merchant in Leiden.4¹9 Some of the “Dürers” sold to Overbeck were not autograph works, but had been subsequently “improved” with the master’s signature. In the case of one painting on parchment, showing a lion, Imhoff noted down the name of the actual artist – Hans Hoffmann: Ein schöner Löb auff pergament, stehet zwar des A. Dürer Zaichen darunter, man helt aber dafür, es habe solchen nur Hanns Hoffmann gemalt, pro Rth. 40.4²0 In my opinion, it is not inconceivable that, like Overbeck, the Fürleger family also played the role of go-between. This seems to be confirmed by another record, which shows a member of the family conducting a transaction involving artworks belonging to Imhoff : in December 1636 Paul Konrad Fürleger sold some pieces from the Kunstkammer of Hans Hieronymus Imhoff on the occasion of the election of Ferdinand III as King of the Romans, in Regensburg.4²¹ In February 1638, the same man applied for and was granted a letter of safe passage to transport antiquities, paintings, silverware and sculptures from Nuremberg to Vienna.4²² It is generally accepted that the two female portraits originated from Nuremberg, and that their first appearance coincided with the break-up of the most important collection of Dürers in the city (the Imhoff collection); it is also known that the Fürleger family had not previously owned any works by Dürer, although Paul Konrad Fürleger was the custodian of items from Imhoff ’s Kunstkammer in order to sell them; despite these facts, it is not customary for the portraits in question here to be associated with the Imhoff collection. The main reason for this is the complete absence of the works from the extant inventories. Imhoff ’s documents certainly make no mention of female portraits, although between 1573 and 1588 they record two tempera paintings on canvas, originating from Dürer’s workshop, which presumably belonged together (they are 417 Fürleger in N(ürn)b(er)g hat auch vil mahlerey, aber mehrer thails coße Moderna und gar nichts Diererisch. 418 419 420 421 422 Published in: Doering 1894, p. 121. One year later, Hainhofer conducted talks with the widowed Fürlegerin about the purchase of artworks (schöne sachen): Ibid. pp. 238–40, 242. There must have been some kind of connection between the Earl of Arundel and the Fürleger family, because the Amsterdam inheritance of the widowed Lady Arundel mentions a portrait of Fürleger, probably a medal portrait. Among the “objets de vertu”: “furleger de Norenberg” (=Christoph Fürleger?). Cox 1911, p. 325. For the relationship between Hainhofer and Arundel, see: Keblusek 2014, pp. 95–110. Gümbel 1928, p. 23; Budde 1996, p. 191. Fučíková 1972b, pp. 150–1; Koreny 1985, p. 264. Ernstberger 1954, p. 187. The actual reference is “several things” (etliche Sachen), which may imply something other than paintings. For sales from the Imhoff collection between 1633 and 1637, see: Rosenthal 1928 (on the Kunstkammer: 42–6). Duverger 1972, p. 173. 141 THE ARTWORKS 50. Albrecht Dürer: Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair, 1497 Städel Museum, Frankfurt am Main 51. Albrecht Dürer: Portrait of a Woman with Her Hair Done Up, 1497 State Museums of Berlin, Picture Gallery always mentioned together), but there are no picture descriptions to confirm this. In 1588 they featured on the list of works offered for sale to Emperor Rudolf II: Zwey Tafelein von Wasserfarben auf Tuch, kommen aus Albrecht Dürers werkstad.4²³ (The phrase stating that the paintings came from Dürer’s workshop is probably intended literally in this case, and does not imply that they were workshop copies. However, as the Fürlegerin portraits once were, these works were presumably unsigned.) The works are no longer to be found in the sources after 1588, which means that by 1630, when the next inventory was drawn up, they were no longer in the collection. As none of the descriptions specifies the subject matter in these paintings, we cannot say with any confidence that these were the portraits in question; however, the available information is, in my opinion, enough to prevent us from categorically ruling out the possibility that the paintings bearing the Fürleger family coat of arms may have originated from the Imhoff collection. In any event, it appears that the portraits were owned by the Earl of Arundel by around 1637–8: this was when he commissioned Wenceslaus Hollar (1607–77) to produce drawings of items in his collection for a planned, but never realised, illustrated publication. 423 Budde 1996, p. 193, cats. G/25–6. For the Dürer works acquired by Emperor Rudolf II and the imitations after Dürer that were made in his court, see: Fučíková 1972b; DaCosta Kaufmann 1985; Bubenik 2005. 142 III. IMAGINES 52. Wenceslaus Hollar after Albrecht Dürer: Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair, 1646 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 53. Wenceslaus Hollar after Albrecht Dürer: Portrait of a Woman with Her Hair Done Up, 1646 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam When the English Civil War broke out, the artist and his patron went their separate ways, with Arundel and his family fleeing to the continent, shortly followed by Hollar. Eventually, during his time in Antwerp (1646), Hollar produced etchings based on his drawings, which he published as separate sheets (figs. 52–3).4²4 Among them were both female portraits, and their inscriptions state that the works were from the Arundel collection. Arundel and his wife had in the meantime rescued their collection from England, having it brought first to Antwerp and then to Holland (Amersfoort and eventually Amsterdam), and dispersal of the collection began around the same time.4²5 The two female portraits by Dürer were still on the list of works compiled after the death of the widowed Countess of Arundel (1654),4²6 although the next time they appear, they are owned by Franz and Bernhard 424 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-OB-11.433, etching, 255×176 mm (Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair); Ibid. RP-P-1906-2036, etching, 251×178 mm (Portrait of a Woman with Her Hair Done Up). 425 Kurz 1943, pp. 279–82; Weijtens 1971; Brown 1995, pp. 61–6. 426 For the inventory of the estate of the widowed Lady Arundel (Amsterdam, c. 1654–5), see: Cust–Cox 1911 and Cox 1911. The Fürlegerin portraits are on page 283: Alberto Durero: 2 ritratti de donna in aquazzo. 143 THE ARTWORKS von Imstenraedt, nephews of the Parisian art dealer and collector Everhard Jabach (1618–95), originally from Cologne.4²7 Everhard Jabach and the Imstenraedt brothers built up the lion’s share of their collections from the sales of works by members of the English aristocracy in the 1650s, and purchased numerous paintings at the London auction of the estate of King Charles I (The Commonwealth Sale, 1650).4²8 They bought items from the Arundel collection on several occasions,4²9 and Imstenraedt also managed to acquire works from the collection of the Earl of Pembroke.4³0 The majority of the works were obtained well below their market value, and the new owners held on to them for a whole decade, waiting for the political and economic situation to calm down, before beginning to put the paintings up for sale in the second half of the 1660s. So as not to fall into competition with one another, the Imstenraedt brothers transported their collection to Vienna, while Jabach, in Paris, offered his collection for sale to the King of France.4³¹ In Vienna, the most valuable works were initially offered directly to Emperor Leopold I (1667),4³² and then the brothers tried to sell some works to members of the local aristocracy by organising a lottery, which ultimately failed (1670);4³³ all in all, their high hopes regarding the Central European art market proved unfounded.4³4 Eventually, they managed to sell a substantial part of their collection of paintings, at an extremely reduced price, to Karl von Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn (1673), Archbishop of Olomouc.4³5 Of the two brothers, Franz von Imstenraedt (1632–94) was the art dealer, while his younger sibling, Bernhard Albert (1637–94), acted as the intermediary, for in the course of his service to the emperor he was often in Vienna. Although I have not found any direct connection between the Imstenraedt collection and the works that form the subject of our pursuit, the elder Imstenraedt brother is tied by multiple threads to a number 427 For the collection of the Imstenraedt brothers, see: Breitenbacher 1927, II, pp. 9–90; Breitenbacher 1930; Förster 1930; Grossmann 1944; Šafařík 1964; Ley 1971; Seyfarth 1995; Seyfarth 1999. 428 Part was sold with the help of dealers, see: Brotton 2006, pp. 298–9. For the collections (not only that of paintings) of King Charles I, see: McGregor 1989. 429 After the death of the widowed Lady Arundel, one of their sons, William Howard, 1st Viscount Stafford 430 431 432 433 434 435 (1614–80) began to sell off parts of the collection, with Jabach and the Imstenraedt brothers making most of their purchases at the Utrecht auction in 1662. Jabach had, for example, previously (1653) bought drawings from Lady Arundel in Amsterdam. Weijtens 1971; Dudok van Heel 1975; Brown 1995, pp. 63–6. Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of Pembroke (1584–1650), was Arundel’s brother-in-law, and paintings bought from him are mentioned in: Šafařík 1964, p. 177; Kindl 2014b, p. 91. For his biography, see: Vey 1999; for the most recent publication on his art collection, with previous literature, see: Allemand à la cour 2013. Entitled Iconophylacium, the catalogue of artworks, with Latin verse, was published in: Seyfarth 1999. The list of paintings up for sale by lottery in 1670 was published in: Frimmel 1910 (in Italian); Breitenbacher 1925, I, Seznam VI–VII (in Italian and German versions). For the reasons why the lottery failed, see: Breitenbacher 1930, pp. 207–8; Kindl 2014b, pp. 92–3. The inventory of the paintings purchased in 1673 is published in: Breitenbacher 1927, II, Appendix 18; Breitenbacher 1930, pp. 211–6. However, this part of the collection did not include every painting the brothers brought to Vienna: Caravaggio’s David, which was offered for sale in 1667, is not on the list of 1673, and most recently appeared in the imperial collection in Prague: Garas 1981, p. 397. The modern catalogue of the paintings still in Kroměříž today is: Gemäldegalerie Kroměříž 1999. The most recent papers on the archbishop’s art collection are: Slavíček 2009; Kindl 2014b. 144 III. IMAGINES of the main players in our story. At his wedding in 1662 to Catharina von Wichem, the daughter of an immensely wealthy patrician of Cologne, the commemorative poem was written by Joost van den Vondel, a close associate of the Edelstein family.4³6 Despite the failure surrounding the sale of his first collection, it appears that Franz von Imstenraedt maintained contact with members of the Viennese court aristocracy: he later offered paintings for sale to Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein,4³7 at the end of the 1680s, a Count of Thun was planning to purchase works from him,4³8 and in 1690 he was corresponding with the Counts of Sternberg.4³9 In 1688 he made a new offer to the Archbishop of Olomouc, but on this occasion Karl von Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn turned Imstenraedt down, because a few months beforehand he had already purchased some new paintings in Prague – a detail which may have some bearing on our investigations. The archbishop’s inventory of 1691 does indeed feature a number of new paintings, mostly from the circle of the Rudolfine masters (Hans von Aachen, Rottenhammer, Savery, Spranger), although their provenance is still unknown.440 Having sold his first collection of paintings, Imstenraedt began to collect once more in Cologne, and when he was forced to flee the city to escape his creditors, he secreted his second collection of art to Prague. There it was impounded in 1691, and the works were sold off after 1693; it thus transpired that a collection of exceptional quality, predominantly made up of Italian and Flemish paintings (Perugino, Titian, Perino del Vaga, Sarto, Giorgione, Van Dyck, Jordaens, Rubens), but also including works by the likes of Dürer, Hans von Aachen and Rottenhammer, was dispersed – almost without a trace – among the circles of art collectors in Prague at the very end of the seventeenth century.44¹ To return to the two Dürer portraits originating from the Arundel collection, these works, thanks to Imstenraedt ended up in Kroměříž in 1673, where they were kept until 1830, when they were sold at auction in Olomouc, together with part of the archiepiscopal collection.44² 436 Seyfarth 1995, p. 235. 437 In February 1678 Franz von Imstenraedt offered 42 paintings for sale to Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, 438 439 440 441 442 most of which were Italian works. Haupt 1998, pp. 246–8, reg. 1672. Haupt tentatively identified the seller with a member of the Immenraed family of painters from Antwerp, although it is more likely, in this case as well, to have been the merchant from Cologne. cf. Haupt 2012, reg. 2410 (Imstenraedt’s letter on the same subject, dated 9 April 1678.) His connection with the princely family can also be shown at a later date: Johann Adam Andreas, Prince of Liechtenstein paid the younger Imstenraedt in 1687 for a certain “fake jewel”, and in 1692 for two busts. Ibid. regs. 174, 693. Seyfarth 1995, p. 245. The purchase price would have been 15,000 florins, although from the source cited it is unclear whether or not the purchase was transacted. Birnbaumová 1926, pp. 620–1. Breitenbacher 1925, I, pp. 41–3. Unfortunately, there is still no progress on the identity of the Prague seller. The name of the Žerotín family was once put forward, but Breitenbacher considered this unlikely. The attributions, of course, must be handled with due caution. What became of the paintings afterwards is unknown, and the majority of them are still unidentified. The inventory compiled in 1693 is published in: Seyfarth 1995, pp. 240–5. The part of the inventory that contains the paintings, as well as the prices and the names of the purchasers, can be found in: Breitenbacher 1925, I, pp. LXXVIII–LXXIX, Seznam XVIII. References made between 1646 and 1830 to the Dürer pictures in the Arundel, Imstenraedt and Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn collections are cited in: Grossmann 1944, II, p. 175; Brinkmann 2006, p. 44. 145 THE ARTWORKS 54. After Albrecht Dürer: Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair Bavarian State Painting Collections, Alte Pinakothek, Munich 55. After Albrecht Dürer: Portrait of a Woman with Her Hair Done Up Museum of Fine Arts, Leipzig According to an auction catalogue, they were bought by a certain “Mr Biela”;44³ the works were subsequently lost from view for a while, before reappearing in Munich in 1847, now in the possession of Carl Waagen. It was only at this time that the paintings were separated. In October 1847 Waagen offered one of the works for sale to the royal museum in Berlin.444 In his offer, he wrote that he had obtained the painting from an antiques dealer in Augsburg named Fidelis Butsch, but that it had previously been owned by “Böhm the engraver”,445 the Archbishop of Olomouc and – originally – the Earl of Arundel. The museum leadership (including the director general – and brother of the seller – Gustav Friedrich Waagen), however, remained sceptical about the authenticity of the work, due to its poor condition, and after much indecision, the offer was declined in 1848. Waagen eventually managed to sell the Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair to the Städelsches Kunstinstitut of Frankfurt 443 Breitenbacher 1925, I, p. LXXIX, no. 52. 444 Stockhausen 2000, pp. 115, 128. The author identifies the painting offered for sale as a Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair, although the excerpts of the cited letter do not reveal exactly which portrait. 445 That is, Joseph Daniel Böhm, director of the Academy of Engraving at the Imperial and Royal Central Mint. 146 III. IMAGINES in 1849, while the Portrait of a Woman with Her Hair Done Up was procured by Otto Mündler, who sold it at auction in Christie’s in 1851; after passing through a number of private collections in London and Paris, the work finally made its way into a public collection in 1977:446 as fate would have it, it is now where Carl Waagen originally offered it, in the State Museums of Berlin. Back in Berlin in the mid-nineteenth century, not only was the authenticity of the work called into question, but it also seems that doubts were voiced concerning its provenance, for the name of the noted art collector, Joseph Daniel Böhm (1794–1865), is still never mentioned in the history of the ownership of the Dürer portraits.447 And yet Waagen was correct in his assertion, for the paintings had indeed been in Böhm’s collection in Vienna in the 1840s. In 1844 Rudolf 56. After Albrecht Dürer: Portrait of a von Eitelberger wrote an account of the colWoman with Loose Hair lection (published in 1847), in which he re(The Virgin of the Annunciation?) fers to a pair of works that he considered to Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest be autograph paintings by Dürer, even opining that they were the models for Hollar’s engravings. No. 52. Albrecht Dürer, weibliches Porträt mit Dürer’s Monogramm und der Jahreszahl 1497. Dieses Gemälde, von dem Hollar einen Kupferstich im Jahre 1646 gemacht hat, ist minder gut erhalten, nur die außerordentlich zarte Kontur sichtbar. Es ist zweifelsohne Original. No. 53. Albrecht Dürer, Porträt einer weiblichen Figur. Der Kopf gut erhalten. Vom Jahre 1497. Dasselbe ist von Hollar gestochen 1646. Davon existiert eine Kopie, die man in Augsburg für Original hält.448 Eitelberger was probably also the author of an announcement published in the Stuttgart Kunstblatt on 29 April 1845, which provided details of the works by Holbein and Dürer in the Böhm collection.449 Among the more extensive information given in the journal is the fact that the works in question were painted on canvas, and measured 21” 4”’×16” 4”’, converted from Viennese inches (and lines) as approximately 56.1×42.9 cm. (The dimensions of the paintings in Berlin and Frankfurt are, respectively, 56×42 cm and 56.5×42.5 cm). We can therefore unequivocally state that Böhm was a former owner of the original Dürer works. 446 Grossmann 1944, II, p. 174; Anzelewsky 1991, pp. 144–5; Brinkmann 2006, p. 44. 447 It is mentioned in none of the papers that deal extensively with the provenance of the pieces: Grossmann 1944, Anzelewsky 1991, Brinkmann 2006. 448 Eitelberger 1847, no. 259 (29 October 1847), p. 1031. 449 Eitelberger 1845, pp. 141–2. 147 THE ARTWORKS The Fürlegerin copies As could be seen from Eitelberger’s accounts, there were known copies of these portraits. What is more, in the mid-nineteenth century, these were held to be the originals. In 1844 Eitelberger voiced his doubts about the Augsburg copy of the Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair (now in Munich),450 asserting that the version in the Böhm collection was produced by Dürer’s hand. The article he published in the Kunstblatt shows that he was also aware of the Leipzig version of Portrait of a Woman with Her Hair Done Up,45¹ owned at the time by Maximilian von Speck; this was believed by his contemporaries to be an autograph work by Dürer, but has likewise since been proven a copy (figs. 54–5).45² The copies in Munich and Leipzig are both painted on wood, and may have originally constituted a pair of pendants (at least their support medium and dimensions are the same). As they are in a much better condition than the canvas originals, many of the details – such as the inscription, the carved figure in the window frame, and Dürer’s monogram in the Portrait of a Woman with Her Hair Done Up – are visible today only in the copies.45³ One substantial omission, however, is the Fürleger coat of arms. The general assumption is that the copies must have been made before the Fürleger sold the originals, whenever that may have been. (In the background of the Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair, however, can be seen Dürer’s signature, which according to Fedja Anzelewsky was also added later, but apparently not at the same time as the coat of arms.) A notable difference between the original paintings and their copies is that the colours of the dresses worn by both figures are inverted: the Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair is wearing a green dress with a red hem, while in the copy the dress is red and the hem is green. The same reversal of colours can be seen in the other copy as well. Starting out from other composition details, meanwhile, Bodo Brinkmann drew the conclusion that whoever made the copies on wood, while clearly working after the originals, must also have been aware of Hollar’s engravings of 1646, for certain elements were borrowed from the prints.454 If this is the case, the copies in question would have been made after the originals came to Amsterdam, either in the company of the Countess of Arundel, or not long after her death (1654). (According to this theory, one would also have 450 Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair: Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich, Alte Pinakothek, inv. 451 452 453 454 4732, oil-tempera on wood, 58.7×42.9 cm. It originates from Scheyern Benedictine Abbey, which was secularised in 1803–4. Goldberg–Heimberg–Schawe 1998, p. 561. Portrait of a Woman with Her Hair Done Up: Museum der bildenden Künste, Leipzig, inv. 1708. oil-tempera on wood, 58.5×42.5 cm. Owned by Duke Ferdinand of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel in 1795, in Brussels from 1808, bought in 1819 from the de Burtin collection by Maximilian Speck von Sternburg. Speck von Sternburg 1998, pp. 247–8, cat. I/6 (Andreas Priever). The argument surrounding the Berlin work and the copy in Leipzig was only settled in 1977 when infrared imaging revealed the pentimento of one of the details in the original work. Anzelewsky 1991, p. 147. Signed top right, on the cartellino: Also pin ich gestalt / In achcehe jor altt / 1497; the monogram AD can be seen on the book held by the prophet in the window embrasure. Brinkmann 2006, pp. 55–6. 148 III. IMAGINES to assume that the copier simply left out the Fürleger coat or arms.) The whereabouts of the original works between 1655 and 1667 is, unfortunately, somewhat a “grey area”: around 1655 the portraits were still on the estate inventory of the Arundel widow, and twelve years later they are demonstrably owned by the Imstenraedt brothers, but what happened to the works in the intervening decade is unknown, including how accessible they would have been for the purpose of making copies. Even if we accept that the works described in the Esterházy inventory were copies of the Dürer portraits at hand, the question arises of whether they were replicated after the original canvases, after the copies on wood, or after Hollar’s prints. A sure answer could only be ascertained by identifying the copies we seek, but the text of the inventory may permit some cautious deductions to be made: the inventory referred only to the Penitent Magdalene as a Dürer, while it attributed the other to Hoffmann, with both works framed together. This presupposes knowledge that is unlikely to have come from the etchings: the prints make no reference to the original works being together “physically”, and in the inscriptions, Hollar clearly attributes both female portraits to Dürer. If the copies had been made after the etchings, it is unlikely they would have been set in a common frame, and there would probably have been no room for Hoffmann’s name to be raised. However, the “information” in the inventory can be traced (at least partly) back to the paintings. The original works were also framed together, and described in 1691 as: Contrafeten von Alberto Thüre, hinter einen Glass in einer schwartzen und vergolten Ram.455 It is not inconceivable that this “knowledge” was continued in the copies of the work. Dürer’s monogram is only clearly discernible in the Portrait of a Woman with Loose Hair, but on the pendant this detail is impossible to see, and even on the Leipzig copy it is hard to make out; this may explain why the other work was attributed to a different painter, but one who was known to imitate Dürer’s style. If we accept the attribution to Hans Hoffmann as our guide, then our investigations ought to be directed towards copies of the painting that were believed to be German in origin and can be dated to around the 1580s or 1590s. There are very few of these, however, and in the case of the Portrait of a Woman with Her Hair Done Up, I am only aware of a single copy: the one in Leipzig. There are several copies of its pendant, however, including one in the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest (fig. 56), which – like the one in the inventory – is painted on wood.456 The painting was part of a set of works donated by János László Pyrker in 1836, although he attributed the work to Michael Wolgemut, as the work does not feature Dürer’s monogram. There is nothing in the sources that says whether or not the painting ever had a pendant. The work is presently defined as of German origin, made around 1600. It is not an accurate copy, and it appears that it was based not on the original painting, but on the Munich copy: here too, the woman is dressed in red, and the dimensions are also approximately the same: 59×44.5 cm. 455 Breitenbacher 1925, I, Seznam IX (9 April 1691), nos. 30–1. 456 Szépművészeti Múzeum, Budapest, inv. 144, oil on wood, 59×44.5 cm. Pigler 1968, I, cat. 144; Benkő–Garas–Urbach 2003, p. 38. 149 THE ARTWORKS The Budapest copy has some details that differ both from the original and from the Munich work. The woman’s hands, for example, are not held in prayer but clasped together, exactly as can be seen in a drawing made after the Dürer work by Georg Gärtner (c. 1575/80–1654), now in Darmstadt.457 The composition is supplemented with a prayer book on a little table in front of the figure, which features neither in the Munich copy nor in Gärtner’s drawing. The motif recalls the iconography of the Virgin Mary in The Annunciation,458 and may remind us of the copy of Dürer’s work that is now in Karlsruhe, where it is actually paired with a picture of the Archangel Gabriel.459 We cannot be sure, however, that these works were originally intended as pendants: they were made by different hands, with only the panel portraying Gabriel attributable to Jacques Bellange, while the earlier work, interpreted as the Virgin Mary in The Annunciation, was attributed by Eliška Fučíková to Daniel Fröschl, while Rainer Stüwe identified the artist as Jobst Harrich.460 The female figure could, however, be interpreted as Mary Magdalene; Theodor von Frimmel, for example, who first published the Budapest copy, described it as Mary Magdalene at Prayer. It may also be noteworthy that he attributed the work to a follower of Hans Hoffmann: Eine betende Magdalena, die hier noch als Dürer geführt wird […], dürfte ein Werk eines Nachahmers von der Art eines Hans Hoffmann sein.46¹ *** To sum up our conjectures concerning this pair of paintings, the items listed in the Esterházy inventory may have referred to copies of the so-called “Fürlegerin” portraits, but none of the copies known today constitute a pair (let alone one in a common frame). Taking the known destiny of the original works into consideration, the most likely opportunities for making copies of them would have arisen in Nuremberg, before Dürer’s originals were procured by the Earl of Arundel (which may also explain why one of the paintings was attributed to Hoffmann), or during the decade or so following the death of the widowed Countess of Arundel, when the works were on the art market in Amsterdam(?). 457 For the other copies, with reproductions, see: Anzelewsky 1991, pp. 146–8. Gärtner borrowed the hand gesture from another work by Dürer, the Heller Altar. Brinkmann 2006, p. 22. 458 Its interpretation as the Virgin Mary was not far from that of the original painting: in Kroměříž it was once inventoried as: 2 St(ück) in Wasserfarben, nemblich Maria und ein Weibsbild, beyde auf weissen Batist 1497 – vom Dürer. Breitenbacher 1925, I, Seznam XIV, nos. 22–3. Wenceslaus Hollar, meanwhile, not only referred to Mary in the verse inscription added to his etching of the work, but also implemented minor alterations to the composition to make the figure seem more like the Virgin. The parapet, for example, on which the female figure is leaning, is not in the original painting. Grossmann 1944, p. 174. It is not surprising, therefore, that the first recorded listing of Hollar’s works defined the etching as: The Holy Virgin, with her Hands join’d, Hair dishevelled; after A. Durer. In Arund. Collect. Vertue 1759, p. 69, no. 11. 459 Badisches Landesmuseum, Karlsruhe, inv. 2050. Jacques Bellange (?), oil on wood, 53.5×42.2 cm. 460 Fučíková 1972b, p. 155; Stüwe 1998, p. 122. 461 Frimmel 1892a, p. 250. 150 III. IMAGINES Rudolfine Painters A major sub-group of works featuring on our inventory consists of paintings (or copies of them) made between the end of the sixteenth century and the first decade of the 1600s by artists connected to the imperial court of Rudolf II in Prague. Among the listed works by these “Rudolfine artists” are two by Bartholomäus Spranger, one by Matthäus Gundelach, two by Roelandt Savery, two by Pieter Stevens, and one by Virgilius Solis the Younger. In addition, five paintings are attributed to a certain “Hofmann”, whom we tentatively identify as Hans Hoffmann, while there are also works by painters who were also directly commissioned by the emperor (Hans Rottenhammer, Christoph Schwarz, Hendrick Goltzius, Jacopo Bassano) or whose works Rudolf II was widely known to collect (Pieter Bruegel the Elder, Jan Brueghel the Elder, Lucas von Leyden, Lucas Cranach the Elder, etc.). In the Baroque era, members of the Bohemian aristocracy were proud to trace their art collections back to the times of the Rudolfine court, and almost all of them had at least a work or two by some of the most popular artists from this period, some of which were even reputed – with greater or lesser justification – to have come directly from the imperial collection.46² Examples of works originating from the collection of Rudolf II include a Brueghel in the Lobkowicz collection,46³ two compositions by Jacopo Palma that were owned by the Fürstenbergs before ending up in the Wedewer collection,464 and the painting titled Diana with Nymphs by Hans von Aachen in the Liechtenstein collection.465 Anthonis Blockland’s composition entitled Venus and Cupid made a detour through the art trade via Antwerp before being repatriated to Prague; it was bought from the Forchoudt art dealership by Count Berka,466 who also bought the painting of Venus and Adonis (Jupiter and Callisto?) by Joseph Heintz the Elder (though it was attributed at the time to Correggio), which later found a home in the Kunsthistorisches Museum.467 An allegorical composition by Carel van Mander and perhaps Spranger’s Venus and Adonis, both in the Waldstein gallery in Duchcov, derive from the collection in Prague Castle.468 Forchoudt’s consignment records of the paintings brought for sale in Vienna occasionally featured works by Spranger, Savery or Rottenhammer, some of which actually originated in Prague. In the main, they had been looted by the Swedish forces of Queen Christina, before being transported from Stockholm to Antwerp, where they were put on the art market, although as early as 1618, works by Spranger and Hans von Aachen that had once been in Rudolf II’s Kunstkammer were on sale in Brussels, probably from the holdings of Archduke Albert.469 In a letter of 1668 written by Guillam Forchoudt to his sons, he mentions that, among the paintings of Christina, Queen of Sweden that had 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 Vlnas 2007, p. 180. Lobkowicz Collections 2007, pp. 26–7. Koennecke-Wedewer Sammlung 1919, pp. 48–9, nos. 65–6. Vácha 2014, p. 362. Slavíček 1983, p. 230. Vácha 2014, p. 366. Preiss 1973; Fučíková 1972a. Garas 1970, p. 135. 151 THE ARTWORKS been brought to Antwerp, he had bought a painting of Venus and Cupid by Bartholomäus Spranger, and in 1669 he wrote about Titian’s Ecce Homo.470 Whereas the Swedish queen ordered an inventory to be drafted of the artworks plundered by General Hans Christoph Königsmark (1600–63), when it comes to the artworks that came and went following the death of Rudolf II, only fragmentary information is available.47¹ Nevertheless, none of the aristocratic collections that came about in the 1660s and 1670s, and none of the art dealerships for which we have records, ever featured as many works by Rudolfine painters as were gathered together in the collection described in our inventory. The first item listed in the inventory from the Esterházy archive is a landscape on wood attributed to Roelandt Savery (1576–1639), valued at 100 thalers (no. 1); the collection contained another painting on wood attributed to the same artist, The Sermon of Saint John the Baptist, which the compilers evaluated at the extremely high price of 400 thalers. Savery left Prague in 1619 and settled in Utrecht; while there, he still received commissions from people close to the imperial court, and in 1625, for instance, he was asked by Gundakar von Liechtenstein to produce two paintings, which also later became part of the imperial collection.47² Savery’s name often appears in documents from the international art market. Mechelen-born Pieter Stevens (1567–1624/after 1641?), who studied in Antwerp and Rome, entered the service of Rudolf II in 1594; two canvases by him (nos. 99, 194) are listed in our collection,47³ both valued at 60 thalers. One was a picturesque landscape with multiple figures showing the sun shining between mountains. The effects of light permeating clouds, leaves or hills certainly occupied Stevens, and several similar pieces are known in his œuvre, even though none can be directly associated with the work in question here. His other painting was, according to the inventory, an image of Saint John the Baptist in the wilderness (Joannes in der Wüsten). In light of what we known about the life’s work of Stevens, it is probable that the painting did not show Saint John the Baptist alone, but was – like Savery’s work – a depiction of the Sermon of Saint John the Baptist (wie Johannes in der Wüsten prediget). Two known compositions on this subject are known by Stevens. One is a drawing, now in the Albertina, Vienna, originating from the collection of Albert Casimir of Saxony, Duke of Teschen (1738–1822),474 while the other is a canvas attributed to Stevens, which came up for auction in 2007.475 The auction house did not publish data about the painting’s provenance. Although neither of the afore-mentioned compositions can be Denucé 1931, pp. 101, 103. Dudík 1867 (=Granberg 1897, App. I); Fučíková 1998; Swoboda 2008, pp. 30–7. Winkelbauer 1999a, pp. 431–2; Winkelbauer 1999b. For more about the painter, see: Zwollo 1968; Zwollo 1988. Albertina, Vienna, inv. 8741. pen and brown ink with blue and brown wash and white heightening, 176×271 mm. http://sammlungenonline.albertina.at/?query=Inventarnummer=[8741]&showtype=record (Last retrieved on 30 April 2018). 475 Kohn, Paris, 30 May 2007, lot 18. Oil on canvas, 42×68.5 cm. https://www.auction.fr/_en/lot/attribue-a-peter-stevens-la-predication-de-saint-jean-baptiste-1485356#.W7vOo_ZoSUk (Last retrieved on 30 November 2017). 470 471 472 473 474 152 III. IMAGINES positively identified as the work in the inventory, they do at least prove that such subject matter fits in with Stevens’s known œuvre. The inventory includes a painting on copper of “Jupiter and Venus” by Hendrick Goltzius (1558–1617). No. 133. Ein stuck auf kupfer von Golzÿ Jupither vnd Venus in amore. As it was valued at 30 thalers, it was probably not considered an original work. The composition might have been painted after one of Goltzius’s engravings, and the female figure in question may not necessarily be the Goddess of Love: it was typical of the phraseology of this inventory for nude females do be defined as Venus, regardless of the iconography in the given painting. The subject could possibly have been Jupiter and Juno, who do indeed feature in Goltzius’s series of classical gods and goddesses (fig. 57).476 A painting on wood (no. 192), valued at the rather high price of 200 thalers, was attributed by the compilers of the inventory to “Virgilio”. They were unable to define 57. Hendrick Goltzius: Jupiter and Juno, last third of the 16th century the subject however, which was probably Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam a mythological theme, so they simply described what they could see in the picture: a forest clearing with two small nude figures: 192. Ein stuck auf holz extra rare baumschlag mit 2 nackenden figurlein von Virgilio – 200. Virgilio, that is, Virgil Solis the Younger (active 1567–1612), also worked in Prague, and judging from his name, he may have been descended from the famous engraver of Nuremberg, Virgil Solis (the Elder; 1514–62). According to the sources, the artist we are dealing with here was active for more than three decades as a painter (and engraver) in Prague, where he was granted citizenship in 1595. In 1587 he was granted Hoffreiheit (freedom by the court) by Emperor Rudolf II, so that he could operate independently of the guild of painters; among the reasons stated on his certificate was the fact that the artist had lived and worked in Prague for twenty years. Among the commissions Virgil Solis received from the emperor was the task of producing a city map of Prague (1612).477 476 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-OB-10.566, engraving, 325×216 mm. Hollstein VIII [n. d.] no. 338; Goltzius 2012, I, p. 216, cat. 138. 477 Köpl 1891, p. LXXII, reg. 8243, Ibid. p. LXXVIII, reg. 8273; Köpl 1911–2, p. XXVI, reg. 20240. 153 THE ARTWORKS The painter named “Hofmann”, already mentioned in connection with the copy of the Dürer portrait, and whom I conditionally identify as Hans Hoffmann (1530–92), another artist in the court of Rudolf II, is present in our inventory with a further four works, all on mythological themes (Venus Visits the Sleeping Adonis, Venus Charms Adonis, Satyr and Nymph, Mercury with the Infant Cupid) (nos. 28, 34, 118, 140). Hans Hoffmann began his career in Nuremberg, and after briefly working in Munich, in 1585 he was invited by Emperor Rudolf II to Prague, where he lived until his death in around 1592. As the name “Hofmann” is only ever mentioned in our inventory without a Christian name, we cannot be absolutely certain that the Nuremberg artist was the painter in question. Based on biographical details, we must also give consideration to the possibility that the compiler meant the portraitist Samuel Hofmann (1595–1649) of Basel, or possibly even Johann Valerian Hoffmann, who was documented briefly as a “Kammermaler” in Vienna around 1647. To the best of my knowledge, there are no known extant works by the latter, while mythological paintings are somewhat alien to the œuvre of the former.478 Another argument in favour of Hans Hoffmann is the remarkably high number of works by Rudolfine artists that appear in the inventory, so for him to be present would at least be unsurprising; moreover, although very few of Hans Hoffmann’s paintings survive, the subject matter of the works attributed to “Hofmann” in the inventory would fit in with his known works.479 This is particularly true in the case of the Dürer pendant, for Hoffmann was known as a brilliant imitator of the great master of Nuremberg, but the sources also tell us that he was adept at copying the styles of other painters too, and that besides his studies of nature, he also tried his hand at various different genres. In the eighteenth century, the Praun collection in Nuremberg recorded a copy each by Hoffmann of works by Titian, Parmigianino, and Paris Bordone.480 He was also, it seems, no stranger to mythological compositions: in 1975, a painting was auctioned in Paris that depicts satyrs and musicians, which Rainer Stüwe attributes to Hoffmann; in the Kupferstichkabinett, Berlin, meanwhile, a gouache work dated 1587 and signed with the monogram Hh (Vulcan, Venus and Three Cupids) is deemed to be a copy by Hoffmann after an engraving by Giorgio Ghisi. (It must be stated, however, that the rather poor execution of the drawing stands in sharp contrast to the exceptional standard at which the painter copied the Dürer.)48¹ Hoffmann’s presence in the Esterházy inventory would be something of a revelation, because unlike his contemporaries from Prague, he was nowhere near the art historical canon in the seventeenth century. His works were completely ignored by both Carel van Mander and Joachim von Sandrart, and the seventeenth-century inventories of the imperial gallery and of Viennese aristocratic collections only sporadically mention his name.48² There is only a very slim chance that so many works (five in all) by an artist 478 For the œuvre of Samuel Hofmann, see: Schlégl 1980. 479 For his extant works see: Pilz 1961; Bodnár 1986; Achilles 1986–7; Koreny–Segal 1989–90; Achilles-Syndram 1995; Stüwe 1998, pp. 67–103. 480 Achilles-Syndram 1994, pp. 182, 221, 225; Stüwe 1998, p. 79. 481 Stüwe 1998, cat. A113. Hoffmann’s work was reproduced in: DaCosta Kaufmann 1988, cat. 11.5. 482 In the Prague Kunstkammer, watercolours of animals and of plants are mentioned in a single volume: Bauer– Haupt 1976, p. 135. 154 III. IMAGINES 58. Bartholomäus Spranger: Ecce homo, last quarter of the 16th century Collection of Frank & Demi Rogozienski (on loan at the San Diego Museum of Art) 155 THE ARTWORKS almost forgotten in the second half of the seventeenth century would have been added to a Viennese collection that was expanding at the time through purchases made from the local art market; what is more, the works were known to be by “Hofmann”. This leads me to conclude that the paintings must have come from somewhere where the artist was still remembered: our collector is most likely to have obtained these works in Nuremberg or Prague. “Ecce homo von Spranger” Two works by Bartholomäus Spranger (1546–1611) are described in our inventory. One is an Ecce Homo, painted on copper, valued jointly with a pendant of the same size, attributed to Govaert Flinck (1615–60), at 100 thalers: No. 175 et 176. Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf kupfer eines Antoni anfechtung, von Flincken d(a)s and(ere) Ecce homo von Spranger extra rar – 100. The latter may be identical to the cabinet painting on copper now in a private collection in San Diego (fig. 58).48³ Though the painting is far away from Europe today, it was held in Vienna until 1916, when it was auctioned off as part of the estate of Friedrich von Amerling, after which it went missing for a long time.484 The painting was long believed to have been executed in the early 1600s, but recent research dates the work far earlier, to around 1576, when Spranger was in Vienna. As Sally Metzler has observed, this is not only supported by stylistic analysis, but also by the copper sheet used as the support medium, which is actually the copper printing plate of an engraving by Augustin Hirschvogel (1503–53). Hirschvogel lived in Vienna until his death in 1553, and Metzler assumes that Spranger came upon the plate here. The painter arrived in Vienna in November 1575, invited by Emperor Maximilian II at the recommendation of Giambologna; he stayed until autumn 1580, when he was invited by Rudolf II to accompany the royal court to Prague.485 Personally I think Spranger could also have come across Hirschvogel’s work in Prague: according to the surviving inventory, there were many printing plates in Rudolf II’s Kunstkammer between 1607 and 1611, and Hirschvogel’s may easily have been among them.486 Spranger not only had free entrance to the Kunstkammer, but he also worked there, so he would have had easy access to the copper plates. 483 Collection of Frank & Demi Rogozienski, on loan to the San Diego Museum of Art, oil on copper, 22.4×17.7 cm. Signed middle left: “BAR.US SPRANGERS FECIT”. After 1916 the work was kept in a private collection, until it appeared at auction in the Galerie Bassenge, Berlin, in 2012. The work is presently known as Man of Sorrows. 484 Nachlaß Amerling 1916, no. 71. Amerling’s estate was sold in instalments, with the first auction held by Miethke & Wawra, Vienna, in 1870, although this painting did not feature there. 485 Oberhuber 1958, no. G 68; Henning 1987, p. 190, no. A59; DaCosta Kaufmann 1988, p. 276, no. 20.82; Metzler 2014, cat. 17. 486 Bauer–Haupt 1976, pp. 104–6. 156 III. IMAGINES 59. Bartholomäus Spranger: Venus and Mercury, c. 1585 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 60. Bartholomäus Spranger: Mercury with Venus Binding the Eyes of Cupid, 1597 German National Museum, Nuremberg “Wie Mercurius die Venus bedint” The other work by Spranger on our inventory, a canvas showing Mercury and Venus, was valued at 100 thalers, and listed as the pendant to a painting by Frans de Neve. According to the description, Mercury is “serving” Venus: No. 90 et 91. Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse eines auf leingewandt, wie Mercuri(us) die Venus bedint, sehr rar von Spranger – 100; d(a) s andere auf kupfer wie ein nackendes weiblein carisiret, von deneue – 50. Spranger painted several different compositions of Mercury and Venus, two of which have survived as autograph works, while the others are known from engravings or from painted copies. In the piece now in Vienna, from the imperial gallery, Mercury is gently bowing before the goddess, who is holding a laurel wreath in her outstretched hand (fig. 59).487 In the canvas work now in the German National Museum in Nuremberg, meanwhile, Mercury 487 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 1100, oil on canvas, 110×72 cm (unframed). 157 THE ARTWORKS is helping Venus to blindfold the eyes of a protesting Cupid (fig. 60).488 Two further compositions depict their amorous tryst (these survive as engravings by Jan Harmensz. Muller and Pieter de Jode the Elder), while in another scene, known from a print by Lucas Kilian, Mercury, bound by Cupid, kneels before Venus.489 The three prints are perhaps less recognisable from the above description than the two paintings, but even here there is little to go by, for the Esterházy inventory fails to specify precisely how the god is “serving” Venus. In the Viennese painting, perhaps Mercury is paying a service of obeisance to the goddess, while in the Nuremberg work, he is actually helping her. The term bedienen (“serve”, in its broadest sense) is used elsewhere in the inventory to refer to various different acts. In the painting by Georg Bachmann (1600–52) (no. 105), for example, it is used for the two angels who are “serving” Saint Sebastian recumbent on the ground (zweÿ Engl ihme bedienen), presumably tending the saint’s wounds; later (nos. 127, 209) the same word refers to the angels “serving” Jesus after his forty-day fast in the desert (Christus in der Wüsten von den Engeln bedienet würd), when the devil went away and “angels came and ministered unto him” (Matthew 4:11, King James Version), probably providing him with food and drink. Based on the available data, the provenance of the paintings points in one direction: Prague. The Mercury and Venus in Vienna was almost certainly originally in the Prague Kunstkammer of Emperor Rudolf II, although it is not recorded in the sources until the eighteenth century.490 It probably arrived in Vienna in the early seventeenth century, and may have been one of the ten mythological paintings attributed to Spranger that were registered in the Neuenburg, Vienna, between 1610 and 1619.49¹ As this work presumably never left the imperial collection, the painting in our inventory could at most be a copy of this, although it is not sure that this was the composition copied. The Nuremberg painting was purchased by the German National Museum in 1928 from Paul Glaser (Berlin), and according to the museum’s registry it was previously held in a Silesian private collection. It is signed and dated (1597). On the reverse can be seen a stamp, which can be made out as the figure of a rampant lion. According to Andreas Tacke, the outline is too indistinct to be able to decide conclusively if the stamp is the double-tailed lion of Bohemia (which would prove that the work had once been part of the Bohemian royal collection), but he does not rule out this possibility.49² 488 Germanisches Nationalmuseum, Nuremberg, inv. Gm 1167. oil on canvas (stretched on oak), 89×69 cm. Signed 489 490 491 492 top right: “B. Sprangher. fecit / 1597”. Oberhuber 1958, G 21; Henning 1987, pp. 121–4, no. A47; DaCosta Kaufmann 1988, no. 20.64; Tacke 1995, pp. 237–8, no. 116 (with previous literature); Stolzenberger 2010, pp. 271–2; Metzler 2014, cat. 69. New Hollstein 1999, VIII/2, no. 68-2 (Muller); Hollstein [n. d.] VIII, no. 97 (Jode); Hollstein 1976, XVIII, no. 533 (Kilian). Mechel 1783, p. 274, no. 43; Engerth 1886, III, p. 227, no. 1698; Oberhuber 1958, p. 122, no. G 62; DaCosta Kaufmann 1988, pp. 36–8; Prag um 1600 1988a, II, pp. 110–1, cat. 580 (Karl Schütz); Gemäldegalerie KHM 1991, p. 115; Metzler 2014, pp. 110–1, cat. 41. Köhler 1906–7, inv. G. reg. 19446. p. VII, no. 70: 10 poetische mittelstuckh vom Spranger. Tacke 1995, pp. 238, 412 (fig. 419). 158 III. IMAGINES During the inventory taken in 1718, the paintings in the royal castle in Prague were marked with the stamp of Emperor Charles VI featuring the two-headed eagle of the House of Habsburg, the Bohemian Lion, and the letters CVI (Charles VI), but the imprint published by Tacke would seem to be different from the one used on this occasion.49³ (Irrespectively of this, the stamp could still refer to a Bohemian origin, and we cannot categorically reject the possibility that the work was once part of the imperial collection, although if this is the case, it must have been removed before 1718.) The mere fact that the painting reappeared from a private collection in Silesia at the start of the twentieth century may support the idea that the work’s provenance lies in Bohemia (Prague?). Recently the idea has surfaced more than once that the painting originated from the Kunstkammer of Rudolf II, and is the very same work inherited by Archduke Albert in 1615 from his elder brother’s estate.494 One of the most valuable paintings in the consignment sent from Prague to Brussels was indeed a Spranger painting, whose value was estimated at 400 thalers, and was therefore presumably an autograph work, although its description differs greatly from the one now in Nuremberg. According to the 1615 inventory, Mercury and Venus are teaching Cupid how to read: No. 1. Ein Stuckh von Bartholomeo Spranger, Mercurius unnd Venus sampt dem Cupido so lesen lernet.495 The work transported to Brussels was probably a version of the composition known as The Education of Cupid or The School of Love. Carel van Mander states that Spranger did indeed paint such a composition, and the variant he describes was sent by the artist as a gift to his friend in Amsterdam, Hermann Pilgrim (Venus mit Merkur, der den Cupido lesen lehrt).496 It seems that Spranger also painted a work on the same theme for the ruler, and this painting was later inherited by Archduke Albert. The subject must have been popular in the court of Rudolf II, because the 1621 inventory of the imperial collection contains at least two other works that appear to have portrayed the very same scene. One was a copy, although from the description it is impossible to know whose work it was based on: it was listed as a School of Mercury, and it was among the works taken by the Swedish army in 1648.497 There was also a work entitled Mercury, Venus and Cupid, attributed to Titian.498 This painting was also among the spoils of war carried back to Christina, Queen of Sweden after the Sack of Prague, and it features both on the 1652 inventory of the queen’s assets, and on the list of works compiled in 1656.499 We know that it also showed Mercury teaching Cupid how to read from the description of the work in the queen’s estate inventory: Un quadro d’Amore Neumann 1966, p. 41; a photograph is published in: Swoboda 2008, p. 101 (fig. 12). DaCosta Kaufman 1998, p. 20; Metzler 2014, cat. 69. Maeyer 1955, p. 315. Mander–Floerke 1991, p. 302. Zimmermann 1905, p. XLVII, no. 1270. Die Schul Mercurii. (Cop.); Dudík 1867, p. XL, no. 560. Die Schuell Mercurj. 498 Zimmermann 1905, p. XL, no. 952. Mercurius, Venus und Cupido vom Tician. (Orig.) 499 Dudík 1867, no. 252. Mercurius, Venus vnd Cupido (Prague, 1648); Geffroy 1855, no. 87. [De Prague.] Dito, ou est peint Mercure, Venus et un Cupidon (Stockholm, 1652); Denucé 1932, p. 179. Venus, Mercure et Cupidon de Titian (Antwerp, 1656). 493 494 495 496 497 159 THE ARTWORKS 61. Christoph Schwarz: The Rape of Proserpina, c. 1573 The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge in piedi in atto d’imparare a leggere da Mercurio, che udendo riguarda a Venere […] di Tiziano.500 A reproduction of the work appeared in the volume of engravings published in 1786 showing the collection of Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans (1747–93), and it is on this basis that we can identify the work as The School of Love, now attributed to Lambert Sustris, in the Kress collection.50¹ The Mercury with Venus Binding the Eyes of a Cupid that we seek – if it was originally in the imperial collection – was not, in my view, among the paintings taken to Brussels, but must have stayed in Prague at the time. From the period before the sacking of the city, I have found only one inventory containing an entry that might refer to the painting in Nuremberg. The list of works in Prague Castle drawn up in 1635 includes one item 500 Campori 1870, p. 339. The Roman legacy of Christina, Queen of Sweden, included another School of Love, a copy of the work by Correggio now in London (Ibid. 343). Olof Granberg identified this as the painting originating from Prague (cf. Granberg 1897, cat. 8, App. II, no. 87, App. III, no. 34, App. IV, no. 62), but he could not have known about the source, later published in Denucé 1932 (see preceding footnote), revealing that the painting attributed to Titian came originally from Prague. 501 Galerie du Palais Royal 1786–1808, II, no. 11. [Titien Vecelli] Mercure enseignant à lire à l’Amour; Shapley 1968, II, p. 187. Museum of Art, El Paso, inv. K 1694 and Shapley 1973, III, p. 393 (attributed to Sustris). 160 III. IMAGINES 62. Raphael Sadeler the Younger after Christoph Schwarz: The Rape of Proserpina, 1610 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam which, while no artist’s name is given, accurately reflects the painting we are looking for: Venus bindt Cupido die augen sambt andern figuren.50² I am not aware, unfortunately, of any later references to the work in the imperial collection. “Raptum Proserpine” Christoph Schwarz (1545–92), who spent a large part of his active life in Munich, in the court of the Duke of Bavaria, but who also studied in Augsburg and Venice, was another one of Rudolf II’s favourite painters, and the emperor kept several autograph works by Schwarz in his Kunstkammer, although he never succeeded in enticing the artist to Prague.50³ Our 502 Zimmermann 1905, p. LX, no. 113. 503 The 1621 inventory of the Prague Kunstkammer also listed paintings by the artists entitled The Rape of the Sa- bine Women (no. 926), Ezekiel’s Vision (no. 976), and Rehoboam, Son of Solomon, Swears an Oath to Jeroboam 161 THE ARTWORKS inventory contains one painting on wood by Schwarz, entitled The Abduction of Proserpina (no. 142), valued at 60 thalers: Ein Stuck auf holz, raptum Proserpine extra rar von Hanß Schwarz – 60. It was presumably a copy. The original canvas is believed to be the one in the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge (fig. 61).504 The provenance of the work is documented only from the eighteenth century, but based on the artist’s biography, it was most likely executed for the court of the Duke of Bavaria, and was almost certainly still in Munich at the start of the seventeenth century: in 1610 Raphael Sadeler the Younger issued a copperplate engraving of the work, published by imperial privilege (fig. 62),505 and Johann Matthias Kager (1575–1634), court painter to the duke, also made a drawing of the galloping horses in the painting.506 The ability of the compilers of our inventory to recognise the inventor of the composition is nothing short of impressive, for Schwarz’s authorship had been forgotten by the early eighteenth century, if not earlier: the original work was documented in the possession of Philippe II, Duke of Orléans (1674–1723) from 1703, but in the catalogue of the collection (1727) it was attributed not to Schwarz but to Lambert Sustris.507 An engraving of the work published between 1786 and 1808 likewise stated the original was by Sustris.508 In 1837 it was auctioned from the Coesvelt collection as a work by Titian.509 All this time, however, the inscription on the engraving by Raphael Sadeler the Younger clearly ascribed the composition’s invention to Schwarz: Christoph Swartz inventor, Raphael Sadeler Iunior sculpsit cum priv. Sacr. Caes. Maj.5¹0 Apart from the Esterházy inventory, I have so far found only one mention in the seventeenth-century sources of a work regarded as a copy of a composition by Schwarz: in his Teutsche Academie (1679), Joachim von Sandrart described a piece from his own collection in Nuremberg: Von Christophel Schwartz: eine Tafel/ repraesentirend den Pluto auf seinem Wagen mit vier schwartzen Rappen bespannt/ der von ihren Gespielinnen die Nymphe Proserpina entführet.5¹¹ He therefore was certain that the version in his possession was a work by Schwarz. However, we cannot be sure about the support medium of his painting: Sandrart refers to it as a “Tafel”, which was perhaps more frequently used in the case of works painted on wood, although there are numerous precedents where the 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 (no. 998). Zimmermann 1905, pp. XL–XLI, cf. Geissler 1960, cats. G I.26, G II.1, G II.9. (Rudolf II commissioned Joseph Heintz the Elder to paint a copy of Ezekiel’s Vision; for this, and the copy that was later made for Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, see: Ibid, cats. G II.10–1.) The Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge, inv. 1778, oil on canvas, 65×96 cm. Goodison–Robertson 1967, pp. 187–8, plate 42; Geissler 1960, cat. G I.25. Copies: Ibid, cats. G III.19, G II.125. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-1974-156, engraving, 209×269 mm. Peltzer 1913–4, p. 232; Frankl 1938, p. 166. Dubois de Saint Gelais 1727, p. 286. The engraving by Jean-Louis Delignon was published in: Galerie du Palais Royal 1786–1808, II, “L’enlevement de Proserpine […] Tableau de Lambert Suster”. cf. Peltzer 1913–4, p. 232; Frankl 1938, p. 160; Meijer 1999, pp. 129, 152, no. 39. Frankl 1938, p. 160. Hollstein 1980, XXI, p. 277, no. 47. Sandrart 1679, II, p. 87. 162 III. IMAGINES 63. Anonymous draftsman: The Rape of Proserpina, c. 1700 Drawing after a painting attributed to Giulio Romano in the Berka collection National Gallery in Prague term was applied to a canvas picture.5¹² The fate of the painting after 1679 is unknown: part of Sandrart’s estate was inherited by his widow, with the rest passing to his nephew, Johann Jakob Sandrart, but the work is never mentioned again among the possessions of either of the heirs.5¹³ A short while afterwards, however, a (different?) version of the composition showed up in Prague, in the collection of Franz Anton Berka. A painting of The Abduction of Proserpina is listed among the works offered for sale to the Prince of Liechtenstein in 1692, valued at 60 thalers: No. 24. Plutone come rapta la Proserpine.5¹4 We know that this was Schwarz’s composition thanks to its appearance on one of the sheets in the afore-mentioned inventory of works in Count Berka’s collection illustrated with drawn reproductions (fig. 63). The 512 Geissler 1960, 182, for example, conditionally identifies the piece in the Sandrart collection as the canvas in the Fitzwilliam Museum, implying that no contradiction was felt in this case. 513 For the fate of the Sandrart legacy, see footnote 50. 514 Wilhelm 1911, 117; Slavíček 1983, 232; Haupt 2012, 538; 163 THE ARTWORKS inscription accompanying the drawing reads “Gullo Romano”, indicating that it was attributed at the time to Giulio Romano.5¹5 This rather surprising attribution occurred not only in this case. A similar composition of The Abduction of Proserpina by Joseph Heintz the Elder was also ascribed to Giulio Romano in Dresden in the eighteenth century, despite the fact that the work is signed by Heintz.5¹6 The attribution was so firmly adhered to that it was only clarified by the print engraved by Lucas Kilian (fig. 64).5¹7 Heintz’s work originated in Prague, and was made expressly for the Kunstkammer of Rudolf II, where in 1621 it was listed as an original by Heintz: Wie der Pluto die Proserpinam beraubt vom Josephen Hainz. (Orig.)5¹8 The authorship of this work was still known correctly two years later, when it was sold to the Frankfurt dealer Daniel de Briers (1573–1633): Rapta Proserpina von Pluto, Joseph Haintz – 300.5¹9 According to Joachim von Sandrart, who was a close business associated of Daniel de Briers,5²0 Heintz painted more than one copy of the composition. Initially he painted a large, multi-figural work, and then, by command of the emperor, who doubted that it was Heintz’s own invention, he repeated the feat on a smaller scale.5²¹ The latter work, painted on copper, passed firstly into the hands of de Briers in Frankfurt, and at some point in the mid-eighteenth century it found its way to Dresden. The other, much larger composition, which apparently remained in the Kunstkammer in Prague, is never mentioned in any later source.5²² A large canvas of The Abduction of Proserpina attributed to Giulio Romano, however, can be traced continuously in the inventories of Prague Castle from the middle of the seventeenth century, as: Julio Romano: Pluto so Proserpinam raubet.5²³ Thanks to the 1737 inventory, we even know its dimensions: approximately 118.4×179 cm.5²4 The last record of the work is from 1768, when it was listed without the artist’s name.5²5 This means that for over a hundred years, a painting entitled The Abduction of Proserpina, attributed to Giulio Romano and presumably similar in composition to the work on the same theme by Schwarz and identical with that by Heintz, was documented in the imperial collection in Prague. I consider it likely 515 Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. DK 5664, ink wash on paper, 231×349 mm. Artis pictoriae amatores 1993, cat. V/1-29. For its identification with the drawing in the inventory of Count Berka, see: Slavíček 1983, p. 232, no. 24. 516 Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. 1971, oil on copper, 63×94 cm. Zimmer 1971, pp. 102–3. cat. A21; Prag um 1600 1988a, cat. 131 (Jürgen Zimmer); Krämer 2015, pp. 49–51. 517 The British Museum, London, inv. 1917.1208.285.1–2. Engraving on paper, 445×615 mm. Made around 1605, printed 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 by Dominicus Custos in Augsburg. The dedication to Duke Frederick of Württemberg specifically mentions that the painting on which the engraving is based was produced for the emperor by Heintz. The Stylish Image 1991, cat. 26. Zimmermann 1905, p. XL, no. 914; Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015a, p. 121. Zimmermann 1905, p. LI. For more about the relationship between the Sandrart and de Briers families, see: Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015b. Zimmer 1971, pp. 102–3, cat. A21. Sandrart 1675, I, p. 509. PURL http://ta.sandrart.net/en/facs/509 (Last retrieved on 30 April 2018). The commander of the Swedish forces took two paintings entitled Pluto and Proserpina from Prague in 1648 (Dudík 1867, nos. 131, 336), but these can probably be identified with the works of the same title by Hans von Aachen and Frans Francken. (Zimmermann 1905, p. XXXVIII, no. 817, p. XLIV, no. 1113.) Praager Schloß 1685, no. 173; Köpl 1889, p. CXXXV, no. 173. Ibid, p. CXLIX, no. 190. Pluto, wie er Proserpinam raubet, Lw. 2’ 20”×1’ 21”. Ibid, p. CLXXXVII, no. 162. Pluto mit Proserpina. 164 III. IMAGINES 64. Lucas Kilian the Elder after Joseph Heintz the Elder: The Rape of Proserpina, c. 1605 The British Museum, London that the work in Berka’s collection and the painting in the gallery in Dresden were misattributed to Giulio Romano because of the “influence” of the composition in the Kunstkammer, which even overwrote the authorships documented on their respective engravings. The version owned by Count Berka, judging from the surviving drawing, clearly followed Schwarz’s composition, and what is more, it did so remarkably closely; indeed to such an extent that this might even have been the original. The painting is not mentioned again in Berka’s estate inventory, nor in the documents of his heir, Anton Johann von Nostitz, so Berka must have sold the work in the late seventeenth century.5²6 As the original work is documented among the possessions of the Duke of Orléans only from 1703, the dates would not be incompatible with the possibility that the work came to France, directly or indirectly, from Berka.5²7 This could only be seriously contemplated, however, if we could demonstrate that Berka’s painting was on canvas, but information of this kind can be gleaned neither 526 For the collections of Franz Anton Berka and Anton Johann von Nostitz, and their inventories, see pages 107–9 and 116–7, esp. footnotes 294, 326–7. 527 According to the literature, the Duke of Orléans bought it from “E. I. d’Hauteville” in 1703 (Frankl 1938, p. 160; Geissler 1960, p. 182), although in the 1727 catalogue of the Palais Royal (Dubois de Saint Gelais 165 THE ARTWORKS 65. Hendrick van Balen–Follower of Jan Brueghel the Elder after Christoph Schwarz: The Rape of Proserpina, c. 1610 Private collection (reproduced after Ertz 2008) from the drawing nor from the inventory of 1692, although the list might be of some assistance after all: other items were usually specially designated if they were painted on copper or wood (su rame, tavola), and when they were not marked as such, as is the case with the Schwarz composition, we can deduce that they were painted on canvas. What we seek in connection with the Esterházy inventory, however, is a copy painted on wood. One such work did turn up in the closing decades of the twentieth century: a painting made after Schwarz’s composition, and initially attributed to Adriaen van Stalbemt, was listed at a 1996 auction at Christie’s, London, as a joint work by Hendrick van Balen and Jan Brueghel the Elder (fig. 65); several of the details, however, in particular the background landscape, are quite different from the original work by Schwarz.5²8 Information about the work’s provenance can only be traced to the middle of the twentieth century, so there is nothing at the moment to lead us either towards Vienna or Prague, or even Nuremberg (Sandrart’s collection). 1727, 286) the name of the collector is given as: “M. de Hautefeuille”. The collector in question may perhaps have been Abbé Jean de Hautefeuille (1647–1724), the Orléans-born physicist and inventor. 528 Oil on wood, 31.4×47 cm. Auctioned at Christie’s London on 5 July 1996, lot 349. Previously in private collections in Antwerp (Stuyck del Bruyère) and Amsterdam (Dr. Hans Wetzlar). Ertz 2008, p. 780, cat. 388. PURL http://www.janbrueghel.net/object/the-rape-of-proserpina. 166 III. IMAGINES “Wie Actæon die Diana im baad besucht” Our inventory contains two works (nos. 123, 165) attributed to Hans Rottenhammer that show scenes described, respectively, as “Diana and Actaeon” and “Diana Bathing”: Ein stuck auf kupfer wie Actæon die Diana im baad besucht sehr rar vnd Curios von Rottenhamer; Ein stuck auf kupfer der Diana baad von Rottenhamer sehr Curios. They were valued at 40 thalers each, which is not an astonishingly paltry amount for works painted on copper, and therefore presumably rather small, but it may imply that these items were believed to be copies. Judging from the fact that the artist’s name, the subject matter, the medium and the price estimate were all identical, we cannot exclude the possibility that the paintings formed a pair. Among the art collectors already mentioned, Felix Vršovec had a painting on copper of Diana Bathing, which was among the works offered for sale around 1700 to Lothar Franz von Schönborn: No. 91. Ein auf Kupffer von Rottenhammer, dass Diana Batt.5²9 The height was given as half a foot and five inches, its width as one foot and three and a half inches (converted using Prague measurements to around 27×38 cm), and its price as 800 thalers. (All the paintings Vršovec offered for sale were at extremely inflated prices, which is why Schönborn bought none of them.) The work was not part of the Vršovec estate auction in 1723, so he probably managed to sell it in the meantime. A large sale is indeed known to have been transacted in the intervening period: Anton Johann von Nostitz bought paintings from him in 1718 for a total sum of 1800 florins.5³0 Records of the Nostitz collection from the early nineteenth century include an oil-on-copper painting of Diana Bathing attributed to Rottenhammer, which was hung in the National Gallery in Prague in 1945 (fig. 66).5³¹ (To be precise, the scene shows Actaeon spying on Diana as she bathes, so it matches the description of both of the paintings in the Esterházy inventory.) The first document in which this particular painting attributed to Rottenhammer can be categorically identified is the Nostitz fiduciary inventory of 1819, drawn up after the death of Friedrich Johann von Nostitz (1762–1819):5³² Rottenhammer: Diana, Akteon, auf Kupfer – 30 ft (WW). Besides the attribution, subject matter and support medium, the dimensions are also the same, for the work was measured in 1819 as approximately 28.3×38.5 cm (when converted to metric).5³³ (Discrepancies of a centimetre or two are not significant.) Several theories concerning the provenance of the painting have been put forward of late: Heiner Borggrefe conditionally associates the work with a Diana and Actaeon, also on copper and attributed to Rottenhammer, known from the inventories of the imperial collection in Prague.5³4 This work was inventoried in Prague Castle several times in the 529 Frimmel 1892a, p. 26. 530 Promissory note of Anton Johann von Nostitz: Prague, 6 December 1718, SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nos531 532 533 534 tic, kt. 158, sign. A0 38, inv. č. 1097. Transcribed in: Machytka 1980. Unfortunately, the exact quantity of paintings is not specified. Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. DO 4138, oil on copper, 29×39 cm. With additional literature and relevant sources: Jandlová Sošková 2015, pp. 124–6, cat. 95. The connection with the Vršovec sale of paintings was first made by Lubomír Slavíček in: Artis pictoriae amatoris 1993, pp. 241–2, cat. V/2-68. Nostitz 1819, II. Zimmer des Kabinets […] no. 30. (231). The dimensions of the painting are given here as: 1’ 2” 3”’×10” 6”’; the inventory used Parisian measurements. Borggrefe 2007, p. 12. 167 THE ARTWORKS 66. Christoph Friedrich Steinhammer: Diana Bathing (Diana and Actaeon), 1615 Formerly attributed to Hans Rottenhammer National Gallery in Prague 67. Inscription with the name of Johann Septimius Jörger (Detail of fig. 66) 168 III. IMAGINES seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, such as in 1685: Rodendamer: Actaeon, wie er Dianam in baad siehet; the presence of the painting in the royal castle is documented until at least 1763.5³5 The next unequivocal reference to the work is in the Nostitz gallery, so the paintings may appear to be identical, although this is contradicted by the dimensions: the piece in the imperial collection was measured in 1737 and 1763 as around 21.7×28.9cm, much smaller, therefore, than the specimen obtained by Nostitz (29×39 cm). In my opinion there are no grounds for doubting that the Diana Bathing was one of the paintings that Anton Johann von Nostitz bought from Vršovec, although there are no written sources in support of the idea that the work entered the Nostitz collection in 1718: there is no trace of this painting in any of the eighteenth-century inventories in the Nostitz archive. Descriptions of several scenes of Diana Bathing can be identified in the estate of Anton Johann von Nostitz (1736, 1738),5³6 but during my research I had to rule out every one of them, either because of their size or their medium. The failure to mention the work may be partly explained by the fact that – as proven by the inventory of 1819 – the painting had hitherto been part of the less fastidiously documented allodial assets, and was only elevated among the fiduciary assets at that time.5³7 Also unrelated to the painting is the eighteenth-century source text that some modern commentators expressly link to the Diana Bathing originating from the Vršovec collection.5³8 In the second volume of Jaroslaus Schaller’s topographic work on the city of Prague (1795), when describing the contents of Nostitz Palace, he records a Diana and Actaeon in the “Bildergallerie”, which he ascribed jointly to Hans Rottenhammer and Jan Brueghel: Diana und Akteon; die Landschaft ist von Bruegel, die Figuren von Rottenhammer.5³9 In my opinion, however, Schaller’s description does not concern the work once in Vršovec’s collection, but a different Diana and Actaeon, which also joined the gallery from the Nostitz collection, which was painted not on copper but on wood, and which is still regarded as the work of two painters, although alongside Jan Brueghel the Elder, the collaborator is now held to have been Hendrick de Clerck the Elder.540 In the latter composition, the landscape is more emphatically portrayed than the figures, which justifies the attribution to two artists, as expressed by Schaller. The attribution of this painting to Rottenhammer, however, had disappeared by the nineteenth century: 535 For mentions of the item in the inventories, see: Praager Schloß 1685, no. 153; Köpl 1889, p. CXXXIV, no. 153 536 537 538 539 540 (1718); Ibid. p. CXLVI, no. 105 (1737); Ibid. p. CLXXVI, no. 146 (1763); possibly the same painting also appears in 1768, without the artist’s name: Ibid. p. CLXXXVII, no. 166. In the nineteenth century, Alfred Woltmann saw a painting on copper of Diana and Actaeon, attributed to Rottenhammer (inv. 91), in Prague Castle, but there is no certainty that this was the same painting, for the dimensions Woltmann gave are quite different (50×60 cm), and he also stated that Actaeon is not visible in the painting. Woltmann 1877, p. 30. Nostitz 1736a–b; Nostitz 1738a–b. As indicated by the currency (Wiener Währung), see also footnote 299. E.g. Vlnas 2007, p. 182; Jandlová Sošková 2015, cat. 95. Schaller 1795, II, p. 292, no. 26. Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. DO 4130, oil on wood, 51×89.5 cm. The gallery’s summary catalogue also associates this work with Schaller’s cited description of the topography – in this case with good reason. Slavíček 2000. cat. 64. 169 THE ARTWORKS in the 1819 inventory of Nostitz Palace54¹ and the 1864 catalogue of the Nostitz gallery, the painting is without any attribution.54² On the back of the picture, however, is a label whose fragmentary text proves it was once regarded as a work by Rottenhammer.54³ In 1795, therefore, it would have been perfectly reasonable for Jaroslaus Schaller to attribute the painting to Rottenhammer. (According to the findings of Lubomír Slaviček, the work was acquired by Nostitz from Count Berka.)544 Rottenhammer’s authorship has also recently been refuted by research into the Vršovec painting.545 Although the work is signed, its inscription seems to have been illegible for a long time, perhaps the result of a poorly executed restoration.546 The fragmentary inscription was found in the 1990s not to be the signature of Hans Rottenhammer, but that of a follower in Nuremberg, Friedrich Christoph Steinhammer, already mentioned above.547 Furthermore, the date is mentioned (1615) and the commissioner of the work is named as Johann Septimius Jörger: “1615 / PRO. IO. SEPT. JORGER BL. / FRI. C. STEINHAM. F.” (fig. 67).548 Baron – from 1659 onwards, Count – Johann Septimius Jörger von Tollet (1594–after 1672)549 was born into a wealthy and once highly influential family from Upper Austria (fig. 68).550 In the second half of the sixteenth century, the family had substantial landholdings in Lower Austria and Styria.55¹ Johann Septimius’s grandfather, Helmhard VIII Jörger 541 Nostitz 1819, no. 38 (233). Diana, Akteon, baumreiche Landschaft auf Kupfer. The dimensions stated exactly 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 match those of the present-day painting, and an inventory number of 1819 is painted on the back of the work meaning that this item surely refers to the painting with the inventory number DO 4130. The inventory’s assertion that the work was painted on copper is a mistake, for it was actually painted on wood. Würbs 1864, p. 12, cat. 72. Slavíček 2000, cat. 64. Slavíček 1983, p. 233 identifies the work with the item in the 1692 inventory of Berka: Un bagno di Diana col paëse del Paul Brill – 1600; the prominent role in the composition played by the background landscape was highlighted even in Berka’s most laconic list of paintings. Frimmel 1909, 4 already referred to it as a “so-called” Rottenhammer, and the authorship was also called into question by Peltzer 1916, p. 355, no. 38; it was attributed to a follower of Rottenhammer by: Seifertová 1989, pp. 79–80, cat. 60. A number of interpretations have emerged: in the manuscript inventory of the Nostitz collection (Nostitz 1819) it is: “PRO 1615 SCPM IARGER 10 EL P. I. C. OTEIWAM”. In 1905 Paul Bergner published the improved: “1615. PRO. IO. SEPT. JARGER. LL. FRY. C. STR..HAM. F.” Bergner 1905, p. 47, no. 185 (120); most recently we have Seifertová 1989, cat. 60: “1615 / PRO 10 SEPT … / TORQUER -- PL/FRY … G/ …OTTENHAM”. The painting was attributed to a follower of Rottenhammer, and the name was also resolved as Jörger: Artis pictoriae amatores 1993, cat. V/2–68. (Lubomír Slavíček). The inscription is given as: “1615 / PRO IO SEPT/ JORGER: PL/ FRY G/ OTTENHAM. / F.”, with an attribution to Steinhammer in: Barocke Bilderlust 1994, p. 15, and as “1615 / PRO Jo. SEPT … / JÖRGER … PL/FRY…C/ … STEINHAM./F.” in: Slavíček 1995, p. 463. Hana Seifertová proposes authorship by two painters in: Dialog mit alten Meistern 1997, cat. 8a. The two letters after the name Jörger are given in the literature as “PL” (cf. Jandlová Sošková 2015, cat. 95 and the variants in the preceding footnote); however, based on the reproduction, I see them as “BL”, which in my opinion is an abbreviation by Jörger of his baronial rank (Baro Liber). The year of his death was previously wrongly held to be 1662 (Thieme–Becker 1926, XIX, p. 39; Wurzbach 1863, X, 232), and this date still appears in much of the modern literature. Based on archive sources, the year in which Jörger died is stated as 1672 by Werner Wilhelm Schnabel in: Dictionary of Art 1996, XVII, pp. 656–7. Herzog August Bibliothek, Wolfenbüttel, inv. I 6755a, engraving, 224×167 mm. For the history of the family, see: Wurm 1955. 170 III. IMAGINES (1530–94), was chairman of the Lower Austrian chamber from 1568 until his death, while Helmhard’s brother, Wolfgang V Jörger (1537–1614), served between 1592 and 1597 as Lord Steward in Hungary; the latter’s son, Helmhard IX Jörger (1572–1631) was appointed Court Chamberlain to Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, in 1609. During the Bruderzwist (fraternal conflict) between the emperor and his brother, the younger Helmhard sided with Archduke Matthias, and after the younger sibling took power, Jörger’s influence kept on growing. The only thing stopping the family from rising further up the ranks was their religious affiliation. The Jörgers were among the first families in Austria to adopt Lutheran teachings (c. 1521–2), and Johann Septimius’s great-great-grandmother, Dorothea Jörger, maintained correspondence with Luther for almost twenty years, even supporting him financially. Her descendants all retained the Evangelist faith, 68. Jacob von Sandrart after Georg Strauch: despite the redoubling of efforts to re-CaPortrait of Johann Septimius Jörger with tholicise the people.55² a poem by Georg Philipp Harsdörffer, When Ferdinand II ascended to the before 1659 throne, however, his drastic restrictions Herzog August Library, Wolfenbüttel on religious freedom turned the Jörgers against the ruler, and in 1620 leading members of the family joined the Protestant resistance; they were duly arrested in 1621 and 1622, and one man, Karl Jörger, died in prison. The rest of the family – including the still young Johann Septimius – opted to leave the country. Hundreds of Protestant families, including many who possessed wealth and influence (Dietrichstein, Egk, Herberstein, Khevenhüller, Kuefstein, Lamberg, Stubenberg, Ungnad, etc.), fled their erstwhile homeland at this time, seeking refuge in the imperial German cities, particularly Regensburg and Nuremberg.55³ The Jörgers had their wealth confiscated as punishment for their rebellion, and it seems they were allowed to hold on to very few of their movable assets. The famous library of Helmhard Jörger the Younger in Steyregg, for example, was moved to the castle of Joachim Enzmilner in Windhaag.554 The castle in Strechau remained, however, in the ownership of Anna Potentiana Hoffmann von Grünbühel und Strechau, the wife of Johann Septimius, although the couple sold it a few years later when they decided to go into exile. The contract of sale reveals that Jörger kept his own Rüstkammer in the castle, which was wholly owned by the baron, and which therefore constituted the subject of a separate agreement.555 552 553 554 555 Leeb 2010; Gruber 2010. For a data-rich overview of the migrants who settled in the imperial cities, see: Schnabel 1992. Wurm 1955, p. 218. Tomaschek 1997, p. 47. 171 THE ARTWORKS 69. Michael Herr: Johann Septimius Jörger’s Kunstkammer in Nuremberg, 1630s University Library, Erlangen Baron Jörger was artistic by nature, and several drawings and engravings by him are known. After resettling in Nuremberg, he devoted an increasing amount of his time to the arts. He invested much of his cash in artworks, and throughout the 1630s and 1640s he built up a substantial Kunst- und Raritätenkammer in his house beside the city.556 Thanks to a small watercolour painted by Michael Herr of Nuremberg, we even have an idea of how his collection was arranged in the 1630s (fig. 69).557 Little is known about Jörger’s activities as a patron of the arts, but it appears that the Diana and Actaeon now in Prague was a work that he commissioned from Steinhammer, who came from Nuremberg; what is more, judging by the date of the painting, it was a rather early commission, placed long before Jörger moved to the city. 556 In recent years I have come across numerous written sources pertaining to Jörger’s art collection, as well as one hitherto unknown pictorial source, but detailing them here would stretch the limits of the present paper. I will dedicate a separate analysis to this subject at a later date. 557 Universitätsbibliothek, Erlangen, inv. H 62/B 610a, watercolour and pen and ink on paper, 223×171 mm. 172 III. IMAGINES 70. Norbert Grund: Interior of a Fictive Gallery, 1750s German Baroque Gallery, Augsburg As a collector, he was not only in contact with his fellow Protestant noblemen in exile (such as the Stubenbergs), but also with Archduke Leopold Wilhelm himself: when the archduke visited Nuremberg, he paid a personal visit to Jörger’s Kunstkammer, and in 1662 he sent Jörger a painting by Savery as a gift from his own gallery.558 An autograph portrait by Jörger became part of the royal collection in Prague, and the work was documented in the gallery of Prague Castle until the end of the eighteenth century.559 Through relatives, he was still tied to the Viennese aristocracy by a number of threads. By way of example, he was very close to the Harrach family, and the two families were bound by marriage over several generations: in 1637, for instance, Franz Albrecht von Harrach (1614–66), the uncle of Ferdinand Bonaventura, married Anna Magdalena Jörger (1619–86?), daughter of Karl Jörger and cousin of Johann Septimius. As they had no children, their possessions were inherited by Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach. 558 Berger 1883, no. 673; Mareš 1887, p. 358; Schnabel 1992, pp. 660–1. 559 Praager Schloß 1685, no. 133; Köpl 1889, p. CXXXIV, no. 133, (1718); CXCI, no. 147 (1782). 173 THE ARTWORKS The Diana and Actaeon – as several observers have already noted – appears in a gallery painting by the Prague artist Norbert Grund (1717–67), which is held today in Augsburg (fig. 70).560 In Grund’s work he follows the composition precisely, but magnifies it significantly. As we have already seen, this was not unusual practice for this genre: paintings of the gallery of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm also feature works whose dimensions have not necessarily been handled with pinpoint accuracy. The gallery in Grund’s painting probably represents a fictive collection or an imaginary art dealership, although the works on display seem to be reproductions of actual artworks.56¹ Judging from Norbert Grund’s biographical details, the gallery painting was probably painted in the 1750s, by which time the painter was, if we believe the evidence of the painting, quite familiar with the Steinhammer (Rottenhammer) composition that was then (apparently) part of the Nostitz collection.56² This is not the only work from Nostitz’s gallery to feature in the painting, for it also features a scene of Susanna and the Elders, presumably by Louis Finson (before 1578–1618), which – like so many others – was procured from Franz Anton Berka.56³ The painting is now missing, but it is believed to have been in the possession of the Nostitz family at that time. Another work visible in the gallery painting is Rubens’s The Abduction of Ganymede (or a variation?), the original of which was held in the Schwarzenberg collection in Vienna from 1723.564 When Grund was compiling his “gallery”, he clearly derived inspiration from several sources. “Wie Jesus Joannem tauft” Our inventory has a third work attributed to Rottenhammer (no. 98), also painted on copper, showing “The Baptism of Christ”: Ein stuck auf kupfer von Rotenhamer wie Jesus Joannem tauft, mit vielen figuren – 100.” The original version of this popular composition by Rottenhammer can be seen in the Municipal Art Collections in Augsburg, where it is on long-term 560 Deutsche Barockgalerie, Augsburg, inv. 12446, oil on canvas, 29.5×37.7 cm. Krämer 1984, pp. 97–8; Artis 561 562 563 564 pictoriae amatores 1993, cat. III/3-3 (Lubomír Slavíček); Dialog mit alten Meistern 1997, cat. 8 (Hana Seifertová); Schaezler-Palais 2016, cat. 39 (Ulrich Heiss). Gode Krämer, quoting the verbal communication of the Prince of Schwarzenberg, suggested that the room seen in Grund’s gallery painting was one of the halls in the since-destroyed Schwarzenberg Palace in Vienna, but this is refuted by Ulrich Heiss. Krämer 1984, p. 98; Schaezler-Palais 2016, 156, cat. 39 (Ulrich Heiss). Ulrich Heiss dates it to around 1740, when Grund was residing in Vienna, while Czech researchers regard the 1750s as more likely (when Grund lived in Prague); cf. footnote 560. Attributed to Giulio Cesare Procaccini in several places, e.g. Artis pictoriae amatores 1993, cat. V/1-26 (Lubomír Slavíček); Dialog mit alten Meistern 1997, cat. 8 (Hana Seifertová); Schaezler-Palais 2016, cat. 39 (Ulrich Heiss). For the attribution to Finson, see: Barocke Bilderlust 1994, cat. VI (Lubomír Slavíček) and Slavíček 1996a, p. 89. Norbert Grund used pieces in the Nostitz collection as sources of inspiration for compositions in his own works. Slavíček 1983, p. 241, note 78; Slavíček 1995, p. 468, note 57; Kříž 1984. There are minor differences between the work by Rubens, formerly in the Schwarzenberg collection and now owned by the Liechtenstein family, and the Ganymede visible in the gallery painting, so it is possible that Grund did not base his rendition on the Vienna work but on a variation. Dialog mit alten Meistern 1997, cat. 8. (Hana Seifertová); Artis pictoriae amatores 1993, cat. III/3-3 (Lubomír Slavíček). 174 III. IMAGINES 71. Hendrick de Clerck–Hans Rottenhammer: The Baptism of Christ, early 1600s Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Antwerp loan from the Bavarian State Painting Collections.565 It was painted around 1596, likewise on copper, and was demonstrably present in the Schleißheim collection of the Elector of Bavaria from 1775 onwards. There are several known copies of the work, many of which were also painted on copper.566 Among them is a copy attributed to Hendrick van Balen in the Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri, Columbia, and one held to be jointly by Hendrick de Clerck and Rottenhammer, now in the Royal Museum of Fine Arts, Antwerp (fig. 71).567 A small-sized variant was bought from an art dealer in Munich in 1948 for the Stuttgart State Gallery, another copy featured in the 1961 auction at the Palace of Fine Arts in Brussels, and one had been held in a private collection in Jena since 1971.568 A partly autograph version, regarded in the literature as a joint piece by Hans Rottenhammer and Jan Brueghel the Elder, dated to around 1608 and wider than the original (33×48.5 cm), came up for auction in Cologne in 2011.569 The composition was extended 565 Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich, inv. 4826 (on loan to Augsburg), oil on copper, 33×44 cm, 566 567 568 569 made c. 1597. Schlichtenmaier 1988, cat. G I. 12; Krämer 1984, p. 204; Schaezler-Palais 2016, cat. 88 (Rüdiger Klessmann). Mai 1976, pp. 120–5. Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten, Antwerp, inv. 883, oil on copper, 29.5×37.7 cm. For details of the copies, see: Schlichtenmaier 1988, cats. G II. 13–4, K 16, 18, 21. Apart from the one in Munich, the provenance of the copies can be traced back no earlier than the twentieth century. Lempertz Auktion 2011, lot. 1227; Hans Rottenhammer 2009, p. 125; Ertz 2008, II, p. 561, cat. 260A. 175 THE ARTWORKS 72. Anonymous after Hans Rottenhammer: The Baptism of Christ, first half of the 17th century National Gallery in Prague towards the right with additional scenery, and also features more figures in the background. A copy of this version also survives, and what is more, it is now held in the National Gallery in Prague (fig. 72).570 As the exemplars I have mentioned are all painted on copper, any one of them could in theory be the item we are looking for, but based on the circle of collectors who have emerged in my research to date, I contend that the variant in Prague is the most likely candidate. The Prague painting is generally dated to the second quarter of the seventeenth century.57¹ From 1814 it was documented in Děčín (Tetschen) in the collection of the Thun-Hohenstein family. In 1945 the work was acquired for the nation from the castle in Jílové, not far from Děčín. A large proportion of the paintings in Děčín Castle had arrived there around 1797, after the Prague palace of Wenzel Joseph von Thun (1737–96) burned down in 1794, and his brothers helped to compensate for his loss by giving him some paintings of their own. After his death, his widow, Maria Anna von Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, managed the estate until their son, Franz Anton von Thun-Hohenstein (1786–1873), came of age. The inventory of 1814 was compiled for the new lord of the estate. The hall referred to as the gallery (Bilder in der hochgräflichen Gallerie) still contained the paintings inherited from his father, but the 570 Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. O 9581, oil on copper, 33×49 cm. With a summary of the previous literature: Jandlová Sošková 2015, pp. 110–1, cat. 80. 571 Borggrefe–Fusenig 2008, cat. 30 (Martina Jandlová). 176 III. IMAGINES other rooms held more modern pictures, which he had purchased himself (Bilder außer der Sammlung).57² The copy of the Rottenhammer composition was listed in the gallery (no. 27), and must therefore have previously been owned by Franz Anton’s father, meaning that the work had been at the castle since the late eighteenth century.57³ *** A significant proportion of the paintings listed in our inventory came – it appears – from the circle of Rudolfine painters and their followers, and were probably made in the early decades of the seventeenth century. The presence of this group here is far more dominant than in any of the other aristocratic collections known from around the same time, and contributes greatly to the unique make-up of the collection in question. We can, in consequence, at least hypothesise that our collection was somehow connected to Prague, and that it might have originated in the early seventeenth century; these works also counterbalance the paintings made in the 1660s and 1670s, which have been presented in earlier sub-chapters. What we can deduce from all this is that our collection had a “core” of early works, which were associated with the court culture in Prague around the turn of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. It is difficult to decide whether the collection was built up by one person alone or over two consecutive generations. It could have been the fruits of one man’s labours, provided the collector lived a long life, although we cannot rule out the possibility that two different people contributed to creating the collection. In this case, the group of earlier paintings in the collection would have come into the possession of the person who commissioned the inventory either through a large multiple purchase or by inheriting the works in question. Copies A number of the items listed in the Esterházy inventory were most likely to have been copies, and we have already seen quite a few examples of such works. This was in keeping with contemporary trends in collecting, for if a much desired artwork could not be procured in the original, whether because it was too expensive or because the owner refused to part with it, then it was common practice to fill the “gap” with a replica. Examples of this were common even in the collections of rulers, and to hang in his own Kunstkammer, Emperor Rudolf II commissioned copies of works he could not buy.574 572 Slavíček 2006; Jandlová Sošková–Šuman 2014. 573 Jandlová Sošková–Šuman 2014, p. 94; Mistrovská díla 2014. 574 His court painters also made copies for him of numerous works that he acquired, several examples of which are mentioned in: Fučíková 1986, p. 56; see also footnotes 635, 646, 682–4, 730. 177 THE ARTWORKS He had to make do with copies of Titian’s Las Furias series, for example, whose originals were in the Spanish Royal Armoury.575 When it seemed that he would fail to lay his hands on Parmigianino’s Cupid Carving his Bow, the original of which was also in Madrid, he ordered a copy of the work, even though one already existed in the imperial collection, commissioned much earlier for Emperor Maximilian II.576 Titian’s half-length portraits of the Caesars of Antiquity and the twelve portraits of empresses by Teodoro Ghisi that accompanied them (the originals being in the Gonzaga collection in Mantua at the time) were also present as replicas in Rudolf II’s collection.577 As for two paintings by Correggio in Modena that he had set his heart on (Madonna di San Sebastiano, Madonna di San Giorgio), it seems that even the copies failed to materialise, despite him sending Christian Buchner, a pupil of Hans von Aachen, to Italy for the very purpose of producing paintings after the originals.578 The most convenient way of obtaining a copy of an artwork was to have it painted using a print of the composition as a model. In general, the quality of such replicas came nowhere near that of copies based directly on the originals, but this method was far more affordable. It was also considered a virtue if a painter was able to produce a good quality painting after seeing only the engraving of a work: the artist Johann Creuzammer, for example, was recommended to Karl von Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn by one of his agents because the painter possessed this very skill.579 When artists applied for a position to work for Gundakar von Liechtenstein, he asked them to paint compositions after engravings in order to test their abilities.580 Illustrated publications such as the Theatrum Pictorium, which contained reproductions of works in the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, were excellent resource materials for such an exercise. A copy based on an engraved print can often be easily recognised if it is a “mirror image” of the original painting, or if its colour scheme is different. In the case of several items on our inventory, we can guess that they were copies after prints simply by reading the descriptions. Dürer’s Peasant Selling Goods at the Market of 1519 has already been discussed above, and I would also classify item 204 in the same category, described as a version of The Abduction of Helen, attributed to Raphael. The composition was engraved by Marcantonio Raimondi (c. 1480–c. 1534) after a drawing by Raphael (fig. 73),58¹ so not even the model for the print was a painting.58² The price estimate, given as 100 thalers, clearly indicates that it was not regarded as an autograph work by Raphael, but this amount was still two or three times more than a contemporary work by a Viennese painter would fetch, so – copy or not – it was still considered of high quality. It is possible that this work, like the Dürer, was a rather old copy, produced around the year 1600. 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 Rudolf 2002, p. 4. Rudolf 2002, p. 7. Zimmer 2010. Venturi 1885, pp. 22–3; Zimmer 2013, pp. 23–4. Kindl 2014b, p. 89. Winkelbauer 1999, pp. 429–30. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-OB-12.128, engraving, 294 x 420 mm. Bartsch 1970, XIV, pp. 171, 210. Developing the composition further, painted variants were also made after the Raimondi engraving, by, for example, Frans Francken the Younger, who painted on both wood and copper: Härting 1989, p. 335, cats. 332–3. 178 III. IMAGINES 73. Marcantonio Raimondi after Raphael: The Rape of Helen, c. 1510–27 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam If a copy of a painting was produced directly after the original work, this procedure would be far more expensive, yet the end result would also be expected to be far superior in quality than following the method outlined above. This typically took place when a collector, for one reason or another, was compelled to part with a painting that they valued greatly, ensuring that the copy was made before handing over the original to the new owner. This was sometimes a condition of sale, with the contract stipulating that the buyer would commission a copy of the work for the previous owner. The wealthy Nuremberg merchant, Martin Peller (1559–1629), for example, purchased Dürer’s Lamentation of Christ from the Sebalduskirche in Nuremberg in 1620 for the sum of 1000 florins, and in addition to paying the agreed price, he was obligated to have a copy of the work painted for the church.58³ The same condition was imposed when Emperor Rudolf II bought Dürer’s Feast of the Rosary from Venice, the difference being that the copy was not installed as the replacement altarpiece, but was hung in the assembly hall of the Fondaco dei Tedeschi, the work’s former owners.584 583 Stüwe 1998, p. 44. For the Peller collection, see: Seibold 1982, pp. 70–82. 584 With additional literature: Martin 1998, p. 183. 179 THE ARTWORKS In the major centres of art, such as Antwerp and Amsterdam, countless copies of paintings by leading masters were produced in the artists’ own workshops, not only for commercial reasons, but also, for example, as part of the training for apprentices. Many of these copies later found their way onto the art market, and a large number of them ended up in Central Europe. Quite regularly one comes across information pertaining to copies made after items owned by a monarch, prince or other sovereign.585 In such cases, the necessary permit was a gesture of good will from the proprietor of the collection towards the person commissioning the copy; this increased the value not only of the replica itself, but also of the entire noble collection where the work was hung.586 The prestige was further enhanced in the case of works that were rarely copied: when Johann Adam Andreas, Prince of Liechtenstein, wanted to have copies made of a few sculptures by Michelangelo that belonged to the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and was exchanging letters on this subject with the sculptor Massimiliano Soldani, the prince opted for three particular works recommended by Soldani, because the sculptor informed him that the only person who had previously been granted permission to have marble copies executed of the works in question had been the king of France.587 In justified cases, then, even art collectors who were otherwise extremely sensitive about the authenticity of their artworks were known to make “concessions”.588 Access to and awareness of the artworks in the imperial collection underwent considerable changes during the seventeenth century. During the reign of Rudolf II, only a privileged few were allowed to see the contents of the Kunstkammer in Prague with their own eyes. It seems that viewing the collections was not even part of court protocol, despite the fact that the arrangement and decoration of the rooms housing the works were all designed for representational purposes; it was only on exceptional occasions that Rudolf II received diplomats in these surroundings.589 A few travellers, such as Hans Ulrich Krafft of Ulm and the Frenchman, Jacques Esprinchard, were able to gain entry into the Kunstkammer thanks to their acquaintance with the artists who worked there, Bartholomäus Spranger and Hans von Aachen.590 Although the court artists of Rudolf II regularly produced copies of pieces in the Kunstkammer, there is no information available to tell whether or not this opportunity was also extended to members of the aristocracy. Among the earliest members of the “privileged few” to do so, albeit somewhat high-handedly, was Karl, Prince of Liechtenstein (1569–1627), plenipotentiary governor of Bohemia, who, during the chaotic period 585 During the time Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach spent as ambassador to Madrid, for example, he com586 587 588 589 590 missioned copies of four works by Guido Reni and two by Correggio from the Buen Retiro collection. Lindorfer 2014, p. 101. For the prestigious value represented by copies of works from the imperial gallery, see: Pons 2001, pp. 326–7; Buzási 2015, pp. 139–40. Wilhelm 1911, p. 104. In his treatise, Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, strictly rejected the purchase of copies, although he added that it would be permissible if there were no other way of obtaining a work, although copies should not in any way be mixed up with the original works in the collection. Fleischer 1910, p. 198. DaCosta Kaufmann 1978; Fučíková 1986, p. 55; Polleross 2016, p. 255. Lhotsky 1941–5, I, pp. 297–8; Evans 1997, p. 178; Bauer–Haupt 1976, p. XXXIV. 180 III. IMAGINES following the Battle of White Mountain, “appropriated” certain paintings from Rudolf II’s Kunstkammer (it is a matter of contention whether or not he had permission to do so), which he kept till the end of his life for the purpose of “replication”.59¹ Ferdinand II, when he became emperor, corresponded at length with the prince’s nephew, Maximilian von Liechtenstein (1578–1645), to get the paintings back.59² This situation led to a blanket ban on works being “loaned out”, but permits were granted to commissioned artists to enter the Kunstkammer and produce their copies on site. The superintendent of the gallery could not only keep an eye on the work in progress, but could also inspect the finished product: it was a question of maintaining prestige that poor copies of the pieces in the imperial collection should not be allowed out. One of the painters commissioned by Karl von Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn, Archbishop of Olomouc, to make copies of works in the imperial collection, for example, was turned away by the gallery superintendent, Jan Anton van der Baren (1615/1616–86), because he did not consider him sufficiently qualified. (It is a different matter that, six ducats later, he was persuaded to change his mind.)59³ Of course, there was no way of controlling by whom, and at what kind of quality, secondary copies of these replicas were produced. The afore-mentioned archbishop, for instance, shortly after receiving his copies from Vienna, had further reproductions of them made in Olomouc, commissioning artists of much lower abilities than those he had dispatched to the capital.594 The imperial collection in Vienna seems to have been slightly easier to access than the one in Prague, but even in the Bohemian capital, beginning in the 1660s, there were ever more visitors to the Kunstkammer, or at least this is what can be deduced from the increasing number of travel journals featuring information about the collection there. Details about the production of copies are known mostly from the time when Christian Schröder (1655– 1702) was gallery superintendent, a post to which he was appointed in 1684. Some of these replicas were made as practice exercises, for Schröder encouraged his students to hone their skills by copying items in the Kunstkammer; between 1683 and 1688, for example, the young artist Petr Brandl (1668–1739) was instructed to make studies of some of the very best exemplars of Venetian painting.595 Replicas of works were also increasingly commissioned by members of the aristocracy: at the end of the 1680s, Schröder produced copies of more than forty paintings for the Dietrichstein chateau in Libochovice.596 591 Fučíková 1998, pp. 278–9. 592 Haupt 1983, II, reg. 744. The list of works remaining in Prague handed over to Alessandro Miseroni (Haus593 594 595 596 meister zu Praag), dated 24 March 1627, contained 83 items, of which eighteen paintings belonged to the emperor (cf. reg. 757), including the copies after Correggio by Hans von Aachen. Between 1666 and 1667 a total of 78 paintings from the imperial gallery were copied for Archbishop Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn. Breitenbacher 1925, I, pp. 23–33 and pp. I–XVII, Seznam III–V. Jan Jiři Černoch (1623–1702) was rejected by Baren due to the painter’s inexperience. Kindl 2014b, pp. 83–98. Neumann 1966, p. 40. Neumann 1966, p. 39; Seifertová 1997a, p. 12; Fučíková 2009, p. 682. 181 THE ARTWORKS After Schröder’s death, it seems that the gates “closed” once more: in 1713, when Lothar Franz von Schönborn, Archbishop of Mainz, requested authorisation to have some copies made in Prague, approval came only after much difficulty, and it was emphasised that he was being granted “exceptional” permission because the painter he was sending to make the copies, Johann Rudolf Bys (1660–1738), was so reputable.597 Even the previous year, when Schönborn had sought a permit to have just two paintings copied, he had been obliged to submit multiple applications, and had even needed the intervention of the vice-chancellor’s nephew. (These two copies were also executed by Bys, and Schönborn was extremely satisfied with the results; soon afterwards he engaged the painter into his service in exchange for a regular annual honorarium.) Bys was particularly known for his exquisite copies of works by Jan Brueghel the Elder (1568–1625), and he had previously been asked to copy paintings by Brueghel for other noblemen (such as the Count of Vršovec).598 Some excellent information about the trends and patterns followed by a particular collector can be gleaned from an examination of the replicas he kept in his collection. If the provenances of the original works point in the same direction, this may reveal clues about the collector’s network of contacts. Furthermore, the data may contribute to establishing an approximate date when the copies were made, provided, of course, the original works were not accessible constantly over a long period of time. We have already seen, for instance, that the “Fürlegerin” portraits by Dürer would have been available for copying mainly during two specific periods: initially, when they were still in Nuremberg, before the Earl of Arundel bought them and took them to England; and after he had his collection “rescued” to Amsterdam. Beginning in 1667, when the paintings were taken to Vienna by the Imstenraedt brothers and then transported to Olomouc, the paintings were almost constantly on the road, wrapped up carefully, and when they arrived in Kroměříž, the works were almost completely forgotten. Copies of pieces in the imperial collection Below I present works from the collection that are highly likely to have been copies, but they all have one thing in common regarding their provenance: all of them were in the imperial collection in Prague in the first third of the seventeenth century. “Ein Weiblein so die Hand auf einen Mohren legt” Despite not being one of the low-priced paintings in the inventory, it is most likely that item 95, a portrait painted on wood of a woman laying her hand on “a Moor”, attributed to Titian, was a copy: Ein stuck auf holz ein Weiblein So die hand auf einen mohren legt, extra Curios 597 Hantsch–Scherf 1931, I, pp. 252–3, no. 305. (1 April 1713); Seifertová 1997a, p. 34; Bott 1997, p. 259. For more about the activities of the Schönborn family as art collectors, see: Kersting 2003. 598 Frimmel 1892b, p. 24, no. 29; Seifertová 1997a, p. 19. 182 III. IMAGINES 74. Titian: Portrait of Laura Dianti, c. 1520–5 Heinz Kisters Collection, Kreuzlingen 75. Aegidius Sadeler the Younger after Titian: Portrait of Laura Dianti, 1620s Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam von Titiano – 100. The original work was almost certainly the Titian portrait that is today identified as Laura Eustochia Dianti (1480–1573), lover – and later third wife – of Alfonso I d’Este, Duke of Ferrara (fig. 74).599 The painting was in the imperial collection in Prague in the first half of the seventeenth century, and in the inventory of Prague Castle from 1621 it is described as: Eine Türkin mit einem kleinen Moor vom Tician (Orig.).600 Not a lot of information is available regarding the circumstances by which the portrait reached Prague: while it is generally accepted in the specialist literature that the painting was given to Rudolf II by Cesare d’Este (1562–1628), the grandson of Laura Dianti, the sources that have come to light so far only partially support this idea, if at all. From the diplomatic correspondence of Cesare d’Este we know that he sent Rudolf II several valuable paintings, allegedly including works by Raphael and Titian, on various occasions between 1598 and 1604, but unfortunately none of them are specifically 599 Heinz Kisters Collection, Kreuzlingen, oil on canvas, 118×93 cm. With additional literature: Wethey 1971, II, pp. 92–4, no. 24; Christina Queen of Sweden 1966, p. 482, no. 1.189; Le siècle de Titien 1993, pp. 375–7, no. 56 (Vittoria Romani); Sovrane passioni 1998, pp. 150–1, cat. 3 (Stefania Mason). 600 Zimmermann 1905, no. 860. 183 THE ARTWORKS named in the sources.60¹ The references in the literature often “prove” the presence of the Titian portrait in Prague at the end of the sixteenth century by pointing to an inventory of Emperor Rudolf II’s Kunstkammer dated around 1599, which features the following description: Eine Türkin mit einem kleinen Mor, von Titian.60² However, while this inventory was indeed dated to the end of the sixteenth century when it was partly published by Anton von Perger in 1864, it was shown by Heinrich Zimmermann in 1905 to be a textual variant of the Prague inventory dated 6 December 1621, which we have already mentioned quite a few times.60³ Regardless of this, the painting could already have been in Prague during the reign of Emperor Rudolf II, but it may be worth noting that this is not borne out by the written sources. What is more, the only written source from the seventeenth century that clearly refers to this portrait and its presentation as a gift – namely, the biography of Titian by Carlo Ridolfi, published in 1648 – asserts that Cesare d’Este actually sent the work (described by Ridolfi as a portrait of the “Duchess of Ferrara”) to Ferdinand II.604 The emperor ascended the throne in 1619, and so if he was the recipient of the gift, the painting would have already been included in the Prague inventory of 1621. It seems that the portrait of Laura Dianti later suffered the same fate as many other pieces from the imperial collection in Prague: in 1648 the works were seized by the forces of Christina, Queen of Sweden and bundled off to Stockholm, and in 1654 Christina had them transported to Antwerp and then to Rome. However, the work in question here cannot be conclusively identified either in the list of works looted from Prague in 1648 or in the inventory drawn up in Stockholm in 1652.605 Olof Granberg established the convention of identifying the painting as item 217 on the 1648 inventory: Ein Weib mit einem Mohr, so ein spiegl in der Handt; this assertion collapses, however, with the mention of the mirror, which does not feature in the portrait of Laura Dianti.606 The same inventory also lists two paintings (nos. 436–7) of a “Turkish Sultana”: Eine Türkische Soldanin and Eine andere dergleichen.607 Given that the Titian painting – as we have already seen – was considered in 1621 to be a portrait of a Turkish Woman, I consider it possible that one of the “Sultana” pictures could be the portrait of Laura Dianti, although 601 For details of the circumstances surrounding the gift, see: Venturi 1885; Ghelfi 2012. 602 Perger 1864, 105. Referred to by, among others: Justi 1899. p. 188; Wethey 1971, II, p. 93; Le siècle de Titien 1993, p. 427; Borea 2009, I, p. 237. 603 Cf. Zimmermann 1905, pp. XIII–XVIII. 604 Mandò il Signor Duca Cesare di Modona alla Maestà Cesarea di Ferdinando II. per regalato dono il già descrit- to ritratto della Duchessa di Ferrara, che hor possiede l’Inuittissimo Ferdinando Imperador regnante. Ridolfi 1648, p. 177. Ridolfi, incidentally, localised the painting not to Prague but to Vienna, although he knew that there were works by Titian in Prague as well, acquired by Rudolf II. cf. Justi 1899, p. 187; Hadeln 1911, p. 70. 605 Granberg 1897, p. 36, no. 38. L’Esclavonne, Taf. XXXVIII, App. I, no. 217(?), App. III, no. 30 and App. IV, no. 15; Wethey 1971, II, p. 93; Le siècle de Titien 1993, p. 427. 606 According to the 1621 Prague inventory, however, there was another painting of a female figure with a Moor in the imperial collection, which may have been the work in question. cf. Zimmermann 1905, p. XL, no. 928. Ein Weib mit einem kleinen mooren vom Leonhardt de Vinci. (Orig.) 607 Dudík 1867 [=Granberg 1897, App. I.]. This would not be the only occasion on which the figure was interpreted as a sultana, for the same occurred with the copy in Modena, cf. Pallucchini 1945, p. 187. 184 III. IMAGINES Titian’s name is not mentioned here. The other “Sultana” could perhaps be a copy of the same work, and therefore literally “the same” (dergleichen). The inventory of works drawn up for Christina, Queen of Sweden in 1652, which bears the name of Raphaël Trichet du Fresne,608 contains only one work described as a Turkish woman (no. 440): Dito [un petit tableau]. Une femme de Turquie;609 this painting accompanied the queen on her journey south. The other must have remained in Stockholm, and I conditionally identify it as the copy of the portrait of Laura Dianti still held in the Swedish capital. (The copies of the portrait will be discussed in detail later.) The list of paintings that Christina, Queen of Sweden, sent from Antwerp to Rome (1656) is far clearer in its description, and it also includes the artist’s name: Pourtraict d’une fille avecq un morion de Titian.6¹0 The description in the queen’s estate inventory, compiled in Rome (1689), not only gave a description of the painting and the name of the artist, but also the dimensions of the work, and brief details about its frame: Un quadro di un ritratto di una donna vestita d’azzurro con velo giallo alle spalle, che mostra parte della camiscia nel petto e nelle braccia, con la mano destra sostiene la sua gonna, e posa la sinistra sopra la spalla di un moretto che la sta guardando, di Titiano, in tela in piedi alta palmi quattro e due terzi e larga palmi tre e tre quarti con cornice dorata liscia alla romana.6¹¹ The painting subsequently came into the possession of Cardinal Decio Azzolino (1623–89), then Prince Livio Odescalchi (1658–1713), and in 1721 it was bought by Philippe II, Duke of Orléans.6¹² In 1792 it was auctioned in Paris, and it reappeared in London in the nineteenth century, passing through a number of English private collections before ending up in the collection of Heinz Kisters (Kreuzlingen), where it is held today.6¹³ An engraving was also made of the composition (fig. 75), produced in the first quarter of the seventeenth century by Aegidius Sadeler the Younger (c. 1568–1629).6¹4 It was long debated whether this reproduction originated in Prague or in Italy, whether it was made during the reign of Rudolf II or later, and whether it was engraved after the original painting or a copy. When the engraving was published, it was dedicated to the Dutch merchant and art collector, Lucas van Uffelen (1586–1638), leader of the Venice branch of the jewellery empire belonging to Daniel de Briers (also mentioned earlier), who also conducted business 608 According to Jaromír Neumann, the inventory was compiled not by Du Fresne, but by the chamberlain, Jan Holm. Neumann 1966, p. 26. 609 Inventaire des raretez qui sont dans le cabinet des antiquitez de la sérénissime reine de Suède, 1652. Published 610 611 612 613 614 in: Geffroy 1855, pp. 120–93. [=Granberg 1897, App. II.], citation on page 184. It is identified with the above item by, among others: Granberg 1897, p. 36; Wethey 1971, II, p. 93; Le siècle de Titien 1993, p. 427. Inventaire de la Reine Christine de Suede, Mai 1656. Published in: Denucé 1932, pp. 176–92, citation on page 179. Catalogo dei quadri della Regina di Svezia [c. 1689]. Published in: Campori 1870, pp. 336–76 [=Granberg 1897, App. III], citation on page 342. Owned by Livio Odescalchi: described as “famoso Quadro della Moretta o Zingara” in: La nota dei quadri della regina Cristina [c. 1703]. Published in: Danesi Squarzina 2003, pp. 43–89. doc. 1, citation on page 73; Dubois de Saint Gelais 1727, p. 474. “L’Esclavonne”; Galerie du Palais Royal 1786–1808, II, “L’Esclavone de la Galerie du Palais Royal, XVIII. Tableau de Titien Vecelli.” Its provenance is discussed in detail in: Justi 1899, p. 189; Cook 1905, p. 449; Wethey 1971, II, p. 93. Le siècle de Titien 1993, 427. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-H-H-1217, engraving, 345×246 mm. Hollstein 1980, XXI, p. 40, no. 148. 185 THE ARTWORKS with the imperial house.6¹5 Sadeler’s monographer, Dorothy Ann Limouze, relied on stylistic analysis to date the engraving to his later period, between 1616 and 1629, the terminus post quem and ante quem being, respectively, the year when Lucas van Uffelen settled in Venice (1616) and Sadeler’s death (1629).6¹6 At the same time, Limouze also asserts that Sadeler saw the Titian portrait in Prague, which means that he made his reproduction of it at roughly the same time as his engravings of Titian’s Eleven Caesars, that is, in the 1620s.6¹7 The dedication to Uffelen has already raised the possibility that Sadeler worked after a copy in Venice rather than Titian’s original work. The earliest commentators to analyse the portrait noted several tiny differences between the Titian and the engraving, which led them to conclude that Sadeler must have based his composition on a different variation of the painting.6¹8 These differences have since been “toned down”, for when the original portrait was restored in 1957, the overpaints and later supplements were removed, and the missing parts were filled in using Sadeler’s engraving as the model.6¹9 It is mostly in consequence of this that the literature today has discarded the notion that Sadeler could have based his engraving on a copy of the portrait in Venice, although this conjecture is still worth bearing in mind from one perspective. As the identity of the sitter was unknown for so long, the female figure is described in the written sources in a number of different ways. Carlo Ridolfi (1648) provided the most accurate description, calling her both Madama di Duchessa and Duchessa di Ferrara, by whom he probably meant Lucrezia Borgia, the second wife of Alfonso d’Este.6²0 Where he got this information from is unknown, but it may have been from the engraving by Aegidius Sadeler. (Ridolfi was surely aware of Sadeler’s print, for he refers to it in his description.) There is reportedly a version of the engraving which, besides the dedication to Uffelen, also bears the name of the person in the portrait as Lucrezia Borgia.6²¹ If this is the case, then Sadeler knew something that nobody in Prague did, which was that the subject of the work was the wife of Alfonso d’Este (only he mistakenly identified the wrong one). The inventories in Prague never associated the portrait with any member of the d’Este family. As already seen, the 1621 inventory describes her simply as a Turkish Woman, while the lists compiled in 1647–8 – if they do indeed refer to this work – define her as a “Sultana”. The inventories drawn up for Christina, Queen of Sweden, Cardinal Azzolino, Livio Odescalchi, and the Duke of Orléans list the work under a variety of titles: femme de Turquie, la Moretta, la Zingara, la Schiavona (l’Esclavonne), etc. If the engraving was made in Prague, Sadeler would surely have used the information available to him there Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015b, p. 279. Limouze 1990, pp. 292–4, 352. Dated c. 1620: Borea 2009, I, pp. 237–8. For the series of imperial portraits, see: Zimmer 2010, pp. 7–8. Justi 1899, p. 187; Hadeln 1911, p. 69. Wethey 1971, II, p. 93. Ridolfi 1648, p. 144. Volle parimente il Duca esser ritratto con Madama la Duchessa, la qual fece Titiano con rarissimi abbeglimenti in capo, di veli, e di gemme, in veste di veluto nero con maniche trinciate, diuisate da molti groppi; che con maestoso portamento teneua la manca mano appoggiata alla spalla d’vn Paggetto Etiope, che si vede in stampa di rame da Egidio Sadeler. Later also referred to as “Duchessa di Ferrara”, see footnote 604. 621 Referenced in: Justi 1899, p. 187. Unfortunately, I have not managed to locate a copy that features the name of the duchess. Hollstein 1980, XXI, p. 40, no. 148, lists several versions (no inscriptions, only dedications, privileges and the printer’s mark of Marcus Sadeler), none of this mentions the person portrayed. 615 616 617 618 619 620 186 III. IMAGINES when producing his print, and is unlikely that he would have somehow conjured up the likeness of Lucrezia Borgia, of all people, from what was referred to as a “Turkish woman”. It is for this reason that I would not rule out the possibility that the engraving was based on a copy of the painting, whose owner was aware that the person it depicted was the wife of Alfonso d’Este. (The use of a Venetian copy may furthermore provide greater justification for Sadeler’s dedication to Uffelen.) Numerous painted copies of the portrait of Laura Dianti are known. The one believed to be the earliest is in the Galleria Estense in Modena, and was once attributed to Ludovico Carracci; it is assumed that this copy was commissioned by Cesare d’Este himself, before he gave the original away.6²² Further replicas, some of which are partly different in their cropping or colouring, can be found today in Antwerp, Ferrara, London, Prague, Rome (where there are several copies, held in different private collections), Stockholm and Venice.6²³ The Stockholm copy – as already intimated – may have originated from Prague, as a replica produced for the imperial collection. Another copy appeared in Berlin in the early twentieth century, in the collection of Baron von Lipperheide, which was sold at auction in 1933.6²4 According to the mark on the back of the painting, it came from the Torlonia collection, and can therefore also be regarded as originating from Rome. There are no available data concerning the earlier provenance of the majority of the copies, but it can be seen that where they are distributed today basically follows the route taken by the original painting (Prague, Stockholm, Antwerp, Rome, Paris, London), and most of the replicas may have been produced when the painting was still owned by Christina, Queen of Sweden: in Rome in 1713, among the paintings listed in the Odescalchi collection that originated from Christina’s estate, there were no less than five (!) copies of the portrait.6²5 As far as our investigation is concerned, the most interesting copy may be the one referred to by Rodolfo Pallucchini in 1945 as part of a private collection in Prague, but unfortunately he provided no further details of its location, and I have no idea about the work’s present whereabouts.6²6 With all due caution, it may be possible to associate this copy with a painting of a female figure with a Moor (Frauenzimmer mit einen Mohren), which was inventoried in 1814 in the Thun Collection in Děčín.6²7 However, as this particular painting is unidentified, we can only speculate that its model might have been the Titian portrait. 622 The presence of the painting in Modena is documented from 1770: la famosa rinomatissima Moretta di Tiziano. Pagani 1770. p. 173, cf. Hadeln 1911, p. 71; Pallucchini 1945, p. 187. 623 Numerous copies are listed in: Justi 1899, p. 185; Cook 1905, p. 450; Pallucchini 1945, p. 187; Pergola 1955, pp. 133–4, no. 238; Wethey 1971, II, p. 94; Sovrane Passioni 1998, p. 151. 624 Nachlass Lipperheide 1933, p. 7, no. 173. The catalogue did not identify the model for the painting and de- scribed the work as a seventeenth-century painting from North Italy. This copy was conditionally associated by Wethey 1971, p. 94 with the version auctioned by Lepke, Berlin in 1931 (Van Dirksen auction, 28–29 April 1931 – later Benoit Roose, Antwerp), but in view of the fact that the Lipperheide family only parted with their painting in 1933, I consider it more likely that these are two different versions of the work. 625 Wethey 1971, II, p. 94; Le siècle de Titien 1993, p. 427. 626 Pallucchini 1945, p. 187. 627 Jandlová Sošková–Šuman 2014, p. 94, no. 63. Features among “other pictures”, and therefore not inventoried in the gallery, implying it was not regarded as a work of high value. 187 THE ARTWORKS Although Carlo Ridolfi proved himself to be better informed than other sources with regard to the identity of the sitter in the portrait, it seems he was mistaken in his description of the colours used in the painting, for he asserted that Titian immortalised the likeness of “Madama la Duchessa” in a black velvet dress (in veste di veluto nero).6²8 The original work, however, as can be seen in the Heinz Kisters Collection in Kreuzlingen, shows Laura Dianti in a dazzling blue (turquoise) dress, while the few sources that mention the colour of the dress always describe it as blue, as in the estate inventory of Christina, Queen of Sweden, compiled in 1689, which uses the phrase, vestita d’azzurro.6²9 Ridolfi is hardly likely to have seen the original work, however, for when he was writing about the painting, it had already been in Prague for at least a quarter of a century (regardless of whether it had been received as a gift by Emperor Rudolf II or Ferdinand II). It could be that he based his description solely on the Sadeler engraving, which is the usual explanation for Ridolfi’s colour error.6³0 It is more difficult, however, to satisfactorily explain why the same mistake was repeated eighty years later: the inventory of the collection of the Duke of Orléans, published in 1727, echoed Ridolfi in stating that the female figure was dressed in black (Elle est habillée de noir).6³¹ The original work by Titian arrived in Paris as part of a set of paintings bought in 1721 from the estate of Prince Odescalchi; the description was also written in Paris, and there is no reason to assume that the author of the catalogue described the work on an engraving rather than on autopsy. There can also be no doubt that the painting is the very same one that originated from the estate of Christina, Queen of Sweden, so all we are left with is the fact that the same colour was described as blue in Rome but black in Paris. Research into Titian has not dealt with the information in the 1727 catalogue, and I have not yet come up with a decent explanation. (I could find information about the colours of the copies only in two cases, which is a pity, because this could prove useful in determining the provenance of the copies, especially if one could be found featuring a black dress. As it is, the Laura Dianti in the Modena copy is wearing a green dress, while in the Stockholm copy it is blue – in the latter, incidentally, the distinctive, turban-like headgear is missing.) Sadeler’s engraving was itself used as the model for further copies, which often feature only the female figure, rather than the entirety of the composition, or even only her memorable, exotic attire. For example, based on the sideways-turning view, the Sadeler print – and not one of the painted replicas – must have served as the basis for a fictive portrait in the Wittelsbach Ancestors Gallery: in this case, the features and garments of Laura de’ Dianti were borrowed for a portrait of Amalia of Saxony, Duchess of Bavaria (1436–1501); the turban-like headgear, meanwhile, turned up again in Munich in 1637 in the painting by Georg Vischer titled Christ and the Adulteress.6³² In the replica in the Doria Pamphilj Collection in Rome, the female figure was transformed into Saint Helena, while the little Moorish boy in the painting is substituted with the Holy Cross; she can 628 629 630 631 632 Ridolfi 1648, p. 144. Campori 1870, p. 342. Wethey 1971, II, p. 93; Hadeln 1911, p. 70. Dubois de Saint Gelais 1727, p. 474. Seelig 1980, p. 320, no. 97; Goldberg 1980, p. 142; Dürer-Renaissance 1971, pp. 19–20, no. 18. 188 III. IMAGINES also be recognised as Salome, holding a tray that bears the disembodied head of Saint John the Baptist, in a painting in the Galleria Spada in Rome.6³³ A copy of this variation also found its way into the Esterházy collection in Forchtenstein.6³4 We may rightly wonder if the copy that features in our inventory was made after the original portrait, one of its replicas, or Sadeler’s engraving. As the version in question has not yet been identified (as far as I know, none of the many extant variants was painted on wood), we can only answer this question hypothetically. From the high estimated value of 100 thalers we can infer that the copy was of high quality, which may allow us to hazard that it was not based on the print. Moreover, since this copy appears in a seventeenth-century inventory in Vienna, we may contend that it was more likely to have been painted somewhere in the vicinity (Prague?), rather than at one of the more distant stations on the painting’s subsequent odyssey. The provenance and history of the Titian work therefore provides us with an approximate date for the copy we seek: if its model was the painting in the imperial collection, then the copy must have been made before the Sack of Prague in 1648. “Ein stuck auf kupfer des Sauls bekehrung” Another work probably copied after a piece in the imperial collection is item 86, a Conversion of Saint Paul painted on copper and attributed to “Hans” (actually Christoph) Schwarz: Ein stuck auf kupfer des Sauls bekehrung sehr, von Hanß Schwarzen – 200. Christoph Schwarz’s original composition was in Munich, unavailable to the emperor, but a copy by Hans von Aachen was documented in the collection of Rudolf II. This was transported with several other paintings to Brussels around 1615–6, part of the emperor’s estate inherited by his brother, Archduke Albert. The inventory made at the time listed several copies by Hans von Aachen, including that of Christoph Schwarz’s Conversion of Saint Paul, valued at 250 thalers: Volgende stuck seindt von Hannsz von Achen […] 26. Sancti Pauli Bekehrung, nach Christoff Schwarzen, 250 Thaler.6³5 The original work by Christoph Schwarz is now in the Moravian Gallery in Brno (fig. 76).6³6 It does not, in fact, portray the conversion of Saint Paul, but a less common scene from the Bible, the Fall of Sennacherib.6³7 (The confusion can be explained by the compositional similarity between the two subjects, of a protagonist falling off his horse.) In the seventeenth century the painting was in Stockau, in the possession of Franz von Mayer: Joachim von Sandrart mentions the work – as the Fall of Sennacherib – in volume II of his Teutsche Academie (1679).6³8 Baron von Mayer was a Bavarian counsellor 633 Both are mentioned in: Wethey 1971, II, p. 94. 634 Kopp 2015, pp. 265–6. 635 The inventory is dated Prague, 6 September 1615. Published in: Maeyer 1955, pp. 316–9, citation on page 317. For the collection of Archduke Albert and Isabella, see also: Albert & Isabella 1998; Banz 1999; Banz 2000. 636 Moravská galerie v Brně, Brno, inv. A 200, oil on wood, 42.6×29.5 cm, signed bottom right: “C S v / 1560”. 637 Geissler 1960, p. 175. cat. G I, 3; Diefenthaler 2017, pp. 328–9. 638 Sandrart 1679, II, p. 85. PURL http://ta.sandrart.net/en/text/978. 189 THE ARTWORKS 76. Christoph Schwarz: Fall of Sennacherib, 1560 Moravian Gallery in Brno 77. Jan Brueghel the Elder–Peter Paul Rubens: Touch (from the series of the Five Senses), detail, 1618 Prado National Museum, Madrid 190 III. IMAGINES 78. Hans von Aachen after Christoph Schwarz: Fall of Sennacherib, c. 1610 Private collection (reproduced after Jacoby 2000) and something of an expert in art. Sandrart had first-hand knowledge of the baron’s chateau in Stockau and the collection of art inside, for he had been the owner of the estate until quite recently, before selling it to Mayer in 1670, probably together with part of his own Kunstkammer.6³9 The Mayer collection was later transferred to Munich, which fits in with what we know about the provenance of the painting now in Brno, which has an inscription on its reverse, stating that the work was in Munich in 1731. It is likely to have been purchased in the Bavarian city in the nineteenth century by Moritz Wilhelm Trapp (1825–95), custodian of the Franzensmuseum in Brno, and after his death the work joined the collection of the museum.640 It was not only the thematic interpretation that changed (from the Fall of Sennacherib to the Conversion of Saint Paul) in Hans von Aachen’s copy, for he also made some tiny alterations to the composition. Soon after the copy arrived in Brussels, it was recopied several times, and the composition devised by Hans von Aachen can be discovered, for example, 639 Wellnhofer 1936, pp. 421–31. 640 Geissler 1960, p. 175; Geissler 1961, p. 192. For more about Trapp, see: Serving Understanding 2002, pp. 16–7. 191 THE ARTWORKS (together with other items in the collection of Archduke Albert) in one of the allegories of the Five Senses painted by Jan Brueghel the Elder in collaboration with Peter Paul Rubens (fig. 77)64¹ and in the drawing by Rubens known as the Fall of Sennacherib, now in the Albertina, Vienna;64² there is also a large copy of the work made by Joachim Luhn, from around 1690, now in the Castle Museum, Wolfenbüttel.64³ Hans von Aachen’s “original” copy was missing for a long time. The latest theory identifies the work as the canvas that was discovered in 2001 in the collection of the Congregazione per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli in Rome, where it formed part of the estate of Stefano Borgia (1731–1804).644 The first known written source in Italy is in the collector’s estate inventory: in 1805 it is listed in the Palazzo Altemps in Rome, titled La disfatta di Sennacheribbi.645 For now we do not know where Hans von Aachen’s copy went immediately after leaving Brussels, nor where Stefano Borgia obtained the painting now in Rome, whose composition is, in any event, identical in every component to the copies made by Brueghel and Rubens. We cannot, of course, be certain that Hans von Aachen only produced one copy of Schwarz’s work. It was not against the collecting concept of Rudolf II to have the same painting reproduced in different sizes and different media, and there are known instances of one picture existing in variations painted on canvas, wood and cooper.646 According to Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann, part of the reason for this was pedagogical: court painters were 641 Museo Nacional del Prado, Madrid, inv. Po1398, oil on wood, 64 x 111 cm. According to the 1636 inventory of 642 643 644 645 646 Alcázar, the paintings were brought to Madrid having previously been owned by Wolfgang Wilhelm Count Palatine of Neuburg (1578–1653). For more about the series, see: Speth-Holterhoff 1957, pp. 52–4; Díaz Padrón–Royo-Villanova 1990, pp. 114–75; Schütz 1992, p. 164; Welzel 1998, pp. 99–106; Ertz 2010, III, pp. 1108–52. cats. 533–7. Albertina, Vienna, inv. 8204, brown ink on paper, 218×314 mm. Geissler 1961, pp. 192–6; DaCosta Kaufmann 1988, p. 159, no. 1.79; Díaz Padrón–Royo-Villanova 1990, p. 133. It was acquired by the museum from Salzdahlum, and it was previously recorded neither as the Conversion of Saint Paul nor as the Fall of Sennacherib, but as a Battle of Constantine the Great. The Hamburg-based painter Joachim Luhn worked in Braunschweig and Salzdahlum between 1689 and 1713, on commission from Anthony Ulrich, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel. Thöne 1963, p. 254. Congregazione per l’Evangelizzazione dei Popoli, Città del Vaticano, Rome, no inv., oil on canvas, 85×110 cm. Collezione Borgia 2001, pp. 77–8 (Patrizia Tosini): “anonimo nordico”; Miarelli Mariani 2003: attributed to Hans von Aachen. The inventory was published in: Nocca 2001, p. 42, App. 3, no. 86; Miarelli Mariani 2003, p. 215. According to the Habsburg inventories, there were several copies, for example, of Parmigianino’s Cupid Carving his Bow, two of which were certainly made by Joseph Heintz the Elder. The original painting and one of Heintz’s copies were listed together in earlier inventories. In the Vienna inventories drawn up between 1610 and 1619: Ein doppelts stucks vom Joseph Haintzen und dem Parmasan, ist ein Cupito, so ein bogen schnizt, sampt noch zweien kleinen khindlin. Köhler 1906–7, inv. G, reg. 19446, p. VII, no. 40. In the inventory taken after 28 June 1619: Ein nackhents dopelts bild, sizent, mit 2 kinderbildel sambt einer landschaft mit Cupito, sambt einer gleichen copia, als ein stuckh ist von Cupido, wie ime ein bogen macht. Ibid, reg. 19448, List H, p. IX. no. 41. Another autograph copy by Heintz (valued at 40 thalers) was among the paintings sent to Archduke Albert in Brussels: Volgende Stuck seindt vonn Joseph Heintzen […] no. 107. Ein Cupido der einen Bogen schnitzt. Maeyer 1955, p. 319. A third copy, on canvas stretched on metal, by an unnamed artist, was taken from Prague to Stockholm by the forces of Christina, Queen of Sweden – this work was also probably commissioned by Rudolf II. Granberg 1897, pp. 33–4, cat. 23. App. II, no. 89, App. III, no. 31, App. IV, no. 14. 192 III. IMAGINES encouraged to copy works from Antiquity or famous compositions by respected artists as a means of learning (educatio) and as a means of improving on the models (aemulatio).647 As already seen, the Esterházy inventory listed a copy on copper of Schwarz’s composition, defined as the Conversion of Saint Paul in accordance with the terminology used in the estate inventory of Emperor Rudolf II. Judging from its price, 200 thalers, we can deduce that the copy was of excellent quality. (The painting by Hans von Aachen that was transported to Brussels was evaluated at 250 thalers when it was inventoried in Prague.) In the view of Eliška Fučíková, the work described here may be identical to the small copy painted on copper, likewise attributed to Hans von Aachen, which was discovered by Justus Müller Hofstede in a private collection in London, and which – reverting to the original subject of the composition – was entitled the Fall of Sennacherib when auctioned at Christie’s on 23 March 1973 (fig. 78).648 If the copy painted on copper was indeed made by Hans von Aachen’s own hand, then it must have been made before 1615 (the year Hans von Aachen died). Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann dates the work to around 1610.649 “Venus mit dem Cupido in amore” Item 106 on our inventory, a composition attributed to Matthäus Gundelach (1566–1654) and valued at 30 thalers, was presumably also a copy of a painting in the Prague Kunstkammer. Although its description interprets the work as a Venus and Cupid, the expression “in amore” seems to imply that the subject was more likely to have been the love tryst between Cupid and Psyche: Ein stuck auf holz von Gundalach Ven(us) mit dem Cupido in amore. A composition of this kind by Matthäus Gundelach – although painted on copper and not on wood – can be traced to the imperial collection (fig. 79).650 The work is signed and dated (1613), which means the work was made after the death of Rudolf II, who had appointed Gundelach to the post of court painter. If it really was once in the imperial collection, it must have left there ten years later, in 1623.65¹ 647 648 649 650 651 This might be the same as the work that was inventoried in 1635 in one of the vaulted premises of the Prague Kunstkammer. Zimmermann 1905, reg. 19437, p. LIX. no. 98. With numerous examples: DaCosta Kaufmann 1988, pp. 96–9. In 1616 Jeremias Günther submitted a bill for copies after works by, among others, Brueghel, Bassano, Dürer and Goltzius. The list was published in: Kreyczi 1894, p. XLVI, reg. 11792. For the copies after Lucas Cranach the Elder that were made by Heintz and Aachen, see: Fučíková 1986, p. 56. Private collection, oil on copper, 25.4×35.5 cm. Müller Hofstede 1966, p. 444; DaCosta Kaufmann 1988, p. 159; Jacoby 2000, p. 84, cat. 5. Eliška Fučíková drew my attention to the work, and I would like to take this opportunity to thank her for her help. DaCosta Kaufmann 1988, p. 159. Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Munich (on loan to Städtische Kunstsammlungen, Augsburg), inv. 2386, oil on copper, 33×45 cm, signed bottom left: “M / Gundelach / F. / 1613”. The 1621 inventory of the Prague Kunstkammer featured more than one version of Venus and Cupid attributed to Gundelach: Zimmermann 1905, p. XLI, no. 958: Venus und Cupido vom Micheln Gundelach; Ibid, p. XLI, no. 972: Ein schlaffende Venus und Cupido vom Gundelach. Orig.; among the unframed paintings registered in the Neuenburg (later Amalienburg), Vienna, between 1610 and 1619 was another Cupid and Psyche (without 193 THE ARTWORKS 79. Matthäus Gundelach: Cupid and Psyche, 1613 Municipal Art Collections, Augsburg (on loan from the Bavarian State Painting Collections) On 30 March 1623, having recently made a highly expensive purchase of diamond jewellery, Emperor Ferdinand II released fifty-six paintings and eleven semi-precious gemstone (sardonyx, jasper, rock crystal) vessels from the Prague Kunstkammer to be sold to the jeweller and merchant Daniel de Briers, who has already featured several times in our account. De Briers’s company, which had several subsidiaries and an extensive network of contacts, enjoyed a long-standing relationship with the imperial house; his father-in-law, David de Brüssel, had been court jeweller to Emperor Rudolf II, acting as intermediary when the Gemma Augustea was procured.65² The Prague subsidiary of de Briers’s business was run by his brother-in-law, Jobst de Brüssel.65³ attribution), which must also be considered a candidate: Köhler 1906–7, inv. G, reg. 19446. p. VII, no. 83/18. Cupito mit der Psyche. 652 Bernhard-Walcher 2007, p. 63; Bauer–Haupt 1976, p. XXXIV. 653 For more about de Briers and his connections, see: Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015a. 194 III. IMAGINES The transaction was conducted by Karl von Liechtenstein, who had a precise inventory made of the items handed over to de Briers, including price estimates.654 The scene of Cupid and Psyche (no. 3) was valued at 50 thalers: Ein buhlschaft, Cupido mit Psiche, von Gundelach – 50. On 19 April 1623, de Briers registered in his ledger the arrival in Frankfurt of three crates, while one crate, containing seventeen paintings on the original list, failed to arrive, and the works were never heard of again. (De Briers did not record the vessels, for under the terms of the contract they were transported straight to Nuremberg.) Gundelach’s painting was one of those to reach its destination intact, and can be recognised in the so-called “Memoriael” in which de Briers kept a record of his business affairs: St[ück] 1 Gondelach die Historye van Psiche en Cupido.655 In the following months de Briers sold or gave away around two thirds of the paintings, but an entry dated 29 August 1623 reveals that he kept twelve works for himself, including 1 st[ück] van Gondelach Cupido met Psiche.656 None of the above sources specify the support medium of the painting, so we can only provisionally identify the work as the painting on copper known by Gundelach today. This work appeared in Prague around 1700, in the collection of Felix Sekerka, Count of Vršovec. It featured (without a price) in the list of paintings that Vršovec offered for sale to Lothar Franz von Schönborn: No. 78. Zwei auff Kupffer von Gundulah die schöne Psiche mit ihren Gemahl Cupido ein von Petter Prandel ein Sattirus kumbt zu einer schlaffenden Nümphen. 1’ 1½”×1½’.657 At the time, the work had a pendant, also painted on copper: a Satyr and Sleeping Nymph by Petr Brandl. Schönborn turned down the offer, and the works were later auctioned in 1723 in Prague, as part of the Vršovec estate. On this occasion, the Gundelach was described in terms that more closely comply with the words used in our inventory: No. A103. Venus und Cupido vom Gondolach. Compagnion no. 195.658 The dimensions were given as 1’ 1½”×1½’, converted using Prague measurements as around 33.2×44.4 cm. (The painting measures 33×45 cm). Following the auction, the Vršovec collection was dispersed far and wide, as already mentioned, with many works bought for the Dresden gallery and the Waldstein collection, and several pieces ending up, for example, in the Czernin, Kolowrat and Liechtenstein collections.659 Several paintings from Vršovec’s gallery came into the possession of Clemens Franz de Paula, Prince of Bavaria (1722–70), who inherited the so-called Tuscany Palace in Hradčany, Prague, in 1753; the palace and its contents were later owned by Charles II August, Duke of Zweibrücken (1776–84), who had the paintings moved to his family seat in Zweibrücken.660 654 Zimmermann 1905, reg. 19422, BB. Memorial der ausgesetzten gemahlten stuckhen und dero gesezten tax, so 655 656 657 658 659 660 mir aus ihro kais. maj. kunstcammer aus befelch ihro fürstlich gnaden [Karl von Liechtenstein] sein zugestellet worden. (30 March 1623) For details of the transaction, see: Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015a, p. 110. Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015a, p. 120. Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015a, p. 127, note 55. Frimmel 1892b, p. 26. The auction catalogue mistakenly identifies the pendant as item no. 195, whereas the correct one was item no. 95 (Petr Brandl), as is evident also from the Schönborn list of c. 1700. cf. Ketelsen–Stockhausen 2002, I, p. 734. cf. footnotes 212–3, and see: Dialog mit alten Meistern 1997, cats. 14a, 15, 17, 25. Seifertová 1997a, 17. The history of the ownership of the palace and information about its gallery can be found in Schaller 1794, I, 504–6, but the list of works makes no mention of the Gundelach painting. 195 THE ARTWORKS Gundelach’s Cupid and Psyche was probably among them, because after 1799 it was taken from there to Bamberg, and later to Augsburg.66¹ It can be seen that there is a major gap in the provenance of the Cupid and Psyche between 1623 (de Briers) and 1700 (Vršovec), which – no doubt – could be perfectly filled, both temporally and geographically, by the collection whose inventory ended up in the Esterházy archives. Although de Briers managed a business with substantial international commercial contacts, including partners in London, Venice, Cologne, Hamburg and Munich, the strongest links he maintained were with Vienna, where one of his most important subsidiaries was located, which was in the trusted hands of his son, Adriaen de Briers (?–1646).66² However, for us to satisfactorily identify this painting with the item in the inventory, we would have to assume that whoever compiled (or copied?) the document made a slip of the pen when describing the medium as wood and not copper. This is not out of the question, of course, but as a working hypothesis I would tend to believe that the Cupid and Psyche “on wood” is a copy of the work on copper, which is at present still missing. The provenance of the original work is still important, of course, for it helps us to determine when the copy could have been made. The most likely opportunity for this would have been in Prague, when the work was still in the imperial collection. This period, however, is just a decade in length, between the date on the original work (1613) and the time of its sale (1623).66³ “2 nackhende Kindlein, so einen pfeil spizen” On occasion, it is possible that the painting in our inventory was a copy not of the entire original composition, but just a detail. This was probably the case with the canvas attributed to Parmigianino (no. 59) that is described as showing two children sharpening an arrow. Although the compilers used the epithets “antique” and “masterly”, they only accorded the work a value of 40 thalers, so it was certainly not regarded as original: Ein stuck auf leingewand 2 nackhende Kindlein, so einen pfeil spizen sehr antique und maisterhafft von Jean de Parmenzo. At first sight, we might recognise Parmigianino’s famous Cupid Carving his 661 Bender 1981, cat. GA5; DaCosta Kaufmann 1988, p. 181, no. 6.6; Schaezler-Palais 2016, cat. 40 (Nicole Hofmann). Its presence in the Bamberg municipal gallery was detailed by Theodor von Frimmel (Frimmel 1892a, pp. 83–4, no. 141), but in his description of the painting he fails to mention its provenance from the Vršovec collection, which the author highlights in the errata at the end of the volume (Ibid. p. 307) and refers to separately in the chapter entitled Wie die alten Gemälde wandern, in the same volume (Ibid. p. 274.) Despite awareness of Frimmel’s publication, the information relating to Vršovec was never included in the literature about the work. 662 Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015a, p. 114. Between 1625 and 1631 the royal court bought jewellery from the court jeweller Adriaen de Briers on several occasions. Zimmermann 1910–1, regs. 19748, 19790, 19838–9, 19886, 19921. 663 It could of course have been copied later, for example when it was with de Briers in Frankfurt, but in this case we would have to suppose that it somehow later ended up among so many other paintings that were copied from pieces in the imperial collection. 196 III. IMAGINES 80. Nicolas van Hoy–Frans van der Steen after Parmigianino: Cupid Carving his Bow, c. 1657 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam 81. Parmigianino (Francesco Mazzola): Cupid Carving his Bow, between 1534 and 1539 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 197 THE ARTWORKS Bow (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna) (fig. 81),664 in which we can see two little children (Kindlein), one smiling and one crying, framed by the legs of Cupid, and we might imagine that this detail of the work was copied separately. Parmigianino’s original composition was documented in the collection of Rudolf II in Prague in the early seventeenth century, and a copy of the work would fit in perfectly with the profile of our collection that has so far been built up. There are indeed known precedents of only this detail being copied. A canvas of this exact description was still in the Waldstein chateau in Doksy (Hirschberg) in the 1920s: No. 275. Copie der 2 Engel nach Correggio (Pfeilschnitzender Amor im KHM Wien).665 Despite the attribution to Correggio, the compiler of the inventory clearly identified the Cupid Carving his Bow in the Kunsthistorisches Museum as model.666 The only problem with this idea is that neither of the “Kindlein” in Parmigianino’s painting is sharpening an arrow. Even the protagonist himself is carving his bow. The description, however, clearly specifies the terms “arrow” (Pfeil) and “sharpen” (spitzen). No known composition in Parmigianino’s œuvre fits this description. We are left with two possibilities: either such a work did once exist but is now lost, or the composition was by another artist who painted in a similar style. As demonstrated by the above listing from Waldstein’s inventory, the works of Parmigianino were often confused with those by Correggio. The painting of Cupid Carving his Bow was misattributed to Correggio in the records of the imperial collection for almost two hundred years, and this error was disseminated further in the form of prints (fig. 80)667 by Nicolas van Hoy and Frans van der Steen.668 This attribution remained in force until 1825, when Carl Haas, in a publication illustrated by Sigmund Ferdinand von Perger, re-established the painting as a work 664 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 275, oil on wood, 135.5×65 cm. 665 According to the inventory, the painting measured 84×69 cm. Its present location is unknown (at least to me), so I was unable to check the painting. For the transcription of the inventory (Bilderverzeichnis vom Maler Balla. Gemälde Hirschberg. Restaurierung Balla 1925–7), see: Machytka 1985–6. 666 This is supported by an earlier Waldstein inventory, compiled in Duchcov, which described what was probably the same painting, but without defining its model, although it is likewise regarded as a work after Correggio: Coreggio: Amoretten (Amor & Antimor). The names in parentheses are probably references to the figures of crying and laughing children, so the model for this work – as indicated by the later inventory – may easily have been Parmigianino’s Cupid Carving his Bow. Waldstein 1900, no. 376. For the transcription of the inventory, see: Machytka 1985–6. A painting from the Kleinschmidt collection of Amoretten made after Correggio was sold at auction in Vienna in 1838. Kleinschmidt 1838, p. 7, no. 138. 667 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-1904-57, engraving, 573×282 mm. 668 Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor, definitely purchased it as a work by Parmigianino, and around 1610–9 it was registered as “Parmesan” in Vienna. Köhler 1906–7, inv. G, reg. 19446, p. VII, no. 40. (For additional mentions, see footnote 646.) The engraving after the painting, which then hung in Ferdinand III’s “Antiquarium”, was made in 1657 and reproduced with the inscription “Antho. Correggio in. et pinx.”. The painting was listed among Correggio’s works in 1660 by Marco Boschini (Boschini 1660, p. 302), and the same attribution is found in the 1747–8 inventory of the Vienna Schatzkammer (Zimerman 1889, reg. 6243, p. CCXLIII, no. 2). The Correggio attribution was adopted in the printed catalogues of the imperial treasury and gallery in the eighteenth century (Murr 1771, p. 15, no. 2; Mechel 1783, p. 60, no. 4; Rosa 1796, I, p. 170, no. 6). 198 III. IMAGINES by Parmigianino, supporting his assertion not only with stylistic observations but also with source references (Vasari) is.669 Copies of Cupid Carving his Bow that were made during this two-century period were attributed to Correggio, and recorded as such in the private collections that held them: a copy painted on copper, for example, was in the Esterházy collection in 1812,670 a good-quality copy on wood from the first half of the seventeenth century is kept in the Salm-Reifferscheidt collection in Rájec,67¹ another copy is in the Dietrichstein Chateau in Mikulov (Nikolsburg),67² a miniature variant is in the Brukenthal Gallery in Sibiu (Nagyszeben),67³ and there were versions in the Braun collection and in the Birkenstock collection, Vienna.674 All these works were registered as copies after Correggio. The misattribution was widespread: the now missing copy that arrived in Dresden in 1722 was described in the same way, as was the copy painted by Joseph Heintz the Elder in the Schleißheim collection.675 Copies that were made earlier, however, maintained the attribution to Parmigianino: Christina, Queen of Sweden believed till the day she died that the replica plundered from Prague was the original Parmigianino;676 the work in the collection of King James II of England677 and the copy in the Hamilton collection678 were both described as copies after Parmigianino, while the piece that Leopold Wilhelm brought from Brussels to Vienna with the rest of the collection not only attributed the original to Parmigianino, but also gave the name of the copier as Johannes Ykens of Antwerp (1613–after 1680).679 (This all means, most curiously, that when Emperor Leopold I inherited his uncle’s gallery in 1662, the same collection contained the original Parmigianino, but attributed to Correggio, and a copy of the same painting, described as after Parmigianino.) 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 Perger–Haas 1825, III, Lief. 31. Also attributed to Parmigianino: Krafft 1837, p. 65, no. 20. Fischer 1812, p. 103. The prince bought the painting in 1810 from Adam Braun: Meller 1915, p. 69, no. 236. Slavíček 2014, p. 109; Aristokracie ducha 2015, cat. 192 (Zdeněk Kazlepka). Slavíček 1999, p. 102, no. 347. Gemälde-Galerie Brukenthal 1844, p. 145, no. 416; Csaki 1901, p. 197, no. 704; Barocke Sammellust 2003, p. 120 (Maria Olimpia Tudoran). Verzeichnis Braun 1927, p. 3, no. 8; Catalogue Birkenstock 1810, p. 90, no. 543. Wald 2002, p. 180. The painting in Dresden was previously owned by the Grand Duke of Tuscany; see: Woermann 1908, p. 85. It was acquired in 1722 as a copy after Correggio. For the Schleißheim copy, see: Dillis 1831, p. 72. Granberg 1897, App. II, no. 89, App. III, no. 31, App. IV, no. 14. Chiffinch–Vertue 1758, p. 27, no. 306. Garas 1967, p. 68, no. 200. One piece of cupid making a Bowe, with 2 boyes betweene his leggs of parmension; Garas 1968, p. 252, no. 412. Berger 1883, p. CXXXVI, no. 412. Klára Garas traced this copy to the Hamilton collection, which indeed included a Cupid Carving his Bow attributed to Parmigianino (see the previous footnote). As a substantial quantity of the archduke’s paintings came from the Hamilton collection, this provenance seems obvious. However, the fact that Leopold Wilhelm’s inventory even named the person who made the copy seems to suggest, in my mind, that the copy was commissioned by the archduke himself. The opportunity to do so would have arisen, for example, when Christina, Queen of Sweden, arrived from Stockholm and deposited her collection in Antwerp, when the archduke had copies made of several works, originally from Prague. cf. Swoboda 2008, p. 39. This work, incidentally, left Vienna in the eighteenth century, when it was sent to decorate the royal castle in Bratislava in the autumn of 1781. cf. Hassmann 2013–4, p. 202. 199 THE ARTWORKS In our case, the situation is reversed: a work that we may presume to have been by Correggio was attributed by the compilers of the inventory to Parmigianino. After all, in Correggio’s œuvre there is a painting that matches our description in every detail: now held in the Galleria Borghese in Rome, the painting entitled Danae features, on the right, seated at the foot of the bed, two putti in the act of sharpening an arrow (fig. 82). If the composition we seek was indeed a copy of this detail, the model was once again to be found in the imperial collection in Prague: Correggio’s Danae was in the Prague Castle in the first half of the seventeenth century, and can be identified as item 894 in the 1621 inventory: Die Diana mit dem guldenen regen vom Corregio, ein schön stück. (Orig.).680 It was another of the paintings taken to Stockholm as part of the spoils of war, and Christina, Queen of Sweden, later had it brought to Rome via Antwerp.68¹ Copies of this work were also made for the imperial collection: the Prague inven82. Correggio (Antonio Allegri): Danae tory of 1621 refers to a copy by Hans von (detail), c. 1530–2 Aachen: Diana mit dem guldenen Regen, Borghese Gallery, Rome nach Corregio vom Hanß von Aach copirt.68² The inventory taken in Vienna between 1610 and 1619 records: No. 53 et 54. Zwei Stück, ein Acteon vom Joseph Orbin und ein guldener rechen nach dem Corego.68³ A copy after Correggio’s Danae also featured on the list of works sold to Daniel de Briers in 1623: No. 33. Buhlschaft, Jupiter und Danae, copirt nach Corregij (perhaps the copy by Hans von Aachen?), but was recorded by De Briers as an “original”: 1 St[ück] orginael van Corregio die Historia van der Danea – 400.684 *** 680 681 682 683 684 Zimmermann 1905, p. XXXIX, no. 894. In the sources: Granberg 1897, App. I, no. 276(?), App. II, no. 81, App. III, no. 25, App. IV, no. 35. Zimmermann 1905, p. XLII, no. 1043. Köhler 1906–7, inv. G, reg. 19446, pp. VI–VIII. It is for this reason that Gabriele Marcussen-Gwiazda identifies it with the registration number (no. 894) for the original (?) Correggio in the inventory of the imperial gallery. Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015a, p. 122. The journey taken by the painting sold to Daniel de Briers from Frankfurt to Nuremberg can be traced: de Briers sold it with four other paintings to the Nuremberg dealer Johann Maria Wertemann, who purchased it for the Lumago dealership, which was also based in Nuremberg. Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015a, p. 127. 200 III. IMAGINES In addition to those described above, there are a good number of other paintings in the Esterházy inventory which, on the basis of their title and the attributed artist, could also have been copies made after works in the imperial collection; however, as several similar compositions are known by the author of the work described, sometimes even within the imperial collection itself, no conclusive identification can be made in these cases. Consequently, with regard to the paintings presented below, not only are we uncertain about the copy we seek, but also about the original painting on which the work was based. Nevertheless, despite our doubts, the fact that the imperial collection is the (a) possible source of the works in question points us in the same direction as those discussed above. “Wie Lazarus von hunden geleckt würd” With a price estimate of 200 thalers, the copy on wood of the painting by Jacopo (?) Bassano entitled Dives and Lazarus must have been regarded as a replica of high quality; it is described in our inventory (no. 193) as, Ein stuck auf holz von Bassand wie Lazarus von hunden geleckt würd – 200. Jacopo Bassano’s composition was extremely popular, and even his sons produced variations on the subject, so many variants and workshop copies of the painting are known; almost twenty of the extant exemplars are attributed by Edoardo Arslan to one or other member of the Bassano family. Records show that the imperial house owned a number of variants in the seventeenth century. A bozzetto formerly attributed to Francesco, and now to Jacopo Bassano (Jacopo da Ponte, c. 1510–92) is owned by the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna (fig. 83).685 Visible in the top right corner of the painting, a letter “·L·” between two dots is assumed to be the monogram of Leopold, implying that it was acquired by Emperor Leopold I.686 The picture was in Prague Castle in 1685 (and presumably also in 1663 as well), inventoried as, Von Bassan Vechio orig. der Reiche Mann vnd Lazarus.687 If this is the case, it was most likely obtained some time between the accession of Leopold I (1657) and the time the inventory was made (c. 1663). The painting can be traced throughout the Prague inventories of the eighteenth century, and is certainly listed in 1763 as, Bild worauf der reiche broszer 685 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 4314, oil on canvas, 55×43 cm. 686 I would like to take this opportunity to thank Francesca del Torre (KHM) for her verbal information and ob- servations. The same mark can be found on several paintings in the collection of Prague Castle, such as the Assembly of Olympian Gods by Rubens and the Study of an old woman by Frans Floris. In the view of Jaromír Neumann, the “·L·” referred not to the buyer but to the seller, and he suggested the pieces originated from an unknown collection in the seventeenth century. Neumann 1966, 31, p. 243. Eliška Fučíková tends towards the idea that it refers to Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor, who erected a well in the castle that is also marked with a letter “·L·”. Fučíková 1996, p. 15. The same “·L·”, painted in white, can also be found on a canvas of The Temptation of Saint Anthony in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, now attributed to Frans and Jan Verbeeck, but considered in the nineteenth century, on the strength of the letter, to be by Lucas von Leyden (GG 3836). This work also originated from Prague and can be recognised in the inventory of 1737 (no. 451). Engerth 1884, II, p. 240. 687 Praager Schloss 1685, no. 72. cf. Gemäldegalerie KHM 1991, p. 28. 201 THE ARTWORKS 83. Jacopo Bassano: Dives and Lazarus, c. 1559 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 84. Anonymous after Jacopo Bassano: Dives and Lazarus, 17th century? Whereabouts unknown (reproduced after Dorotheum 1921) [Prasser], beim tiesch siezend.688 In 1737 the dimensions were also given in the inventory as 22”×16” (approximately 57.8×42 cm), more or less matching the present-day measurement (55×43 cm).689 In 1894 the painting was transferred from Prague to Vienna.690 An accurate copy of this painting was sold at auction on 27 January 1921 at the Dorotheum, Vienna (fig. 84).69¹ The replica is slightly larger than the original (63×46 cm), and the image stretches slightly further in two directions (down and to the right), implying that the original painting has been cut in size since the copy was made. The author of the auction catalogue, Paul Buberl, defined the copy as an “Original-Replik” and gave it a very 688 Köpl 1889, reg. 6235, p. CLXXXVII, no. 99. In the earlier inventories of the eighteenth century: Köpl 1889, reg. 6232, p. CXXXIII, no. 72 (1718); reg. 6234, p. CXLIV, no. 52 (1737). 689 In 1877 Alfred Woltmann presumably registered the same painting in Prague Castle (inv. 239), although he gave it much larger dimensions: 131×194 cm. Woltmann 1877, p. 46. This could be a misprint, because the text itself describes the painting as vertical format and small, while the dimensions imply a relatively large, horizontal format work. 690 Gemälde-Galerie 1895, p. 95, no. 310. It was part of a larger consignment of paintings from Prague: more than thirty items in the catalogue have the same provenance. cf. Gemäldegalerie KHM 1965, pp. 10–1, cat. 436; Gemäldegalerie KHM 1991, p. 28. 691 Dorotheum 1921, lot 45. Oil on canvas, 63×46 cm. 202 III. IMAGINES high estimate of 80,000 crowns, far and away exceeding the average for all the lots in the sale. Nothing was published about the work’s provenance, unfortunately, but from our knowledge of the history of the original work, we can deduce that the replica was made in Prague, where the model was documented from the second half of the seventeenth century. Another variant of Dives and Lazarus, believed to have been adapted by Leandro Bassano (Leandro da Ponte, 1557–1622) from his father’s composition, was brought to Austria from Brussels by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm (fig. 85).69² The work was identified – with a question mark – by Klára Garas as item 514 in the archduke’s inventory of 1659.69³ The reason for the uncertainty is the fact that the subject of the painting was not defined: no mention is made of the poor Lazarus or the rich man, although the description of a few people sitting at a table, with one person playing a lute, and a kitchen visible on the side, is relatively detailed (and all correct): Ein Landtschafft von Öhlfarb auf Leinwaet, warin etliche an der Taffel siczen, warunder ainer auff der Lauthen schlagt, vnndt auff der Seithen ein Kuchel. The dimensions also fail to provide us with conclusive evidence, being given as 7 spans, 2 digits × 8 spans, 8½ digits (approximately 149.7×184 cm), which differs from the present-day measurements for the Leandro Bassano painting (134×181.5 cm) mostly – albeit not dramatically – in terms of height. Furthermore, it should be borne in mind that the archducal inventories measured the paintings including their frames, which may also account for even quite large discrepancies between modern data and those in the records.694 In all likelihood, the composition was in the imperial collections in the eighteenth century, but there is no way of knowing exactly where, for although Eduard Engerth identified the painting as item 86 on the Schatzkammer inventory of 1750–[73], a finding generally accepted in the literature,695 the description in the inventory, which mentions only peasants and fruits – and which is therefore closer to certain “month” paintings by Leandro Bassano –, does not really apply to this painting: Ein groszes Stück, worauf verschiedene bauern und baüerinen mit allerhand gartenfrüchten, von Giacomo Passano.696 (In the picture can be seen poultry, fish, and even a rabbit, but no fruit.) In the gallery inventory compiled by Albrecht Krafft (1837), however, the painting is clearly recognisable, and even the dimensions match those of the painting today.697 The guide to the imperial gallery that was published in 1895 (Führer durch die Gemälde-Galerie) includes a third painting of Dives and Lazarus (no. 300), which was in Vienna for a brief period.698 According to the information in the guide, this painting – together with the afore-mentioned bozzetto – was brought from Prague in 1894, measured 131×192 cm, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 1547, oil on canvas, 134×181.5 cm. Berger 1883, p. CXIV, no. 514; Garas 1968, p. 231. Garas 1968, p. 197. Engerth conditionally originates the painting from the collection of Rudolf II, although he found no mention of the work in the early seventeenth-century sources. Engerth 1882, I, p. 36, no. 38; Gemälde-Galerie 1895, p. 92, no. 301. Gemäldegalerie KHM 1991, p. 28. 696 Zimmermann 1889, p. CCCVIII, no. 86. 697 Krafft 1837, p. 330, no. 37. 698 Gemälde-Galerie 1895, p. 92, no. 300. Oil on canvas, 131×192 cm. 692 693 694 695 203 THE ARTWORKS 85. Leandro Bassano: Dives and Lazarus, c. 1590–5 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna and was attributed to Leandro Bassano. The catalogue description details the kitchen, the footmen bearing food, the girl kneeling by the fire, and the cat and monkey in the foreground. This version of Dives and Lazarus is not mentioned in later museum publications, although around the turn of the century, a photograph was made of the painting (fig. 86).699 According to information published by Edoardo Arslan, by 1931 the work was in a private collection in Berlin.700 Judging from the surviving archive photograph of the work, it was almost identical to the painting owned by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm. A copy of the work, presumed to have been painted after this version, is also known from Liberec,70¹ 699 Franz Hanfstaengl (Munich), no. 214. Fondazione Federico Zeri, Università di Bologna, Fototeca Zeri, no. 97158. URL https://w3id.org/zericatalog/fentry/97158 (Last retrieved on 30 April 2018). 700 Arslan 1960, p. 274 (Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. 4318); Berenson 1957, I, p. 25 (Leandro Bassano). 701 Oblastní galerie, Liberec, inv. D 671, oil on canvas, 109×179 cm. Korecká-Seifertová 1961, cat. 2; Pokorná 2014, p. 16. I cannot agree with the assertion put forward in the cited works that the model for the painting was the work purchased by the National Gallery in Prague in 1950 (cf. fig. 87 and the following footnote), because, in my opinion, the copy clearly follows the one owned by Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, or at least the variant known from the archive photograph. As the latter work was in Prague until 1894, I consider it likely that this was the model for the copy in Liberec. 204 III. IMAGINES 86. Leandro Bassano (?): Dives and Lazarus, end of the 16th century Private collection which seems to indicate that this variant was available for painters to copy as early as the seventeenth century. It would seem logical to assume that it was in the imperial collection in Prague, for – as mentioned earlier – members of the Bohemian aristocracy were particularly keen to have copies made of paintings hung there. In 1950 yet another version of the composition turned up in Prague, when the National Gallery bought a work, entitled Kitchen and attributed at the time to Jacopo Bassano, which also depicted the parable of Dives and Lazarus. Long regarded as a workshop copy, the painting is presently attributed to Francesco Bassano the Younger (1549–92) and dated around 1577, probably not long after his father’s work was completed (fig. 87).70² The work’s present dimensions are 98.5×125.5 cm, but the work was probably some 20 cm wider when it was first made, for the girl kneeling beside the fire on the left of most versions of the composition is missing. 702 Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. O 2952, oil on canvas, 98.5×125.5 cm. Unsigned. Arslan 1960, p. 221 (joint work by Francesco and Jacopo Bassano); Ballarin 1992, p. CXCIII (workshop copy); Ballarin 1995, p. 258 (workshop copy); Falomír Faus 2001, p. 74, cat. 6 (workshop copy); Pokorná 2014, p. 56 (Francesco Bassano the Younger). 205 THE ARTWORKS 87. Francesco Bassano the Younger: Dives and Lazarus, c. 1577 National Gallery in Prague According to Alessandro Ballarin, all of the compositional variations of Dives and Lazarus can be traced back to a “prototype” by Jacopo Bassano, on which the artist’s sons and his workshop later based numerous different variants and replicas. Ballarin identifies this “prototype” with the Dives and Lazarus, dated to around 1576, which turned up in a private collection in London and was auctioned at Christie’s in 1999.70³ The notable feature of the composition is that the painter relegated the titular sacral theme to the background, filling most of the space with a capacious winter kitchen bustling with busy workers. The dominant foreground kitchen also featured in other works by Bassano: Supper at Emmaus, Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, Return of the Prodigal Son. 703 Christie’s, London, 17 December 1999. Sale 6234, lot 43, oil on canvas, 117.5×164.5 cm. http://www.christies. com/lotfinder/Lot/jacopo-da-ponte-il-bassano-bassano-del-1664004-details.aspx?sc_lang=en (Last retrieved on 30 November 2017). According to the date on the website of the auctioning house, the painting was once owned by James, 4th Earl of Caledon (1846–84). Alessandro Ballarin had previously described the work from a private collection: Ballarin 1995, p. 258. 206 III. IMAGINES Three of these were converted into engravings at the end of the sixteenth century by members of the Sadeler family: Jan Sadeler the Elder (1550–1600) made the engravings after Dives and Lazarus and Christ in the House of Martha and Mary, while his brother, Raphael Sadeler (1560–1628), executed the one of Supper at Emmaus.704 The engraved Dives and Lazarus and Supper at Emmaus are presumed to have both been made in 1593. (Only the latter is dated, but they are in the same format and their dedicatory texts are also the same.) The third composition (Christ in the House of Martha and Mary) was engraved in 1598 and dedicated to a different person, and therefore had no connection with the other two Sadeler prints.705 These three engravings are known in the literature as the “Sadelers’ Kitchens”.706 The appellation could equally apply to the original compositions: the “Bassanos’ Kitchens”.707 As illustrated by the situation in Prague, where one of the Dives and Lazarus paintings was purchased under the title of Kitchen, even in the eyes of modern experts the iconographic programme has often been obscured by the profane subject matter. What this means for us is that when we are looking for the historical sources of any of these pictures, not only should paintings with titles related to Lazarus be considered, but also works on the theme of the kitchen. Comparing the two Sadelers’ Kitchens of 1593 with what are presumed to be the original works, it can be seen that neither of them followed the “prototypes” by Jacopo Bassano, but were engraved after replicas. The engraving of Dives and Lazarus (fig. 88)708 is compositionally closest to the Prague copy attributed to Francesco Bassano the Younger (fig. 87), for it deviates in numerous details from the London painting. Indeed, all the minor discrepancies between the London and the Prague compositions demonstrate that the engraving bears a greater resemblance to the latter.709 The tree in the background, for example, grows straight up in the London picture, whereas it leans in from the right in the Prague painting and the engraving; in the foreground of the London painting there is no trace of the vegetables lying on the floor among the dishes, as can be seen in the other two works, while the angle of one of the bowls in the same location is also markedly different. (There are also tiny differences between the Prague painting and the engraving, of course, for example in the forms of the glasses and plates on the table.) The situation is much the same in the case of the Supper at Emmaus, whose “prototype” is held to be a painting signed jointly by Jacopo Bassano and Francesco Bassano the Younger, originating from the collection of Nicolas Renier and now in private hands.7¹0 There are numerous other variations of the composition, however, some of which were 704 A preparatory drawing by Raphael Sadeler for his Supper at Emmaus has survived (Städelsches Kunstinstitut, Frankfurt a. M., inv. 739). Limouze 2009, p. 121. Bassano e l’incisione 1992, p. 25, cat. 5; Limouze 2009, 120. Bassano e l’incisione 1992, p. 24. As, for example, with the exhibition catalogue for the Prado, Madrid: Falomír Faus 2001, pp. 69–75, cats. 4–6. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-OB-5314; engraving, 239×296 mm. Hollstein Dutch 1980, XXI, p. 113, no. 200. 709 Edoardo Arslan also mentions that the engraving is closer to the Prague painting than to the London “original”. Arslan 1960, p. 274. cf. Bassano e l’incisione 1992, pp. 24–5, cat. 4. 710 Jacopo Bassano 1992, pp. 162–3, cat. 62 (Livia Alberton Vinco da Sesso). 705 706 707 708 207 THE ARTWORKS 88. Jan Sadeler the Elder after Jacopo Bassano: Dives and Lazarus, 1593 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam made by Jacopo’s sons, while others were workshop copies.7¹¹ Among the various works, all of which have minor compositional differences, the one that shows the closest similarity to the Sadeler engraving of the Supper at Emmaus (fig. 89)7¹² also happens to be a painting from Prague, which is still currently in the collection in Prague Castle.7¹³ The work, dated around 1590–5, was formerly attributed to Francesco Bassano, although nowadays it is classified among the copies.7¹4 It is highly likely, however, that this copy was made after the same – now missing or lost – Bassano composition that Raphael Sadeler also worked from. 711 712 713 714 Bassano e l’incisione 1992, pp. 26–7, cat. 6. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. RP-P-OB-7534, engraving, 237×295 mm. Obrazárna Pražského hradu, Prague, inv. O 293, oil on canvas, 109×164 cm. Capolavori della pittura 1994, pp. 68–9; Pokorná 2014, p. 23. 208 III. IMAGINES 89. Raphael Sadeler the Elder after Jacopo Bassano: The Supper at Emmaus, 1593 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam The question we have to answer is where the Sadeler brothers would have seen the paintings they used as their models. At the time the engravings were made, Jan Sadeler the Elder’s business greatly owed its existence to the emperor: in March 1593 he obtained a further ten-year extension to the imperial privilege he had originally been awarded in 1581, which afforded him protection across the entire empire, forbidding his works from being re-engraved or resold without his knowledge and consent. (In return he promised, among other things, to give at least two imprints of all of his works to the emperor.)7¹5 Both the engravings in question here were published by imperial privilege, and they were dedicated to Baron Johann Albrecht von Sprinzenstein-Neuhaus (1543–98), counsellor to the emperor and to Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol. Another print with the same dedication is also known: a composition of Bartholomäus Spranger’s Noli me tangere was 715 Limouze 1997, p. 174. For the related sources, see: Kreyczi 1894, p. LXXX, regs. 11938–9, p. LXXXII, reg. 11949, p. CXII, reg. 12138. 209 THE ARTWORKS also issued by Jan Sadeler the Elder, also with imperial privilege and with almost exactly the same wording as the others:7¹6 Pro Illvstri et Generoso Domino, D(omino) Ioanni Alberto Lib(e)ro Bar(o)ni à Sprinzenstai(n) et Nevhavs, S(acr)ae C(aesare)ae M(aiesta)ti et Sereniss(imo) Ferdinando Archiduci Austriae etc. à Consilijs, pinxit Iacobus de Ponte Bassan(ensis) et Sereniss(imi) Bauariae Ducis chalcograph(us) Ioan(nes) Sadeler scalps(it) et d(e)d(icavit). Dedications on engravings are often addressed to the people who allowed the engraver access to the original painting, and in this case the evidence seems to indicate that the models belonged to somebody in the closest circles surrounding the imperial house, most probably Baron Sprinzenstein himself, although we cannot rule out the emperor or Ferdinand of Tyrol, as they also both are named in the dedication.7¹7 Baron Johann Albrecht von Sprinzenstein was born into a landed family of South Tyrol and Upper Austria.7¹8 The family owed its ascent to Johann Albrecht’s grandfather, Paolo Riccio (Paul Ritz, known by his humanist name as Paulus Ricius), a Hebraist, physician and natural philosopher of Jewish origin, who was elevated to the rank of baron by Emperor Maximilian I, who also awarded him the Sprinzenstein estate in Upper Austria, whence came the noble name.7¹9 Johann Albrecht was brought up in the Styrian court, alongside Charles II, Archduke of Austria (1540–90), and from 1568 he served in Florence as master cup-bearer to Johanna of Austria (1547–78), daughter of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, and wife of Francesco I de’ Medici; in 1578 he was appointed counsellor to Ferdinand of Tyrol. It soon transpired that in addition to his diplomatic skills, he was also a proficient strategist, with a talent for the practical side of warcraft: his skills manifested themselves in the construction of pontoon bridges, in the casting of cannons, and in his measures to protect the infantry, and he was responsible for a number of military technological inventions. From 1584 he was present in the court of the Duke of Bavaria, where he rose through the ranks, and in 1593 he was transferred into the service of the emperor, becoming commander-in-chief of the Danubian imperial forces and superintendent of the border fortresses in Austria and Hungary. He was not only familiar with the courts in Innsbruck, Munich and Prague, but also maintained excellent ties to Florence, and was on particularly good terms with Augustus I, Elector of Saxony (1526–86). Baron Sprinzenstein was also an active organiser of the arts. From the 1570s onwards he arranged for Italian artists to travel and work in Innsbruck, Dresden and Prague: in 1572 he recommended the Florentine artist Costantino de’ Servi to Maximilian II, and in 1574 he sent the architect and sculptor Giovanni Battista Nosseni (1544–1620) to work in the court of Augustus in Dresden, additionally undertaking the task of procuring “antiquities” from Florence to be transported to the elector.7²0 The following year 716 Metzler 2014, cat. 209. 717 Enrica Pan comes to the same conclusion based on the dedication (Bassano e l’incisione 1992, p. 26), but among the possible owners she only mentions Baron Sprinzenstein and Ferdinand of Tyrol. 718 For details about Sprinzenstein, see: Böck 1949. 719 For more about Paulus Ricius, see: Tilg 2006. 720 Böck 1949, 60; Mackowsky 1904, pp. 20–1; Dombrowski 2000, pp. 65–6, 88, 92. Nosseni also had connections with Aegidius Sadeler, who made the engraving illustration for the architect’s work titled Annali suopra la statua di Nabuchodonosore […]. (Dresden, 1602). Limouze 1990, p. 181. 210 III. IMAGINES he financed the journey of Bartholomäus Spranger and Hans Mont from Florence to Vienna, to participate in decorating the Neugebäude.7²¹ In 1585, as evidenced by surviving correspondence between Sprinzenstein and William V, Duke of Bavaria, the baron attempted to have Christoph Schwarz released from his contract with the duke in order to take him on as court painter to Emperor Rudolf II.7²² (Though his efforts to “steal away” the artist failed, he did manage to arrange for Schwarz to work on imperial commissions from Munich.) In 1592 Sprinzenstein delivered the gifts from the Duke of Bavaria to Rudolf II in Prague.7²³ In 1597, while on a diplomatic mission, in addition to conducting negotiations he also devoted attention to researching possible sources of gemstones on the emperor’s behalf.7²4 It is easy to imagine, therefore, that Jan Sadeler, court engraver to the Duke of Bavaria, could have received assistance from Sprinzenstein to make drawings of the paintings in question, whether they were in the collection of Ferdinand of Tyrol or in the emperor’s Kunstkammer in Prague. It is also possible that the paintings were owned by Sprinzenstein himself, for there are documents stating that the baron also brought a substantial collection of art to Vienna, with the paintings alone having an estimated value of 30,000 florins.7²5 (After Sprinzenstein’s death, the collection was moved to the baronial estate in Neuhaus an der Donau, where, during a peasant uprising in 1626, the contents of the Kunstkammer were looted. I have no data on what the holdings there were at the time.) Based on the dedication, the paintings could just as easily have been owned by Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol (1529–95), the second-born son of Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor. Although he was raised in Innsbruck – where, as a child, his physician had been Paolo Riccio, Baron Sprinzenstein’s grandfather – he was also closely connected to Prague, where as governor of Bohemia he represented the emperor for almost twenty years, beginning in 1547. His success as governor seemed to pave the way for a brilliant future, but due to his morganatic marriage, the major political role he had originally been promised never materialised. He had, however, managed to turn the residence in Prague into a hive of artistic and intellectual activity within just a few years: he held spectacular festivities and games, he nurtured good relations with humanist scholars, he had the castle gardens redesigned, and he built the Italianate Renaissance villa, known as the “Star” Summer Palace (Hvězda) because of its shape. Even after he moved back to Tyrol, he never severed his ties to the Bohemian aristocracy.7²6 It was also in Prague that he laid the foundations for his famous Armoury and Cabinet of Art and Curiosities (Rüst- und Kunstcämer), which he later installed in Ambras 721 722 723 724 725 726 Fučíková 1988, p. 178. Geissler 1960, p. 33; Diefenthaler 2017, p. 335. Gröbl–Haupt 2006–7, p. 302, reg. 1128. Zimerman 1888, pp. XLIV–XLV, reg. 4624. Böck 1949, p. 246; Mackowsky 1904, pp. 19–20. For the archduke’s activities in Prague, with additional literature, see: Simons 2002–3; Auer 2003; Simons 2007; Sandbichler 2009. 211 THE ARTWORKS Castle in Innsbruck, bought for his low-born wife (and the children she bore him).7²7 His nephew, Emperor Rudolf II, showed keen interest in the archduke’s collection, and when Ferdinand II died in 1595, the emperor immediately had an inventory of the estate drawn up, and in 1606 he purchased the collection from Ferdinand’s descendants. The Bassano paintings, however, were perhaps less in keeping with the overall profile of the collection: the majority of the paintings in the estate inventory (1596) were portraits and depictions that were in some way “special” (showing people and animals with physical deformities).7²8 While the inventory of works at Ambras Castle contains no paintings that could be recognised as any of the Bassano pieces, there is – in my opinion – a trace of the compositions we seek in the imperial collection. The first known inventory of the paintings in Rudolf II’s Kunstkammer was not compiled until 1621, years after the emperor’s death, and even this list is not complete: it does not include the pictures inherited by his brothers, nor those transferred to Vienna after the emperor’s death to decorate the residency there, or to deposit in the Schatz- und Kunstkammer.7²9 Nevertheless, the inventory still reflects the status of the collection during Rudolf’s life time, because no significant purchases were made between 1612 and 1621, so what was recorded in Prague in 1621 was almost certainly there when the emperor was still alive. Some of the items in this inventory have brief, laconic descriptions that concur with the works we are looking for: a total of four “kitchens” on the list are attributed to Bassano, all of which have almost identical wordings: Eine Kuchel vom (meister Joachim) Bassan. Two of them are described as originals, and two as copies.7³0 Perhaps it is not so brazen of me to contend that the two “original” kitchen paintings were actually the Bassano works after which the engravings were made, while the two “copies” were replicas. According to Heinrich Zimmermann’s information, when the inventory was revised in 1635, one of the “originals” was already missing. The others must also have been taken away not long afterwards, for when the Swedish forces reached the city in 1648, only one such picture was found in the Kunstkammer.7³¹ 727 For more about his Armoury and Cabinet of Art and Curiosities, see: Lhotsky 1941–5, I, pp. 179–202, 287–8; Scheicher 1979, pp. 73–135; Auer 1984; Scheicher 1985; Swoboda 2008, p. 21. 728 His estate inventory was published in: Boeheim 1888, pp. CCXXVI–CCCXIII, reg. 5556 and Boeheim 1889, pp. I–X. 729 Swoboda 2008, pp. 31–7. 730 Zimmermann 1905, p. XXVIII, no. 812: Eine kuchel, copei vom Bassan. (Copia.); p. XLII, no. 1030: Eine Ku- chel von Bassan (Cop.); p. XLVI, no. 1227. Eine kuchel vom meister Joachim Bassan. (Orig.) and no. 1232: Eine kuchel vom meister Joachim Baßan. (Orig.) cf. Ibid. p. XLII, no. 1028. Eine kuchel vom meister Battanir, which was listed in the same inventory under a variant of the text: (Cod. 8196) Joachim Bassan. Orig. 731 A painting of a kitchen, which features on the 1648 list published by Beda Dudík (A 494), was provisionally identified by Heinrich Zimmermann as item no. 1227 of the 1621 inventory, although it could just as easily be any of the four works given in the preceding footnote. Zimmermann 1905. p. XLVI. As the 1648 list merely mentions the word “kitchen”, it is difficult to deduce the composition, and my only reason for proposing that it may have been a copy of Lazarus and the Rich Man is the fact that it most closely matches the description of the item in the inventory of the assets of Christina, Queen of Sweden, compiled in 1652: Dito, representant des estaffes de cuisine et une femme avec quantité d’oiseaux à la main sur du bois. Geffroy 1855 [=Granberg 1897, App. II] no. 251. No artist’s name is given in this inventory either, and there is no later record of this painting in the possession of Christina, Queen of Sweden, who probably sold it before reaching Rome. 212 III. IMAGINES The inventory of the contents of the “Neuenburg” in Vienna was made some time after 28 June 1619, when a total of three paintings were listed as having Dives and Lazarus as their subject matter. One of these was definitely attributed to Bassano (1 stukh von reichen mann und vom Lazaro vom Bassan), while the other two had no artist’s name attached to them.7³² As the exact date when the Viennese inventory was compiled is unknown, it is not inconceivable that the “kitchen” present in Prague in 1621 but missing in 1635 ended up here in the meantime. In any event, this item reinforces the notion that the Dives and Lazarus by Bassano was originally in the Prague Kunstkammer, because the artworks transferred from the Bohemian capital were among those included on this inventory. The painted version of the Supper at Emmaus was presumably also among the “kitchen pictures” listed in 1621. From the 1660s on, there is confirmed documentation of a Supper at Emmaus attributed to the Bassano school held in Prague Castle: Scola Bassan: Christus mit denen zweyen Jüngern in Ämausz.7³³ Thanks to the inventory of 1737, we also know the approximate dimensions of the painting: 1 ell and 17 inches by 2 ells and 15 inches, equivalent to approximately 108×166 cm (taking one ell as 2 Viennese feet).7³4 The painting on the same theme that can be seen in Prague Castle today is almost exactly the same size, measuring 109×164 cm, which leads me to assume it is the same work. The provenance of this painting in Prague currently begins in the late nineteenth century: it was inventoried in 1890 as a Kitchen Scene by Francesco Bassano, and in 1894, together with the two variants of Dives and Lazarus described above, it was transferred to Vienna. Shortly afterwards, however, the Kitchen Scene was returned to Prague to decorate one of the prestigious rooms in the castle. Between 1922 and 1929 it was part of the exhibition of the Society of Patriotic Friends of Art (Gesellschaft patriotischer Kunstfreunde).7³5 In 1984 another copy of this composition, considered at the time to be an image of The Feast in the House of Levi, was moved from Řevnice, a small town to the south-west of the Czech capital, to the National Gallery in Prague, where it is now entitled Supper at Emmaus.7³6 It follows the same composition as the one after which the engraving was made. On the reverse of the picture is the inscription “Lionardo B”, in line with the current attribution to Leandro Bassano, although the fact that the work was once thought to be by Jacopo Bassano is proven by the label affixed to the frame.7³7 Further copies of the same composition, presumably by local painters, can be found in a variety of Czech 732 Köhler 1906–7, inv. H, reg. 19448, p. XI, no. 206. The other two paintings who have no named artist are: 733 734 735 736 737 Ibid, no. 228: 1 stukh mit dem reichen mann und armen Lazaro; no. 245: 1 deto [gross stukh], ist der reiche mann und armbe Lazero. Praager Schloß 1685, no. 294; with minor changes in orthography, the description is repeated in the 1718 inventory: Köpl 1889, reg. 6232, p. CXXXVI, no. 294. Köpl 1889, reg. 6234, p. CL, no. 201. Capolavori della pittura veneta 1994, pp. 68–9. Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. O 15566, oil on canvas, 97.5×134.5 cm. Tesori di Praga 1996, pp. 82–3 (Ladislav Daniel); Pokorná 2014, pp. 60–2, cat. 6. Pokorná 2014, pp. 60–2, cat. 6. 213 THE ARTWORKS museums.7³8 This all corroborates the idea that the original – now lost – painting that served as the model to these was – like the Dives and Lazarus – accessible for a considerable period of time to the local aristocracy.7³9 The hypothesis that the paintings on which the engravings were based were originally held in Prague is further underpinned by comparing the fate of the Bassano compositions (identifiable with the “Kitchens” in Emperor Rudolf II’s Kunstkammer) with the provenance of the model to the third engraving with the same dedication. As mentioned before, the engraving of Christ appearing to Mary Magdalene as a gardener (Noli me tangere), produced by Jan Sadeler the Elder after a work by Bartholomäus Spranger, was also dedicated to Baron Sprinzenstein, and the painting itself is first mentioned in the Kunstkammer of the emperor, specifically in the inventory of 1621: Wie Christus der Maria Magdalena erscheint, vom Spranger. (Orig.)740 The painting was taken from Prague by Swedish forces in 1648, and was later recorded in the collection of Christina, Queen of Sweden.74¹ It was transferred from the possession of King Carol I of Romania to the National Museum of Art of Romania in Bucharest.74² “Von Passand extra rar de Jerosolomitaner” Another painting in the Esterházy inventory attributed to Bassano (no. 191) is likely to portray The Good Samaritan, although this is less an assertion than a deduction, based on a supposed mishearing of the title: Ein stuck auf leinwand von Passand extra rar de Jerosolomitaner – 200. There were at least two versions of this work in the imperial collections. One is a canvas by Francesco Bassano the Younger, which was brought to Vienna as part of Leopold Wilhelm’s gallery (fig. 90).74³ In 1636, the work was documented in the possession of Bartolomeo della Nave, and between 1638 and 1649 it was in the Hamilton collection; from 738 The copies in Prague Castle and in Bouzov are mentioned by Ladislav Daniel in: Tesori di Praga 1996, p. 82. 739 740 741 742 743 The Bouzov copy is tentatively attributed to the workshop of Paolo Fiammingo: Fučíková–Konečný 1983, p. 73. Though there is no certainty of any connection with the copies referred to, a painting, probably also a copy (it was valued at 200 florins), of Bassano’s Lazarus and the Rich man was bought by Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein, in 1672 from his court painter, Prosper Franz de Mus, which shows the immense popularity of the composition. Haupt 1998, p. 201, reg. 1575 (with a different value: Fleischer 1910, p. 41). In 1767 it was mentioned in the gallery catalogue compiled by Vincenzio Fanti, with dimensions given around 139.5×105 cm. Fanti 1767, p. 57, no. 335. The local presence of the painting that served as the model for the engraving is also considered likely by: Marini 1994, p. 30. Zimmermann 1905, p. XLI, no. 991. Christina, Queen of Sweden regarded it as a work by Correggio, not Spranger. cf. Granberg 1897, cat. 4, App. I, no. 430, App. III, no. 91, App. IV, no. 16. Metzler 2014, pp. 131–2, cat. 59. Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 12, oil on canvas, 73×98.4 cm (unframed), cut on all four sides. 214 III. IMAGINES here it was acquired by the archduke.744 The inventory of Leopold Wilhelm’s works that was compiled in 1659 lists the painting as much larger than the present-day measurements (around 102×126.8 cm), although it might have been measured together with the frame.745 We can be more confident in our identification of this work than with the Dives and Lazarus, and the provenance is also more certain: this composition even featured in Teniers’s Theatrum Pictorium, and it has been almost constantly present in the different gallery inventories across the centuries.746 The other version, attributed to Jacopo Bassano, is in the collection in Prague Castle (fig. 93).747 Painted in a graceful impasto, this composition omits all incidental figures, and even the surroundings are merely alluded to, so that all the focus is on the main characters. According to Jaromír Neumann, the picture is a bozzetto produced around 1555–60, used as a model in the production of similar compositions in the Bassano workshop. Its top layer showed a preparatory sketch for the version of The Good Samaritan in the National Gallery, London (1560), but when the work was restored and the background overpaints were removed, a figure appeared, rotated 180 degrees, recognisable from a different composition (The Annunciation to the Shepherds), proving that this earlier canvas was “recycled” by Bassano.748 Documents proving the presence of the painting in the royal castle can be traced back continuously to the second half of the seventeenth century: it was inventoried as a work by “Bassan Vechio” in 1685 (and probably in 1663 as well), 1718 and 1737.749 The latter inventory also contains the dimensions, showing that the work was about 30 cm wider then than it is now.750 The missing strip may have succumbed to the “modernisation” of the castle’s installation carried out by Angelo Guiducci under the direction of Nicolaus 744 Waterhouse 1952, p. 17, no. 90; Gemäldegalerie KHM 1965, p. 12, no. 442; Shakeshaft 1986, p. 132; Theatre 745 746 747 748 749 750 of Painting 2006, p. 114, cat. 22 (Ernst Vegelin van Claerbergen), according to which Hamilton received two copies of The Good Samaritan. Berger 1883, p. CII, no. 264; Garas 1967, p. 78, no. 87; Garas 1968, pp. 218–9, no. 264. In the 1684 edition of Theatrum Pictorium, engraving no. 152 may also appear, but with a different sheet number. For the numbering of the different editions, see: Bähr 2009, pp. 466–75. In later inventories (without claiming to be an exhaustive list): Storffer 1720, I, 2. Gang, no. 168; Prodromus 1735, p. 6; Galerie Inventar 1772, Lit. A, no. 175; Mechel 1783, p. 69, no. 10; Rosa 1796, I, p. 204, no. 28; Perger–Haas 1825, III, Lief., p. 31; Krafft 1837, p. 3, no. 12 (the dimensions given here match the present data: 71×97.4 cm.) Engerth 1882, I, pp. 33–4, cat. 34; Gemälde-galerie 1895, p. 87, no. 283; Gemäldegalerie KHM 1965, pp. 12, 442; Gemäldegalerie KHM 1991, p. 26. Obrazárna Pražského hradu, Prague, inv. O 129, oil on canvas, 107.5×84.5 cm. Neumann 1966, pp. 96–9, cat. 6; Rearick 1992, pp. CXXII–CXXIII (Francesco Bassano); Ballarin 1995, pp. 31–3; Marini 1994, p. 26; Capolavori della pittura veneta 1994, pp. 58–9; Meisterwerke der Prager Burggalerie 1996, pp. 24–5, cat. 2 (Karl Schütz). Praager Schloß 1685, no. 273; Köpl 1889, reg. 6232, p. CXXXV, no. 273; Köpl 1889, reg. 6234, p. CXLIII, no. 18. For the earlier dating of the 1685 inventory, see footnote 127. The dimensions given here (1 ell 17 inches by 1 ell 19 inches) are equivalent to approximately 107.9×113.2 cm, although the present size of the painting is 107×84.5 cm. According to Neumann 1966, 96, the measurements taken in 1737 equate to 106.3×101.4 cm, so Neumann probably used Prague measurements. Having compared the dimensions given for other paintings, it appears to me that the compilers of the inventory calculated one ell as two Vienna feet (63.2 cm), not two Prague feet. 215 THE ARTWORKS 90. Francesco Bassano: The Good Samaritan, c. 1575 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna 91. Jacopo Bassano: The Good Samaritan, c. 1559 Formerly in the Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum, Berlin, destroyed in 1945 216 III. IMAGINES 92. Wolfgang Kilian after Jacopo Bassano: The Good Samaritan, between 1608 and 1612 The British Museum, London (Niccolò) Pacassi between 1759 and 1765, when the paintings intended to decorate the state halls were tailored in accordance with the latest fashion for symmetry, variety of form and harmonious arrangement.75¹ After the alterations were completed, the author and title of this painting faded into oblivion, and from the mid-eighteenth century, it was inventoried without an artist’s name as a painting of The Story of Job. The work was rediscovered in the 1960s by Jaromír Neumann.75² A substantial proportion of the paintings demonstrably in Prague from the 1660s onwards can be traced to the Buckingham collection that Archduke Leopold Wilhelm pur- 751 Neumann 1966, p. 48. 752 Neumann 1964, p. 18. 217 THE ARTWORKS 93. Jacopo Bassano: The Good Samaritan, c. 1555–60 Prague Castle Picture Gallery, Prague 218 III. IMAGINES chased for the emperor, which contained a large number of works of Venetian origin, by Titian, Palma Giovane, Jacopo Bassano, etc.75³ It would not be surprising, therefore, if this painting had also come to be owned by the Habsburgs having once belonged to George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham (1592–1628). An inventory drawn up in York House in 1635, just a few years after the duke’s death, included a very brief but unequivocal listing of a Good Samaritan attributed to Bassano: Bassan: A Samaritan.754 This painting did not reappear on the list of work sent by the duke’s heirs from London to Amsterdam in 1648, nor on the inventory compiled in Antwerp the following year.755 It is therefore impossible, on the basis of these written sources, to prove that the Good Samaritan in Prague Castle originated from the Buckingham collection. A further painting on the same theme was documented in Prague from an even earlier date: the royal castle inventory of 1647–8 features a landscape showing the parable of The Good Samaritan: Ein Landschafft mit dem Samariten; this is very similar to the wording used on the inventory of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm to register his variation on the subject: Ein Landschafft […] warin der verwundte Samaritan.756 The clear reference to the landscape means that these descriptions almost certainly have nothing to do with the bozzetto that is now in Prague. Since no artist’s name was given in these cases, we cannot state with any conviction that they followed the composition by Jacopo Bassano, and consequently any association we make with the depiction described below can only be tentative. At the beginning of the seventeenth century, Wolfgang Kilian (1581–1662) of Augsburg inherited a composition of The Good Samaritan in front of a landscape background that was certainly attributed to Bassano (fig. 92).757 The engraving was made by imperial prerogative, which meant, among other things, that the engraver was obliged to give the emperor a few prints of the completed work (as we have already seen in the case of Sadeler). The composition was therefore definitely known in the Prague court, but the question is whether or not the model for the engraving was also to be found there. The publisher of the print is named as Dominicus Custos (1560–1612), Kilian’s stepfather, and so the work must have been made before 1612, the year the engraver died. Custos, together with Lucas Kilian, Wolfgang’s brother, travelled to Prague in 1607 to apply for a ten-year privilege from the emperor for all the engravings produced by the Custos-Kilian workshop, including future works; they were granted an audience in 1608.758 Wolfgang Kilian was just returning home from his study tour of Italy at the time, so taking into account the privilege indicated on the print and the time when the Custos publishing house was in operation, the engraving must have been made between 1608 and 1612. 753 Several works from here are identified by: Garas 1987; McEvansoneya 1996a–b. 754 Davies 1907, p. 379. This may be the same as the copy that featured in the inventory made after the death of 755 756 757 758 James Hamilton, 2nd Marquess of Hamilton (1589–1625). Many other paintings from Hamilton’s estate ended up in the Buckingham collection: McEvansoneya 1992, p. 526, no. 15. Fairfax 1758; Duverger 1992, VI, pp. 72–7, doc. 1597. Dudík 1867, XXXIX, no. 225. The British Museum, London, inv. 1870.1008.1172, engraving, 303×192 mm. Signed: “Jacobus de ponto Bassan pinxit / Wolff(gang) Kilian scalpsit Aug(ustae vindelicorum) / Domin(icus) Custos excudit”. Limouze 1997, p. 174. 219 THE ARTWORKS It is possible, of course, that Kilian made a drawing of the painting while he was in Italy between 1604 and 1608, which he later reworked into an engraving. On his tour he surely visited Mantua, Rome and Venice – the version painted by Francesco Bassano that later passed from the Hamilton collection to Archduke Leopold Wilhelm was documented as being in Venice during this period. The depiction does indeed bear a close similarity to the Hamilton version, but the engraving was quite certainly not made after this variant. Not only the cropping is different (which could be explained if the right side of the painting was later cut off ), but so is the landscape in the background: in the print, a view of a town can be seen in the distance, the number of vessels in the foreground is different, the figures in the background on the left of the painting are missing, and so on. Another argument against the theory that the model for the engraving originated in Italy is the fact that Kilian makes no mention of this in the inscription, although he does record that the work was engraved in Augsburg (scalpsit Augustae vindelicorum) – in his reproduction of Jacopo Bassano’s Resurrection altarpiece, by contrast, he specifies the original work’s Venetian origins: Wolffgang Kilianus scalpsit Venetijs.759 Edoardo Arslan opined that the model for Kilian’s engraving was a version of Jacopo Bassano’s work that was documented in Berlin from the eighteenth century, but which was unfortunately destroyed in 1945.760 Judging from the archive photograph (fig. 91),76¹ however, this can be fundamentally ruled out; neither the landscape in the background, nor the motifs in the foreground, nor even the position of the mule and dog in the picture could be described as matching the engraving. Wolfgang Kilian’s engraving must have been based on a painting that the Augsburg-based engraver could have accessed between 1608 and 1612. Although the imperial house would not have been the most convenient possibility for this, it is at least feasible. The CustosKilian family, like Sadeler’s family, had close ties both to the court in Prague and to the circles surrounding the Archduke of Tyrol. Dominicus Custos made the 125 folio engraving of the Armamentarium Heroicum (Innsbruck, 1601), published from the Rüstkammer of Ferdinand of Tyrol in Ambras;76² Wolfgang Kilian made engraved portraits not only of the emperor and the Habsburg archdukes, but also most of the leading members of the court aristocracy (Vilém Slavata, Bruno von Mansfeld, Ernst von Mansfeld, Heinrich Wilhelm von Starhemberg, Bonaventura von Buquoy, Heinrich Matthäus von Thurn); Wolfgang’s brother, Lucas Kilian, worked on several occasions after paintings by Rudolf II’s court artists (Bartholomäus Spranger, Joseph Heintz the Elder, etc.). It is also not unimaginable, in my opinion, that Kilian’s engraving of The Good Samaritan was based on a work owned by a member of this circle.76³ 759 Hollstein 1976, XVIII, p. 97, no. 14; Bassano e l’incisione 1992, p. 53, cat. 37. 760 Arslan 1960, p. 331; Rearick 1992, p. CXVIII; Ballarin 1995, p. 33. The earliest mention of the painting that I know of was in Berlin in 1779, when it was in the gallery of the royal residence. Nicolai 1779, II, p. 665, no. 346. 761 Reproduction in: Gemäldegalerie Berlin 1930, p. 9, no. 314; Dokumentation der Verluste 1995, I, p. 13, no. 314. 762 Lhotsky 1941–5, I, p. 194; Werke für die Ewigkeit 2002, pp. 79–81, cat. 33. 763 A copy attributed to Leandro Bassano was bought by Karl Eusebius, Prince of Liechtenstein in 1679 from the collection of Egk und Hungersbach, for a price of 150 Rhine florins: Fleischer 1910, pp. 64, 219–20; Haupt 1998, pp. 259, 261, regs. 1691–2, 1694. I was unable to identify further details about the work. 220 III. IMAGINES “Wie ein alter man ein iunges Weib carisirt” Our collection listed a total of four versions of the popular and well-known moralistic, satirical composition created by Lucas Cranach the Elder, known variously as The Ill-Matched Couple or The Amorous Old Man – in which a toothless, elderly gentleman caresses his young sweetheart as she surreptitiously reaches her hand into his purse. All of them were attributed to Cranach, and three (nos. 12, 143, 208) were worded exactly the same way: “An old man caresses a young woman”. (For example no. 12: Ein stuck auf holz von Lucas Cronick wie ein alter man ein iunges Weib carisirt antique – 100.) The fourth differed in that rather than embracing his beloved, as in the other three, the Amorous Old Man is described as placing a ring on her finger (see the next section). There was a significant discrepancy between the values of the items in question: based on their price estimates, only the first (no. 12) can be considered an autograph work, being assessed at 100 thalers, whereas the others were evaluated at 20 thalers each. However, it is also worth noting that many of the painter’s known compositions on the same subject are remarkably small in size, and this could also have influenced their value. For four works on the same subject by the same painter to be included in one collection not only demonstrates the popularity of the subject but also how frequently this type of picture occurs in Cranach’s œuvre. Numerous autograph versions and workshop copies of The Ill-Matched Couple are known – around forty in all – including in Vienna and Prague. What I am about to mention may be pure coincidence, but it is highly interesting that the imperial collections, in the eighteenth century, also contained exactly four paintings of an old man and a young woman that were attributed to Lucas Cranach the Elder. What is more, three showed the man “caressing” his inamorata, while in the fourth, he was putting a ring on her finger. One was registered in Prague in 1685. Dated to 1531 and presently attributed to Cranach’s workshop, at the time it was described as: Lucas Cranich: Ein Alter Mann, sambt einen jungen Mägerl.764 The work can be traced through the eighteenth-century inventories (1718, 1757, 1763), and the descriptions there also reveal some additional information: the elderly man was deemed to be Martin Luther, while the young woman was identified as Katharina von Bora, Luther’s wife. (This may have been based on the hat worn by the man, which is somewhat similar to those seen in portraits of Luther.)765 In 1797 the painting became part of the collection of the Society of Patriotic Friends of Art, and from there it joined the National Gallery in Prague. This work was stolen 1990, but recovered eight years later, and is now held in Prague Castle (fig. 94).766 764 Praager Schloß 1685, no. 264. The inventory – as mentioned several times before – probably recorded the situation in 1663, see footnote 127. 765 Ein alter mann sambt einem jungen madl, Martin Luther (1718); Ein alter mann sambt einen jungen madl, Martin Luther mit der Cathel (1737); Ein alter mann samt einen jungen madl, Martin Luther mit der Catherle (1763). Köpl 1889, CXXXVI, no. 264; CLII, no. 270; CLXXIII, no. 57. 766 Obrazárna Pražského hradu, Prague, inv. O 233, oil on wood, 49.4×34.1 cm. Friedländer–Rosenberg 1979, cat. 285B; Lucas Cranach 2005, no. 15 (Kaliopi Chamonikola); PURL http://lucascranach.org/CZ_OPH_ HS241. 221 THE ARTWORKS 94. Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder: The Ill-Matched Couple (Amorous Old Man), c. 1530 Prague Castle Picture Gallery, Prague 95. Lucas Cranach the Elder: The Ill-Matched Couple (Amorous Old Man), 1522 Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest It is conceivable that a similar composition was in the Kunstkammer during the reign of Emperor Rudolf II: the inventory of 1621 includes a terse description of “a tryst by Lucas Cranach” (Eine bulschaft vom Luca Kranich), which is highly likely to have been a version of the Amorous Old Man.767 This painting appears not to have been among the works looted by Swedish forces, so it had probably been moved away from Prague before 1648. Copies of the works survived, however, which had been made by the court artists of Rudolf II, although they were not strictly replicas, but rather paraphrased variations on compositional elements borrowed from the original – several creations based on this work are known by Hans von Aachen.768 Two further copies attributed to Cranach appeared in the inventories of the Weltliche Schatzkammer in Vienna in the middle of the eighteenth century, firstly in the records drawn up in 1747–8, and again, with the same inventory numbers, in a later list from around 1750: Ein mitteres stuck, auf welchen ein alter mann und junges weib von Luca Granich 767 Zimmermann 1905, p. XLV, no. 1161. 768 Fučíková 1986, p. 56, figs. 21–4. 222 III. IMAGINES 96. Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder: The Ill-Matched Couple (Amorous Old Man), c. 1520–40 Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest 97. Lucas Cranach the Elder: The Ill-Matched Couple (Amorous Old Man), c. 1530–40 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (no. 97), and Ein stuck mit einen alten mann und jungen weib von Luca Grannich (no. 105).769 From this point on their destiny is shared with that of the Amorous Old Woman by Cranach (fig. 33), discussed earlier, from the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm: first these works were transported to Bratislava, and in the 1780s they were taken to Buda; then in 1848 they were transferred from the residence of the president of the chamber of Buda Castle to the Hungarian National Museum.770 In 1906 they joined the National Picture Gallery (Országos Képtár), and are now held by the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest.77¹ Only 769 Zimerman 1889, reg. 6243, p. CCXLV, nos. 97, 105 (1747–8); reg. 6253, p. CCCVIII, nos. 97, 105. The quota- tions come from the latter. The inventory was made in 1750, but includes later entries registered up until 1773, e.g. fol. 633. sub no. 674 (11 February 1773). 770 Garas 2001, pp. 394–5. In the 1781 inventory of Bratislava Castle, only one can be identified, for which see: Gruber 2006–7, p. 392, no. 268. 771 Szépművészeti Múzeum, Budapest, inv. 130. oil on wood, 84.5×63.6 cm (unframed); inv. 134. oil on wood, 86×63 cm. Pigler 1968, pp. 161–2, 167; Friedländer–Rosenberg 1979, p. 102, cat. 155; Benkő–Garas–Urbach 2003, p. 32; PURL http://lucascranach.org/HU_SMB_130 and http://lucascranach.org/HU_SMB_134. 223 THE ARTWORKS one of the paintings is an autograph work, while the other, which is almost identical in size, is attributed to the workshop or school of Cranach (figs. 95–6). Until the mid-eighteenth century, there was also a set of four versions of the IllMatched Couple, attributed to Cranach, in the Dresden gallery, of which one was deemed original and three copies – a fact that would match the price information from our collection. I could not find any data concerning when the works came to Dresden, or where they came from, but they appear on the first gallery inventory, compiled between 1722 and 1728, and as their inventory numbers are remarkably close (103B, 109B, 110B, 119B), they might have originated from the same place. As for their descriptions, all we are told is that two of the paintings showed an old man offering money from his purse to a young woman, 98. Workshop of Lucas Cranach the Elder: The Ill-Matched Couple (Amorous Old while in the other two he is caressing (caresMan), c. 1530–40 siret) the girl. No mention is made of a ring Private collection being placed on the woman’s finger, but it is possible that the term “caressiret” could have referred to such a scene. All four works from Dresden were sold in 1756,77² and nothing is known of what became of them – all of them remain unidentified today. The measurements given rule out the possibility that they could be associated with their counterparts in Vienna. Nevertheless, several other copies are known from the area around Prague and Vienna: in 1866 an autograph version surfaced in the estate of the lawyer and art collector Jan Kaňka, and a copy from the late sixteenth century, which was formerly in the Nostitz collection, is now in the National Gallery in Prague.77³ Three further variants are documented from Vienna, two of which are signed originals, while the third is a replica. Today only one is still held in Vienna, in the Academy of Fine Arts, received in 1821 as a gift 772 Heineken 1755; Kolb 2015, p. 1083. 773 Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. O 455, oil on wood, 37.8×24.7 cm. Friedländer–Rosenberg 1979, p. 102, cat. 283; Lucas Cranach 2005, cat. 14; Kotková 2007, cat. 10. The Nostitz copy: Národní galerie v Praze, Prague, inv. DO 4323, oil on wood, 44.7×49.8 (cut on all four sides), probably owned by the Nostitz family by 1738. Kotková 2007, cat. 24. PURL http://lucascranach.org/CZ_NGP_O455 and PURL http://lucascranach.org/CZ_NGP_DO4324. 224 III. IMAGINES from Franz Anton de Paula von Lamberg-Sprinzenstein.774 Another, from the collection of Oskar Bondy, was taken to Paris in 1932 by the art dealer Franz (Ferenc) Kleinberger; it is now owned by the Fondation Bemberg in Toulouse.775 The third work that originates from Vienna, attributed to the school of Cranach or one of his followers, is now part of the collection of Sámuel Brukenthal in Sibiu.776 Yet another copy appeared in Budapest in 1912, in the private collection of Mór Herzog, but its earlier provenance and its present location are both unknown to me.777 “Wie ein alter Man einem iungen weiblein ein ring ansteckt” The fourth composition of Cranach’s The Ill-Matched Couple in the Esterházy inventory (no. 83), of an old man putting a ring on the young woman’s finger, was described as: Ein stuck auf holz, wie ein alter man einem iungen weiblein ein ring ansteckt von Cronich – 10. A small painting by Cranach that fits this description is known from Vienna, and in the eighteenth century it was definitely part of the imperial collection; it is now in the Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna (fig. 97).778 Its first unmistakable reference can be seen in the gallery inventory compiled by Christian von Mechel in 1783: Ein Alter, der einem jungen Mädchen einen Ring an den Finger steckt. Auf Holz. 8 Zoll hoch, 7 Zoll breit.779 The specialist literature provisionally identifies this painting as one of the afore-mentioned works from the Schatzkammer, inventoried in 1750 as items 97 and 105,780 which I personally associate with the pair of paintings on the same theme that found their way to Budapest.78¹ In my view this latter hypothesis is supported by information in the written sources about the size of the works: as we have seen, one painting was defined as “medium-sized” (ein mitteres stuck), while nothing was written about the size of the other (from which we can infer that it was similar in dimensions to the other paintings around it, which were all described as “medium”). By contrast, the copy in the Kunsthistorisches Museum is rather small (19.5×14.5 cm). By way of comparison, the painting of cats and monkeys by Abraham Teniers in the same inventory, measuring 24.5×30.5 cm, was described as “small”, 774 Akademie der bildenden Künste, Vienna, inv. 559, tempera on wood, 51×36.5 cm. Friedländer–Rosenberg 1979, cat. 282. 775 Fondation Bemberg, Toulouse, oil on wood, 38.5×29 cm. Friedländer–Rosenberg 1979, cat. 284. PURL http://lucascranach.org/PRIVATE_NONE-P126. 776 Muzeul Naţional Brukenthal, Sibiu, inv. 218, oil on wood, 37.4×27.6 cm. Frimmel 1894, no. 246; Csaki 1901, p. 64, no. 208. PURL http://lucascranach.org/RO_MNB_218. 777 Dimensions unknown, photograph published in: Biermann 1912, p. 418. cf. Friedländer–Rosenberg 1979, cat. 285C. For the picture, see also: Molnos 2017. p. 278. 778 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG. 895. oil on wood, 19.5×14.5 cm (unframed). Friedländer– Rosenberg 1979, no. 285D. PURL http://lucascranach.org/AT_KHM_GG895. 779 Mechel 1783, p. 240, no. 31. 780 Schütz 1972, pp. 25–6, cat. 14. 781 For the two identically themed paintings, see pages 223–4. 225 THE ARTWORKS while theVillage Barber by Adriaen van Ostade from the collection of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm, at 33.3×41.4 cm, was defined as “medium”.78² Apart from the Vienna painting, I know of only one other piece that matches the composition and is also sufficiently small as to be worthy of consideration (fig. 98). It came up for auction in London in 2010 and 2015, and is in private hands.78³ Whether or not it is an autograph copy has been much disputed in recent years, and may at least in part have been made in collaboration with the Cranach workshop, but the piece is unquestionably of very high quality, replete with fine detailing. The Vienna and the London paintings are both dated to around 1530, though neither is signed. “Wie Lutherus vnd sein Katerl einer Masquarte beÿwohnen” Item 82 in the inventory describes a satirical painting on wood attributed to Pieter (?) Bruegel the Elder, showing a carnival allegedly attended by Martin Luther and his wife: Ein stuck auff holz, wie Lutherus vnd sein Katerl einer Masquarte beÿwohnen von dem Orrelio Brigel sehr antique vnd rar – 100. The model for this work may have been the composition of 1559 known as The Fight Between Carnival and Lent, by Pieter Bruegel the Elder (fig. 99),784 which was most likely procured by Emperor Rudolf II for his Kunstkammer in Prague. The reference to “Luther and his little Kate” was probably intended to mean the Dominican friar and nun in the foreground of the painting, pulling the penitential cart of Lent (fig. 100). As already seen with one of the copies of The Ill-Matched Couple, Luther and his wife were often associated with the main figures in satirical pictures, even if there was no true basis for such a characterisation. The original work was part of the inheritance Emperor Rudolf II bequeathed to Archduke Maximilian III (1558–1618) in 1612; in 1619 the archduke’s estate inventory, compiled in Innsbruck, described the work (without an artist’s name) as: Streit der Fasten vnd Fassennacht.785 Seven years later, it featured on the list of worldly goods left behind by Maximilian’s heir, Archduke Charles of Austria (1590–1624): Ein taffel, die Fasten und Fastnacht mit einander streitend.786 When his estate was evaluated in 1627, the same information was now supplemented with the support medium (wood) and the price (130 imperial thalers): Ein taffel, auf holz gemahlt, die Fastnacht und Fasten – 130.787 The next time the work surfaces in the sources is over a hundred years later, on 4 July 1748, when paintings from the Schatzkammer in Vienna were handed over to the 782 Zimerman 1889, reg. 6253, p. CCCVIII, no. 99; p. CCCVII, no. 25. 783 Private collection, oil on wood, 20.2×15.5 cm. Friedländer–Rosenberg 1979, cat. 285D; Sotheby’s, London, Bernheimer Evening Sale, 24 November 2015, no. 10. 784 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna, inv. GG 1016, oil on wood, 118×163.7 cm (unframed). Signed bottom left: “BRVEGEL 1559”. Gemäldegalerie KHM 1965, II, pp. 15–6, cat. 45; Gemäldegalerie KHM 1991, p. 36. 785 Garas 1970, p. 139; Swoboda 2008, p. 30. Source published in: Dudík 1865, citation on page 304. 786 Bodenstein 1916, reg. 20444, p. XI, no. 510. 787 Bodenstein 1916, reg. 20505, p. LXII. 226 III. IMAGINES 99. Pieter Bruegel the Elder: The Fight between Carnival and Lent, 1559 Kunsthistorisches Museum, Vienna gallery superintendent, Johann Martin Rausch: 1 stuckh, die fasten vorstelle(t), von deto [von alten Prigl].788 Shortly after this, it seems that the work left the imperial gallery for a while, and in 1765 it was inventoried in the Kunst- und Schatzkammer in Graz: Eine tafel, mit schwarz ziervergoldten holz gefast, alwo der Fasching und die Fasten gegen einander streiten.789 It was soon returned to Vienna, however, and in 1783 it was on the inventory of the imperial gallery published by Christian von Mechel: Von Peter Bruegel dem Ältern. […] eine seltsame Fastnacht-Lustbarkeit auf einem Marktplatze, welche den Streit des Faschings mit der Fasten durch viele possirliche Figuren vorstellet […].790 It is not inconceivable that copies or variations of the painting were made while the work was still in Prague;79¹ it is also entirely possible that only parts of the overall composition were used as the basis for new paintings – copies are known, for example, which focus 788 789 790 791 Zimerman 1889, reg. 6246. p. CCXLIX. Zimmermann 1903, reg. 19325. p. XXXI, no. 963. Mechel 1783, p. 184, no. 60. There are at present four known copies of the painting on wood and one on canvas: Ertz 1988/2000, I, pp. 221–7, 241–54, cats. 183–7. 227 THE ARTWORKS 100. Friar Pulling the Penitential Cart of Lent (Detail of fig. 99) solely on the central figures.79² The 1621 Prague inventory records three carnival scenes regarded as originals by “Prügl” (Bruegel), each of which refers to a “strange masquerade” (Eine selzame mascarada vom Prügl. [Orig.]).79³ The same inventory also included another, presumably similar composition, attributed to Hieronymus Bosch: Ein Mascarata vom Hieronymo Boß. (Orig.).794 It appears that the Swedish forces found only one of these works in the Kunstkammer during the Sack of Prague in 1648, or at least the inventory of plundered works mentions only one masquerade (Eine Mäschgärada), although which of the four is unclear.795 The Prague inventories taken in 1685, 1718 and 1737 now feature two carnival scenes, this time by artists unknown. In 1685 the descriptions read: Incognito. Origi. Eine Mascarade mit villen figuren and Eine Maschkara; these were repeated almost verbatim in 1717.796 New details were forthcoming in 1737: they were both on canvas (and therefore 792 For its partial copies, see: Ertz 1988/2000, I, pp. 247–8, 254–5, cats. 189–95. Based on the available data, one of 793 794 795 796 them may (perhaps) have Central European origin (cat. 190); this was most recently auctioned at Christie’s London on 8 December 2015. http://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/circle-of-pieter-brueghel-ii-brussels-156451637-5958401-details.aspx (Last retrieved on 30 November 2017). The provenance of the painting can be traced to the Weber collection of Hamburg, which was established by the consul, Eduard F. Weber (1830–1907), who purchased many paintings from Vienna. This work was sold by his heir in Brussels in 1926, but as it does not appear in any of the earlier catalogues of the Galerie Weber, there is no way of knowing where he obtained it. Zimmermann 1905, reg. 19421, p. XL, nos. 936, 938, 940. Zimmermann 1905, reg. 19421, p. XLIX, no. 1351. Dudík 1867, p. XXXIX, no. 374; Granberg 1897, App. I, no. 374. Praager Schloss 1685, no. 212 and no. 509; for its mentions in 1717: Köpl 1889, reg. 6232, p. CXXXV, no. 212: Incognito. Orig: Eine mascarada mit vielen figuren and Ibid, p. CXXXIX, no. 509: Eine mascara oder würthschaft. 228 III. IMAGINES of less relevance to the works we seek) and their approximate dimensions were, respectively, 97×150 cm and 117×317 cm.797 I could not find any trace of these works in the inventories of 1763 or 1782.798 The fourth carnival scene registered in Prague, attributed to Bosch, presumably followed a similar iconography. Even though we cannot identify exactly which work it was, we can – I believe – determine the composition. Compared with Bruegel’s composition, a painting of The Fight Between Carnival and Lent which is attributed to a follower of Bosch, currently in the Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam (fig. 101),799 focuses far more emphatically on the monk and the nun (who are not pulling a cart, but dancing); this lends clarity to why the scene was described as a satirical portrayal of Luther and his wife. Several variations of the work are known, but the one in Amsterdam is alone in featuring an inscription: Dit is den dans van Luther mit zijn nonne. A work attributed to Pieter Bruegel the Elder, which was auctioned in Paris on 1 December 1779 from the collection of Jean-Baptiste-Guillaume de Gevigney, was probably similar in composition, and the description went so far as to state that it was a scene of the marriage between Luther and “a nun”: Un Tableau sur bois, d’une composition grotesque & satirique, représentant le Bal pour les Noces de Martin Luther & d’une None. This painting measured around 75.6×210.6 cm, whereas the version in the Rijksmuseum (which incidentally also came to Amsterdam from Paris) is some 30 cm wider, so while they were similar in format, I do not believe they were one and the same work.800 There is no composition of this kind known in Bosch’s œuvre, and it is hotly debated whether any purportedly lost original ever existed.80¹ The work is rather an imitation of the painter’s style, and the latest research – even involving dendrochronological analysis – dates it to the first decades of the seventeenth century.80² As this view has gained acceptance, the inscription, previously regarded as a later addition, is now increasingly viewed as contemporaneous with the painting; the close iconographic similarity between this work and the afore-mentioned Bruegel might also not be such a coincidence: Pieter Bruegel the Elder – in order to make a quick sale – was known to generate quite a number of drawings imitating the style of Hieronymus Bosch, and an engraving produced after one of his drawings was even inscribed with the name Bosch.80³ 797 Köpl 1889, reg. 6234, p. CL. no. 200: Eine mascarada mit vielen figuren, 1’ 13”×2’ 9”. Leinwand, in vergoldten 798 799 800 801 802 803 Ramen – Incognito; p. CLX, no. 463: Eine mascara oder würtschaft, 1’ 20 ½”×5’ ½”, Leinwand, im schwarzen Ramen – Incognito. According to Engerth 1884, II, no. 741, they were still in Prague Castle at the time, but he refers to two small, longish paintings, which means that neither matches the above measurements. Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam, inv. SK-A-1673, oil on wood, 74.7×240 cm. For the auction, see: http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/provenance (Last retrieved on 30 November 2017) (Sale Catalogue F–A583, no. 94). Gerd Unverfehrt enumerates a total of seven copies, although some of these are only copies of particular details. The names of the artists associated with making the copies include Jan Mandyn, Pieter Aertsen, Frans Verbeeck and Pieter Huys – the latter two are particularly associated with the Amsterdam copy. Rijksmuseum 1976, p. 136, cat. SK-A-1673; Unverfehrt 1980, p. 226, 286, cats. 146–a. PURL https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/collection/SK-A-1673/catalogue-entry. De Marchi–Van Miegroet 1996, pp. 45–6; Marijnissen 2003, pp. 81–111. 229 THE ARTWORKS 101. Follower of Hieronymus Bosch: The Fight between Carnival and Lent, c. 1600–20 Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam In view of the fact that, at the start of the seventeenth century, a work that appears to have been at least very similar to the painting we seek, and also attributed to Bosch, was recorded in the Prague Kunstkammer of Emperor Rudolf II, I cannot rule out the possibility that the Esterházy inventory is in fact connected to this work and not to the products of the Brueghel workshop. The description in the inventory (Luther and his Katherine) is definitely remarkably close to the wording of the inscription of the Amsterdam painting (Luther and his nun). The copy that is now in Amsterdam was, incidentally, bought by the Rijksmuseum in 1896 from Franz Kleinberger in Paris, although the work’s earlier provenance is unknown. Kleinberger had very wide-reaching business contacts (he operated branches in New York, London and Paris), so there is not necessarily any direct connection, but the dealer frequently took works to Paris from several different locations, including Vienna. 230 III. IMAGINES Pendant paintings and series As art collections gradually emerged from the intimate sphere, where they were kept for personal contemplation or perhaps for private viewing by the most privileged visitors, the locations where the collections were hung shifted to other parts of the owners’ homes. The new intention was for the artworks to be displayed to ever larger audiences (albeit not yet to the general public), so it was no longer practical for the Gallerie to be situated directly beside the sleeping quarters. The rooms that housed the collections were now closer to the entrance, perhaps even directly accessible from the staircase, and in rare instances, they were located in a separate building with its own entrance. New criteria also arose in connection with how the paintings were displayed, for art collections increasingly served a representational role as a symbol of status and prestige. Presenting the works in a manner that was “sufficiently elegant” not only implied variety in the forms and sizes of paintings and a diverse range of genres, but also harmony in the way the paintings were placed along the walls. The latter was achieved mainly by arranging thematically connected works of the same size and shape in symmetrical compositions. This led to an upturn in demand for pairs of works, referred to as “pendants”, and even series of paintings, which were now needed in ever greater quantities.804 To satisfy their new requirements, collectors resorted to all kinds of methods. The simplest solution was to commission a pair of paintings that would suit their purposes. Failing this, a new work could be ordered to match an existing painting, produced in exactly the same size and dealing with a related theme, ideally also executed in a similar style. Large quantities of “pendants” could be produced in a quick and cost-effective way by “tailoring” finished works to size. Quite a large number of true masterpieces fell victim to this rather brutal and irreversible procedure; in the imperial collection, for example, such truncations were carried out on works by artists of the calibre of Titian, Giorgione, Jan van Eyck, and so on.805 The fashion for Baroque galleries arranged à la mode française, which originated – as the phrase implies – from France, reached Central Europe at the very end of the seventeenth century. One of the devotees was the Count of Vršovec, whose name occurs quite often in this volume: of the 93 paintings on the list of works he offered for sale to Schönborn around the year 1700, more than half either formed series or were paired pendants.806 In many cases, the pendant pairs had been created by commissioning new works to go with paintings already owned: the afore-mentioned Cupid and Psyche by Gundelach, for example, was partnered with a work that Petr Brandl made in the late seventeenth century,807 while Karel Škréta had been tasked with producing a Portrait of a Man that would match the size and 804 Seifertová 1997c. 805 With numerous examples: Garas 2001, pp. 387–91; Slama–Swoboda 2007. 806 By comparison: The inventory of 170 works offered for sale by Franz Anton Berka to the Prince of Liechtenstein in 1692 contains just twelve paintings which, judging from their description, were pendants. Both examples are mentioned in: Seifertová 1997c, p. 47. 807 For more details about these paintings, see page 195. 231 THE ARTWORKS style of a Portrait of a Woman by Anthonis van Dyck.808 One thing we must say in Vršovec’s favour is that, if no other means were available, and he insisted on turning two paintings into pendants, the count refused to have the “excess” cut off the larger work, but had an extension attached to the smaller piece: the wooden panel by Roelandt Savery entitled Paradise (1618) had 20 centimetres added on to its right side so that it would form the perfectly sized pendant to another composition by the same artist, painted in 1622.809 When he wanted, Vršovec even created quartets: to match a floral still life painted by Savery in 1612, he commissioned two paraphrases of the work from Johann Adalbert Angermayer (1704), and another from Johann Rudolf Bys (1702).8¹0 The inventory we are investigating from the Esterházy archives also contains a relatively large number of pairs of works of the same dimensions, which were either made as pendants or in some way converted. In general they are described as a single item or in consecutive listings (nos. 46–7, 64–5, 103–4, 110–1, 134–5, 137–8, 144–5, 146–7, 149–50, 151–2, 169–70, 172–3, 178–9, 182–3, 184–5, 186–7). These pairs are works of the same genre by the same artist, painted on the same medium, and therefore probably produced at the same time. They include landscapes by Renier Megan and Karl Ferdinand Fabricius, tronies (character heads) by Jacob Toorenvliet, female figures by Erasmus Quellinus, genre pieces by Gillis Mostaert, and the afore-mentioned Old Testament scenes by Stephan Kessler. Less commonly we come across groups of three or more paintings that bear similarities suggesting they constituted groups (nos. 128–32, 153–5, 156–61). In some other cases, works by different artists were listed side by side, emphasising that they were of the same size. In general, their themes are also related, so these might have been “artificially” created pairs. In some of these instances, the support medium of the two works is not the same, and there may be pairings between a panel and a canvas painting or a work on canvas and a work on copper (nos. 2–3, 20–1, 26–7, 43–4, 61–2, 90–1, 139–40, 175–6, 189–90). A few of the “pairs” are by artists whose names indicate that the works were painted at substantially different times, such as the afore-mentioned Mercury and Venus by Bartholomäus Spranger (no. 90), which immediately precedes a painting of a female nude by Frans de Neve, presumably also on a mythological theme (no. 91). Sometimes we find examples of works contained within a single frame: a painting on wood of Adam and Eve by a certain “Richardo”, for instance, is together with a painting of a seated female nude, also on wood, attributed to Titian; the works together were valued at 200 thalers (nos. 20–1). This pairing is particularly interesting, because the Titian would seem to be a less natural pendant for the Adam and Eve than another work in the collection: item 27, also attributed to “Richardo”, and what is more, with a much closer theme, the Expulsion of Adam from Paradise; this work, however, is paired with a canvas by Spagnoletto (Jusepe de Ribera) entitled the Temptation of Saint Anthony (nos. 26–7). The situation is similar with Lucretia by Lucas Cranach the Elder (no. 43), which is partnered with a Portrait of an Elderly 808 Seifertová 2007b, p. 99. 809 Seifertová 2007b, p. 99; Seifertová–Třeštík 2002–3. 810 Seifertová 2007b, p. 100. 232 III. IMAGINES table 2. Theoretical reconstruction of the alignment of the pictures based on data from the inventory 42 Frans de Neve “Triumph of Galathea” 59 60 43 45 Mannagetta landscape 44 61 62 63 Cranach “Reclining Nymph” 64 65 46 47 48 A. van Dyck “The Finding of Moses” 66 Mannagetta landscape 49 50 Pock 51 Dichtl “Beggar” 52 V. A. van Lier “Sunrise” 67 69 genre 68 70 Raphael 53 Bloemaert 54 Rubens 55 V. A. van Lier “Sunset” 71 Brueghel “Peasant wedding” 57 Pock 58 Dichtl “Beggar” 56 72 genre 74 73 Raphael 75 Man by the court chaplain of Empress Eleanor (no. 44) – yet this work also appears to have a more “natural” pendant, namely a Portrait of an Elderly Woman by the same artist (no. 126). The foregoing examples draw our attention to the fact that pairs or even series of works that apparently belong together are not necessarily listed in consecutive order on the inventory. There are several instances in which works on related themes with identical attributions, painted on the same support medium, are nevertheless listed some distance apart. “Pairs” that fall into this category include the genre pieces by Johann Jakob von Eisen, valued at 50 thalers each (nos. 5, 11); the Astrologer and the Old Woman Weighing Money by Johann von Cordua (nos. 33, 40); works on copper by Hans Hoffmann (?) that recall scenes from the love affair between Venus and Adonis (nos. 28, 34); a picturesque Sunrise and Sunset by Volckard Adriaen van Lier, painted on wood and both composed with staffage figures (nos. 52, 55); genre pieces, also on wood, by Hans Georg Pock, respectively showing a woman weaving and a man turning a winch, each of which features three incidental figures in the background (nos. 49, 57); genre scenes of beggars by Martin Dichtl (nos. 51, 58); multi-figural, mythological scenes attributed to Raphael (nos. 70, 73); Hans Rottenhammer’s compositions on copper entitled Diana and Actaeon and Diana Bathing (nos. 123, 165); Jacopo Bassano’s parables of Dives and Lazarus and The Good Samaritan (nos. 191, 193); and even the canvases by an unnamed “famous” Italian painter showing Christ in the wilderness, attended by angels (nos. 127, 209). From the descriptions, we can even reassemble what appear to be series of paintings that once hung in the collection: the classical-themed works by “Balthinus Defarrare Romano” (nos. 6, 18, 23, 38) and the paintings by the “famous” Brueghel showing the Creation of Adam, Adam Placed in Paradise and The Fall of Man (nos. 10, 13, 22) seem to constitute two groups. In these cases, not only the artist’s name, medium and subject provide key information, but also the price estimates written next to each work: even though they were not listed side by side, these works were, in almost every case, given identical valuations. In summary it can be determined that a substantial proportion of the paintings, around 98 works in all (47%) were pendants or parts of series, which suggests that the paintings in question were hung in a “modern”, symmetrical arrangement. Judging from the rhythm of the pendant paintings that appear in the text, we may conclude that their order reflects their 233 THE ARTWORKS alignment on the wall (table 2). Item 66 (a landscape by Mannagetta), for example, has two landscapes on either side of it (nos. 64–5, 67–8), while another work by him (no. 45) is bracketed on both sides by two portraits, one male and one female (nos. 43–4, 46–7). Two presumably relatively large history paintings (Abraham Bloemaert: The Raising of Lazarus and Rubens: The Feast of the Gods), items 53 and 54, come between landscapes by Volckard Adriaen van Lier: a sunrise and sunset that seem to form a pair (nos. 52, 55); equidistant from them in both directions is another pair of pendants, two genre pieces by Hans Georg Pock (nos. 49, 57) and by Martin Dichtl (nos. 51, 58). This all builds up an image of a “modern” gallery concept, which firstly may reinforce our impression that the inventory was not a price list drawn up by an art dealer, and secondly supports the argument that the inventory was compiled at a later date: the intensive use of pendant paintings definitely shifts the presumed date of the inventory to the end of the seventeenth century, and rather in the direction of the early eighteenth century. “Von dem berühmbten Balthinus Defarrare Romano” The four paintings by the artist named in our inventory as “Balthinus Defarrare Romano”, consisting of works depicting Hercules and Antaeus, Mucius Scaevola, Lucretia and Marcus Curtius (nos. 6, 18, 23, 38), probably constituted a series. All four works were valued at 250 thalers each, making them some of the most valuable pieces in the entire collection. They were not referred to in the inventory as belonging together, but the artist is given the same name throughout, all the works are on wood and their price estimates were identical, in addition to which they all feature themes taken from classical history and mythology. The inventory mentions on several occasions that the paintings are “old” and that their painter is “famous”. This is all the more remarkable because most of the paintings on the list are described with the words “curios” or “rar”, so it may be easier to determine what the compilers meant when they resorted to the terms “old” and “famous”. Apart from the set of four in question, the only other paintings in the inventory to be described as “old” are works by Lucas Cranach the Elder (1472–1553) (nos. 12, 63, 208), the afore-mentioned, unidentified “Richardo” (Bernaert de Rijckere? [c. 1535–90]) (no. 20.), Lucas von Leyden (1494–1533) (no. 24), an unnamed Dutch painter (no. 46), Parmigianino (1504–40) (no. 59), Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1525–69) (nos. 82, 116) and Hans Holbein the Younger (1497–1543) (no. 181). All these painters were active in the sixteenth century, most of them in the first few decades. When it comes to who was defined as “famous”, other than the Balthinus in question, this epithet was reserved for Annibale Carracci (no. 8), Jan Brueghel the Elder (no. 10), Spagnoletto (no. 26), the afore-mentioned unnamed Dutch artist and a similarly nameless Italian master (nos. 46, 127), Anthonis van Dyck (no. 48), Abraham Bloemaert (no. 53), Peter Paul Rubens (no. 54), Raphael (no. 70), “De Dorentio” (no. 72), Jan Porcellis (no. 87), Roelandt Savery (no. 188) and Bourguignon, 234 III. IMAGINES AKA Jacques Courtois (no. 190). Apart from “De Dorentio”,8¹¹ whose identity is only hypothetically resolved, and the two masters, whose name were not given by the compilers of the list, all the other artists were indeed men of fame, although “Balthinus Defarrare Romano” is not one that is immediately familiar. Based on the inventory’s phraseology, therefore, “Balthinus Defarrare Romano” was probably a famous painter active in the first half of the sixteenth century, even though this form of his name is no longer recognisable. Perhaps only the first part of the appellation (Balthinus) should be considered a name, and bearing in mind that – as we have already mentioned – the compilers of the inventory only occasionally referred to artists by just their given names, there is a good chance that “Balthinus” is a family name. The other two words after the name may refer to the painter’s home town, although like the name as a whole, “Defarrare Romano” does not exactly ring any bells as a place name. It is slightly more convincing if we interpret these two words as a “quasi-Latin” title for the series of paintings, encompassing all of Hercules, Lucretia, Marcus Curtius and Mucius Scaevola.8¹² In this case, the works can be understood as portrayals of the stories of “ancient Romans” (even Hercules, who is referred to using his Latin name), whose overall titled is styled along the lines of, for instance, De fortuna Romanorum by Plutarch. If we assume that only the “Balthinus” is the name of this “old” and “famous” artist, then all manner of variations on this name, in any language, need to be given consideration: Baldinus, Baldino, Balduin. Perhaps even Baldung, as in Hans Baldung Grien. But did Hans Baldung ever produce a series of the kind described above? Is there at least a record of such works ever existing? The answer to the first question is: yes, he did; and in reply to the second, all four paintings are still with us. What is more, there are now five known pieces in the series, with the fifth depicting the story of Pyramus and Thisbe, from Ovid’s Metamorphoses (fig. 102).8¹³ The paintings are all on wood, and were all originally of the same size, give or take a centimetre or two; apart from the Pyramus and Thisbe they are all signed and/or dated, and produced between 1530 and 1531.8¹4 They are currently shared among five different museums. The Pyramus and Thisbe cannot be identified among the works on the Esterházy inventory, but the fact that the other four are all here together suggests that they had only recently been separated from the fifth. Confirmation of this comes from the first record of the Ovid-themed work, which was much later than that of the others, but also in Vienna: the painting (attributed then to Albrecht Altdorfer) was sold at auction in December 1919 at the art dealership of August Johannes Schelle.8¹5 The auction catalogue included the full text of the expert opinion written by Theodor von Frim- 811 The painter in question is Dutch, as stated by the item description itself, and may mean Johannes Torrentius, that is, the painter Jan Simonsz. van der Beeck (1589–1644). 812 The sources of the Roman histories are: Marcus Curtius = Livy VII. 6. 1–6; Lucretia = Livy I. 57.6–59.6; Mucius Scaevola = Livy II, 12. 813 Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie, inv. 1875, oil on wood, 93×67 cm. Bought by the museum in 1920 from the Berlin art trade. Osten 1983, cat. 70b. 814 Hans Baldung Grien 1959, pp. 53–5, cats. 59–61; Bussmann 1966, pp. 71–86; Osten 1983, nos. 70a–d, 71. 815 Schelle 1919, p. 7. 235 THE ARTWORKS 102. Hans Baldung Grien: Pyramus and Thisbe, c. 1530–1 State Museums of Berlin, Picture Gallery 236 III. IMAGINES 103. Hans Baldung Grien: Hercules and Antaeus, 1530 National Museum in Warsaw 237 THE ARTWORKS 104. Hans Baldung Grien: Marcus Curtius, 1530 Foundation of Weimar Classics, Castle Museum, Weimar 238 III. IMAGINES mel on 23 November 1918, which reveals that the painting had been going around the Viennese art trade for a few years beforehand, although it does not name any previous owner(s). The provenance of the other four works can now be traced with certainty to the beginning of the nineteenth century, by which time they had been separated into two pairs of paintings. The earliest data pertain to the Hercules and Antaeus8¹6 (fig. 103) and the Marcus Curtius8¹7 (fig. 104): they are first mentioned in January 1807, when they were purchased by the Society of Patriotic Friends of Art in Prague from the painter Johann Vinzenz for a combined price of 35 florins.8¹8 At the licitation held by the Society in December 1807, the Baldung works were bought by Franz Anton von Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky (1778–1861) and displayed, in accordance with the Society rules, in the Rudolfinum between 1808 and 1852.8¹9 Subsequently they entered the possession of the Kolowrat-Krakowsky-Liebsteinsky family, and in 1911 Paul Bergner described them both as part of the collection in Rychnov.8²0 We do not know exactly when the works were sold. Around 1923 they turned up in the art dealership of A. S. Drey in Munich, and they were soon back on the market in 1928, after which the two paintings went their separate ways.8²¹ The Hercules and Antaeus was bought in 1928 by the Silesian Museum in Wrocław (Śląskie Muzeum Sztuk Pięknych we Wrocławiu), and in 1948 it was transferred to the National Museum in Warsaw. Its “partner”, the Marcus Curtius has been owned by the Castle Museum in Weimar since 1928. The description of the Hercules and Antaeus in the inventory reads, Ein stuck auf holz von dem berühmbten Balthinus Defarrare Romano antiq(ue) dem Herculo – 250, providing an extra nugget of information with which to identify the work. The use of the dative case (dem Herculo) in the German text may seem unjustified from a grammatical point of view, but it is reflected in the painting: in the top left, on the capital of a pilaster, can be read the inscription DIVO HERCULI (fig. 105). The form of language employed in the inventory presumably results from this. The partner piece is defined in the inventory as, Ein stuck auf holz Marc(us) Curtius sehr antiq(ue) vnd rar von dem berümbten Balthino Deferrara Romano – 250. 816 Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie, Warsaw, inv. 187515, oil on wood, 98.8×72.7 cm. Dated bottom left: “1530”. Bussmann 1966, pp. 75–7; Osten 1983, cat. 70a. 817 Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Schlossmuseum, Weimar, inv. G 817, oil on wood, 97.3×69.7 cm. Signed and dated, 818 819 820 821 the inscription “MARCVS CVRTIVS HBG 1530” can be read beneath the equestrian figure, on the interior of the crater. Bussmann 1966, pp. 71–4; Osten 1983, cat. 70c. The information that the two paintings were offered for sale to the society in 1807 was first published by Theodor von Frimmel on the basis of unspecified documents from the Czernin archive in Jindřichův Hradec (Neuhaus): Frimmel 1892a, pp. 306–7. The information came from the society’s records for the year 1807, currently registered as: SOA Třeboň, odd. Jindřichův Hradec, RA Černín, Kt. 760. no. 8, fol. 8. The identity of the seller is not recorded in the records, and the reference to Vinzenz comes from research by Lubomír Slavíček: Slavíček 2003–4, p. 48, nos. 1133–4. Privatgesellschaft 1827, p. 71, nos. 1133–4; Privatgesellschaft 1835, p. 136, Zimmer XV, nos. 25, 53; Privatgesellschaft 1844, p. 15, Zimmer II, nos. 32–3. According to Záruba-Pfeffermann 2009, p. 29, the two paintings were still on loan to the society in 1872. Bergner 1911, pp. 172–4. In 1923 Hans Curjel knew both the Hercules and Antaeus and the Marcus Curtius from the dealership of “München, Kunsthandlung Drey”. Curjel 1923, pp. 153–4. Josef Záruba-Pfeffermann reports that items from the Kolowrat collection, including the Baldung paintings, were sold in Switzerland in 1924. Záruba-Pfeffermann 2009, p. 29. 239 THE ARTWORKS The third piece in the series portrays the heroic deed of Mucius Scaevola (fig. 106):8²² Ein stuck auf holz Mutius Scaevola von Baltinus defarrara Romano sehr antique – 250. The painting came into the ownership of a public collection around the same time as the first two, in 1927, when it was bought from the Hackenbroch collection of Frankfurt by the State Art Collections of Dresden.8²³ The only additional sure fact we have about its earlier provenance is that it was previously in the Pelletier collection in Paris. The fourth painting, a panel that once 105. “Divo Herculi“ inscription on Hans showed the Suicide of Lucretia (fig. 107), is Baldung Grien’s Hercules and Antaeus now in the National Museum in Poznań.8²4 panel (Detail of fig. 103) It was passed into the museum’s collection from the estate of the art collector Count Athanasius Raczyński (1778–1874), who stated he had bought it in Paris in a junk dealer’s shop (Trödlerbude), and knew nothing further about its provenance. The work is, regrettably, now incomplete, with the main character, Lucretia, missing from it, although the subject of the work is clearly indicated by the quotation from Livy that it contains.8²5 Raczyński also claimed that the “naked and malexecuted” figure of Lucretia, sitting on a chair, had been visible in the painting not long before, but that this had been sawn off and burned – it is unclear from his words whether he did this himself or found out about the missing part of the painting from the dealer who sold it to him.8²6 A description of the painting can be found in Raczyński’s collection catalogue of 1839, so he must have bought it before this date, the most likely period being between early 1811 and November 1816; at this time Raczyński was in Paris, first as a diplomat and then as a private visitor.8²7 (The unique afterlife of this painting is demonstrated by the fact that the truncated version of the work was included in a picture of the gallery of Leopold Wilhelm; see page 88.) 822 Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister, inv. 1888B, oil on wood, 97.5×68.2 cm. Signed bottom right: “HG BALDVNG / FAC / 1531”; inscribed on the left, on the edge of the pot: “MVCI(VS) 1531”. 823 Bussmann 1966, pp. 78–80; Osten 1983, p. 196, cat. 70d. According to information in Gemäldegalerie Alte 824 825 826 827 Meister 2007, II, p. 97, cat. 43, the painting was obtained through an exchange of artworks, with the collaboration of Dr. Wendland (Basel) and the art dealer Theodor Fischer (Luzern). Muzeum Narodowe w Poznaniu, Poznań, inv. Mo 104, oil on wood, 56.7×25.8 cm, fragment. Inscription: “1530 / QVID SALVI MVLIERI / AMISSA PVDICIA / HG BALDVNG / FAC.” Bussmann 1966, 74–5; Osten 1983, cat. 71. Osten 1983, p. 28. Hans Baldung Grün: Drei männliche Figuren. […] Dies Bild war ursprünglich ungleich größer. Eine nackte und höchst mißlungene Lucretia saß auf einem Stuhle und war im Begriff sich zu tödten. Die drei Figuren sahen mit Entsetzen dieser grauenvollen Scene zu. Nun, da die Lucretia von dem Bilde abgeschnitten und verbrannt worden, ist freilich das Entsetzen der drei Figuren wenig motivirt. Raczyński 1839, p. 12, cat. 11; Osten 1983, p. 204. For the activities of the Raczyński brothers as art collectors, see: Edward i Atanazy Raczyńscy 2010. 240 III. IMAGINES In the case of the Mucius Scaevola and the Lucretia, the trail leads us to Paris, where we would expect them to appear in the period before 1839. Information pointing to their presence in Paris, and even to their separation from one another, has been found in an auction catalogue from the early nineteenth century. Held at 16, Rue Taitbout on 6 March 1816, the auction featured a picture on wood of Mucius Scaevola, and a panel showing the Death of Lucretia, also painted on wood. No artist’s name was stipulated, but both pieces were described as works by a German master who “emulated” Albrecht Dürer. Deux autres tableaux représentant la mort de Lucrèce et Mucius Scoevola. Ces sujets sont traités à la manière du tem[p]s où vivait l’auteur, avec les costumes singuliers de cette époque, et précieux dans leurs détails. Ce maître était l’émule d’Albert Durer. 8²8 They were sold for a total of 91 francs: the Lucretia was definitely bought by the connoisseur and art dealer Pierre Roux (Roux du Cantal) (?–1844), and he probably also purchased the Mucius Scaevola as well. Both paintings were back on the art market later that same year, but no longer together. In the new catalogues, the works were both – separately – attributed to Hans Baldung Grien, which also enables us retrospectively to clarify the definition of the artist given in the previous catalogue entry as “emulating Dürer”. Roux sold the Lucretia at auction on 23 April 1816: Baldung. Le sujet de Lucrèce; tableau très-rare.8²9 The Mucius Scaevola was put up for sale on 11 November 1816 at an auction that also featured some paintings owned by Roux: Grim (Baldung). Mutius Scoevela, mettant le poing sur un brasier ardent, en présence de Porsenna, roi d’Etrurie. Tableau de la primitive école allemande. B. [blois].8³0 The frontispiece of the first catalogue, printed in early March 1816, bears the monogram “M. M. *** de N.”, which is presumed to conceal the name of Jacques Marquet de Montbreton de Norvins (1769–1854), Napoleon’s historian.8³¹ Norvins began his career reading law and emigrated in 1790, to Göttingen, Homburg and Koblenz, before settling in Switzerland for five years. In 1806 he fought in the Prussian campaign, became secretary of stage in the newly founded Kingdom of Westphalia, as well as counsellor to the queen, and in 1810 he was appointed Prefect of Rome. He held this position until the French were overthrown, and from 1814 he lived in Paris. After the Second Restoration he fled to Strasbourg for a while, returning to the French capital in 1816. His identification as the man behind the monogram is corroborated by the fact that when two other works which were sold at the 828 829 830 831 Catalogue Norvins 1816, no. 38. Notice de tableaux 1816, no. 42. Catalogue Lavallée 1816, no. 31. Catalogue Norvins 1816. According to the description of the catalogue in the database of the Getty Institute, several known copies of the auction catalogue have survives, in which hand-written notes record the names of the buyers and sellers; the copy in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, helped identify the owner of the paintings as Norvins. According to the cover page, all the artworks auctioned at this time were owned by him. The copy in the British Library has the note: Mrs. Rivault, Francillon et autres, who were presumably among the buyers (Francillon definitely was – see the following footnote); according to the French copy, the antiquities in the catalogue originated from “Nolkens”, while everything else was from “Mr. Grivaux Henin”: Les antiquités sont Nolkens et les rebuts de Mr. Grivaux Henin. cf. http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/provenance/ index.html (Last retrieved on 30 November 2017) (Getty Sale Catalog F-630). 241 THE ARTWORKS same auction came up for sale again the following year, Norvins was unambiguously named as the previous owner.8³² Unfortunately, the further back in time we go from here, the fewer sources there are at our disposal, and even among those that exist, it is very rare to come across a catalogue that contains “expert” descriptions including the dimensions of works, their media and the names of the artists, or perhaps a manuscript inventory with detailed entries for each picture. There is even less likelihood of finding the name of Hans Baldung: apart from the Lucretia, the artist’s signature is hidden away in a less prominent part of these pictures. As we have seen, Baldung’s mark was not even recognised by the compiler of Norvin’s auction catalogue in Paris in March 1816, who simply described the works as by an artist in Dürer’s circle. What is more, experts were usually only called in to compile castle or palace inventories if there was some financial reason for obtaining precise estimates of how much the paintings were worth (for example, if the works were to be sold, or if they had to be divided equitably among relatives). The detail in the inventory would also depend on the compiler and their level of knowledge, which would affect how well – or otherwise – they described the works; in more fortunate cases, the subject in each painting was at least approximately outlined, while in the worst situations, the paintings in a given room were simply counted. This all means that the likelihood of the name Hans Baldung being found in the eighteenth-century sources is rather small, and we may have more luck in identifying the set of works on these classical themes together. With this in mind, it is worth taking a closer look at items 84–7 in the inventory taken in 1737 at Waldstein’s castle in Duchcov: 4 Stuck von Albrecht Dürer, antique Historien vorstellet.8³³ Among the Waldstein inventories, this was the only record of classical stories attributed to Dürer that I could find, for there is no trace of them in earlier or later documents, so we must surmise that the works were soon resold. As mentioned in connection with the gallery paintings by Teniers, in 1741 almost the entire stock of paintings at Waldstein’s castle was bought by King Augustus III of Poland, with all 268 of the sold works documented in an inventory, although the descriptions are rather brief.8³4 The items that are rather summarily described as 4 Stück von Albrecht Durir – 40 are presumably the same as those recorded in the inventory of 1737, just referred to above.8³5 Also like the Teniers works, however, these four paintings attributed to Dürer cannot be subsequently found in Dresden, along with a large number of other items from the same purchase. During his reconstruction of the Waldstein collection, Lubor Machytka managed to identify in Dresden only 47 of the 268 paintings sold to Augustus III, and some of 832 Two items from the auction of March 1816 (nos. 24, 48) were auctioned once more on 13 and 14 June 1817 at Christie’s London, who gave the provenance of the pieces as Norvins’s Roman collection. Catalogue d’Alberg 1817, p. 8, no. 48; p. 12, no. 20. My attention was drawn to this by the description in the Getty Provenance Index, cited in the preceding footnote. 833 Waldstein 1737, nos. 84–7; Machytka 1985–6. 834 Waldstein 1741, inventory published in: Machytka 1986, pp. 69–71. The transaction was conducted by Johann Gottfried Riedel (1691–1733), inspector of the Dresden gallery, who had previously worked as a restorer of paintings in the Waldstein gallery. 835 Machytka 1986, p. 70. 242 III. IMAGINES these findings were tentative and conditional. The modern catalogue of the Dresden gallery currently lists 57 paintings as originating from the Waldstein collection.8³6 There is no reason to believe that only 20% of the paintings bought in 1741 actually reached their destination,8³7 so we must conclude that, for one reason or another, four fifths of the paintings were transported away from Dresden shortly afterwards. Moreover, there would have been ample opportunity for this. Not all of the items from the Waldstein collection were placed in the Dresden gallery, and indeed the majority of the paintings were either used to decorate castles (Warsaw, Hubertusburg) or were kept in storage at the “Dutch Palace”. In the 1740s and 1750s, paintings were occasionally removed from here to be sold or exchanged: a surviving record from December 1743, for example, informs us that Franz Joseph von Waldstein took back possession of 21 small-sized paintings, sold just a couple of years earlier, in exchange for one larger work by Michael Willmann.8³8 More works left the palace in 1755–6, when Augustus III sold 173 of the works in the warehouse at a very reasonable price to Carl Heinrich von Heineken (1706–91), director of the Kupferstich-Kabinett in Dresden, and from 1756 superintendent of the gallery, who was responsible for compiling the illustrated catalogue of the royal collection (Recueil d’estampes d’après les plus célèbres tableaux de la Galerie Royale de Dresde, I–II, 1753–7). Heineken sold on the paintings at a hefty profit, and in 1763, after the king’s death, he was put on trial for embezzlement; he was acquitted after proving that the sale of the paintings had provided the king’s contribution to the costs of having the engravings produced and issuing the catalogue. It is a different matter entirely that the selection of paintings that Heineken bought from the king at prices well below their market value featured a few truly significant pieces, and that before selling them on, Heineken not only had them restored, but also less honestly “improved” (with the addition of false signatures).8³9 Heineken sold the works in Paris, Hamburg and Berlin. Some of them were identifiably from the Waldstein collection, but none of the descriptions that I could find in the related documentation contained any trace of the antique Historien or the Teniers gallery paintings. What we can find out, however, is that he also acquired other paintings, although this area requires additional research.840 As the precise subject matter in the antique Historien attributed to Dürer cannot be discerned from the descriptions referred to above, we can only hypothetically connect the set of works in the Waldstein collection with the Baldung paintings, although the attribution to the Dürer circle and the fact that there are four paintings on classical themes mean that 836 Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister 2007. 837 Although the sale and the delivery were carried out under not entirely legal circumstances (payment was made via Leipzig, and the paintings were taken across the border without registration and without the payment of customs), it seems that the paintings arrived at their destination without a hitch. Machytka 1986, pp. 68–9. 838 Machytka 1986, p. 68. 839 For the trial, Heineken’s own collection and his activities as an art dealer, see (with previous literature): Spenlé 2006; Spenlé 2008, pp. 262–7; Schepkowski 2009, pp. 97–118; Schepkowski 2010; Kolb 2015. 840 I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to Carina Merseburger (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden) for looking through the 1754 manuscript inventory of the gallery on my behalf. As these paintings cannot be identified on the inventory, we can assume that the works were removed from Dresden before 1754. 243 THE ARTWORKS 106. Hans Baldung Grien: Mucius Scaevola, 1531 State Art Collections of Dresden, Old Masters Picture Gallery 244 III. IMAGINES 107. Hans Baldung Grien: Three Male Figures, (originally: Suicide of Lucretia), 1530 Raczyński Foundation at the National Museum in Poznań 245 THE ARTWORKS the hypothesis is quite strong. If this is correct, it means that – notwithstanding the fact that the works are scattered throughout the Esterházy inventory, rather than listed consecutively, one after the other – the paintings were kept together and sold on from owner to owner as a series, and not separated from one another until 1741. The question is an important one, because – due to the fact that the paintings first became known to art historians in different locations and at different times – the idea that the paintings belonged together was not posited in the literature until relatively recently, and to a certain extent it is still debated. There are several arguments against the idea that the works constituted a series: only three of the paintings (Lucretia, Hercules and Antaeus, Marcus Curtius) are dated to the same year (1530), while the Mucius Scaevola is dated 1531 and the Pyramus and Thisbe is undated; the five works were painted on four different types of wood (pearwood, limewood, pine and spruce);84¹ and the sizes are not exactly the same: the panel of the Hercules and Antaeus measures 98.8×72.7 cm; the Mucius Scaevola is 97.5×68.2 cm, the Marcus Curtius is 97.3×69.7 cm, and the Pyramus and Thisbe is 92.6×66.7 cm. The dimensions of the truncated Lucretia are 56.7×25.8 cm. The works are also difficult to categorise thematically as a single series. Although all of the paintings derive their subject matter from classical mythology, poetry or history, and several of the stories can be found in Livy or in the Gesta Romanorum, I have not yet found any literary source that features all five. Furthermore, there is the possibility that the series was once longer, some parts of which no longer survive, but whose presence would supplement our understanding of the links between the works.84² Depending on the context, the same painting can take on different associations and connotations: Marcus Curtius, for example, in the Gesta Romanorum, is regarded, together with Pyramus, as a precursor to the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ; paired with Lucretia, he represented Roman morals; in association with Mucius Scaevola, meanwhile, he was a common symbol of Justice, and from the fifteenth century was often part of the iconography in the decor of city halls.84³ Most researchers, however, treat the paintings as a series, and both the Baldung œuvre exhibition (1959) and the volume by Georg Bussmann (1966) included all five works as part of it.844 Gert van der Osten, the monographer of Hans Baldung Grien, handled the Lucretia separately (clearly because of its truncated nature), but eventually he too concluded that all the paintings form part of the same series, with one of his main arguments being that two of them were still together at the start of the nineteenth century (in the collection of the Society of Patriotic Friends of Art, Prague). 841 The Hercules was painted on spruce, the Pyramus and the Marcus Curtius on limewood, the Lucretia on pearwood, and the Mucius Scaevola on pine. Osten 1983, cats. 70a–d, 71. 842 Three of the subjects appeared, for example, in the historical series commissioned at the time by William IV, Duke of Bavaria, incorporated within the context of additional historical and biblical figures. For the Wittelsbach Cycle, Lucretia was painted by Jörg Breu the Elder (1528), Mucius Scaevola by Abraham Schöpfer (1533), and Marcus Curtius by Ludwig Refinger (1537). Greiselmayer 1996, pp. 73–9, 93–7, 115–20. 843 Osten 1983, p. 201. 844 Hans Baldung Grien 1959; Bussmann 1966, pp. 83–4. 246 III. IMAGINES The inventory in the Esterházy archive indicates that four of the paintings were together in the last quarter of the seventeenth century, and – if we accept that they are identical to the afore-mentioned item in the Waldstein inventory – also in the first half of the eighteenth century. It is almost certain, therefore, that the paintings were commissioned by the same person. Baldung produced this series during his second Strasbourg period (1530–31), and due to the iconography of the works, researchers have suggested they were commissioned by a Strasbourg humanist, Jakob Sturm (1489–1553), who was a member of the city council at the time, and who represented the city in the Schmalkaldic League.845 The name of Otto Henry, Elector Palatine (1502–59) has also been put forward as a possible candidate for the commissioner of the work.846 The sources, however, have so far failed to provide information about who commissioned the work and under which circumstances, and are also silent on the subject of when the paintings may have reached Vienna. “Wie Eua im Paradeis den apfel dem Adam gibt” In addition to the Baldung works, it may be possible to reconstruct another series from the inventory. A total of four paintings by a member of the Brueghel family are listed as showing scenes from the Old Testament, all pertaining to the story of Adam (nos. 10, 13, 22, 196). Ein stuck auf holz wie gott vatter den Adam in d(a)s paradeis sezt, sehr rar vnd Curios von dem berümbten Brigl – 200; Ein stuck auf holz wie Gott Vatter den Adam creirt, Curios in der landtschafft vnd allerhand Thieren sehr rahr von dem Brigel – 200; Ein stuck auf holz, wie Eua im Paradeis, den apfel dem Adam gibt, sehr rar von Brigel – 200; Ein stuck auf holz wie Adam ackhert vnd Eua spint von Arrellio Prigel extra Curios – 40. The first three items (The Creation of Adam, Adam Placed in Paradise and The Fall of Man) seem particularly compatible with each other. The fourth piece (Adam at Work in the Field), showing Adam and Eve after the Fall, respectively working in the field and weaving, is thematically in line with the other three, but its estimated value is substantially lower than the rest, which leads me to assume that it differed from the others in terms of size or quality; furthermore, based on the serial number (no. 196), it was also located at a substantial distance from them. The first three (nos. 10, 13, 22), however, were all painted on wood and all valued at the same price (200 thalers), so we may perhaps view them as a series. The afore-mentioned scenes from Genesis were painted several times by Jan Brueghel the Younger, including in a series of six pieces (The Creation of Adam, Adam Naming the Animals, The Temptation of Adam, The Expulsion from Paradise, Adam at Work in the Field, The Death of Abel) now in a private American collection, but I have not yet found a cycle of paintings containing the three compositions in question here.847 If we assume that one or more of the pieces may not have survived, and attempt instead to identify the individual 845 Osten 1983, p. 203; Garen 2003, pp. 122–4. 846 Osten 1983, p. 203. 847 Ertz 1984, pp. 269–97, cats. 86–125. 247 THE ARTWORKS 108. Jan Brueghel the Elder: The Fall of Man, c. 1612–3 Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest works, then we come up with so many candidates that – for want of reliable provenances or further written sources – it is impossible to narrow down the field to a sufficient extent. Several versions of The Fall of Man are also known in the œuvre of Jan Brueghel the Elder, although they were not usually part of a series, but paired with another scene from the Old Testament, Noah’s Ark.848 Since the works described in the Esterházy inventory are, I believe, pieces from a single series, I consider it more likely, based on the source text alone, that the paintings we seek were by Jan Brueghel the Younger. Consequently, I would be inclined not to regard the painting of The Fall of Man in the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest, of disputed authorship (fig. 108), as one of the pieces from this cycle, even though its Viennese origin and its provenance would not rule out a connection with our inventory.849 Klaus Ertz, the artist’s monographer, regards the piece as a painting by Jan Brueghel the Younger (after a work by his father), and dates it to around 1620; the authors of the collection catalogues, meanwhile, attribute it to Jan Brueghel the Elder, with a date of around 1612–3.850 There is nothing to suggest that this work was ever part of a series, and the same is true of the relatively large number of replicas that were made after the painting. At the same time, one of the best-known copies of the work (Sforza Castle, 848 Ertz 2008, II, pp. 432–51, cats. 185–95. 849 Szépművészeti Múzeum, Budapest, inv. 550, oil on wood, 52×83.5 cm. 850 Pigler 1968, pp. 104–5; Ember–Gosztola–Urbach 2000, p. 28. 248 III. IMAGINES Milan) is to this day paired with its pendant, Noah’s Ark,85¹ which suggests that the Budapest painting on which the copy is based might also once have had a pendant on the same theme. The painting was brought from the Kaunitz collection in Vienna to the Esterházy collection in 1821,85² where there was already another version of the painting, also on wood, which was described in the 1812 catalogue of the Esterházy collection in Laxenburg as belonging together with a pendant of Noah’s Ark (at least this pair can be ruled out of our search!). At the same time as he procured the painting from Kaunitz, Prince Nikolaus II Esterházy (1765–1833) also exchanged the other version for a joint composition by Jan Brueghel the Elder and Hendrick van Balen, with The Fall of Man passing into the hands of Count Anton Franz de Paula von Lamberg-Sprinzenstein (1740–1822).85³ Chancellor Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz-Rietberg (1711–94), an immensely powerful minister under both Maria Theresa and Joseph II, established his own famous private gallery in the palace he bought in 1753 in Mariahilf, Vienna; not only his own acquisitions were hung in the gallery, for in two stages (1753, 1779) he had over 800 paintings brought from his family residence, Austerlitz Castle (Slavkov u Brna), many of which had presumably been acquired by his ancestors.854 He also maintained a gallery in Kaunitz House in Laxenburg, while a substantial collection of paintings remained in Austerlitz, but the most valuable pieces were all on show in Vienna. To date, no inventory of this gallery has come to light, so a significant part of the erstwhile Kaunitz collection cannot be reconstructed, not even approximately. The palace in Mariahilf was sold by his heirs in 1812, and the collection was moved to the house in Dorotheergasse. Even if there is no connection as far as the Brueghel work is concerned, the Kaunitz gallery is definitely worth considering as one of the potential successor collections after the one described in the Esterházy inventory was dispersed. The collection of paintings accumulated by Chancellor Kaunitz began to be broken up two decades after his death. Several auctions of his possessions were held (1820, 1829), but his heirs also sold many of his paintings separately, and these works are naturally not to be found in the auction catalogues. At most, paintings once in the Kaunitz collection may still bear the stamp of the collection (the monogram WKR beneath a crown). Among them is the Brueghel bought by Nikolaus II Esterházy in 1821: there are no written records that the chancellor ever owned the painting, but the stamp provided Theodor von Frimmel with enough proof to deduce its provenance.855 To give a sense of the quantity of works concerned, at the end of the eighteenth century, the collection of paintings in the Kaunitz Palace in Mariahilf was estimated at 2000 works, and even if this sum is an exaggeration, it still greatly surpasses the total of 350 paintings listed in the two auction catalogues. 851 Ertz 1984, pp. 276–7, cats. 93–4. 852 Frimmel 1892a, p. 200; Meller 1915, p. 239 (Inventar Journal 1821, no. 1043): J. Breughel: Adam u. Eva i. Paradies nebst vielen Thieren, Holz, 1’ 8”×2’ 7” m. Gr. no. 550. 853 Fischer 1812, 160–1, nos. 4–5; Vécsey 2013, 174–6. 854 For Kaunitz’s collection and his artistic connections, see: Frimmel 1895–6; Hálová-Jahodová 1939–40; Kroupa 1996; Mayer 2017, pp. 442–54. 855 Frimmel 1892a, p. 200; Frimmel 1895–6, p. 13. 249 THE ARTWORKS Very little is known about Kaunitz’s purchases and sources, and it is mainly from his correspondence that we can learn he turned to his diplomatic contacts for assistance in his quest for artworks: he had “agents” in Paris, Venice and Milan. A few pieces in his collection are documented as having come from the imperial gallery: allegedly they were presented to Kaunitz by Maria Theresa, shortly before her death, in 1780. The chancellor tangibly had a penchant for Italian art, but he strove to create a collection that was as encyclopaedic as possible, filling in any perceived gaps as best he could. It was with this aim in mind that be bought Dutch works, for example, from the Viennese art trade, primarily from the painter Adam Braun and the merchant Johann Stöber.856 From the latter he acquired four paintings allegedly by Jan Brueghel the Elder, but sadly nothing is known about their subject matter.857 856 For the activities of Adam Braun as an art dealer, see: Garas 2006. For Kaunitz’s purchases, see: Kroupa 1996. 857 Kroupa 1996, p. 28. 250 SUMMARY My analysis was intended to demonstrate the kinds of conclusions that can be drawn about a collection as a whole, and about the owner of the works, from the text of an inventory, its terminology and phraseology, the paintings in the collection, and the prices assigned to them. During the course of my research, I built up an image of a gallery with a – for its time – “modern” approach to collecting, which not only included paintings, but also, to a symbolic extent, classical items and so-called pretiosa. The high proportion of pendants, or at least paintings that seem, from their descriptions, to have been partnered together somehow, allows us to deduce that the works were hung in accordance with the latest fashion for arranging a gallery, a concept that only emerged at the very end of the seventeenth century. The pronounced presence of genre pieces making up the collection, and the use of the word gallery in its “modern” sense, all go to show that the owner was fully conversant with the latest trends in collecting art. According to the title of the inventory, it was compiled in Vienna, and nothing in my findings contradicts this: judging from the names of the artists listed in the collection, and taking the activities of contemporary art dealers into consideration, the document was indeed almost certainly drawn up in the Imperial City. The artists’ names also imply that the owner of the collection embarked on an intensive campaign of expanding his collection in Vienna in the 1660s, and was still apparently making new acquisitions in the 1670s. He bought more than a quarter of his paintings from the painters who were active in Vienna at the time. In addition to these, a number of works can be grouped into a separate, smaller section of the collection, probably bought at an earlier period, and consisting of paintings made in the 1610s and 1620s. The gallery also seems to have contained copies of several works from the imperial collection of Emperor Rudolf II, held in the Prague Kunstkammer, and there are relatively many works by painters from the socalled “School of Prague” and their followers. This body of works may have been inherited by the owner as a whole, or he might have purchased a smaller collection of paintings containing older paintings. It is conceivable that he was in contact with art collectors in Nuremberg, not only because of the presence in the collection of works by artists based there, but also because of a couple of copies that might have been made in Nuremberg, and at least one painting whose provenance may be traceable to the city. It is also apparent that the collecting spree came to a halt in the 1680s, or at the very latest by the beginning of the 1690s: the inventory contains no works by the new generation of painters who made their mark in Vienna at the end of the century (Johann Michael Rottmayr, Martino Altomonte, Peter Strudel, Franz Werner Tamm). The provenance of the Imperial cameo in the collection proves that the date stated in the title of the inventory 253 SUMMARY (1669) is too early, and the indications are that the inventory was compiled between 1679 and 1713; the absence of paintings by members of the younger generation leads me to narrow down this date even further, to the late 1680s or perhaps the early 1690s. The high prices accorded to many of the paintings in the inventory, and especially the “inestimable” value of the cameo, draw attention to the considerable purchasing power wielded by the collector. The man we seek presumably enjoyed access to the imperial court: the inventory makes mention of a gift presented to one of the collector’s ancestors by Emperor Ferdinand II, and it seems that the collector himself expressly bought works from painters connected to the uppermost circles of society. All this information undermines the earlier notion that the inventory might have been a list of the goods currently available from a particular art dealer, and tends towards the idea that the owner was of aristocratic stock. I have put forward suggestions concerning the identification of numerous pieces in the collection, which in many instances – as I cannot emphasise enough – are tentative and conditional. I have presented the paintings that are still around today – or, in rarer cases, known only from written sources – whose details (artist’s name, subject matter, support medium) fully match those specified in the inventory; furthermore I have detailed a few paintings that meet these criteria, but which I nevertheless, for one reason or another, have decided to reject as possible matches. I have not devoted any attention to artworks whose details differ from those in the inventory in some major way (for example, artist’s name and subject matter match, but support medium is different) – not even if they were held in a private collection that unequivocally featured one or more of the other works originating from the collection under investigation. The provenances of the works that could be identified provided an outline of the later – dispersed – fate of the collection (table 3). An examination of where the paintings later resurfaced revealed that the majority ended up in the possession of Bohemian (and Austrian) noblemen, turning up either in their palaces in Prague (Vršovec, Berka, Nostitz) or in their country residences (Waldstein, Sternberg, Salm, Kolowrat, Harrach), typically in the eighteenth century, with a few others coming to light in Vienna (Amerling, Lippmann), although this was rather in the nineteenth century. A smaller number of the works were not seen again in Central Europe but featured, for example, in auctions held in Paris or Amsterdam, at much later times, in the nineteenth or twentieth centuries. Tracing the data back to source, we can deduce that the epicentre of the dispersal was Prague, which leads me to countenance the possibility that the collection was sold not in Vienna – as implied by the title of the inventory – but in Prague. This conjecture remains potentially valid even if it later transpires that not all of my suggestions for identifying the paintings were correct. At present the available data would seem to point towards three people who were each in possession of (at least) one of the works featuring in the inventory either before it was compiled or in the period immediately afterwards. One is Gottfried Herzog von Edelstein, who was probably acting on behalf of a high-ranking art collector, who around 1678, if my suppositions are correct, transported the imperial cameo in our collection from Amsterdam to Vienna, via Nuremberg. The second is Baron Johann Septimius Jörger, a member of a once highly influential Austrian noble family who emigrated to Nuremberg 254 III. IMAGINES table 3. The earliest known mentions of artworks assumed as being part of the collection 20th century 19th century 18th century 17th century to escape the Counter-Reformation, who created a highly respected Kunstkammer, and who – if the identification of the painting holds true – was responsible for commissioning the composition on copper of Diana Bathing. The third is a relative of the Jörgers, Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach, known as an eminent collector of art, who – it seems – held in his collection at the end of the seventeenth century a painting by Johann von Cordua of an Old Woman Weighing Money, which featured on our inventory close to the same time. Determining whether these three men were connected to each other in some way, and perhaps establishing the kind of relationship they had with the owner of our collection, will form the subject of future research. 255 APPENDIX APPENDIX MNL OL, P 125, Esterházy Archives, documents of Palatine Paul, Miscellaneous documents, Inventories and lists, fasc. 115, no. 11670. Laus Deo 1669 In Wien* Specification vber volgenten gemahlen vnd raren quadren vnd diuersen famosen Maistern, wie hernach folget, vnd von Vnß hierunter gefertigten æstimiret vnd geschäzt worden. No. Thaller 1 Ein schöne landtschafft auf holz von Sauereé858 p(e)r 100 2 Ein bußfertigte Magdalena auf holz von Alberto Duro sehr rar 100 3 Item ein stuck auf leinwandt gleicher grose von hofman beede in einer 20 ramb p(e)r 4 Ein sehr rares stuck auf holz von Brigel859 von dem von Eickens860 die 200 4 Jahres Zeiten sehr Curios p(e)r 5 Ein stuck, auf leinwand ein altes weib so einen belz flickt, von dem von 50 Eisen861 maisterhafft gemacht p(e)r 6 Ein stuck auf holz von dem berühmbten Balthinus862 Defarrare Romano 250 antiq(ue) dem Herculo p(e)r 100 7 Ein stuck auf leinwand von dem Tenirs ein Cabinet, worin von diuersen famosen maistern bildern darzu ersehen, warbey sein aigenes Contrefee 8 Ein stuck auf leinwandt, wie Petrus Christum verlaugnet von dem be300 rühmbten Hannibal de Correschio863 sehr Curios * The abbreviations of the manuscript are resolved in round brackets and I clarify some terms in square brackets where it seemed desirable. The orthography of most of the painters’ names differs from the present spelling, but their recognition usually does not cause any difficulties. Therefore, I did not consistently strive to explaine them. The common names are given in the footnotes where it is likely to prove useful. 858 859 860 861 862 863 Roelant Savery Brigel, Brigl, Prigel etc. stand for members of the Brueghel family. Frans Ykens Johann Jakob von Eisen (Eysen) Hans Baldung Grien Annibale Carracci 259 APPENDIX No. 9 Ein stuck auf kupfer die prædicatio S(anc)ti Joannis sehr rar von Streichhamer 10 Ein stuck auf holz wie gott vatter den Adam in d(a)s paradeis sezt, sehr rar vnd Curios von dem berümbten Brigl 11 Ein stuck auf leinwant von dem von Eisen ein Weib so fluch [Floh] sucht sehr gut 12 Ein stuck auf holz von Lucas Cronick wie ein alter man ein iunges Weib carisirt antique 13 Ein stuck auf holz wie Gott Vatter den Adam creirt, Curios in der landtschafft vnd allerhand Thieren sehr rahr von dem Brigel p(er) 14 Ein stuck auf kupfer von Stratano d(er) Fischzug Petrus sehr rar 15 Ein stuck auf kupfer Pharonis Hochzeit mit vielen figuren, sehr maisterhafft von dem von falckenburg p(e)r 16 Ein stuck auf holz Juno, Venus vnd Pallas von Callot extra schön 17 Ein stuck auf leinwant, ein weib mit einer mellaun sehr gut von dem von Eisen 18 Ein stuck auf holz Mutius Scæuola von Baltinus defarrara Romano sehr antique 19 Ein stuck auf kupfer von Thomas von Ipper864 ein tanz von Satÿren sehr Curios 20 Ein stuck auf holz Adam vnd Eua sehr antique von Richardo. Item ein 21 stuck gleicher gröse auf holz ein nackentes weiblein, die da sizet von Ditiano zu gleich in einer ram gefast p(e)r 22 Ein stuck auf holz, wie Eua im Paradeis, den apfel dem Adam gibt, sehr rar von Brigel 23 Ein stuck auf holz, wie Lucretia sich ersticht sehr antiq(ue) von Baltin(us) defarrare 24 Ein stuck auf holz von Lucas von leüden sehr antiq(ue) vnd extra rar, wie ein altes weib, ein jungen menschen einen beutl gelt darreichet p(e)r 25 Ein stuck auf kupfer, ein extra schöne landschafft mit vnderschidlichen thiren von Franz Christoph Rösl, von Nürnberg 26 Ein stuck auf leinwant, extra rar, von dem berühmbten Spanioletto,865 wie Antoni die teuffel aus treibt p(e)r 27 Item ein stuck auf holz gleicher größ wie Adam aus dem Paradeis veriagt wurd von Richardo 864 Jan Thomas van Yperen 865 Spagnoletto (Jusepe Ribera) 260 Thaller 100 200 50 100 200 400 100 200 50 250 50 200 200 250 100 40 200 100 APPENDIX No. 28 Ein stuck auf kupfer wie Venus Adone(m) carisirt, sehr curios von Hoffman 29 Ein stuck auf tuch eine Landtschafft sehr gut wie der Diana tempel besucht würd, von einer Niderländt(er), doch vnbekanten hand p(er) 30 Ein stuck auf Leinwant, Petrus vnd Paul(us) so von Ferdinando Secundo her, meinem Anherrn seel(ig) aus der Callarie præsentirt worden, von Coretschio æstimirt p(e)r 31 Ein stuck auf leinwant sehr rar von Tenirs die 5 söhn [Sinne] durch etliche bauren angezeiget extra guet, p(e)r 32 Ein stuck auf leinwant, wie der heyl(ige) Joseph Mariam mit dem Jesulein durch d(a)s Gebürg führt von Hÿeronimo von Teick866 sehr rar vnd maisterhafft, p(e)r 33 Ein stuck auf leinwant, ein alter Astrologus sehr Curios gemacht, von Jean de Cordua 34 Ein stuck auf kupfer wie Venus Adonem im schlaff besucht, von Hoffman p(e)r 35 Ein stuck auf holz von Adrianski sehr guet wie Jesus im Tempel prediget p(e)r 36 Item in gleicher gröse, ein stuck auf leinwant wie Cupido der Ven(us) entflihen will, beede stuck in einer ram zusamben gefast 37 Ein stuck auf holz von Cabalir Callabres867 sehr, Venus, Cæres mit anderen Göttin, sambt einer Curiosen Landschafft p(e)r 38 Ein stuck auf holz Marc(us) Curtius sehr antiq(ue) vnd rar von dem berümbten Balthino Deferrara Romano p(e)r 39 Ein Stuck auf holz ein prognostic(us) der seine hand herzeiget extra rar von Christoph Pauliz 40 Ein stuck auf leinwant, ein altes weib so ducaten wegt, sehr Curios gemacht von Jean de Cordua 41 Ein stuck auf leinwand ein Leÿerin von dem Eisen p(e)r 42 Ein stuck auf kupfer von Deneue,868 ein schöne landschafft mit einem nackenden weiblein vnd etlichen fischern, so theils in Krotten verwandleten d(a)s Wasser treiben sehr Curios gemacht p(e)r 43 Ein stuck auf holz von alten Cronick Lucretia so sich ersticht sehr gut Thaller 40 20 400 200 100 60 40 50 20 150 250 200 60 60 40 20 866 Anthonis van Dyck(?) 867 Cavaliere Calabrese (Mattia Preti) 868 Frans de Neve (Neef ) 261 APPENDIX No. et 44 Item ein stuck in gleicher gröse auf leinwand, ein alter man von Josepho Cosadino869 Diaquilia sehr maisterhafft 45 Ein stuck auf holz ein landschafft mit vnderschidlichen architecturen von Mannig(etta) 46 Ein stuck auf leinwand, ein altes weib mit einer silbernen Kandl sehr antiq(ue) von einem berümbten hollander 47 Ein stuck auf kupfer, ein alter man mit einem krug vnd einer Zwäckpfeifen von eben disser hand 48 Ein stuck auf leingewand Moÿses erfindnus von dem berümbten Hÿeronimo von Teuck sehr Curios 49 Ein stuck auf holz, von hanß georgen Pocken, ein Spinerin mit and(er) en 3 figuren sehr gut 50 Ein stuck von holz von Mannigetta sehr schöne landtschafft 51 Ein stuck auf leingewandt von Mertdickl870 ein betlman so leis sucht 52 Ein stuck auf holz von Volckard deliers871 den außgang der sonnen sehr guet vnd schön ausstaffirt p(e)r 53 Ein stuck auf holz Lazare Veniforas von dem berühmbten Blumart872 sehr rar vnd Curios p(e)r 54 Ein Panquet der Götter, auf holz, von dem berühmbten Ruwenz873 sehr Curios 55 Ein stuck auf holz von Volckard deliers der Nidergang der Sonnen sehr Curios ausgestaffirt p(e)r 56 Ein stuck auf leingewand von Satrat874 Jesus Maria vnd Joseph sehr wohl gemacht p(e)r 57 Ein stuck auf holz, von Hanß Georg Pock ein alter man, der auf ein haspel aufwint, neben dreÿ and(er)en figuren sehr Curios p(e)r 58 Ein stuck auf leinwant, ein betler, der auf einem hafen ist von Mertdichtl sehr gut 59 Ein stuck auf leingewand 2 nackhende Kindlein, so einen pfeil spizen sehr antique vnd maisterhafft von Jean de parmenzo875 60 Ein stuck auf leinwandt Bacchinalia mit etlichen Satÿren von Jean Thomas von Ipper 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 Giuseppe Cosattini Martin Dichtl Volckard Adriaen van Lier Abraham Bloemaert Peter Paul Rubens Joachim von Sandrart Parmigianino (Girolamo Francesco Maria Mazzola) 262 Thaller 20 40 40 40 300 30 30 20 20 30 100 30 40 30 20 40 30 APPENDIX No. 61 Zweÿ stuck gleicher größ, ein Käzl von dem Deferto p(e)r et 62 d(a)s andere ein haaß von Christoph Rösl sehr Curios p(e)r 63 Ein stuck auf holz ein nackent ligentes veiblen [Weiblein] von Cronich antiq(ue) p(e)r 64 Zwei stuck gleicher größ auf leinwandt sehr Curiose landtschafft von et 65 Megan vnd von Osenbeck ausstaffirt p(e)r 66 Ein stuck von kupfer mit schönen Architecturen von Mannigetta sehr Curios 67 Ein landtschafft auf holz von Erembes876 sehr guet 68 Ein stuck auf leinwand sehr Curiose landschafft von de Jota p(e)r 69 Ein Juden schul sehr rar vnd Curios von 70 Ein stuck auf kupfer ein Triumphwag(en) mit 4 Pferden, vnd vielen nackenden Curiosen figuren von dem berümbten Raphaelo p(e)r 71 Ein Schwabische hochzeit auf leinwandt von brigel sehr Curios 72 Ein stuck auf holz, ein toback trincker neben einem der schlafft vnd dreÿen anderen figuren sehr Curios, von einem berühmbten niderländ(er) de dorentio877 73 Ein stuck auf kupfer 10 nackente weiblein extra rar vnd kurios von Raphaelo turbino 74 Ein stuck auf kupfer die 4 Elementen anzaigen von Rösler p(e)r 75 Ein stuck auf leinwandt von dem von Eisen, wie Venus den Satyro scheiden last, sehr maisterhafft p(e)r 76 Ein stuck auf holz, wo d(a)s judische Volck Christom dem herrn ein Ehebrecherin vorgestellet würd von jungen Francken p(e)r 77 Ein stuck auf holz, ein bettendes weiblein extra curios von Jean Bellino 78 Ein stuck auf leinwand, ein sizend(er) Haaß in einem gebusch sehr guet ausgearbeitet von Christoph Rösl p(e)r 79 Ein stuck auf holz ein Masquarte von dem alten francken sehr rar p(e)r 80 Ein stuck auf holz wie Joannes Pharonis schäze verachte, extra schön von Jungen Francken 81 Ein stuck auf kupfer lotto mit seinen töchtern sehr guet von Nicola von Hoÿ p(e)r Thaller 40 40 20 40 60 20 40 40 400 200 40 600 100 40 40 200 20 40 100 30 876 Johann Franz Ermels 877 Johannes Torrentius(?) (Jan Symonsz van der Beeck) 263 APPENDIX No. 82 Ein stuck auff holz, wie Lutherus vnd sein Katerl einer Masquarte beÿwohnen von dem Orrelio Brigel sehr antique vnd rar p(e)r 83 Ein stuck auf holz, wie ein alter man einem iungen weiblein ein ring ansteckt von Cronich 84 Ein stuck auf leinwant sehr gut vnd Curios von Gaballiz libro878 p(e)r 85 Ein stuck auf leinwandt von Schönfeld ein extra schön gemachter baurn kopf 86 Ein stuck auf kupfer des Sauls bekehrung sehr, von Hanß Schwarzen 87 Ein stuck auf holz, ein schiffart, wo zweÿ schiffe durch gewetter zu grund gehen, extra Curios vnd rar von einem berümbten holländer Paraselsis879 88 Ein stuck auf leinwandt von ruwenz 8 nackente weibl beÿ einem brun sizen gahr rar p(e)r 89 Ein stuck auf leinwant, wie einer wie einer [sic!] ein schwein fanget, neben darbeÿ etlichen anderen figuren, gahr Curios gemacht von Jean Hallet p(e)r 90 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse eines auf leingewandt, wie Mercuri(us) die et Venus bedint, sehr rar von Spranger 91 d(a)s andere auf kupfer, wie ein nackendes weiblein carisiret, von deneue 92 Ein stuck auf holz extra rare baumschlag mit 2 nackenden figurlein von Virgilio880 93 Ein stuck auf leinwandt, ein landtschafft mit vnderschidlichen Viechwerch sehr maisterhafft von Delier p(e)r 94 Ein stuck auf holz von Samet brigel, wie vnser herr die aussezigen gereiniget hat, extra Curios vnd rar p(e)r 95 Ein stuck auf holz ein Weiblein So die hand auf einen mohren legt, extra Curios von Titiano p(e)r 96 Ein stuck auf holz von Segger ein Feürbrunst mit vielen figuren gahr rar p(e)r 97 Ein stuck auf holz von Alberto Duro ein bauersman mit einer Baürin so hüner vndt schmalz verkaufft 98 Ein stuck auf kupfer von Rotenhamer wie Jesus Joannem tauft, mit vielen figuren p(e)r 878 Cavaliere Liberi (Pietro Liberi) 879 Jan Porcellis 880 Virgil Solis the Younger 264 Thaller 100 10 40 20 200 100 100 30 100 50 200 20 200 100 50 100 100 APPENDIX No. 99 Ein stuck auf leinwandt extra schöne landtschafft, wie die sonn durch d(a)s gebürg spillet, mit vielen figuren von Peter Stephan881 p(e)r 100 Ein stuck auf holz von Reinbrandt ein alter teutscher, mit einem Weib, welche ein kindt beÿ Ihr in einer gepflochtenen Wiegen ligent hat, gahr æstimabl p(e)r 101 Ein stuck auf kupfer die 5 Söhn [Sinne], von jungen Francken p(e)r 102 Ein stuck von Wasserfarben sehr Curiose landschafft, mit etlichen figuren von Mannigetta p(e)r 103 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf leinwand sehr Curiose landschafft von et 104 Faberici882 vnd Osenbeck ausgestaffirt p(e)r 105 Ein stuck auf leinwandt S(anc)ti Sebastiani auf Erden ligent, warbeÿ zweÿ Engl Ihne bedienen von Pachman883 sehr wohlgemacht p(e)r 106 Ein stuck auf holz von Gundalach Ven(us) mit dem Cupido in amore 107 Ein stuck auf Papier mit finger duschiret eines heÿl(igen) Capuciner Conterfe, so Er vor seinem Tod selbsten gezeügnet haben soll, gahr maisterhafft p(e)r 108 Ein stuck auf holz, eine Landschafft, warin zweÿ heüsser neben etlichen figurlein zu sehen von dem Jungen Prigel p(e)r 109 Ein stuck auf holz von Boel ein Panquet von allerhandt prouision p(e)r 110 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf leinwand von Osenbeck sehr guet p(e)r et 111 112 Ein stuck auf leinwant, worauf ein waÿdtaschen Wachtl gahrn, neben einer pfeiffen vnd etlichen Vögeln, sehr maisterhafft vnd Curios gemacht von dem Fondercreuz884 p(e)r 113 Ein stuck auf leinwant, zweÿ Weiber beÿ etlichen ligenten khüne sizent von Hannß graffen p(e)r 114 Ein stuck auf leinwandt vnderschidliches Viehwerch, neben einem halter sehr maisterhafft vnd Curios von Osenbeck 115 Ein stuck auf kupfer ein extra gute Landschafft, warin Dianna mit etlichen anderen figuren von einem Niderland(er) 116 Ein stuck auf kupfer, ein landtschafft mit vielen figuren von Alten Brigell sehr antique vnd guet 117 Ein stuck auf leinwandt Moÿses Bildtnus sehr antiq(ue) p(e)r 881 882 883 884 Thaller 60 50 10 10 40 20 30 40 20 20 20 20 10 20 20 20 20 Pieter Stevens Karl Ferdinand Fabricius Georg Bachmann Willem van der Creuz(?) Dutch painter mentioned in Prague in 1666, see Dlabacž 1815, I, p. 296. 265 APPENDIX No. 118 Ein stuck auf leinwandt, ein baumschlag, warin ein Satÿrus beÿ einem nackenden Weiblein sizt, neben etlichen anderen figuren von Hoffman, p(e)r 119 Ein stuck auf kupfer, ein blumen krug sehr guet von Boquamajor, p(e)r 120 Ein stuck auf leinwandt ein hundt so vor einem Iggel bellett von Christoph Rößl sehr guet gemacht p(e)r 121 Ein stuck auf kupfer die besuchung der Diana templ mit vielen figuren von Reichard885 sehr Curios p(e)r 122 Ein stuck auf leinwandt ein sizend(er) Jüngling so pfeifft, vnd ein Pock vor seiner stehet von Schönfeld 123 Ein stuck auf kupfer wie Actæon die Diana im baad besucht sehr rar vnd Curios von Rottenhamer p(e)r 124 Ein stuck auf leinwand der bereuÿb Petrus, welchem ein haan auf der axel sizt, extra von Dinturreto886 p(e)r 125 Ein stuck auf kupfer Thriumphus Davidis sehr Curios von Devoss p(e)r 126 Ein stuck auf leinwand von Cosadino di Aquilea, ein altes weib sehr maisterhafft p(e)r 127 Ein stuck auf leinwand, wie Christus in der wüsten von den Engelen bedienet würd, von einer berümbten wallisch(en) hand 128 Fünff stück gleicher gröse auf holz die 5 Söhne [Sinne] von Pott extra et 129 Curios 130 131 132 133 Ein stuck auf kupfer von Golzÿ Jupither vnd Venus in amore 134 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf kupfer extra wohlgemachten Juden köpf et 135 von Dovenfluth887 136 Ein stuck auf holz der plaz zu Antwerten von Brigel extra Curios vnd rar p(e)r 137 Zwey stuck gleicher gröse auf leinwant extra wohlgemachten alten kopf et 138 von Vnbekander handt 139 Ein stuck auf kupfer von Beel ein nackende Ven(us) mit dem Cupido sehr Curios p(e)r 885 Maerten Ryckaert(?) 886 Tintoretto (Jacopo Robusti) 887 Jacob Toorenvliet 266 Thaller 20 20 20 30 10 40 400 40 20 40 100 30 20 200 40 30 APPENDIX No. 140 gleicher grös auf kupfer Mercurius mit einem nackenden Kindlein sehr guet von Hoffman 141 Ein stuck auf leinwandt, ein meerstuckl von 142 Ein Stuck auf holz, raptum Proserpine extra rar von Hanß Schwarz888 p(e)r 143 Ein stuck auf holz, ein alter mann der ein Junges weib carresirt von Lucas Cronich p(e)r 144 Zweÿ stuck auf holz gleicher gröse von Quilino,889 ein nackendes Weibet 145 lein mit dem rucken, d(a)s andere in dem hemmet p(e)r 146 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf kupfer von Douvenflut extra guet p(e)r et 147 148 Ein stuck auf der leinwand, ein alte teutschin sehr guet aber vnbekanten hand 149 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf kupfer, eins die freÿen Künsten, d(a)s et 150 ander ein toder man, neben dreÿ and(er)en figuren, sehr Curios vnd rar von Ruwenz 151 Zwey stuck gleicher gröse ein Pauer so in der hand einen krug, vnd eiet 152 ner darbey Thowäck [Taback] trinckt, d(a)s ander ein Weibsbild so geigen vnd ein Man neben Ihrer pfeiffen thut, sehr Curios von Mosdart890 153 dreÿ stuck auf leinwandt gleicher gröse, mit Vnderschiedlichen blumet 154 werchen von Peter891 155 156 Sechs stuck gleicher gröse steinene stuck, worauf in der natur des steins 157 köstlich illumminirt extra Curios 158 159 160 161 162 Ein stuck auf leinwandt, wie die Manna regnet mit vielen figuren sehr Curios von Dulce892 163 Ein stuck auf leinwant, ein Vngahr der 2 Pferd in d(a)s Wasser rait, darbeÿ and(er)er zu fuß, der ein pferd weist warbeÿ ein hund von Ozenbeck 888 889 890 891 892 Thaller 30 30 60 20 30 40 10 60 20 30 200 30 10 Christoph Schwarz Erasmus Quellinus Gillis Mostaert(?) Frans Lucas Peters Carlo Dolci 267 APPENDIX No. 164 Ein stuck auf leinwand, die 5 Söhn [Sinne] durch vnderschidliche bauern angezaigt sehr Curios vnd rar von Pott893 165 Ein stuck auf kupfer der Diana baad von Rottenhamer sehr Curios p(e)r 166 Ein Winter stuck auf holz extra guet von Prigel 167 Ein stuck von Wilhelmb Bauern894 mignatur [miniatur] etliche Satÿres die tanzen sehr Curios p(e)r 168 Ein stuck auf holz, ein Meerstuck sehr Curios von dem 169 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf holz von Deliers mit Ossenbeck(schen) et 170 ausstaffirung 171 Ein stuck auf holz von Orelli Prigl extra rar vnd Curios ein landtschafft mit etlichen reyssenden p(e)r 172 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf kupfer von Francken, wie Christus daß et 173 Creuz tragt, vnd wie von dem Kreüz genohmen würd p(e)r 174 Ein stuck auf holz grab in grab [grau in grau]895 extra guet gemacht, wie etlich beÿ dem feüer sizen von Paul Veranes p(e)r 175 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf kupfer eines Antoni anfechtung, von et 176 Flincken d(a)s and(ere) Ecce homo von Spranger extra rar p(e)r 177 Ein stuck auf holz Jesus Maria Joseph mit Joanne mit einem lampl mit einer schönen landtschafft extra rar von Ruwenz 178 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf leinwath, ein landtschafft mit etlichen et 179 Thiren von Falckard sehr guet p(e)r 180 Ein stuck auf holz, wie etlich beÿ einem disch spihlen von einem Niderland(er) Peterquart896 181 Ein stuck auf holz, wie zwei weiber einem narren den Kitl aufheben von Holpein sehr antique vnd extra guet 182 Zwey stuck gleicher gröse auf leinwand, von Walischen Peter897 fruheet 183 stuck sehr gut vnd maisterhafft p(e)r 184 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse von Sebastian Kessek898 aus Pozen, wie Noe et 185 in der Archen gehet, vnd d(a)s andere wie die Archen schon weeg gehet sehr Curios vnd rar p(e)r 186 Zweÿ stuck gleicher gröse auf leinwand, von Vaito Haafen899 mit vnderet 187 schiedlichen and(er)en geflüglwerch extra guet 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 Andries Both Johann Wilhelm Baur grisaille Pieter Jansz. Quast Peter Binoit Stephan Kessler Frans Vasterhaven(?), husband of Marie-Anne Forchoudt 268 Thaller 30 40 20 20 10 40 200 40 40 100 50 20 10 100 40 200 – APPENDIX No. 188 Ein stuck auf holz extra rar, wie Johannes in der Wüsten prediget, von dem berühmbten Sauerÿ p(e)r 189 Ein stuck auf leinwand von dem von Linden, einen Rencontra sehr Curios p(e)r 190 Ein stuck gleicher gröse ein außfahl beÿ nachte von dem berümbten Pourginion900 p(e)r Thaller 400 191 Ein stuck auf leinwand von Passand extra rar de Jerosolomitaner 192 Ein stuck auf holz von Johann Schneider901 extra rar, ein Schnöpf [Schnepfe] mit etlichen rebhüner vnd einer schahlen mit Weintrauben p(e)r 193 Ein stuck auf holz von Bassand wie Lazarus von hunden geleckt würd 194 Ein stück auf Leinwandt Joannes in der Wüsten sehr vnd Curios von Peter Stephan 195 Ein landschafft auf holz warin eine plind(er)ung extra guet von dem Monport 196 Ein stuck auf holz wie Adam ackhert, vnd Eua spint von Arrellio Prigel extra Curios 197 S(ank)t Stepfans Kürchen vom Peter de Cordana gahr Curios 198 Ein stuck auf Leinwand von Carl Rudart 199 Ein stuck auf leinwandt Hercules mit einem Weib vnd etlichen Kindern extra rar vnd Curios vom Piumpinol902 200 Ein orig(inales) stuck von Jacobe de Gordanno903 le Roÿ, extra maisterhafft 201 Ein stuck auf leinwand, vnser lieben frauen bild, mit Jesu, Joseph vnd Joanne von dem de Ovens sehr Curios vnd guet p(e)r 202 Ein stuck auf leinwand ein bueb so sizent ist, vnd ein Kaz mit essen will, sehr guet von Mertdichtl 203 Ein hengender haaß auf leinwand, warinnen ein Zucker, vnd vnderschiedliche Vögl von Falckard delier le Jeune 204 Ein stuck auf leinwandt, der Helena entflügung [Entführung] extra rar von Raphaelo extra maisterschafft 200 100 900 901 902 903 200 200 200 60 60 40 40 40 200 – 100 40 20 100 Le Bourguignon (Jacques Courtois) Frans Snyders Sebastiano del Piombo Jacob Jordaens 269 APPENDIX No. 205 Ein stuck auf leinwandt von einem Venetianer, ein ruina mit etlichen figuren extra Curios p(e)r 206 Ein stuck auf leinwand sehr groß ein perspectiu von Wallischen Peter 207 Ein stuck auf leinwandt ein Haaß neben and(er)en geflüglwerch von Johann Thoma 208 Ein stuck von alten Cranich, wie ein alter man einen Jung Carresiret auf holz antique 209 Ein stuck sehr rar, von einem Vnbekanten wallischen maister, wie Xt(us) in der Wüsten von den Engl besucht vnd bedienet würd Thaller 40 20 20 20 40 Summ(a) der Stucken: 209 S(umm)a Sum(marum) 16590 Th(aller) Caspar Suderman Vlrich Lidl Caspar Loix Jo(hann) Ge(org) Teich Darbeÿ seint diesse dreÿ extra pretiosa vnd rara Stucken, von welchen der berühmte Santrat in seinen beschreibungen in kupfer außgehen vnd inæstimable gehalten auch zu finden, vnd nichts Cauriaseo zu sehen Alß mo 1 Ein Agath Inoualle [in ovale] worauf in der natur d(e)s steines Admirable ferra effigies vnser liben frauen, wie sie groß leibs wahr, formirter zu sehen ist, 2do Ein onix Ardonix, so 1600 grad in sich halt, worauf Constantini Magni bildnus, wie es noch in Capitolio zu Rom zu sehen, neben 2 Adlern mit Lorber kranzen extra Curiose geschniden, welcher schnit über 1000 Jahr alt, vnd der Stain noch die Kunst nicht kan æstimirt, noch würdigers was gefunden werden, 3o So ist auch ein langliche schahlen von Agats zu sehen, worin von der mutter des Agats d(a)s Vesper bild, auswendig aber in der natur des Agats die Allerheÿligste dreÿfaltigkeit, auf d(a)s Kostlichste geschniden, vnd auf d(a)s Kunstreichste formiret, wegen puritet grose des steins als maisterhafft(liche) arbeit nicht kan geschäzt werden Disse zweÿ stuck seint gahr schön verguld eingefast, d(a)s drite aber mit bohaimb(ischen) Cranaten versezt. 270 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abbreviations BHStA Bayerisches Hauptstaatsarchiv SHStA Sächsisches Hauptstaatsarchiv Dresden MNL OL Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nostic Státní oblastní archiv Plzeň, pracoviště Klášter, Rodinný archiv Nosticů ÖStA, AVA, FA Harrach Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Familienarchiv Harrach SOA Praha, RA Valdštejn Státní oblastní archiv v Praze, Rodinný archiv Valdštejnů, Mnichovo Hradiště ÖStA, AVA, RAA Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv, Reichsadelsakten SOA Třeboň, odd. Jindřichův Hradec, RA Černín Státní oblastní archiv v Třeboni, oddělení Jindřichův Hradec, Rodinný archiv Černínů z Chudenic ÖStA, HHStA, RHR u. RK Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Reichshofrat und Reichskanzlei Manuscript sources Albert Sigismund 1686 Inuentarium Was sich in Ihro Hochf(ür)rstl(ich) d(u)r(lauch)t(en) in Bayrn, Bischoffen zu freyßing, und Regenspurg etc. Galleri, sowohl an Mahlereien, schreib Cässten, Uhren, Gewöhr, und andern sachen befunden, beschriben den 11. Jenner A(nn)o 1686. München, BHStA, Abteilung III. Geheimes Hausarchiv, Hausurkunden 1719. Czernin 1733 [Bildergalerie]. (Untitled list of paintings in the Prague Palace after the death of Franz Josef Czernin von Chudenitz, Prague, after 6 March 1733.) SOA Třeboň, odd. Jindřichův Hradec, RA Černín, kt. 761. fol. 250r–74v. Einreichungskatalog Einreichungs-Catalog der Gemaelde-Gallerie der Gesellschaft patriotischer Kunst Freunde. Praha, Archiv Národní galerie v Praze, sbírka rukopisů, fond SVPU, sign. AA 1223/2. Galerie Inventar 1772 Inventarium über die in der Kaiserl. Königl. Bilder-Gallerie vorhandenen Bilder und Gemälde, 1772. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum. 273 BIBLIOGRAPHY Harrach 1749 Lista deren von Weyland herrn herrn Aloysio Thoma Raymundo grafen von Harrach, in dero Haus zu Wien hinterlassen, und in dem 10. Articul dero Testaments de dato 27ten Aprilis 1738 zum Majorat gewidmeten Bildern (22 September 1749). Wien, ÖStA, AVA, FA Harrach, Fam. in. spec. 775. Harrach 1753 Inventarium über innen benan(n)te in meinen Graf Ernst Harrachischen auf der Freyung in Wienn situirten Majorat-Hauß befindliche Mobilien, Effecten und Mahlereyen […] Wienn den 5ten augusti 1753.” Wien, ÖStA, AVA, FA Harrach, Fam. in. spec. 775. Harrach 1783 Beschreibung der zum gräfl. Harrachischen Majorat gehörigen Mahlereyen [1783]. Wien, ÖStA, AVA, FA Harrach, Fam. in. spec. 775. Harrach 1829 Ausweis über die im gräfllich Harrachschen Majorats-Hause in Wien No. 239 und im Schlosse zu Bruck an der Leytha am 11. April 1829 vorhandenen Gemälde. Wien, ÖStA, AVA, FA Harrach, Fam. in. spec. 775. Harrach 1889 Die Bilder oder Gemälde Gallerie [1889?]. Wien, ÖStA, AVA, FA Harrach, Fam. in. spec. 775. Heineken 1755 Verzeichnis dererjenigen Schildereyen, welche auf Befehl des Herrn Premier Ministre, Grafen von Brühl, von dem Cammer-Rath von Heineken Mense Sept(em)ber 1755. aus dem Bilder-Vorrath im Holländischen Palais zu Neustadt ausgesuchet, und an denselben verabfolget worden. Dresden, SHStA, 10025, 274 Geheimes Konsilium, Loc. 4525/6, vol. IV.a, fol. 190r–190v. Kolowrat 1720a Specification deren in der Gallerie befindlichen Bilder. SOA Třeboň, odd. Jindřichův Hradec, RA Černín, Kt. 761. fol. 235r–237v. Kolowrat 1720b Specification und Tax der in deß (titl.) herrn Graf Norbert von Kollowrath befindlichen Bilder. SOA Třeboň, odd. Jindřichův Hradec, RA Černín, Kt. 761. fol. 239r–241v. Nostitz 1683 Inventarium derer nach Wayl: (titul:) dem hoch und wohlgebohrnen Johann Hartwig deß hey: rom: Reichs Graffen von Nostitz und Rinek hinterbliebene und auff den Fidei Commiss herschafften Falckenaw und Heinrichsgrün sich befundenen mobilien und Fahrnußen, Anno 1683. SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nostic, sign. AH2, Kt. 146. inv. č. 934. Nostitz 1736a Inventarium deren Mobilien undt Effecten welche sich nach Wayland […] Antoni Johann Reichs Graffen von Nostitz und Rhineckh auf der Königl: Kleinen Stadt Prag unweith St. Maria Magdalena gelegenen Fidei Commiss und Allodial Häussern […] den 19ten Decembris Ao. 1736 befunden. SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nostic, sign. AP2/3, kt. 160. inv. č. 1114. Nostitz 1736b Inventarium aller deren auff denen Hoch Gräffl: Nostitzschen Fidei Comiss Herrschaft Falckenau undt Heinrichsgrün befündl: mobilien undt Fahrnusse. Ao. 1736 den 31ten Decembris. SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nostic, sign. AP2/2, kt. 160. inv. č. 1114. BIBLIOGRAPHY Nostitz 1738a Specification verschiedener Mahlereyen welche in dem Graf Nostitzischen Prager Majorat-Haus auf der Klein-Seithen an den Meist-bietenden gegen bare Bezahlung verkauffet werden [1738]. SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nostic, sign. Aq15, kt. 162. inv. č. 1139. Nostitz 1738b Beyläufige Verzeichnuss deren jenigen Bilder so salva ulteriori specificatione bey dem Prager Majorat Hauss verbleiben könten. SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nostic, sign. Aq16, kt. 162. inv. č. 1140. Nostitz 1765a Inventarium deren nach Wayl: (Tit: Pleniss:) des hoch und Wohl gebohrnen herrn herrn Frantz Wentzl des heyligen Röm: Reichs Graffen von Nostitz und Rhynek […] in der königl: kleinen Stadt Prag liegenden Otto Graff Nostitzischen Fidei: Commiss: Hauß befundenen Mobilien, und Fahrnußen, so geschehen Prag, den 25ten octobris 1765. SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nostic, kn. 71, sign. L 14. Nostitz 1765b Inventarium deren nach Wayl: den hoch-und Wohlbohrnen herrn herrn Frantz Wentzl des heyl: Röm: Reichs Graffen von Nostitz und Rhineck bey denen […] fidei Com(m)iss-güthern Falckenau und Heinrichsgrün beschriebenen Mobilien und Fahrnussen. De dato 28ten Novembris Anno 1765. SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nostic, kn. 72, sign. L 14. Nostitz 1819 Inventur und Fideicom(m)iss-Separation auf dem Familien Fideicom(m)isse der Reichsgrafen von Nostitz und Rienek in dem Königreiche Böhmen, auf den 10. April 1819 […] nach Ableben des letzten Besitzers des hochgebornen herrn Friedrich Reichsgrafen Nostitz Rienek. SOA Plzeň, prac. Klášter, RA Nostic, inv. č. 212. Praager Schloß 1685 Inventarium der Röm. Kayserl. Maytt. Mahlerey auff dem khönigl. Praager Schloß A(nno) 1685. (Photocopy of the original held in the Prague Castle Archives.) Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum. Waldstein 1737 Versammlung deren Hochgräfl. Wallensteinischen Bildern in dero Residentz-Schloss Dux, wie solche 1737 sich befinden. Brüx, 1737. Typescript based on the printed inventory: Machytka 1985–6. Waldstein 1741 Verkhauffte bildter ahn Khönig von Pohlen 1741 den 12ten Mertzen. SOA Praha, RA Valdštejn, Mnichovo Hradiště, I–5–24. Published in: Machytka 1986. pp. 69–71. Waldstein 1900 Catalog der gräflich Waldstein’schen Gemälde-Gallerie in Dux [c. 1900]. SOA Praha, RA Valdštejn, Mnichovo Hradiště, I–5–24. Typescript: Machytka 1985–6. Wrschowetz 1723 Catalogus derjenigen rahren und kostbahren Mahlereyen und Bildern […] welche (tit) Ihro Excell. der Gottselige Herr Graff von Werschowitz hinterlassen und […] zu verkaufen stehen. Praha, Národní archiv, Sbírka Wunschwitzova 1333, Vršovec Sekerka 6. Typescript based on the printed catalogue: Machytka 1985–6. 275 BIBLIOGRAPHY Printed sources Achilles 1986–7 Katrin Achilles: Naturstudien von Hans Hoffmann in der Kunstsammlung des Nürnberger Kaufmannes Paulus II Praun. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 82–3. 1986–7. pp. 243–59. Achilles-Syndram 1994 Die Kunstsammlung des Paulus Praun. Die Inventare von 1616 und 1719. Hg. vom Stadtarchiv Nürnberg, bearbeitet von Katrin Achilles-Syndram. (Quellen zur Geschichte und Kultur der Stadt Nürnberg, 25.) Nürnberg, Stadtrat zu Nürnberg, 1994. Achilles-Syndram 1995 Katrin Achilles-Syndram: Die Kunst des Sammelns. Das Praunsche Kabinett. Nürnberg, Verlag des Germanischen Nationalmuseums, 1995. Albert & Isabella 1998 Albert & Isabella 1598–1621. Essays. Ed. by Werner Thomas–Luc Duerloo. Turnhout, Brepols, 1998. Allemand à la cour 2013 Un Allemand à la cour de Louis XIV. De Dürer à Van Dyck, la collection nordique d’Everhard Jabach. Ed. par Blaise Ducos–Olivia Savatier Sjöholm. Exposition catalogue. Paris, Louvre, 2013. Anzelewsky 1991 Fedja Anzelewsky: Albrecht Dürer. Das malerische Werk. Neuausgabe. Berlin, Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1991. 276 Apponyi 1818 Verzeichniß einer auserlesenen Sammlung von Oehlgemählden der berühmtesten Mahler. Aus der Verlassenschaft Wayland Sr. Exellenz des verstorbenen herrn Grafen Anton von Appony […] am 15. Februar und den folgenden Tagen 1818. Wien, J. G. Akkermann, 1818. Aristokracie ducha 2015 Aristokracie ducha a vkusu. Zámecká obrazárna Salm-Reifferscheidtů v Rájci nad Svitavou. Ed. Lubomír Slavíček–Petr Tomášek. Brno, Barrister & Principal–Masarykova univerzita– Moravská galerie v Brně, 2015. Arsentyeva 2008 Elena Arsentyeva: Il Cammeo Gonzaga. Enigmi della storia. In: Il Cammeo Gonzaga. Arti preziose alla corte di Mantova. A cura di Ornella Casazza. Milano, Skira, 2008. pp. 37–45. Arslan 1960 Edoardo Arslan: I Bassano, I–II. Milano, Casa Editrice Ceschina, 1960. Artis pictoriae amatores 1993 Artis pictoriae amatores. Evropa v zcradle pražského barokního sběratelství. Ed. by Lubomír Slavíček. Praha, Národní galerie v Praze, 1993. Arundel 1985 Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel. Patronage and Art Collecting in the Seveteenth Century. Ed. by David Howarth–Diana Scarisbrick. Exhibition catalogue, Oxford, Ashmolean Museum. Oxford, University of Oxford, 1985. BIBLIOGRAPHY Auer 1984 Alfred Auer: Das Inventarium der Ambraser Sammlungen aus dem Jahr 1621. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen, 80. 1984. pp. I–CXXI. Auer 2003 Alfred Auer: Die Sammeltätigkeit Erzherzog Ferdinands II. in Böhmen. In: Kaiser Ferdinand I. (1503—1564). Das Werden der Habsburgermonarchie. Hg. von Wilfried Seipel. Ausstellungskatalog. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2003. Babelon 1897 Ernest Babelon: Catalogue des Camées antiques et modernes de la Bibliothèque Nationale. Paris, E. Leroux, 1897. Bähr 2009 Astrid Bähr: Repräsentieren, bewahren, belehren: Galeriewerke (1660–1800). Von der Darstellung herrschaftlicher Gemäldesammlungen zum populären Bildband. (Studien zur Kunstgeschichte, 178.) Hildesheim–Zürich– New York, Georg Olms Verlag, 2009. Baljöhr 2003 Ruth Baljöhr: Johann von Spillenberger, 1628–1679. Ein Maler des Barock. Weißenhorn, Anton H. Konrad Verlag, 2003. Ballarin 1992 Alessandro Ballarin: Jacopo Bassano 1573– 1580. In: Jacopo Bassano, c. 1510–1592. A cura di Beverly Luise Brown–Paola Marini. Catalogo della mostra. Bassano del Grappa, Museo Civico. Bologna, Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1992. pp. CLXXXIX–CCIII. Ballarin 1995 Alessandro Ballarin: Jacopo Bassano. Scritti 1964–1995, vol. I. Tom. 2. A cura di Vittoria Romani. (Pittura del Rinascimento nell’Italia settentrionale, Quaderni, 2.) Padova, Bertoncello Artigrafice, 1995. Banz 1999 Claudia Banz: Die Gemäldesammlung der Erzherzöge Albrecht und Isabella in Brüssel. Anmerkungen zu ihrer programmatischen Disposition und Funktion. In: Die Künste und das Schloss in der frühen Neuzeit. Hg. von Lutz Unbehaun unter Mitarbeit von Andreas Beyer–Ulrich Schütte. (Rudolstädter Forschungen zur Residenzkultur, 1.) München– Berlin, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 1999. pp. 161–9. Banz 2000 Claudia Banz: Höfisches Mäzenatentum in Brüssel: Kardinal Antoine Perrenot de Granvelle (1517–1586) und die Erzherzöge Albrecht (1559–1621) und Isabella (1566–1633). (Berliner Schriften zur Kunst, 12.) Berlin, Gebrüder Mann, 2000. Barock 1999 Geschichte der bildenden Kunst in Österreich, IV. Barock. Hg. von Helmut Lorenz. München, Prestel, 1999. Barock in Nürnberg 1962 Barock in Nürnberg 1600–1750. Vorw. von Ludwig Grote. (Anzeiger des Germanischen National-Museums, 1962.) Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, 1962. Barocke Bilderlust 1994 Barocke Bilderlust. Hollandische und flämische Gemälde der ehemaligen Sammlung Nostitz aus der Prager Nationalgalerie. Hg. von Lubomír Slavíček. Ausstellungskatalog. Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum, 1994. 277 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barocke Sammellust 2003 Barocke Sammellust. Die Sammlung des Baron Samuel von Brukenthal. Hg. von Jan Seewald. Ausstellungskatalog. München, Haus der Kunst–Wolfratshausen, Edition Minerva, 2003. Baroni Vannucci 1997 Alessandra Baroni Vannucci: Jan van der Straet detto Giovanni Stradano flandrus pictor et inventor. Milano–Roma, Jandi Sapi Editori, 1997. Baroni Vannucci–Sellink 2012 Alessandra Baroni Vannucci–Manfred Sellink: Stradanus 1523–1605. Court artist of the Medici. Turnhout, Brepols, 2012. Bartsch 1970 Adam Bartsch: Le peintre graveur, XIV. Nouvelle éd. Réimpr. complète au format réduit. Hildesheim, Olms, 1970. Barvitius 1889 Victor Barvitius: Katalog der GemäldeGalerie im Künstlerhause Rudolphinum zu Prag. Prag, K. u. K. Hofbuchdruckerei A. Haase–Selbstverlag, 1889. Bassano e l’incisione 1992 Jacopo Bassano e l’incisione. La fortuna dell’ arte bassanesca nella grafica di riproduzione dal XVI al XIX secolo. A cura di Enrica Pan. Catalogo della mostra, Museo Civico di Bassano. Bassano del Grappa, Ghedina & Tassotti, 1992. Bätschmann 1998 Hans Holbein d. J.: Die Darmstädter Madonna. Original gegen Fälschung. (FischerTaschenbücher, 13401). Frankfurt am Main, Fischer-Taschenbuch-Verlag, 1998. 278 Bauer 2015 Alexandra Nina Bauer: Das ungeliebte Erbe. Die Bildergalerie des Berliner Schlosses in friderizianischer Zeit (1740–1786). In: Die Bildergalerie Friedrichs des Großen. Geschichte–Kontext–Bedeutung. Hg. von der Generaldirektion der Stiftug Preußische Schlösser und Gärten Berlin–Brandenburg. Berlin, Schnell– Steiner, 2015. pp. 95–134. Bauer–Haupt 1976 Rotraud Bauer–Herbert Haupt: Die Kunstkammer Kaiser Rudolfs II. in Prag. Ein Inventar aus den Jahren 1607–1611. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 72. 1976. pp. XI–XLV, 1–192. Bender 1981 Elisabeth Bender: Matthäus Gundelach. Leben und Werk. Frankfurt a. M., Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, 1981 (dissertation). Benkő–Garas–Urbach 2003 Éva Benkő– Klára Garas– Zsuzsa Urbach: Museum of Fine Arts Budapest – Old Masters’ Gallery. Summary Catalogue, III. German, Austrian, Bohemian and British Paintings. Ed. by Ildikó Ember–Imre Takács. Budapest, Szépművészeti Múzeum, 2003. Berger 1883 Adolf Berger: Inventar der Kunstsammlung des Erzherzogs Leopold Wilhelm von Österreich. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 1. 1883. reg. 495. pp. LXXIX–CLXXVII. Berger 1887 Adolf Berger: Studien zu den Beziehungen des Erzherzogs Leopold Wilhelm von Oesterreich zu den Grafen Johann Adolf zu Schwar- BIBLIOGRAPHY zenberg. Berichte und Mittheilungen des Alterthums-Vereines zu Wien, 21. 1887. pp. 52–72. Berghe 1992 E. H. van den Berghe: Italiaanse schilderijen in Amsterdam in de zeventiende eeuw. Jaarboek Amstelodamum, 84. 1992. pp. 21–40. Bergner 1905 Paul Bergner: Verzeichnis der Gräflich Nostitzschen Gemälde-Galerie zu Prag. Prag, Druck und Verlag Carl Bellmann, 1905. Bergner 1911 Paul Bergner: Zwei unbekannte Gemälde von Hans Baldung Grien. Jahrbuch des kunsthistorischen Institutes der k. k. Zentral-Kommission für Denkmalpflege, Wien, 1911. pp. 172–4. Bernhard-Walcher 2007 Alfred Bernhard-Walcher: Antike Kameen in den Kunstkammern der Kaiser Rudolf II. und Matthias. In: Mythos und Macht. Erhabene Bilder in Edelstein. Internationales Kolloquium zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung der Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen zu Berlin im Alten Museum am Lustgarten, 27. Juni 2007. Hg. von Gertrud Platz-Horster. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 2007. pp. 61–8. Birnbaumová 1926 Alžbeta Birnbaumová: Archivní materiál k dějinám výstavby, výzdoby a zařízení zámku Troja u Prahy. Památky archeologické, 25. 1926. pp. 618–23. Blažíček 1957 Oldřich J. Blažíček: Rychnovská zámecká obrazárna. Katalog. Praha, Státní Památkové Správy, 1957. Bodenstein 1916 Gustav Bodenstein: Urkunden und Regesten aus dem K. und K. Reichsfinanz-Archiv in Wien. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 33. 1916. pp. I–CXXXII. Bodnár 1986 Szilvia Bodnár: Hans Hoffmanns Zeichnungen in Budapest. Acta Historiae Artium, 32. 1986. pp. 73–122. Boeheim 1888–1889 Wendelin Boeheim: Urkunden und Regesten aus der k. k. Hofbibliothek. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 7. 1888. XCI–CCCXIII; Ibid. 10. 1889. I–XIX. Bonnefoit 1997 Régine Bonnefoit: Johann Wilhelm Baur (1607–1642). Ein Wegbereiter der barocken Kunst in Deutschland. Tübingen, Ernst Wasmuth, 1997. Borea 2009 Evelina Borea: Lo specchio dell’arte italiana. Stampe in cinque secoli, I–IV. Pisa, Edizioni della Scuola Normale Superiore, 2009. Borggrefe 2007 Heiner Borggrefe: Hans Rottenhammer and his Influence on the Collection of Rudolf II. Studia Rudolphina, 7. 2007. pp. 7–21. Boschini 1660 Marco Boschini: La carta del Nauegar Pitoresco. Venetia, Per li Baba, 1660. Bott 1961–2 Gerhard Bott: Stillebenmaler des 17. Jahrhunderts. Isaak Soreau–Peter Binoit. In: Kunst in 279 BIBLIOGRAPHY Hessen und am Mittelrhein, I–II. 1961–2. Darmstadt, Eduard Roether Verlag, 1962. 27–93. Bott 1997 Katharina Bott: „Nur Originalia von einem berühmten guten maister”. Kopie oder Original in der Kunstsammlung von Grafen von Schönborn. Städel Jahrbuch, N. F. 16. 1997. pp. 257–88. Bott 2000 Jan Joost van Cossiau Delitiae imaginum Oder wohl-erlaubte Gemählde Und Bilder-Lust. Die Gemäldesammlung des Lothar Franz Schönborn in Schloss Gaibach/Unterfranken. Der Gemäldekatalog von Jan Joost van Cossiau aus dem Jahre 1721. Hg. und bearb. von Katharina Bott. Weimar, VDG, 2000. Böck 1949 Leopold Böck: Hans Albrecht, Reichsfreiherr von Sprinzenstein, 1543–1598. Innsbruck, 1949 (dissertation). Brandenburgisch-Preussische Kunstkammer 1981 Die Brandenburgisch-Preussische Kunstkammer. Eine Auswahl aus den alten Beständen. Red. Josephine Hildebrand–Christian Theuerkauff. Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 1981. Bredekamp 1993 Horst Bredekamp: Antikensehnsucht und Maschinenglauben. Die Geschichte der Kunstkammer und die Zukunft der Kunstgeschichte. Berlin, Wagenbach, 1993. Bredius 1915–22 Künstler-Inventare. Urkunden zur Geschichte der holländischen Kunst des XVIten, XVIIten 280 und XVIIIten Jahrhunderts, I–VIII. Hg. von Abraham Bredius, unter Mitwirkung von Otto Hirschmann. (Quellenstudien zur Holländischen Kunstgeschichte.) Den Haag, Martinus Nijhoff, 1915–22. Breitenbacher 1925–7 Antonín Breitenbacher: Dějiny arcibiskupské obrazárny v Kroměříži, I–II. Kroměříž, [k. n.], 1925–7. Breitenbacher 1930 Anton Breitenbacher: Die Sammlung Imstenraedt in der Gemäldesammlung des Erzbistums Olmütz in Kremsier und Olmütz. Jahrbuch des Kölnischen Geschichtsvereins, Köln, Verlag des Kölnischen Geschichtsvereins, 1930. pp. 206–16. Bresc-Bautier 1982 Geneviève Bresc-Bautier: Les bustes de Cornelis Witsen et de sa femme par Artus Quellien. Revue du Louvre et des Musées de France, 31. 1982. pp. 278–83. Brinkmann 2006 Bodo Brinkmann: Albrecht Dürer: Zwei Schwestern / Albrecht Dürer: Two Sisters. Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum, 2006. Brotton 2006 Jerry Brotton: The Sale of the Late King’s Goods. Charles I and His Art Collection. London, Macmillan, 2006. Brown 1686 Edward Brown, M. D.: Durch Niederland, Teutschland, Hungarn etc. gethane gantz sonderbare Reisen. Nürnberg, Johann Michael Spörlin, 1686. BIBLIOGRAPHY Brown 1995 Jonathan Brown: Kings & Connoisseurs. Collecting Art in Seventeenth-Century Europe. New Haven–London, Yale University Press, 1995. komitees des CIHA hg. von Hermann Fillitz und Martina Pippal. (Akten des XXV. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Wien, 4–10. September 1983.) Wien–Köln– Graz, Böhlau, 1986. pp. 59–63. Brown 1997 Clifford Malcolm Brown: Isabella d’Este Gonzaga’s „Augustus and Livia” Cameo and the „Alexander and Olympias” Gems in Vienna and Saint Petersburg. In: Engraved Gems: Survivals and Revivals. Ed. by Clifford Malcolm Brown. (Studies in the History of Art, 54.) Washington, National Gallery of Art, 1997. pp. 85–107. Bukovinská 1997 Beket Bukovinská: The „Kunstkammer” of Rudolf II. Where it was and what it looked like. In: Rudolf II and Prague. The Court and the City. Ed. by Eliška Fučíková. London, Thames and Hudson, 1997. pp. 199–208. Bubenik 2005 Andrea Bubenik: The Art of Albrecht Dürer in the Context of the Court of Rudolf II. Studia Rudolphina, 5. 2005. pp. 17–27. Bubenik 2013 Andrea Bubenik: Reframing Albrecht Dürer. The Appropriation of Art, 1528–1700. (Visual culture in early modernity.) Farnham, Ashgate, 2013. Budde 1996 Hendrik Budde: Die Kunstsammlung des Nürnberger Patriziers Willibald Imhoff unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Werke Albrecht Dürers. (Unipress Hochschulschriften, 90.) Münster, LIT Verlag, 1996. Bukovinská 1986 Beket Bukovinská: Die Kunst- und Schatzkammer Rudolfs II. Der Weg vom Rohmaterial zum Sammlungsobjekt als ein Erkenntnisprozeß. In: Der Zugang zum Kunstwerk: Schatzkammer, Salon, Ausstellung, „Museum”. Im Auftrag des Österreichischen National- Bukovinská 1998 Beket Bukovinská: Wer war Johann Rabenhaupt? Unbeachtete Aspekte in den Beziehungen zwischen Prag und Südwestdeutschland. In: Rudolf II., Prague and the World. Papers from the International Conference Prague, 2–4 September, 1997. Ed. by Lubomír Konečný–Beket Bukovinská–Ivan Muchka. Prague, Artefactum, 1998. pp. 89–94. Bukovinská 2003 Beket Bukovinská: Bekannte – unbekannte Kunstkammer Rudolfs II. In: Kunstkammer– Laboratorium–Bühne. Schauplätze des Wissens im 17. Jahrhundert. Hg. von Helmar Schramm–Ludger Schwarte–Jan Lazardzig. (Theatrum Scientiarum, 1.) Berlin–New York, Walter de Gruyter, 2003. pp. 199–225. Bukovinská 2016 Beket Bukovinská: Die Kunstkammer Rudolfs II. – Entstehung, Niedergang, Wiederentdeckung. In: Das Haus Habsburg und die Welt der fürstlichen Kunstkammern im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Hg. von Sabine Haag– Franz Kirchweger–Paulus Rainer. (Schriften des Kunsthistorischen Museums, 15.) Wien, Holzhausen Verlag, 2016. pp. 229–53. 281 BIBLIOGRAPHY Bussmann 1966 Georg Bussmann: Manierismus im Spätwerk Hans Baldung Griens. Die Gemälde der zweiten Straßburger Zeit. Heidelberg, Carl Winter Universitätsverlag, 1966. Buzási 2005 Enikő Buzási: A Köpenyes Madonna Árpásról: Jan Thomas Nádasdy Ferenc számára festett műve 1663-ból. (Meghatározás, datálás, attribúció.) Művészettörténeti Értesítő, 54. 2005. pp. 245–86. Buzási 2015 Enikő Buzási: Vonzások és választások a gyűjtő Esterházy Pál mecenatúrájában. In: Esterházy Pál, a műkedvelő mecénás. Egy 17. századi arisztokrata-életpálya a politika és a művészet határvidékén. Ed. by Pál Ács. Budapest, Reciti, 2015. pp. 117–49. Campori 1870 Giuseppe Campori: Raccolta di cataloghi ed inventarii inediti. Modena, Carlo Vincenzi, 1870. Capolavori della pittura veneta 1994 Capolavori della pittura veneta dal Castello di Praga. A cura di Eliška Fučíková, con scritti di Sergio Marinelli, Paola Marini. Milano, Electa, 1994. Carpzov 1716 Johann Benedict Carpzov: Analecta Fastorum Zittaviensium oder historischer Schauplatz der Löblichen Alten Sechs-Stadt des Marggraffthums Ober-Lausitz Zittau, Zittau– Leipzig, Johan Jacob Schöps, 1716. Catalog Lippmann 1876 Hugo Othmar Miethke: Catalog einer Sammlung von Gemälden altdeutscher und altnieder282 ländischer Meister. Wien, Kunsthandlung H. O. Miethke, 1876. Catalogue Birckenstock 1810 Catalogue des tableaux et dessins des maîtres célèbres des différentes écoles […] qui composent le cabinet de feu Mr. J. M. de Birckenstock. Vienne, Artaria, 1810. Catalogue d’Alberg 1817 A Catalogue of the Highly distinguished and very celebrated Collection of Italian, Flemish, and Dutch Pictures, the genuine property of His Grace The Duke de d’Alberg, Ambassador from the Court of France to Turin. Which will be sold by Auction by Mr. Christie […] On Friday, June the 13th, 1817 and following Day. London, Christie’s, 1817. [=Lugt 9162; Getty Sale Catalog Br-1547] Catalogue Lavallée 1816 Catalogue d’une belle collection de tableaux et dessins des Ecoles Hollandaise, Flamande, et Française; de Bronzes, et Objets de Curiosité. Dont la vente aura lieu les lundi et mardi 11 et 12 novembre 1816 […] Hôtel de Bullion, rue Jean-Jacques Rousseau, no. 3. Paris, M. A. Lavallée–M. Revenaz, 1816. [=Lugt 8992; Getty Sale Catalog F-695] Catalogue Norvins 1816 Catalogue d’une collection de tableaux des trois écoles […] le tout provenant du Cabinet de M. M.***de N.***. Dont la vente aura lieu les 6, 7, 8, et 9 Mars 1816 […] rue Tait-bout No. 16. Paris, Poultier–Paillet, 1816. [=Lugt 8827; Getty Sale Catalog F-630] Catalogus lapidum pretiosorum 1677 Catalogus Lapidum pretiosorum, Achatum, Onycum, Sardonycum, Jaspidum, Corneolorum, Granatorum caelatorum, sculptorum, BIBLIOGRAPHY simulacrorum, statuarum, ac Omnis generis antiquae supellectilis, nec non Numismatum Graecorum Romanorum Indorum & et aliarum gentium. Antiquorum, Recentiorum, Aureorum, Argenteorum, Aereorum, exquisitae elegantiae, probitatis, raritatis. Longa annorum serie, indefesso labore, maxima impensa congestorum. Amstelodami, [k. n.] 1677. Catalogus lapidum pretiosorum 1688 Catalogus Lapidum pretiosorum, Achatum, Onycum, Sardonycum, Jaspidum, Corneolorum, Granatorum caelatorum, sculptorum, simulacrorum, statuarum, ac Omnis generis antiquae supellectilis, nec non Numismata Graecorum Romanorum Indorum & et aliarum gentium. Antiquorum, Recentiorum, Aureorum, Argenteorum, Aereorum, exquisitae elegantiae, probitatis, raritatis. Longa annorum serie, indefesso labore, maxima impensa congestorum. Amstelodami, Apud Joannem de Wees, 1688. Cenner-Wilhelmb 1970 Gizella Cenner-Wilhelmb: Zrínyi Péter arcképei. Folia Archaeologica, 21. 1970. pp. 177–92. Checa Cremades 1992 Fernando Checa Cremades: Felipe II. Mecenas de las artes. Madrid, Nerea, 1992. Chiffinch–Vertue 1758 A catalogue of the collection of pictures, &c. belonging to King James the Second […]. Signed by William Chiffinch, transcribed by George Vertue. London, W. Bathoe, 1758. Christina Queen of Sweden 1966 Christina Queen of Sweden. A personality of European civilisation. Exhibition catalogue. Stockholm, Nationalmuseum, 1966. Collezione Borgia 2001 La Collezione Borgia, curiosità e tesori da ogni parte del mondo. A cura di Anna Germano– Marco Nocca. Catalogo della mostra, Velletri, Museo Civico. Napoli, Electa, 2001. Cook 1905 Herbert Cook: The True Portrait of Laura de’Dianti by Titian. The Burlington Magazine, 7. 1905. pp. 449–55. Coreth 1950 Anna Coreth: Österreichische Geschichtsschreibung in der Barockzeit (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für neuere Geschichte Österreichs, 37.) Wien, Holzhausen, 1950. Cox 1911 Mary L. Cox: Inventory of the Arundel Collection. The Burlington Magazine, 19. 1911. pp. 323–5. Cremer 1989 Claudia Susannah Cremer: Hagedorns Geschmack. Studien zur Kunstkennerschaft in Deutschland im 18. Jahrhundert. Bonn, Universität, 1989 (dissertation). Crenshaw 2006 Paul Crenshaw: Rembrandt’s Bancruptcy. The Artist, his Patrons, and the Art Market in Seventeenth-Century Netherlands. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2006. Curjel 1923 Hans Curjel: Hans Baldung Grien. München, Recht, 1923. Cust–Cox 1911 Lionel Cust–Mary L. Cox: Notes on the Collections Formed by Thomas Howard, Earl of 283 BIBLIOGRAPHY Arundel and Surrey, K. G. The Burlington Magazine, 19. 1911. pp. 278–86. Csaki 1909 Michael Csaki: Baron Brukenthal’sches Museum in Hermannstadt. Führer durch die Gemäldegalerie. Hermannstadt, Selbstverlag des Museums, 19015. Czobor 1973 Ágnes Czobor: Rembrandt és köre. Budapest, Corvina, 1973. DaCosta Kaufmann 1978 Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann: Remarks on the Collections of Rudolf II: The Kunstkammer as a Form of Representatio. Art Journal, 38. 1978. pp. 22–8. DaCosta Kaufmann 1985 Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann: Hermeneutics in the History of Art: Remarks on the Reception of Dürer in the Sixteenth and the Early Seventeenth Centuries. In: New Perspectives on the Art of Renaissance Nuremberg: Five Essays. Ed. Jeffrey Chipps Smith. Austin, The Archer M. Huntington Art Gallery, College of Fine Arts–The University of Texas at Austin, 1985. pp. 22–39. DaCosta Kaufmann 1988 Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann: The School of Prague: Painting at the Court of Rudolf II. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1988. DaCosta Kaufmann 1998 Archduke Albrecht as an Austrian Habsburg and Prince of the Empire. In: Albert & Isabella 1598–1621. Ed. by Werner Thomas–Luc Duerloo. Bruxelles, Brepols, 1998. pp. 15–25. 284 Danesi Squarzina 2003 Silvia Danesi Squarzina: La collezione di Cristina di Svezia, un Cupido riconsiderato e due inventari. In: Cristina di Svezia. Le collezioni reali. A cura di Stefania Di Gioia. Milano, Electa, 2003. pp. 43–89. Davies 1907 Randall Davies: An inventory of the Duke of Buckingham’s Pictures, etc. at York House in 1635. The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, 10. 1907. no. 48. pp. 376, 379–82. DBI 1984 Dizionario biografico degli italiani, XXX. Roma, Istituto dell’Enciclopedia italiana, 1984. De Marchi–Van Miegroet 1996 Neil De Marchi–Hans J. van Miegroet: Pricing Invention: „Originals”, „Copies”, and their Relative Value in Seventeenth Century Netherlandish Art Markets. In: Economics of the Arts. Selected Essays. Ed. by Victor A. Ginsburgh–Pierre-Michel Menger. Amsterdam, Elsevier, 1996. pp. 27–70. De wereld binnen handbereik 1992 De wereld binnen handbereik. Nederlandse kunst- en rariteitenverzamelingen, 1585–1735. Red. Elinoor Bergvelt–Renée Kistemaker. Amsterdam–Zwolle, Amsterdams Historisch Museum–Waanders Uitgevers, 1992. del Torre Scheuch 2014 Francesca del Torre Scheuch: Leopold Wilhelm und die italienische Malerei. In: Sammellust. Die Galerie Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelms. Hg. von Sabine Haag. Ausstellungskatalog. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2014. pp. 81–91. BIBLIOGRAPHY Denucé 1931 Jan Denucé: Kunstuitvoer in de 17e eeuw te Antwerpen de Firma Forchoudt. (Bronnen voor de Geschiedenis van de vlaamsche Kunst, 1.) ’s-Gravenhage, Martinus Nijhoff, 1931. The Artist between Court and City (1300– 1600). Hg. von Dagmar Eichberger–Andreas Tacke–Philippe Lorentz. (Quellen und Studien zur Künstlersozialgeschichte). Petersberg, Michael Imhoff Verlag, 2017. pp. 327–40. Denucé 1932 Jan Denucé: De Antwerpsche „Konstkamers”. Inventarissen van Kunstverzamelingen te Antwerpen in de 16e en 17e Eeuwen. (Bronnen voor de Geschiedenis van de Vlaamsche Kunst, 2.) Amsterdam, De Spieghel, 1932. Dillis 1831 Georg von Dillis: Verzeichniss der Gemälde in der königlich bayerischen Gallerie zu Schleissheim. Verfasst im Jahre 1830. München, J. G. Fleischmann, 1831. Denucé 1949 Jan Denucé: Na Peter Pauwel Rubens. Documenten uit den Kunsthandel te Antwerpen in de XVIIe eeuw van Matthijs Musson. (Bronnen voor de Geschiedenis van de vlaamsche Kunst, 5.) Antwerpen, Uitgave de Sikkel–’s-Gravenhage, Martinus Nijhoff, 1949. Distelberger 1978 Rudolf Distelberger: Beobachtungen zu den Steinschneidewerkstätten der Miseroni in Mailand und Prag. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 74. 1978. pp. 79–152. Dialog mit alten Meistern 1997 Dialog mit alten Meistern. Prager Kabinettmalerei 1690–1750. Ausstellungskatalog. Hg. von Hana Seifertová, in Zusammenarbeit mit Anja K. Ševčík. Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, 1997. Distelberger 1985 Rudolf Distelberger: The Habsburg Collections in Vienna during the Seventeenth Century. In: The Origins of Museums. The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe. Ed. by Oliver Impey–Arthur McGregor. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1985. pp. 39–46. Díaz Padrón–Royo-Villanova 1990 Matías Díaz Padrón–Mercedes Royo-Villanova: David Teniers, Jan Breughel y los gabinetes de pinturas. Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, 1990. Dlabacž 1815 Gottfried Johann Dlabacž: Allgemeines historisches Künstler-Lexikon für Böhmen und zum Theil auch für Mähren und Schlesien, I. Prag, Gottlieb Haase, 1815. Dictionary of Art 1996 The Dictionary of Art, XVII. Ed. by Jane Turner. New York, Grove, 1996. Doering 1894 Oscar Doering: Des Augsburger Patriciers Philipp Hainhofer Beziehungen zum Herzog Philipp II. von Pommern-Stettin. (Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und Kunsttechnik des Mittelalters und der Neuzeit, N. F. 6.) Wien, Verlag von Carl Graeser, 1894. Diefenthaler 2017 Sandra-Kristin Diefenthaler: Ein städtischer Hofkünstler: Christoph Schwarz. In: 285 BIBLIOGRAPHY Dokumentation der Verluste 1995 Dokumentation der Verluste, I. Gemäldegalerie. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin – Preußischer Kulturbesitz. Bearbeitet von Rainer Michaelis. Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1995. Dombrowski 2000 Damian Dombrowski: Dresden–Prag: Italienische Achsen in der zwischenhöfischen Kommunikation. In: Elbflorenz. Italienische Präsenz in Dresden 16–19. Jahrhundert. Hg. von Barbara Marx. Dresden, Verlag der Kunst Dresden, 2000. pp. 63–99. Dorotheum 1921 Gemälde des 16. bis 19. Jahrh. Aquarelle, Miniaturen, Graphik […]. (313. Kunstauktion. Versteigerung 27 bis 29. und 31. Jänner, sowie 1. Februar 1921.) Wien, Versteigerungsamt Dorotheum, 1921. Dubois de Saint Gelais 1727 Louis-François Dubois de Saint Gelais: Description des Tableaux du Palais Royal de Paris… Paris, Chez d’Houry, 1727. Dudok van Heel 1975 S. A. C. Dudok van Heel: De Kunstverzamelingen van Lennep met de Arundel-Tekeningen. Amstelodamum, 67. 1975. pp. 137–48. Dudík 1865 Beda Dudík: Des Hoch- und Deutschmeisters Erzherzog’s Maximilian I. Testament und Verlassenschaft von Jahr 1619. Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichts-Quellen, 33. 1865. pp. 235–52. Dudík 1867 Beda Dudík: Die Rudolphinische Kunst- und Raritätenkammer in Prag. Mittheilungen der k. k. Central-Commission zur Erforschung 286 und Erhaltung der Baudenkmale, 12. 1867. pp. XXXIII–XLIV. Duverger 1972 Erik Duverger: La Commerce d’Art entre la Flandre et ľEurope Centrale au XVIIe siècle. Notes et Remarques. In: Actes du XXIIe Congrès International d’Histoire de ľArt Budapest 1969, II. Evolution Generale et Developpements Regionaux en Histoire de ľArt. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1972. pp. 157–81. Duverger 1984–2002 Erik Duverger: Antwerpse Kunstinventarissen uit de Zeventientiende eeuw, I–XII. Brussel, Paleis der Academien, 1984–2002. Dürer-Renaissance 1971 Dürer-Renaissance. Einleitung und Katalogbearbeitung von Gisela Goldberg. Ausstellungskatalog, München, Alte Pinakothek, 1971. Edward i Atanazy Raczyńscy 2010 Edward i Atanazy Raczyńscy. Dzieła–osobowości–wybory–epoka / Edward und Atanazy Raczyński. Werke–Persönlichkeiten–Bekenntnisse–Epoche / Edward and Atanazy Raczyński. Works–Personalities–Choices–Era. Red. Adam S. Labuda–Michał Mencfel–Wojciech Suchocki. Poznań, Muzeum Narodowe w Poznaniu, 2010. Eichler–Kris 1927 Fritz Eichler–Ernst Kris: Die Kameen im Kunsthistorischen Museum. Beschreibender Katalog. Wien, Anton Schroll & Co., 1927. Einmal Weimar 2005 Einmal Weimar – Wien und retour. Johann Sebastian Müller und sein Wienbericht aus dem Jahr 1660. Hg. von Katrin Keller–Martin BIBLIOGRAPHY Scheutz–Harald Tersch. Wien–München, Oldenbourg Verlag, 2005. Eitelberger 1845 [Rudolf von Eitelberger]: Ueber einige Werke von Dürer und Holbein in der Kunstsammlung des Direktors Böhm zu Wien. Kunstblatt, 26. 1845. No. 34 (Dienstag, den 29. April 1845). pp. 141–2. Eitelberger 1847 Rudolf von Eitelberger: Die Kunstsammlung des Hrn. Direktors J. D. Böhm in Wien. Österreichische Blätter für Literatur, Kunst, Geschichte, Geographie, Statistik und Naturkunde, 4. 1847. no. 250. (19 October 1847) pp. 993–5; no. 251. (20 October 1847) pp. 997–9; no. 252. (21 October 1847) pp. 1002–4, no. 253. (22 October 1847) pp. 1006–8; no. 255. (25 October 1847) pp. 1013–6; no. 259. (29 October 1847) pp. 1029–31; no. 260. (30 October 1847) pp. 1033–4. Elsner 2012 Ines Elsner: Friedrich III./I. von Brandenburg-Preußen (1688–1713) und die Berliner Residenzlandschaft. Studien zu einem frühneuzeitlichen Hof auf Reisen. Ein Residenzhandbuch. Berlin, BWV, 2012. Engerth 1882–6 Eduard Ritter von Engerth: Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Gemälde. Beschreibendes Verzeichniss, I. Italienische, Spanische und französische Schulen. Wien, Selbstverlag der Direction, 1882; II. Niederländische Schulen. Wien, Selbstverlag der Direction, 1884; III. Deutsche Schulen, Wien, 1886. Ernstberger 1954 Anton Ernstberger: Kurfürst Maximilian I. und Albrecht Dürer. Zur Geschichte einer großen Sammelleidenschaft. In: Vom Nachleben Dürers. Beiträge zur Kunst der Epoche von 1530 bis 1650. (Anzeiger des Germanischen National-Museums, Nürnberg, 1940–53.) Berlin, Verlag Gebrüder Mann, 1954. pp. 145–96. Ertz 1984 Klaus Ertz: Jan Breughel der Jüngere (1601– 1678). Die Gemälde mit kritischem Œuvrekatalog. (Flämische Maler im Umkreis der Großen Meister, 1.). Freren, Luca Verlag, 1984. Ertz 1988/2000 Klaus Ertz: Pieter Brueghel der Jüngere (1564– 1637/38). Die Gemälde mit kritischem Œuvrekatalog, I–II. Lingen, Luca Verlag, 1988/2000. Ember 1974 Ildikó Ember: Les tableaux de Jan van Ossenbeck a Budapest. Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, 42. 1974. pp. 91–101. Ertz 2008–10 Klaus Ertz–Christa Nitze-Ertz: Jan Brueghel d. Ä. Kritischer Katalog der Gemälde, I–IV. Lingen, Luca Verlag, 2008–10. Ember–Gosztola–Urbach 2000 Ildikó Ember– Annamária Gosztola– Zsuzsa Urbach: Museum of Fine Arts Budapest – Old Masters’ Gallery. Summary Catalogue, II. Early Netherlandish, Dutch and Flemish Paintings. Ed. by Ildikó Ember– Zsuzsa Urbach. Budapest, Szépművészeti Múzeum, 2000. Ertz 2014 Klaus Ertz–Christa Nitze-Ertz: Marten van Cleve, 1524–1581. Kritischer Katalog der Gemälde und Zeichnungen. (Flämische Maler im Umkreis der großen Meister, 9.) Lingen, Luca Verlag, 2014. 287 BIBLIOGRAPHY Evans 1997 R. J. W. Evans: Rudolf II and his world. A study in intellectual history 1576–1612. London, Thames and Hudson, 1997. „Verzeichnuss der Zaichnungen und Handrüsz”. In: Festschrift für Konrad Oberhuber. Hg. von Achim Gnann–Heinz Widauer. Milano, Electa, 2000. pp. 431–42. Fabiankowitsch 2014 Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelm und der Niederländische Kunstmarkt. In: Sammellust. Die Galerie Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelms. Hg. von Sabine Haag. Ausstellungskatalog. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2014. pp. 45–51. Fernandez 2012 Catherine Fernandez: Kingship and the Materiality of Cameos. The Afterlife of the Grand Camée in Capetian Paris. Athanor, 30. 2012. pp. 13–20. Faille de Waerloos 1903 Catalogue des tableaux anciens formant les collections René della Faille de Waerloos à Anvers […] La vente aura lieu le 7 juillet 1903 […] sous la direction de MM. Frederik Muller & Cie, Amsterdam, 1903. Fairfax 1758 A Catalogue of the Curious Collection of Pictures of George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham in which is included the valuable Collection of Sir Peter Paul Rubens […] written by Brian Fairfax. London, Bathoe, 1758. Falomir Faus 2001 Miguel Falomir Faus: Los Bassano en la España del siglo de oro. Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado, 2001. Fanti 1767 Vincenzio Fanti: Descrizzione completa di tutto ciò che ritrovasi nella galleria di pittura e scultura di sua altezza Giuseppe Wenceslao del S. R. I. Principe Regnante della casa di Liechtenstein […]. Vienna, Giovanni Tommaso de Trattnern, 1767. Ferino-Pagden 2000 Sylvia Ferino-Pagden: Zur Sammeltätigkeit Erzherzogs Leopold Wilhelm (1614–1662). 288 Festetits 1859 Katalog der auserlesenen Gemälde-Sammlung alter Meister der italienischen, niederländischen und altdeutschen Schule […] des Herrn Samuel Grafen von Festetits. Wien, J. B. Wallishausser, 1859. Filipczak 1987 Zirka Zaremba Filipczak: Picturing Art in Antwerp 1550–1700. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, 1987. Fischer 1812 Joseph Fischer: Catalog der Gemählde-Gallerie des durchlautigen Fürsten Esterhazy von Galantha, zu Laxenburg bei Wien. Wien, Mathias Andreas Schmidt, 1812. Flechsig 1928 Eduard Flechsig: Albrecht Dürer: sein Leben und seine künstlerische Entwickelung, I. Berlin, Grote, 1928. Fleischer 1910 Victor Fleischer: Fürst Karl Eusebius von Liechtenstein als Bauherr und Kunstsammler (1611–1684). Wien–Leipzig, C. W. Stern, 1910. Fleischhauer 1976 Werner Fleischhauer: Die Geschichte der Kunstkammer der Herzöge von Württemberg BIBLIOGRAPHY in Stuttgart. Stuttgart, W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1976. Floerke 1905 Hanns Floerke: Studien zur niederländischen Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte. Die Formen des Kunsthandels, das Atelier und die Sammler in den Niederlanden vom 15. bis 18. Jahrhundert. München–Leipzig, Georg Müller, 1905. Fontaine Vervey 1969 Herman de la Fontaine Vervey: Michel le Blon. Graveur, kunsthandelaer, diplomat. Jaarboek van het Genootschap Amstelodamum, 61. 1969. pp. 103–25. Galerie des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen. Berichte und Mittheilungen des Alterthums-Vereines zu Wien, 26. 1890. pp. 31–40. Frimmel 1890–1 Theodor von Frimmel: Ein unbekanntes Bild von Lucas Cranach d. Ä. Alte Gemälde im Schlosse zu Enns. Kunstchronik. Wochenschrift für Kunst und Kunstgewerbe, N. F. 2. 1890–1. no. 17. (26 Februar) pp. 289–93. Frimmel 1892a Theodor von Frimmel: Kleine Galeriestudien, I. Bamberg, C. C. Buchner Verlag, 1892. Förster 1930 Otto H. Förster: Die Gemäldegalerie Franz von Imstenraedt nach dem Verzeichnis von 1673. Jahrbuch des Kölnischen Geschichtsvereins, Köln, Verlag des Kölnischen Geschichtsvereins, 1930. pp. 217–20. Frimmel 1892b Theodor von Frimmel: Zur Geschichte der Wrschowetz’schen Gemälde-Sammlung in Prag. Mitteilungen der k. k. Zentral Commision zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen Denkmale, N. F. 17. 1892. pp. 22–6. Frankl 1938 Paul Frankl: Die Persephone-Bilder von Lambert Sustris, Rubens und Rembrandt. Oud Holland, 40. 1938. pp. 156–71. Frimmel 1892c Theodor von Frimmel: Die Galerie Nostitz in Prag. In: Idem: Kleine Galeriestudien, I. Bamberg, C. C. Buchner Verlag, 1892. pp. 115–37. Friedländer–Rosenberg 1979 Max J. Friedländer–Jakob Rosenberg: Die Gemälde von Lucas Cranach. Basel–Boston– Stuttgart, Birkhäuser Verlag, 1979. Frimmel 1894 Theodor von Frimmel: Kleine Galeriestudien. Neue Folge [2]. Die Gemäldesammlung in Hermannstadt. Wien, Verlag von Gerold & Cie. 1894. Frimmel 1886 Theodor von Frimmel: Carl Andreas Ruthart. Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, 9. 1886. pp. 129–49. Frimmel 1890 Theodor von Frimmel: Mittheilungen über die Gemäldesammlungen von Alt-Wien, I. Die Frimmel 1895–6 Theodor von Frimmel: Mittheilungen aus den Gemäldesammlungen von Alt-Wien, VI. Die Galerie des Fürsten Wenzel Anton Kaunitz. Berichte und Mittheilungen des Alterthums-Vereines zu Wien, 31. 1895. pp. 31–50. and VIII. Ibid. 32. 1896. pp. 1–19. 289 BIBLIOGRAPHY Frimmel 1896 Theodor von Frimmel: Gemalte Galerien. Berlin, Verlag von Georg Siemens, 18962. Frimmel 1898 Theodor von Frimmel: Galeriestudien (Dritte Folge der Kleinen Galeriestudien). Geschichte der Wiener Gemäldesammlungen, I. Die Kaiserliche Gemäldesammlung. Leipzig, Verlag von Georg Heinrich Meyer, 1898. Frimmel 1904 Theodor von Frimmel: Handbuch der Gemäldekunde. Leipzig, Verlagsbuchhandlung von J. J. Weber, 19042. Frimmel 1908 Theodor von Frimmel: Die Gemäldesammlung in Wisowitz. Blätter für Gemäldekunde, 4. 1908. no. 7. pp. 145–53. Frimmel 1909 Theodor von Frimmel: Von der Galerie Nostitz in Prag. Blätter für Gemäldekunde, 5. 1909. no. 1. pp. 1–9. Frimmel 1910 Theodor von Frimmel: Verzeichnis einer Wiener Bilder-Lotterie vom Jahre 1670. Beilage der Blätter für Gemäldekunde, I. 1910. 5. Lieferung, pp. 141–8. Frimmel 1914 Theodor von Frimmel: Lexikon der Wiener Gemäldesammlungen, I–II. München, Georg Müller Verlag, 1914. Frimmel 1916 Theodor von Frimmel: Versteckte Bilder von Frans de Neve. Studien und Skizzen zur Gemäldekunde, 2. 1916. VII–VIII. Lieferung, pp. 118–20. 290 Frimmel 1922 Theodor von Frimmel: Jacob Toorenvliet als Wiener Maler und die Verteilung seiner Arbeiten in österreichischen Galerien. In: Idem: Von alter und neuer Kunst. Ausgewählte kunstgeschichtliche Aufsätze. Wien, Carl Stephenson Verlag, 1922. pp. 69–81. Fučíková 1972a Eliška Fučíková: Sprangerův obraz „Venuše a Adónis” v zámecké galerii v Duchcově. Umění, 20. 1972. pp. 347–59. Fučíková 1972b Eliška Fučíková: Umělci na dvoře Rudolfa II. a jejich vztah k tvorbě Albrechta Dürera. Umění, 20 1972. pp. 146–66. Fučíková 1985 Eliška Fučíková: The Collection of Rudolf II at Prague: Cabinet of Curiosities or Scientific Museum? In: The Origins of Museums. The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe. Ed. by Oliver Impey–Arthur McGregor. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1985. pp. 47–51. Fučíková 1986 Eliška Fučíková: Die Kunstkammer und Galerie Kaiser Rudolfs II. als eine Studiensammlung. In: Der Zugang zum Kunstwerk: Schatzkammer, Salon, Ausstellung, „Museum”. Im Auftrag des Österreichischen Nationalkomitees des CIHA. Hg. von Hermann Fillitz und Martina Pippal. (Akten des XXV. Internationalen Kongresses für Kunstgeschichte, Wien, 4–10. September 1983.) Wien–Köln– Graz, Böhlau, 1986. pp. 53–8. Fučíková 1988 Eliška Fučíková: Die Malerei am Hofe Rudolfs II. In: Prag um 1600. Kunst und Kultur BIBLIOGRAPHY am Hofe Rudolfs II. Ausstellungskatalog, Kulturstiftung Ruhr, Villa Hügel, Essen. Freren, Luca Verlag, 1988. pp. 177–92. Fučíková 1996 Eliška Fučíková: Zur Geschichte der Gemäldegalerie auf der Prager Burg. In: Meisterwerke der Prager Burggalerie. Hg. von Eliška Fučíková–Wolfgang Prohaska–Karl Schütz. Ausstellungskatalog. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum–Milano, Skira, 1996. pp. 11–9. Fučíková 1998 Eliška Fučíková: Das Schicksal der Sammlungen Rudolfs II. vor dem Hintergrund des Dreißigjährigen Krieges. In: 1648 – Krieg und Frieden in Europa, II. Hg. von Klaus Bussmann–Heinz Schilling. Ausstellungskatalog, Münster, Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte. Münster–Osnabrück, Veranstaltungsgesellschaft 350 Jahre Westfälischer Friede, 1998. pp. 273–93. Fučíková 2009 Eliška Fučíková: Obrazárna Pražského hradu. Domenico Fetti–Christian Schröder: Kristus na hoře Olivetské. In: Orbis artium. K jubileu Lubomíra Slavíčka. Ed. Jiří Kroupa–Michaela Šeferisová Loudová–Lubomír Konečný. Brno, Masarykova univerzita, 2009. pp. 679–85. Fučíková–Konečný 1983 Eliška Fučíková–Lubomír Konečný: Einige Bemerkungen zur „Gesichts-Allegorie” von Paolo Fiammingo und zu seinen Aufträgen für die Fugger. Arte veneta, 37. 1983. pp. 67–76. Fusenig 2010–1 Thomas Fusenig: Unbekannte Werke des Malers Friedrich Christoph Steinhammer (tätig 1612–1640?). Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague, 20–1. 2010–1. pp. 63–7. Galavics 1993 Galavics Géza: Netherlandish Baroque Painters and Graphic Artists in 17th-Century Central Europe. In: Barokk művészet Közép-Európában. Utak és találkozások / Baroque Art in Central Europe. Crossroads. Ed. by Géza Galavics. Budapest, Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, 1993. pp. 83–106. Galavics 2005 Géza Galavics: Jan Thomas, az utolsó Rubens-tanítvány és magyar mecénásai. Művészettörténeti Értesítő, 54. 2005. pp. 19–40. Galavics 2006–2007 Galavics Géza: Niederländer in Wien – Auftraggeber aus Ungarn. Ein unbekanntes Modello für ein Altarbild des Rubens-Schülers Jan Thomas (1669). Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 55–6. 2006–7. pp. 209–23. Galerie du Palais Royal 1786–1808 Galerie du Palais Royal gravée d’après les Tableaux des différentes Ecoles qui la composent […], I–III. Paris, Couché, 1786–1808. Garas 1967 Klára Garas: Die Entstehung der Galerie des Erzherzogs Leopold Wilhelm. Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 63. 1967. pp. 39–80. Garas 1968 Klára Garas: Das Schicksal der Sammlung des Erzherzogs Leopold Wilhelm. Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 61. 1968. pp. 181–278. 291 BIBLIOGRAPHY Garas 1970 Klára Garas: Zur Geschichte der Kunstsammlungen Rudolfs II. Umění, 18. 1970. pp. 134–41. Garas 1981 Klára Garas: Ergänzungen zur Caravaggio-Forschung. In: Ars auro prior. Studia Ioanni Białostocki Sexagenario dicata. Red. Juliusz A. Chrościcki–Nawojka Cieślińska-Lobkowicz. Warszawa, Państwowe wydawnictwo naukowe, 1981. pp. 397–401. Garen 2003 Andrea Garen: Mucius Scaevola vor Porsenna. Frühneuzeitliche Auffassungen einer römischen Bürgertugend in der europäischen Malerei vom 15–18. Jahrhundert. Osnabrück, Universitätsbibliothek, 2003 (dissertation). Geffroy 1855 Auguste Geffroy: Notices et extraits des manuscrits concernant l’histoire ou la littérature de la France. Paris, Imprimerie Impériale, 1855. Garas 1987 Klára Garas: Die Sammlung Buckingham und die kaiserliche Galerie. Wiener Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 40. 1987. pp. 111–21. Geissler 1960 Heinrich Geissler: Christoph Schwartz, ca. 1548–1592. Freiburg im Breisgau, Albert-Ludwig-Universität, 1960 (dissertation). Garas 1997 Klára Garas: Deutsche Meister und Werke des 17. Jahrhunderts. Der Barock in Mitteleuropa. Bulletin du Musée Hongrois des Beaux-Arts, 86. 1997. pp. 41–58. Geissler 1961 Heinrich Geissler: Eine Zeichnung von Rubens nach Christoph Schwarz. Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 3. 1961. pp. 192–6. Garas 1999 Klára Garas: Die Geschichte der Gemäldegalerie Esterházy. In: Von Bildern und anderen Schätzen. Die Sammlungen der Fürsten Esterházy. (Esterházy-Studien, 2.) Hg. von Gerda Mraz–Géza Galavics. Wien–Köln–Weimar, Böhlau, 1999. pp. 101–74. Gelder 1992 Roelof van Gelder: Liefhebbers en geleerde luiden. Nederlandse kabinetten en hun bezoekers. In: De wereld binnen handbereik. Nederlandse kunst- en rariteitenverzamelingen, 1585–1735. Red. Elinoor Bergvelt–Renée Kistemaker. Amsterdam–Zwolle, Amsterdams Historisch Museum–Waanders Uitgevers, 1992. pp. 259–92, 309–12. Garas 2001 Klára Garas: A budai vár egykori gyűjteménye. Képek a Szépművészeti Múzeumban. Tanulmányok Budapest Múltjából, 29. 2001. pp. 381–410. Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister 2005 Gemäldegalerie Alte Meister Dresden, I–II. Illustriertes Gesamtverzeichnis. Hg. von Harald Marx. Köln, König, 2005. Garas 2006 Klára Garas: Festő, restaurátor, képkereskedő: Adam Braun (1748–1827) és a magyar műbarátok. Ars Hungarica, 34. 2006. pp. 83–94. Gemäldegalerie Berlin 1930 Staatliche Museen Berlin. Die Gemäldegalerie. Die italienischen Meister 16. bis 18. Jahrhundert. Berlin, Paul Cassirer Verlag, 1930 292 BIBLIOGRAPHY Gemäldegalerie KHM 1965 Katalog der Gemäldegalerie, I. Teil: Italiener, Spanier, Franzosen, Engländer. II. Teil: Vlamen, Holländer, Deutsche, Franzosen. Bearbeitet von Friderike Klauner–Günther Heinz. (Führer durch das Kunsthistorische Museum, no. 3.) Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 19652. Gemäldegalerie KHM 1991 Sylvia Ferino-Pagden–Wolfgang Prohaska–Karl Schütz: Die Gemäldegalerie des Kunsthistorischen Museums in Wien. Verzeichnis der Gemälde. (Führer durch das Kunsthistorische Museum, no. 40.) Wien, Christian Brandstätter, 1991. Gemäldegalerie Kroměříž 1999 Gemäldegalerie Kroměříž. Katalog der Gemäldesammlung des erzbischöflichen Schlosses in Kroměříž (Kremsier). Hg. von Milan Togner. Kroměříž, MIM, 1999. Gemälde-Galerie 1895 August Schaeffer–Wilhelm von Wartenegg–Hermann Dollmayr: Kunsthistorische Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Führer durch die Gemälde-Galerie. Alte Meister, I–II. Wien, Selbstverlag der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 1894 [1895]. Gemälde-Galerie Brukenthal 1844 Die Gemälde-Galerie des freiherrlichen v. Brukenthalischen Museums in Hermannstadt. Hermannstadt, [k. n.], 1844. Gesamtinventar HHStA 1938 Gesamtinventar des Wiener Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchivs, aufgebaut auf der Geschichte des Archivs und seiner Bestände, III. Hg. von Ludwig Bittner et al. Wien, Verlag Adolf Holzhausens Nachfolger, 1938. Ghelfi 2012 Barbara Ghelfi: „Le pitture spontano al fine quel che non possono spuntare i nostri stenti, et le nostre fatiche.” Doni artistici di Cesare d’Este a Rodolfo II. (1598–1604). In: La corte estense nel primo Seicento. Diplomazia e mecenatismo artistico. A cura di Elena Fumagalli–Gianvittorio Signorotto. (I libri di Viella, 147.) Roma, Viella, 2012. pp. 93–133. Giesecke 1982 Rolf Giesecke: Die Nachkommen des Valentin Mannagetta. Hg. von der Johann Wilhelm Ritter von Mannagetta-Stiftung, Wien, 1982. Goldberg 1980 Gisela Goldberg: Zur Ausprägung der Dürer-Renaissance in München. Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 31. 1980. pp. 129–75. Goldberg–Heimberg–Schawe 1998 Gisela Goldberg–Bruno Heimberg–Martin Schawe: Albrecht Dürer. Die Gemälde der Alten Pinakothek. Heidelberg, Edition Braus, 1998. Goltzius 2012 Hendrick Goltzius, I. Compiled by Marjolein Leesberg, ed. by Huigen Leeflang. (The new Hollstein Dutch & Flemish etchings, engravings and woodcuts, 1450–1700.) Ouderkerk aan den Ijssel, Sound & Vision Publ., 2012. Goodison–Robertson 1967 Jack Weatherburn Goodison–Giles Henry Robertson: Catalogue of Paintings of the Fitzwilliam Museum Cambridge, II. Italian School. Cambridge, Syndics of the Fitzwilliam Museum, 1967. 293 BIBLIOGRAPHY Granberg 1897 Olof Granberg: La Galerie de tableaux de la Reine Christine de Suède. Stockholm, Ivar Haeggström, 1897. Greiselmayer 1996 Volkmar Greiselmayer: Kunst und Geschichte. Die Historienbilder Herzog Wilhelms IV. von Bayern und seiner Gemahlin Jacobäa. Versuch einer Interpretation. Berlin, Gebrüder Mann Verlag, 1996. Grossmann 1944 Fritz Grossmann: Notes on the Arundel and Imstenraedt Collections, I. The Burlington Magazine, 84. 1944. pp. 151–4; II. Ibid. 85. 1944. 172–6. Gröbl–Haupt 2006–7 Lydia Gröbl–Herbert Haupt: Kunst, Kultur und Wissenschaft im Spiegel der Hoffinanz, I. Die Jahre 1576 bis 1595. Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, 8–9. 2006–7. pp. 205–353. Gruber 2006–2007 Gerlinde Gruber: Das Bilderverzeichnis der Pressburger Burg von 1781. Ein Beitrag zur Sammlungsgeschichte der Gemäldegalerie des Kunsthistorischen Museums. Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, 8–9. 2006–7. pp. 354–400. Gruber 2010 Elisabeth Gruber: Die Familie Jörger und ihre Rolle in der konfessionellen Geschichte Österreichs. In: Renaissance und Reformation. Oberösterreichische Landesausstellung 2010. Hg. von Karl Vocelka–Rudolf Leeb– Andrea Scheichl. Linz, Trauner Verlag, 2010. pp. 67–73. 294 Gruber 2014 Gerlinde Gruber: L’abondance & la diversité: Die Galerie Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelms Niederländische Schulen. In: Sammellust. Die Galerie Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelms. Hg. von Sabine Haag. Ausstellungskatalog. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2014. pp. 93–101. Gümbel 1904 Albert Gümbel: Die englische Mission des Grafen von Arundel in Nürnberg, Mai und November 1636. Archivalische Zeitschrift, N. F. 11. 1904. pp. 100–17. Gümbel 1928 Albert Gümbel: Dürers „Katharina Fürlegerin”. (Studien zur Deutschen Kunstgeschichte, 258.) Strassburg, J. H. Ed. Heitz, 1928. Hadeln 1911 Detlev Freiherr von Hadeln: Tizians Bildnis der Laura de’ Dianti in Modena. Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 6. 1911. pp. 65–72. Hajdecki 1905–7 Alexander Hajdecki: Die Niederländer in Wien, I. Oud Holland, 23. 1905–6. pp. 1–26; II. Oud Holland, 23. 1905–6. pp. 108–28; III. Oud Holland, 25. 1907. pp. 9–26. Hálová-Jahodová 1939–40 Cecilie Hálová-Jahodová: Galerie moravských Kouniců. Časopis matice moravské, 63– 64. 1939–40. pp. 83–108, 315–73. Hans Baldung Grien 1959 Hans Baldung Grien. Ausstellungstkatalog. Hg. von Carl Koch. Karlsruhe, Staatliche Kunsthalle, 1959. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hans Rottenhammer 2009 Hans Rottenhammer. Begehrt – vergessen – neu entdeckt. Hg. von Heiner Borggrefe. Ausstellungskatalog. Weserrenaissance-Museum Schloss Brake–Prag, Nationalgalerie. München, Hirmer, 2009. Hantsch–Scherf 1931 P. Hugo Hantsch–Andreas Scherf: Quellen zur Geschichte des Barocks in Franken unter dem Einfluss des Hauses Schönborn, I. Die Zeit des Erzbischofs Lothar Franz und des Bischofs Johann Philipp Franz von Schönborn 1693–1729. Erster Halbband. Augsburg, Dr. Benno Filser Verlag, 1931. Harrach Diarien 2010 Die Diarien und Tagzettel des Kardinals Ernst Adalbert von Harrach (1598–1667), III. Diarium 1647–1654. Hg. von Katrin Keller–Alessandro Catalano. Wien–Köln–Weimar, Böhlau, 2010. Härting 1983 Ursula Alice Härting: Studien zur Kabinettmalerei des Frans Francken II. 1581–1642. Ein repräsentativer Werkkatalog. (Studien zur Kunstgeschichte, 21.) Hildesheim–Zürich– New York, Georg Olms Verlag, 1983. Härting 1989 Ursula Härting: Frans Francken der Jüngere (1581–1642). Die Gemälde mit kritischem Œuvrekatalog. (Flämische Maler im Umkreis der Großen Meister, 2.) Freren, Luca Verlag, 1989. Hassmann 2013–2014 Elisabeth Hassmann: Quellen und Regesten zur Schatzkammer, Gemäldegalerie und zu den drei Kabinetten aus dem Archivbestand des k. k. Oberstkämmereramtes. 1777 bis 1787 mit einem Nachtrag zu den Jahren 1748 bis 1776. Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, 15–6. 2013–4. pp. 1–403. Haupt 1979 Herbert Haupt: Archivalien zur kulturgeschichte des Wiener Hofes, 1. Teil: Kaiser Ferdinand III. Die Jahre 1646–1656. Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 75. 1979. pp. I–CIX. Haupt 1983 Herbert Haupt: Fürst Karl I. von Liechtenstein. Obersthofmeister Kaiser Rudolfs II. und Vizekönig von Böhmen Hofstaat und Sammeltätigkeit, I–II. (Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Fürstenhauses Liechtenstein, I. 1–2.) Wien–Köln–Graz, Böhlau, 1983. Haupt 1998 Herbert Haupt: Von der Leidenschaft zum Schönen. Fürst Karl Eusebius von Liechtenstein (1611–1684), II. Quellenband. (Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Hauses Liechtenstein, II/2.) Wien–Köln–Weimar, Böhlau, 1998. Haupt 2006 Herbert Haupt: Flämische und niederländische Künstler am Wiener Kaiserhof im 17. und 18. Jahrhundert im Überblick. Acta Historiae Slovenica, 11. 2006. pp. 31–46. Haupt 2012 Herbert Haupt: Ein liebhaber der gemähl und virtuosen… Fürst Johann I. Adam von Liechtenstein (1657–1712). (Quellen und Studien zur Geschichte des Fürstenhauses Liechtenstein, III/2.) Wien–Köln–Weimar, Böhlau, 2012. 295 BIBLIOGRAPHY Haus Habsburg 2016 Das Haus Habsburg und die Welt der fürstlichen Kunstkammern im 16. und 17. Jahrhun dert. Hg. von Sabine Haag–Franz Kirchweger–Paulus Rainer. (Schriften des Kunsthistorischen Museums, 15.) Wien, Holzhausen, 2016. Hausmann 1861 Bernhard Hausmann: Albrecht Dürer’s Kupferstiche, Radierungen, Holzschnitte und Zeichnungen: unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der dazu verwandten Papiere und deren Wasserzeichen. Hannover, Hahn, 1861. Heinz 1960 Günter Heinz: Katalog der Graf Harrach’schen Gemäldegalerie. Wien, Palais Harrach, 1960. Henning 1987 Michael Henning: Die Tafelbilder Bartholomäus Sprangers (1546–1611): Höfische Malerei zwischen „Manierismus” und „Barock”. (Kunst, Geschichte und Theorie, 8.) Essen, Blaue Eule, 1987. Heres 1981 Gerald Heres: Der Neuaufbau des Berliner Antikenkabinetts im Jahre 1703. In: Antikensammlungen im 18. Jahrhundert. Hg. von Herbert Beck et al. Berlin, Gebrüder Mann Verlag, 1981. pp. 187–98. Heres 1989 Gerald Heres: Anfänge archäologischer Fragestellung in Johann Carl Schotts ungedruckter Beschreibung des Berliner Antikenkabinetts. Forschungen und Berichte, 27. 1989. pp. 239–41. Hertzog 1660 Gottfried Hertzogs von Sittau Poëtens und der Rechte Befl. Hochteutsche Todes-Ge296 dancken über Carl Gustavs/ deß Durchläuchtigsten und Grossmächtigsten/ Königs der Schweden/ Gothen und Wenden etc. hochseeliges Absterben/ Auff begehren und gnäd. anbefehlen einer hohen Standes Persohn/ auffgesetzet. Auff Unkosten des Autoris, zu finden bey Michael Volcken/ Buchhändlern zu Lübeck, 1660. Hervey 1921 Mary F. S. Hervey: The Life, Correspondence and Collections of Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1921. Hess 2002 Daniel Hess: Dürer als Nürnberger Markenartikel. In: Quasi Centrum Europae. Europa kauft in Nürnberg. Hg. von Hermann Maué et al. Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum, 2002. pp. 451–64. Hieke 1886–8 Wenzel Hieke: Die Berka von Duba und ihre Besitzungen in Böhmen, Teil I. Mitteilungen des Vereines für Geschichte der Deutschen in Böhmen, 24. 1886. pp. 116–55, Teil II. Ibid. 25. 1887. pp. 51–75, Teil III. Ibid. 26. 1888. pp. 75– 104, Teil IV. Ibid. 26. 1888. pp. 381–95. Hirakawa 2009 Kayo Hirakawa: The pictorialization of Dürer’s drawings in Northern Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Bern–Wien, Lang, 2009. Hofstede de Groot 1893 Cornelis Hofstede de Groot: Arnold Houbraken und seine „Groote Schouburgh”. (Quellenstudien zur Holländischen Kunstgeschichte.) Haag, Martinus Nijhoff, 1893. BIBLIOGRAPHY Hojda 1991 Zdeněk Hojda: Několik poznámek k budování šlechtických obrazáren v barokní Praze. Documenta Pragensia 9. 1991. pp. 257–67. Howarth 1985 David Howarth: Lord Arundel and His Circle. New Haven–London, Yale University Press, 1985. Hollstein [é. n.] Friedrich W. H. Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts ca. 1450–1700, VIII. Goltzius–Heemskerck. Amsterdam, Hertzberger, [é. n.] Huber–Ringler 1962–3 Anton Huber–Josef Ringler: Die Brixner Malerfamilie Kessler, I. Der Schlern. Illustrierte Monatsschrift für Heimat u. Volkskunde, 36. 1962. no. 3–4, pp. 63–8; II. Ibid. 37. 1963. no. 4–5. pp. 143–54; III. Ibid. 37. 1963. no. 8–9. pp. 283–90. Hollstein 1976 Friedrich W. H. Hollstein: German engravings, etchings and woodcuts, XVIII. Philipp Kilian (continued) to Wolfgang Kilian. Comp. by Robert Zijlma, ed. by Tilman Falk. Amsterdam, Hertzberger, 1976. Hollstein 1980 Friedrich W. H. Hollstein: Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts ca. 1450–1700, XXI. Compiled by Dieuwke de Hoop Scheffer, ed. by Karel G. Boon. Amsterdam, Van Gendt & Co., 1980. Holzschuh-Hofer 2014 Renate Holzschuh-Hofer: Galerie, Kunstkammergebäude und Ballhaus, 1521–1619. In: Die Wiener Hofburg 1521–1705. Baugeschichte, Funktion und Etablierung als Kaiserresidenz. Hg. von Herbert Karner. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Denkschriften der phil.-hist. Klasse, 444.) Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2014. pp. 198–213. House of Art 2004 A House of Art. Rubens as Collector. Ed. by Kristin Lohse Belkin–Fiona Healy, with an introductory essay by Jeffrey M. Muller. Exhibition catalogue. Antwerpen, Rubenshuis & Rubenianum, 2004. Isabella d’Este 1994 „La prima donna del mondo”. Isabella d’Este, Fürstin und Mäzenatin der Renaissance. Hg. von Sylvia Ferino-Pagden. Ausstellungskatalog. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 1994. Jacoby 2000 Joachim Jacoby: Hans von Aachen 1552–1615. (Monographien zur deutschen Barockmalerei). München–Berlin, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2000. Jacopo Bassano 1992 Jacopo Bassano, c. 1510–1592. A cura di Beverly Luise Brown–Paola Marini. Catalogo della mostra. Bassano del Grappa, Museo Civico. Bologna, Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1992. Jandlová Sošková 2015 Martina Jandlová Sošková: The National Gallery in Prague. German and Austrian Paintings of the 17th Century. Illustrated Summary Catalogue. Praha, The National Gallery in Prague, 2015. Jandlová Sošková–Šuman 2014 Martina Jandlová Sošková–František Šuman: The Thun „Hochgräflichen Gallerie”: Tracing Works in the 1814 Inventory and their 297 BIBLIOGRAPHY History after 1945. Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague, 24. 2014. pp. 78–97. Jansová 2014 Daniela Jansová: Kapitoly z dějin sběratelství na Kolowratském zámku v Rychnově nad Kněžnou. Olomouc, Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 2014 (BA thesis). Jírka 1993 Antonín Jírka: Středoevropské malířství 1600– 1730 z moravských sbírek. Zlín, Státní galerie ve Zlíně, 1993. Juffinger 2006 Roswitha Juffinger: Die Grafen Czernin und deren Gemäldesammlungen in Prag und Wien. In: Sammeln als Institution. Von der fürstlichen Wunderkammer zum Mäzenatentum des Staates. Hg. von Barbara Marx– Karl-Siegbert Rehberg. München–Berlin, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2006. pp. 163–72. Juffinger–Walderdorff 2015 Roswitha Juffinger–Imma Walderdorff: Czernin. Verzeichnis der Gemälde. Wien, Kunstverlag Wolfrum, 2015. Justi 1899 Carl Justi: Laura de’ Dianti. Jahrbuch der Königlich Preussischen Kunstsammlungen, 20. 1899. pp. 183–92. Kalábová–Konečný 2012 Lenka Kalábová–Michal Konečný: Dva barokní inventáře obrazů zámku Hetzendorf. Příspěvek k počátkům sběratelství Salm-Reifferscheidtů. Opuscula Historiae Artium, 61. 2012. pp. 176–90. 298 Karau 2002 Susanne Karau: Leben und Werk des Leidener Malers Jacob Toorenvliet (1640–1719). Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, 2002 (dissertation). Karner 2014a Herbert Karner: Galerie, Kunstkammergebäude und Ballhaus, 1620–1705. In: Die Wiener Hofburg 1521–1705. Baugeschichte, Funktion und Etablierung als Kaiserresidenz. Hg. von Herbert Karner. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Denkschriften der phil.hist. Klasse, 444.) Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2014. pp. 214–40. Karner 2014b Herbert Karner: Die Stallburg, 1620–1705. In: Die Wiener Hofburg 1521–1705. Baugeschichte, Funktion und Etablierung als Kaiserresidenz. Hg. von Herbert Karner. (Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Denkschriften der phil.-hist. Klasse, 444.) Wien, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 2014. pp. 305–310. Keblusek 2014 Marika Keblusek: A Frugal Man in the Kunstkammer: Cultural Exchanges between Thomas Howard, Earl of Arundel and Philipp Hainhofer. Wolfenbütteler Barocknachrichten, 41. 2014. 1–2. pp. 95–110. Kersting 2003 Markus Kersting: Die Kunstleidenschaft der Schönborn. In: Barocke Sammellust. Die Sammlung Schönborn-Buchheim. Hg. von Markus Kersting. Ausstellungskatalog, München, Haus der Kunst. Wolfratshausen, Edition Minerva, 2003. pp. 23–36. BIBLIOGRAPHY Ketelsen–Stockhausen 2002 Thomas Ketelsen–Tilmann von Stockhausen: Verzeichnis der verkauften Gemälde im deutschsprachigen Raum vor 1800, I– III. Hg. von Burton B. Fredericksen–Julia I. Armstrong, unter Mitarbeit von Michael Müller. (The Provenance Index of the Getty Research Institute) München, K. G. Saur Verlag, 2002. Keyssler 1751 Johann Georg Keysslers Neueste Reisen durch Deutschland, Böhmen, Ungarn, die Schweiz, Italien und Lothringen…, II. Hannover, Gottfried Schütze, 1751. Kindl 2014a Miroslav Kindl: Die niederländischen Künstler der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts in Diensten der Fürsten von Liechtenstein in Feldsberg (Valtice). In: Liechtenstein und die Kunst. (Veröffentlichungen der Liechtensteinisch-Tschechischen Historikerkommission, 3.) Vaduz, Verlag des Historischen Vereins für das Fürstentum Liechtenstein, 2014. pp. 161–83. Kindl 2014b Miroslav Kindl: The Painting Collection of Prince-Bishop Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno. Frühneuzeit-Info, 25. 2014. pp. 83–98. Kirchweger 2014 Franz Kirchweger: Die Kunstkammern der österreichischen Habsburgerinnen und Habsburger. Ein kurz gefasster Überblick. Frühneuzeit-Info, 25. 2014. pp. 45–66. Kleinschmidt 1838 Verzeichniss einer vorzüglichen Sammlung von Oelgemälden der italienischen und nie- derländischen Schule aus der Verlassenschaft des verstorbenen Herrn Friedrich August Kleinschmidt […] den 1. October 1838 in der Stadt, Bognergasse Nro 424 […] versteigert werden. Wien, Johann Baptist Wallishausser, 1838. Klemm 1986 Christian Klemm: Joachim von Sandrart. Kunst Werke und Lebens Lauf. Berlin, Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1986. Klinge 2003 Margret Klinge: David Teniers d. J. – Theatrum Pictorium. In: Krijg en Kunst. Leopold Willem (1614–1662), Habsburger, Landvoogd en Kunstverzamelaar. Ed. Jozef Mertens– Franz Aumann. Bilzen, Landcommaderij Alden Biesen, 2003. pp. 101–7. Klinge 2006 Margret Klinge: David Teniers and the Theatre of Painting. In: David Teniers and the Theatre of Painting. Ed. by Ernst Vegelin van Claerbergen. London, Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, 2006. pp. 11–39. Koennecke–Wedewer Sammlung 1919 Sammlung von Gemälden Alter Meister aus dem Besitz des Geheimrats Dr. Koennecke Marburg, des Prof. Dr. Wedewer-Wiesbaden sowie aus anderem Privatbesitz. Köln, Kölner Kunst- und Auktions-Haus, 1919. Kolb 2015 Karin Kolb: Carl Heinrich von Heineken und die Cranach-Rezeption im 18. Jahrhundert. In: Cranach im Gotischen Haus in Wörlitz. Hg. von Wolfgang Heinrich Savelsberg–Ingo Pfeiffer. Begleitbuch zur Ausstellung. München, Hirmer, 2015. pp. 179–93. 299 BIBLIOGRAPHY Kok 2013 Erna Elizabeth Kok: Culturele ondernemers in de Gouden Eeuw. De artistieke en sociaal-economische strategieën van Jacob Backer, Govert Flinck, Ferdinand Bol en Joachim von Sandrart. Amsterdam, Universiteit, 2013. Köhler 1906–7 Wilhelm Köhler: Aktenstücke zur Geschichte der Wiener Kunstkammer in der Herzoglichen Bibliothek zu Wolfenbüttel. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 26. 1906–7. pp. I–XX. Kopp 2015 Margit Kopp: A levágott fej témája Esterházy Pál műgyűjteményében és környezetében. In: Esterházy Pál, a műkedvelő mecénás. Egy 17. századi arisztokrata-életpálya a politika és a művészet határvidékén. Ed. by Pál Ács. Budapest, Reciti, 2015. pp. 247–84. Köpl 1889 Karl Köpl: Urkunden, Acten, Regesten und Inventare aus dem k. k. Statthalterei-Archiv in Prag. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 10. 1889. pp. LXIII–CC. Koreny 1985 Fritz Koreny: Albrecht Dürer und die Tierund Pflanzenstudien der Renaissance. München, Prestel, 1985. Koreny–Segal 1989–90 Fritz Koreny–Sam Segal: Hans Hoffmann: Entdeckungen und Zuschreibungen. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 85–6. 1989–90. pp. 57–65. Korthals Altes 2011 Everhard Korthals Altes: The Biographies of Seventeenth-Century Dutch Artists in Sandrart’s Teutsche Academie and their Influence on Collecting in Germany around 1700. In: Grenzüberschreitung. Deutsch–niederländischer Kunst- und Künstleraustausch im 17. Jahrhundert. Hg. von Nils Büttner– Esther Meier. Marburg, Jonas Verlag, 2011. pp. 165–87. Kotková 2007 Olga Kotková: German and Austrian Painting of the 14th–16th Centuries. Illustrated Summary Catalogue II/1. Praha, National Gallery in Prague, 2007. 300 Köpl 1891 Karl Köpl: Urkunden, Acten, Regesten und Inventare aus dem k. k. Statthalterei-Archiv in Prag. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 12. 1891. pp. I–XC. Köpl 1911–2 Karl Köpl: Urkunden, Acten, Regesten und Inventare aus dem k. k. Statthalterei-Archiv in Prag. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 1911–2. pp. I–XXXIII. Körner–Kopp 2010 Stefan Körner–Margit Kopp: Die Bilderwelten des Fürsten Paul I. Esterházy. Gemälde und Bildprogramme. In: „Ez világ, mint egy kert…” Tanulmányok Galavics Géza tiszteletére. Szerk. Bubryák Orsolya. Budapest, MTA Művészettörténeti Kutatóintézet–Gondolat Kiadó, 2010. pp. 215–48. Köster 2017 Constanze Köster: Jürgen Ovens (1623–1678). Maler in Schleswig-Holstein und Amsterdam. (Studien zur internationalen Architektur- und BIBLIOGRAPHY Kunstgeschichte, 147.) Petersberg, Michael Imhof Verlag, 2017. Krafft 1837 Albrecht Krafft: Verzeichniss der kais. kön. Gemälde-Gallerie im Belvedere zu Wien. Wien, Verlag von H. F. Müller’s Kunsthandlung, 1837. Krämer 1984 Gode Krämer: Städtische Kunstsammlungen Augsburg. Deutsche Barockgalerie. Katalog der Gemälde. Augsburg, 1984. Krämer 2015 Gode Krämer: Joseph Heintz d. Ä. Kaiserlicher Hofmaler und Augsburger Bürger. In: Die verschollene Leda. Joseph Heintz d. Ä. Kaiserlicher Hofmaler und Augsburger Bürger. Hg. von Gode Krämer–Christoph Metzger–Christoph Trepesch. Berlin–München, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2015. pp. 36–91. Krčálová 1982 Jarmila Krčálová: Die Rudolfinische Architektur. In: Rudolf II and his Court. Leids kunsthistorisch jaarboek, 1. 1982. pp. 271–308. Kreyczi 1894 Franz Kreyczi: Urkunden und Regesten aus dem k. und k. Reichs-Finanz-Archiv. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 15. 1894. pp. I–XLVIII. Kříž 1984 Jan Kříž: K otázce námětových předloh u Norberta Grunda. Umění, 32. 1984. pp. 281–305. Kroupa 1996 Jiří Kroupa: Wenzel Anton, Prince Kaunitz-Rietberg: From „Curiosité” to Criticism of Art. Opuscula Historiae Artium, F. 40. 1996. pp. 7–58. Kunst des Steinschnitts 2002 Die Kunst des Steinschnitts: Prunkgefässe, Kameen und Commessi aus der Kunstkammer. Hg. von Rudolf Distelberger–Wilfried Seipel. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2002. Kunth 2006 Felicitas Kunth: Die Rothschild’schen Gemäldesammlung in Wien. Wien–Köln–Weimar, Böhlau, 2006. Kurz 1943 Otto Kurz: Holbein and Others in a Seventeenth Century Collection. The Burlington Magazine, 83. 1943. pp. 279–82. Lammertse 2006a Friso Lammertse: Gerrit Uylenburgh, Art Dealer and Painter in Amsterdam and London. In: Friso Lammertse–Jaap van der Veen: Uylenburgh & Son. Art and Commerce from Rembrandt to De Lairesse 1625–1675. Zwolle, Waanders Publishers, 2006. pp. 61–114. Lammertse 2006b Friso Lammertse: Gerrit Uylenburgh’s art business between 1655 and 1675. In: Friso Lammertse–Jaap van der Veen: Uylenburgh & Son. Art and Commerce from Rembrandt to De Lairesse 1625–1675. Zwolle, Waanders Publishers, 2006. pp. 207–87. Le siècle de Titien 1993 Le siècle de Titien. L’âge d’or de la peinture à Venise. Ed. Michel Laclotte–Giovanna Nepi Scirè. Catalogue d’exposition. Galeries Nationales d’Exposition du Grand Palais. Paris, Réunion des Musées Nationaux, 1993. 301 BIBLIOGRAPHY Leeb 2010 Rudolf Leeb: Luthers Kontakte nach Oberösterreich. In: Renaissance und Reformation. Oberösterreichische Landesausstellung 2010. Hg. von Karl Vocelka–Rudolf Leeb–Andrea Scheichl. Linz, Trauner, 2010. pp. 51–8. Lemburg-Ruppelt 2002 Edith Lemburg-Ruppelt: Zur Entstehungsgeschichte der Cameen-Sammlung Grimani. Gemeinsamkeiten mit dem Tesoro Lorenzos de’ Medici. Rivista di Archeologia, 26. 2002. pp. 86–113. Lempertz Auktion 2011 Alte Kunst. 19. November (Lempertz Auktion, 987.) Köln, Kunsthaus Lempertz, 2011. Limouze 1997 Dorothy Limouze: Kupferstiche am Prager Hof. In: Rudolf II. und Prag. Kaiserlicher Hof und Residenzstadt als Kulturelles und geistiges Zentrum Mitteleuropas. Hg. von Eliška Fučíková et al. Prag–London–Milan, Verwaltung der Prager Burg–Thames and Hudson–Skira Editore, 1997. pp. 172–8. Limouze 2009 Dorothy Limouze: From Bavaria to the Veneto, and Return: The Sadelers, Jacopo Bassano, and Italian Art in Munich. In: München–Prag um 1600. (Studia Rudolphina, Sonderheft.) Hg. von Beket Bukovinská–Lubomír Konečný. Praha, Artefactum, 2009. pp. 117–24. Ley 1971 Henry Ley: The Imstenraedt Collection. Apollo, 113. 1971. July, pp. 50–9. Lindorfer 2014 Bianca M. Lindorfer: Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach (1637–1706) und die Anfänge der Gräflich Harrach’schen Gemäldegalerie. Frühneuzeit-Info, 25. 2014. pp. 99–112. Lhotsky 1941–5 Alphons Lhotsky: Festschrift des Kunsthistorischen Museums zur Feier des fünfzigjährigen Bestandes, 2. Die Geschichte der Sammlungen, I–II. Wien, Ferdinand Berger, Horn, 1941–5. Lobkowicz Collections 2007 The Lobkowicz Collections. Ed. by Linda Pisano. London, Scala, 2007. Lightbown 1989 Ronald W. Lightbown: Charles I and the Tradition of European Princely Collecting. In: The Late King’s Goods. Collections, Possessions and Patronage of Charles I in the Light of the Commonwealth Sale Inventories. Ed. by Arthur MacGregor. London–Oxford, Alistair McAlpine–Oxford University Press, 1989. pp. 53–72. Limouze 1990 Dorothy Anne Limouze: Aegidius Sadeler (c. 1570–1629). Drawings, Prints and Art Theory. Princeton, Princeton University, 1990. 302 Logan 1979 Anne-Marie S. Logan: The ’Cabinet’ of the Brothers Gerard and Jan Reynst. (Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Verhandelingen Afdeling Letterkunde, Nieuwe Reeks, 99.) Amsterdam–Oxford–New York, North-Holland Publishing Company, 1979. Lohff 2015 Johanna Beate Lohff: Malerei auf Stein. Antonio Tempestas Bilder auf Stein im Kontext der Kunst- und Naturtheorie seiner Zeit. München, Hirmer Verlag, 2015. BIBLIOGRAPHY Lowitzsch 2004 Nadja Lowitzsch: Studien zur Sammeltätigkeit Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelms und zur Aufstellung seiner Gemäldesammlung in Brüssel und in Wien, I–II. Wien, Universität Wien, 2004 (dissertation). Lucas Cranach 2005 Pod znamením okřídleného hada. Lucas Cranach a české země / Under the Sign of the Winged Serpent. Lucas Cranach and the Czeh Lands. Ed. Kaliopi Chamonikola. Praha, Správa Pražského hradu–Národní galerie v Praze, 2005. Luschin 1899 Arnold Luschin von Ebengreuth: Die ältesten Beschreibungen der kaiserlichen Schatzkammer zu Wien. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 20. 1899. pp. CXC–CXCVI. Machytka 1980 Lubor Machytka: Archivní doklady k dějinám nostické obrazárny [Praha, 1980] Archiv Národní galerie v Praze, sbírka rukopisů, sign. AA 2940 (typescript). Machytka 1983 Lubor Machytka: Vznik nostické obrazárny a její vývoj do začátku 19. století. Umění, 31. 1983. pp. 244–6. Machytka 1985–6 Lubor Machytka Prameny k dějinám valdštejnské obrazárny (Duchcov, Horní Litvínov, Praha) [Praha, 1985–6]. Archiv Národní galerie v Praze, sbírka rukopisů, sign. AA 3121 (typescript). Machytka 1986 Lubor Machytka: Zum Verkauf Waldsteinischer Bilder nach Dresden im Jahre 1741. Jahrbuch der Staatlichen Kunstsammlungen Dresden, 18. 1986. pp. 67–73. Mackowsky 1904 Walter Mackowsky: Giovanni Maria Nosseni und die Renaissance in Sachsen. Berlin, Wasmuth, 1904. Maeyer 1955 Marcel De Maeyer: Albrecht en Isabella en de Schilderkunst. Bijdrage tot de Geschiedenis van de XVIIe-eeuwse childerkunst in de zuidelijke Nederlanden. (Verhandelingen van de Koninklijke Vlaamse Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van België, Klasse der Schone Kunsten, 9.) Brussel, Paleis der Academiën, 1955. Mai 1976 Ekkehard Mai: Bemerkungen zur „Taufe Christi” Hans Rottenhammers. Pantheon, 34. 1976. pp. 120–5. Mander–Floerke 1991 Carel van Mander: Das Leben der niederländischen und deutschen Maler (von 1400 bis ca. 1615). Übersetzung nach der Ausgabe von 1617 und Anmerkungen von Hanns Floerke. Wiesbaden, VMA Verlag, 1991. Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015a Gabriele Marcussen-Gwiazda: Der Bilderverkauf aus der Rudolfinischen Kunstkammer an den Frankfurter Juwelier Daniel de Briers. In: Die verschollene Leda. Joseph Heintz d. Ä. Kaiserlicher Hofmaler und Augsburger Bürger. Hg. von Gode Krämer–Christoph Metzger–Christoph Trepesch. Berlin–München, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2015. pp. 108–33. 303 BIBLIOGRAPHY Marcussen-Gwiazda 2015b Gabriele Marcussen-Gwiazda: Joachim von Sandrart: Kunst und Kommerz im 17. Jahrhundert. In: Luxusgegenstände und Kunstwerke vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart. Produktion – Handel – Formen der Aneignung. Hg. von Christoph Jeggle et al. (Irseer Schriften, 8.) Konstanz–München, UVK Verlaggesellschaft, 2015. pp. 277–90. Mayer 2017 Gernot Mayer: Das „Modell Brühl”? Der Sammler Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz-Rietberg und die kaiserliche Gemäldegalerie. In: Heinrich Graf von Brühl (1700–1763). Ein sächsischer Mäzen in Europa. Akten der internationalen Tagung zum 250. Todesjahr. Hg. von Ute C. Koch–Cristina Ruggero. Dresden, Sandstein Verlag, 2017. pp. 442–54. Mareš 1887 Franz Mareš: Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Kunstbestrebungen des Erzherzogs Leopold Wilhelm. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 5. 1887. pp. 343–63. Mazzetti di Pietralata 2011 Cecilia Mazzetti di Pietralata: Joachim von Sandrart (1606–1688). I disegni. (Studi della Bibliotheca Hertziana, 5.) Milano, Silvana, 2011. Marini 1994 Paola Marini: Considerazioni sui Bassano di Praga. In: Capolavori della pittura veneta dal Castello di Praga. A cura di Eliška Fučíková, con scritti di Sergio Marinelli, Paola Marini. Milano, Electa, 1994. pp. 25–31. Marr 2010 Alexander Marr: The Flemish ’Pictures of Collections’ Genre: An Overview. Intellectual History Review, 20. 2010. pp. 5–25. Martin 1998 Andrew John Martin: „…dass er nicht nachgelassen, bis ihm solches Blat aus der Kirche verwilligt worden”. Der Erwerb von Albrecht Dürers Rosenkranzfest durch Rudolf II. Umění, 46. 1998. pp. 175–88. Matzke 2007 Judith Matzke: Gesandtschaftswesen und diplomatischer Dienst Sachsens 1694–1763. Dresden, Technische Universität, 2007 (dissertation). 304 McEvansoneya 1992 Philip McEvansoneya: An Unpublished Inventory of the Hamilton Collection in the 1620s and the Duke of Buckingham’s Pictures. The Burlington Magazine, 134. 1992. no. 1073. pp. 524–6. McEvansoneya 1996a Philip McEvansoneya: Vertue, Walpole and the Documentation of the Buckingham Collection. Journal of the History of Collections, 8. 1996. no. 1. pp. 1–14 McEvansoneya 1996b Philip McEvansoneya: The Sequestration and Dispersal of the Buckingham Collection. Journal of the History of Collections, 8. 1996. no. 2. pp. 133–54. MacGregor 1989 The Late King’s Goods. Collections, Possessions and Patronage of Charles I in the Light of the Commonwealth Sale Inventories. Ed. by Arthur MacGregor. London–Oxford, Alistair McAlpine–Oxford University Press, 1989. BIBLIOGRAPHY MacGregor 1994 Arthur MacGregor: Die besonderen Eigenschaften der „Kunstkammer”. In: Macrocosmos in Microcosmo. Die Welt in der Stube. Zur Geschichte des Sammelns 1450-bis 1800. Hg. von Andreas Grote. Opladen, Leske + Budrich, 1994. pp. 61–106. MacGregor 2007 Arthur MacGregor: Curiosity and Enlightenment. Collectors and Collections from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century. New Haven, Yale University Press, 2007. MacGregor 2015 Arthur MacGregor: The Cabinet and the Gallery. Introspection and Ostentation in Early Collection History. La Rivista di Engramma, 2015. April (online ISSN 1826-901X). PURL http://www.engramma.it/eOS/index.php?id_ articolo=2347 Mechel 1783 Christian von Mechel: Verzeichniß der Gemälde der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Bilder Gallerie in Wien, Wien, Gräfer, 1783. Meier 2004 Esther Meier: Joachim von Sandrarts „LebensLauf”. Dichtung oder Wahrheit? Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 31. 2004. pp. 205–39. Meier 2011 Esther Meier: Joachim von Sandrart zwischen Stadt und Hof. In: Grenzüberschreitung. Deutsch–niederländischer Kunst- und Künstleraustausch im 17. Jahrhundert. Hg. von Nils Büttner–Esther Meier. Marburg, Jonas Verlag, 2011. pp. 149–63. Meijer 1999 Bert W. Meijer: New Light on Christoph Schwarz in Venice and the Veneto. Artibus et Historiae, 20. 1999. pp. 127–56. Meisterwerke der Prager Burggalerie 1996 Meisterwerke der Prager Burggalerie. Hg. von Eliška Fučíková–Wolfgang Prohaska– Karl Schütz. Ausstellungskatalog. Wien– Milano, Kunsthistorisches Museum–Skira Editore, 1996. Meller 1915 Simon Meller: Az Esterházy képtár története. Budapest, Országos Magyar Szépművészeti Múzeum, 1915. Menčík 1913 Ferdinand Bonaventura von Harrach: Tagebuch über den Aufenthalt in Spanien in den Jahren 1673–1674. Hg. von Ferdinand Menčík. Wien, Gerold, 1913. Meraviglia-Crivelli 1886 Rudolf Johann Meraviglia-Crivelli: Der böhmische Adel. (J. Siebmacher’s großes Wappenbuch, 4.) Nürnberg, Bauer & Raspe, 1886. Metzler 2014 Sally Metzler: Bartholomeus Spranger: Splendor and Eroticism in Imperial Prague. Exhibition catalogue. New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art, 2014. Miarelli Mariani 2003 Ilaria Miarelli Mariani: „La disfatta di Sennacherib” della collezione Borgia: un dipinto di Hans von Aachen da Christoph Schwarz. In: Decorazione e collezionismo a Roma nel Seicento. Vicende di artisti, committenti, mercanti. A cura di Francesca Cappelletti. Rom, Gangemi editore, 2003. pp. 215–20. 305 BIBLIOGRAPHY Middelkoop 2009 Norbert E. Middelkoop: New Light on Sandrart’s Dutch Scholars’ portraits. In: Joachim von Sandrart. Ein europäischer Künstler und Theoretiker zwischen Italien und Deutschland. Hg. von Sybille Ebert-Schifferer–Cecilia Mazzetti di Pietralata. (Römische Studien der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 25.) München, Hirmer, 2009. pp. 97–107. Montias 2004–5 John Michael Montias: Artists Named in Amsterdam Inventories, 1607–80. Simiolus. Netherlands Quarterly for the History of Art, 31. 2004–5. pp. 322–47. Mistrovská díla 2014 Mistrovská díla thunovské obrazárny na děčínském zámku. Ed. František Šuman. Děčín, Zámek Děčín ve spolupráci s Národní galerií v Praze, 2014. Morsbach 2006 Christiane Morsbach: Die Genrebilder der in Wien und Umgebung wirkenden niederländischen Zuwanderer Jan van Ossenbeeck (1624–1674), Jan Thomas (1617–1678), Johann de Cordua (um 1630?–1698/1702?) und Jacob Toorenvliet (1635–1719). Acta Historiae Artis Slovenica, 11. 2006. pp. 47–69. Molnos 2017 Péter Molnos: Elveszett örökség. Magyar műgyűjtők a 20. században. Budapest, Kieselbach Galéria, 2017. Montias 1982 John Michael Montias: Artists and artisans in Delft. A socio-economic study of the seventeenth-century. Princeton, University Press, 1982. Montias 1999 John Michael Montias: Auction Sales of Works of Art in Amsterdam (1597–1638). In: Kunst voor de Markt / Art for the Market 1500– 1700. (Nederlands Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 1999, deel 50 / Netherlands Yearbook for History of Art 1999, volume 50.) Red. Reindert Falkenburg et al. Zwolle, Waanders Uitgevers, 1999. pp. 145–94. Montias 2002 John Michael Montias: Art at Auction in 17th Century Amsterdam. Amsterdam, Amsterdam University Press, 2002. 306 Morigia 1595 Paolo Morigia: Nobiltà di Milano. Milano, Stampa del Pacifico Pontio, 1595. Morsbach 2008 Christiane Morsbach: Die deutsche Genremalerei im 17. Jahrhundert. (Kunst- und Kunstwissenschaftliche Forschungen, 6.) Weimar, VDG, 2008. Mraz–Haupt 1981 Gottfried Mraz–Herbert Haupt: Das Inventar der Kunstkammer und der Bibliothek des Erzherzogs Leopold Wilhelm aus dem Jahre 1647. Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 77. 1981. pp. I–XLVI. Muller 1930–1 J. W. Muller: Hooft en Vondel, I. De Nieuwe Taalgids, 24. 1930. pp. 113–130, 161–176. II. Ibid. 25. 1931. pp. 1–20, 78–99, 127–39. Muller 1989 Jeffrey M. Muller: Rubens: The Artist as Collector. Princeton, New Yersey, Princeton University Press, 1989. BIBLIOGRAPHY Murr 1771 Christoph Gottlieb Murr: Versuch einer Beschreibung der Kaiserlich-Königlichen Schatzkammer zu Wien. Nürnberg, bey Gabriel Nicolaus Raspe, 1771. Müller 2011 Jürgen Müller: Albrecht Dürer’s Peasant Engravings: A Different Laocoön, or the Birth of Aesthetic Subversion in the Spirit of the Reformation. Journal of Historians of Netherlandish Art, 3. 2011. 1 (Winter). URL https://jhna. org/articles/albrecht-durer-peasant-engravings-different-laoc-on-birth-aesthetic-subversion-spirit-reformation/ (Last retrieved on 30 November 2017). Müller Hofstede 1966 Justus Müller Hofstede: Burchard, L.; Hulst, R.-A. d’: Rubens drawings. Brussels, 1963. [rec.] Master drawings, 4. 1966. no. 4. pp. 435–54. Nachlaß Amerling 1916 Nachlaß Friedrich von Amerling (Stiftung für die Genossenschaft der bildenden Künstler Wiens). (263. Kunstauktion, Dorotheum.) Wien, Dorotheum k. k. Versteigerungsamt, 1916 (auction: 3–6 May 1916). Nachlass Klinkosch 1889 Katalog der bedeutenden Sammlung von Oelgemälden, Miniaturen und Antiquitäten aus dem Nachlasse des Herrn Josef Carl Ritter von Klinkosch in Wien. (LXXVIII. Kunstauktion von H. O. Miethke.) Wien, Verlag von H. O. Miethke, 1889. Nachlass Lipperheide 1933 Nachlass Baronin Lipperheide München. Antiquitäten, Alte Möbel, Orientteppiche, Kunst- und Einrichtungsgegenstände, Gemälde Alter und Moderner Meister. München, Hugo Helbing, 1933 (auction: 24–25 February 1933). Natter 2003 Tobias G. Natter: Die Galerie Miethke. Eine Kunsthandlung im Zentrum der Moderne. Ausstellungskatalog. Wien, Jüdisches Museum der Stadt Wien, 2003. Neumann 1964 Jaromír Neumann: Le scoperte del castello di Praga. Antichità viva. Rassegna d’arte, 3. 1964. no. 2. (March–April), pp. 11–27. Neumann 1966 Jaromír Neumann: Die Gemäldegalerie der Prager Burg. Prag, Academia Verlag, 1966. Neumann 1969 Jaromír Neumann: Česky barok. Praha, Odeon, 1969. Neverov 1984 Oleg Neverov: Dai tesori d’arte di Cristina di Svezia. Xenia, 7. 1984. pp. 77–101. New Hollstein 1999 Friedrich W. H. Hollstein: The New Hollstein Dutch and Flemish Etchings, Engravings and Woodcuts 1450–1700, VIII. The Muller Dynasty, vol. 2. Jan Harmensz. Muller. Comp. by Jan Piet Filedt Kok, ed. by Ger Luijten. Rotterdam, Sound & Vision Interactive, 1999. Nicolai 1779 Friedrich Nicolai: Beschreibung der Königlichen Residenzstädte Berlin und Potsdam und aller daselbst befindlicher Merkwürdigkeiten, I–II. Berlin, Friedrich Nicolai, 1779. 307 BIBLIOGRAPHY Niederländisches Museum 1937 Niederländisches Museum. Magazin für Geschichte, Literatur, Kunst und Kenntniß der öffentlichen Zustände in den Niederlanden. 2. Heft. Carlsruhe, Ehr. Fr. Müller’sche Hofbuchhandlung, 1937. Nieuw Nederlandsch biogr. woordenboek 1912 Nieuw Nederlandsch biografisch woordenboek, II. Red. Petrus Johannes Blok–Philipp Christiaan Molhuysen. Leiden, A. W. Sijthoff ’s, 1912. Nocca 2001 Marco Nocca: Il mondo in casa: i nuovi confini della collezione Borgia. Lavori in corso per un’esposizione. In: Le quattro voci del mondo: arte, culture, saperi nella collezione di Stefano Borgia, 1731–1804. A cura di Marco Nocca. Atti del convegno internazionale, Velletri 2000. Napoli, Electa, 2001. pp. 17–76. Noldus 2006a Badeloch Noldus: An „unvergleichbarer Liebhaber”. Peter Spierinck, the art-dealing diplomat. Scandinavian Journal of History, 31. 2006. pp. 173–85. Noldus 2006b Badeloch Noldus: Loyalty and Betrayal. Artist-Agents Michel le Blon and Pieter Isaacs. and Chancellor Axel Oxenstierna. In: Your Humble Servant. Agents in Early Modern Europe. Ed. by Hans Cools–Marika Keblusek– Badeloch Noldus. Uitgeverij Verloren, Hilversum, 2006. pp. 51–64. Noldus 2011 Badeloch Vera Noldus: A Spider in its Web. Agent and Artist Michel le Blon and his Northern European Network. In: Double Agents. Cultural and Political Brokerage in Early Mo308 dern Europe. Ed. by Marika Keblusek–Badeloch Vera Noldus. (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, 154.) Leiden–Boston, Brill, 2011. pp. 161–91. Notice de tableaux 1816 Notice de tableaux, estampes, dessins, dorures et autres objets de curiosité, dont la vente se fera Mardi 23 et Mercredi 24 Avril 1816, Hôtel de Bullion […]. Paris, Revenaz–Roux, 1816. [=Lugt 8871; Getty Sale Catalog F-653] Novák 1915 Josef Novák: Prameny k studiu bývalé Hr. Černínské obrazárny na Hradčanech. Památky Archaeologické, 27. 1915. pp. 123–41, 208–21. Novotný 1942–3 Vladimír Novotný: Obrazárna zámku Rychnova nad Kněžnou. Umění, 14. 1942–3. pp. 8–32. Oberhuber 1958 Konrad Oberhuber: Die stilistische Entwicklung im Werk Bartholomäus Sprangers. Wien, Universität Wien, 1958 (dissertation). Olsson 1952 Sven Olsson: Gottfried von Edelstein. En internationell lycksökare i Tabergs bergslag. In: Festskrift Gottfrid Carlsson. 18. 12. 1952. Lund, CWK Gleerup, 1952. pp. 227–48. Országos Képtár 1897 Az Országos Képtár műtárgyainak leíró lajstroma hivatkozással a korábbi katalógusokra. Budapest, Athenaeum, 1897. Osten 1983 Gert von der Osten: Hans Baldung Grien. Gemälde und Dokumente. Berlin, Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1983. BIBLIOGRAPHY Pallucchini 1945 Rodolfo Pallucchini: I dipinti della Galleria Estense. Roma, Cosmopolita Casa Editrice, 1945. Patin 1674 Charles Patin: Relations historiques et curieuses de voyages, en Allemagne, Angleterre, Hollande, Boheme, Suisse […]. Lyon, Muguet, 1674. Pée 1971 Herbert Pée: Johann Heinrich Schönfeld. Die Gemälde. Berlin, Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1971. Peltzer 1913–4 Rudolf Arthur Peltzer: Lambert Sustris von Amsterdam. Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 31. 1913–4. pp. 219–46. Peltzer 1916 Rudolf Arthur Peltzer: Johann Rottenhammer. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 33. 1916. 293–365. Peltzer 1925 Rudolf Arthur Peltzer: Sandrart-Studien. Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 2. 1925. pp. 103–65. Peltzer 1937–8 Rudolf Arthur Peltzer: Christoph Paudiss und seine Tätigkeit in Freising. Münchner Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, 12. 1937–8. pp. 251–80. Perger 1864 Anton Ritter von Perger: Studien zur Geschichte der k. k. Gemäldegalerie im Belve- dere zu Wien. Berichte und Mitteilungen des Altertumsvereins zu Wien, 7. 1864. pp. 101–68. Perger–Haas 1821–8 Kaiserliche königliche Bilder-Gallerie im Belvedere zu Wien. Nach den Zeichnungen des Herrn Sigmund von Perger, zweyten Custos der k. k. Bilder-Gallerie im Belvedere […] in Kupfer gestochen von verschiedenen Künstlern. Nebst Erklärungen in artistischer und historischer Hinsicht. Herausgegeben und Seiner Majestät Franz dem I. Kaiser von Österreich […] gewidmet von Carl Haas, I–IV. Wien– Prag, Carl Haas, 1921–8. Pergola 1955 Paola Della Pergola: La Galleria Borghese in Roma. Roma, Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1955. Pigler 1968 Andor Pigler: Katalog der Galerie Alter Meister, I–II. Budapest, Akadémiai Kiadó, 1968. Pijl 2007 Luuk Pijl: The Paintings of Friedrich Christoph Steinhammer – a brief Survey. In: Hans Rottenhammer (1564–1625). Hg. von Heiner Borggrefe–Vera Lüpkes–Lubomír Konečny–Michael Bischoff. (Studien zur Kultur der Renaissance, 4.) Marburg, Jonas Verlag, 2007. pp. 184–9. Pilz 1961 Kurt Pilz: Hans Hoffmann. Ein Nürnberger Dürer-Nachahmer aus der 2. Hälfte des 16. Jahrhunderts. Mitteilungen des Vereins für Geschichte der Stadt Nürnberg, 51. 1961. pp. 236–72. 309 BIBLIOGRAPHY Platz-Horster 2007 Gertrud Platz-Horster: Zwei römische Kaiserkameen der Sammlung Alsdorf in Chicago. In: Mythos und Macht. Erhabene Bilder in Edelstein. Internationales Kolloquium zur gleichnamigen Ausstellung der Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen zu Berlin im Alten Museum am Lustgarten, 27. Juni 2007. Hg. von Gertrud Platz-Horster. Berlin, Antikensammlung Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 2007. pp. 22–8. Platz-Horster 2012 Gertrud Platz-Horster: Erhabene Bilder. Die Kameen in der Antikensammlung Berlin. Wiesbaden, Reichert Verlag, 2012. Pokorná 2014 Barbora Pokorná: Bassanové ve sbírce Národní galerie v Praze. Praha, Univerzita Karlova v Praze, Filozofická fakult, Ústav pro dějiny umění, 2014 (MA thesis). URL https://dspace.cuni. cz/bitstream/handle/20.500.11956/64078/DP TX_2012_1_11210_0_342486_0_131618.pdf?sequence=1 (Last retrieved on 30 November 2017) Pokorny 2006–2007 Erwin Pokorny: Eine Entwurfzeichnung von David Teniers II. zu seinem ersten Galeriebild für Leopold Wilhelm. Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, 8–9. 2006–7. pp. 193–201. Polleross 2010 Friedrich Polleross: Die Kunst der Diplomatie. Auf Spuren des kaiserlichen Botschafters Leopold Joseph Graf von Lamberg (1653–1706). Petersberg, Michael Imhof Verlag, 2010. 310 Polleross 2014a Friedrich Polleross: Kunstsammlungen in Österreich. Literatur- und Forschungsüberblick. Frühneuzeit-Info, 25. 2014. pp. 7–44. Polleross 2014b Friedrich Polleross: Die Kunstgeschichte und ihre Bilder im 17. Jahrhundert. Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 41. 2014. pp. 117–57. Polleross 2016 Friedrich Polleross: „Kayserliche Schatzund Kunstkammer”. Die habsburgischen Sammlungen und ihre Öffentlichkeit im 17. Jahrhundert. In: Das Haus Habsburg und die Welt der fürstlichen Kunstkammern im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Hg. von Sabine Haag– Franz Kirchweger–Paulus Rainer. (Schriften des Kunsthistorischen Museums, 15.) Wien, Holzhausen Verlag, 2016. pp. 255–95. Pons 2001 Rouven Pons: „Wo der gekrönte Löw hat seinen Kayser-Sitz”. Herrschaftsrepräsentation am Wiener Kaiserhof zur Zeit Leopolds I. (Deutsche Hochschulschriften, 1195). Egelsbach, Hänsel-Hohenhausen, 2001. Prag um 1600 1988a Prag um 1600. Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II. Ausstellungskatalog, Kulturstiftung Ruhr, Villa Hügel, Essen. Freren, Luca Verlag, 1988. Prag um 1600 1988b Prag um 1600. Beiträge zur Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II. Hg. von Eliška Fučíková. Freren, Luca Verlag, 1988. BIBLIOGRAPHY Prange 2007 Peter Prange: Deutsche Zeichnungen 1450– 1800. (Die Sammlungen der Hamburger Kunsthalle, I. Kupferstichkabinett.) Köln– Weimar–Wien, Böhlau, 2007. Privatgesellschaft 1827 Verzeichniß der Kunstwerke, welche sich in der Gemählde-Gallerie der Privatgesellschaft patriotischer Kunstfreunde zu Prag befinden. Prag, Schönfeld, 1827. Preiss 1973 Pavel Preiss: Amor omnibus idem. Allegorie des Triumphs der Liebe von Karel van Mander in der Schloßgalerie in Duchcov [Dux]. Umění, 21. 1973. pp. 369–96. Privatgesellschaft 1831 Verzeichniß der Kunstwerke, welche sich in der Gemählde-Gallerie der Privatgesellschaft patriotischer Kunstfreunde zu Prag befinden. Prag, Schönfeld, 1831. Preiss 1993 Pavel Preiss: Pictorium miraculis ordinem dedit. The Demise of the Rudolfine Collections and the Emergence of a New Picture Gallery at Prague Castle. In: Artis pictoriae amatores. Evropa v zcradle pražského barokního sběratelství. Ed. by Lubomír Slavíček. Praha, Národní galerie v Praze, 1993. pp. 349–55. Privatgesellschaft 1835 Verzeichniss der Kunstwerke, welche sich in der Gemälde-Gallerie der Privatgesellschaft patriotischer Kunstfreunde zu Prag befinden. Prag, Gottlieb Haase Söhne, 1835. Prenner 1728–33 Anton Joseph von Prenner: Theatrum artis pictoriae quo tabulae depictae quae in Caesarea Vindobonensi Pinacotheca servantur leviors caelatura aeri insculptae exhibentur, I–IV. Viennae, 1728–33. Priever 2001 Andreas Priever: Das Gemäldekabinett des Grafen Johannes von Nassau-Idstein. Ein Beitrag zur Sammlungsgeschichte des 17. Jahrhunderts. In: Zwischen den Welten. Beiträge zur Kunstgeschichte für Jürg Meyer zur Capellen. Hg. von Damian Dombrowski, unter Mitarbeit von Katrin Heusing und Alexandra Dern. Weimar, WDG, 2001. pp. 174–84. Prinz 1970 Wolfram Prinz: Die Entstehung der Galerie in Frankreich und Italien. Berlin, Gebrüder Mann, 1970. Privatgesellschaft 1844 Verzeichniss der Kunstwerke in der Gemälde-Gallerie der Privatgesellschaft patriotischer Kunstfreunde zu Prag. Prag, Buchdruckerei Carl Vetterl, 1844. Prodromus 1735 Prodromus oder Vor-Licht des eröffneten Schau- und Wunder-Prachtes aller deren an dem Kaiserl. Hof […] Carl des Sechsten […] sich befindlichen Kunst-Schätzen und Kostbarkeiten. Hg. von Francisco de Stampart–Antonio de Brennern. Wien, Johann Peter van Ghelen, 1735. Pujmanová 2008 Olga Pujmanová: National Gallery in Prague. Italian painting c. 1330–1550. Illustrated Summary Catalogue. In cooperation with Petr Přbyl. Praha, The National Gallery in Prague, 2008. 311 BIBLIOGRAPHY Raczyński 1839 [Athanasius Raczyński:] Katalog der Raczynskischen Bilder-Sammlung. H. n., k. n., 1839. Rainer 2008 Paulus Rainer: Die neuzeitlichen Fassungen antiker Prunkkameen. In: Erika Zwierlein-Diehl: Magie der Steine. Die antiken Prunkkameen im Kunsthistorischen Museum. Mit Beiträgen von Alfred Bernhard-Walcher–Paulus Rainer. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum–Christian Brandstätter, 2008. pp. 217–34. Rearick 1992 William Roger Rearick: Vita ed opere di Jacopo dal Ponte, detto Bassano c. 1510–1592. In: Jacopo Bassano, c. 1510–1592. A cura di Beverly Luise Brown–Paola Marini. Catalogo della mostra. Bassano del Grappa, Museo Civico. Bologna, Nuova Alfa Editoriale, 1992. pp. LVII–CLXXXVIII. Reiffenstuell 1702 [Ignaz Reiffenstuell, S. J.]: Kurtz: Lesens-Würdige Erinnerung von Herrührung / Erbau: und Benambsung […] sowohl in: als um die Käyserliche Haubt: und Residenzstadt Wien […] sambt einer klaren Beschreibung […] der Käyserlichen Schatz: und Kunst-Kammer. Wien, Anna Rosina Sischowitzin Wittib, 1702. Repertorium der diplomatischen Vertreter 1936 Repertorium der diplomatischen Vertreter aller Länder seit dem Westfälischen Frieden (1648), I. 1648–1715. Hg. von Ludwig Bittner–Lothar Gross. Berlin, Gerhard Stalling Verlag, 1936. Ridolfi 1648 Carlo Ridolfi: Le Maraviglie dell’arte, I. Venetia, Presso Giovanni Battista Sgaua, 1648. 312 Riedel 2012 Sarah-Sophie Riedel: Formelhafte Wendungen im Œuvre Jacob Jordaens’, Teil 2. Von Der König trinkt! bis Wucherei ist ein großes Übel, eine Plage in der Stadt. In: Jordaens. Genius of Grand Scale – Genie großen Formats. Hg. von Birgit Ulrike Münch–Zita Ágota Pataki. (CISA – Cultural and Interdisciplinary Studies in Art, 10.) Stuttgart, Ibidem-Verlag, 2012. pp. 67–94. Rijksmuseum 1976 All the paintings of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam. A completely illustrated catalogue. Ed. by Pieter J. J. van Thiel. Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum, 1976. Ritschl 1926 Hermann Ritschl: Katalog der erlaucht gräflich Harrachschen Gemälde-Galerie in Wien. Wien, Kunstverlag Wolfrum, 1926. Roegele 1955 Otto B. Roegele: Die drei Berliner Missionen des Grafen Damian Hugo von Schönborn 1712–1713. Zeitschrift für die Geschichte Oberrheins, 103. 1955. pp. 426–67. Rosa 1796 Joseph Rosa: Gemälde der k. k. Gallerie, I. Erste Abteilung. Italienische Schulen; II. Zweyte Abteilung. Niederländische Schulen. Wien, Matthias Andreas Schmidt, 1796. Rosenthal 1928 Erwin Rosenthal: Dürers Buchmalereien für Pirckheimers Bibliothek. Jahrbuch der Preuszischen Kunstsammlungen, 49. 1928. Beiheft, pp. 1–54. BIBLIOGRAPHY Rothschild 1999 Works of Art from the Collection of the Baron Nathaniel and Albert von Rothschild. Thuersday 8 July 1999 […]. Christie’s, London, 1999. Sandrart 1675–9 Joachim von Sandrart: Teutsche Academie, I–II. Nürnberg, Christian Sigismund Froberger, 1675–9. Rubens & Brueghel 2006 Rubens & Brueghel. A Working Friendship. Ed. by Anne T. Woollett–Ariane van Suchtelen. Exhibition Catalogue. The J. Paul Getty Musem, Los Angeles–Koninklijk Kabinet van Schilderijen Mauritshuis, ’s-Gravenhage. Zwolle, Waanders, 2006. Sandrart 1680 Joachim von Sandrart: Iconologia deorum. Nürnberg, Froberger, 1680. Rudolf 2002 Karl Rudolf: „Warum sollten Eure Majestät nicht für Sachen, die Ihr Vergnügen bereiten, pro Jahr einige Tausend Gulden ausgeben?” Correggio und Parmigianino auf dem Weg nach Prag zur Zeit Philipps II. und Philipps III. von Spanien. Studia Rudolphina, 2. 2002. pp. 3–15. Šafařík 1964 Eduard A. Šafařík: The Origin and Fate of the Imstenraed Collection. Sborník prací filosofické fakulty brněnské university, 1964. F. 8. pp. 171–82. Salm Reifferscheid 1771 Catalogue raisonné des diverses curiosités du Cabinet de feu […] Le comte de Salm Reifferscheid, éveque de Tournay. Tournay, Romain Varle, 1771. Sandbichler 2009 Veronika Sandbichler: „Er hatte es zum Vergnügen Seiner Majestät veranstaltet”. Höfische Feste und Turniere Erzherzog Ferdinands II. in Böhmen. Studia Rudolphina, 9. 2009. pp. 7–21. Savoy 2010 Bénédicte Savoy: Kunstraub. Napoleons Konfiszierungen in Deutschland und die europäischen Folgen. Die Ausstellung der von Dominique-Vivant Denon in Deutschland beschlagnahmten Werke. 1807–1808. Kritischer Katalog unter Mitarbeit von Nicolas Labasque. Wien–Köln–Weimar, Böhlau, 2010. Scarpa Sonino 1992 Annalisa Scarpa Sonino: Cabinet d’amateur. Le grandi collezioni d’arte nei dipinti dal XVII al XIX secolo. Milano, Berenice, 1992. Schaezler Palais 2016 Die deutsche Barockgalerie im Schaezler Palais. Meisterwerke der Augsburger Sammlung. Hg. von Christof Trepesch. Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2016. Schaller 1795 Jaroslaus Schaller: Beschreibung der königl. Haupt- und Residenzstadt Prag sammt allen darin befindlichen sehenswürdigen Merkwürdigkeiten, II. Praha, Franz Gerjabeck im St. Galli-Kloster, 1795. Scheicher 1979 Elisabeth Scheicher: Die Kunst- und Wunderkammern der Habsburger. Hg. von Christian Brandstätter. Wien–München–Zürich, Molden Edition, 1979. 313 BIBLIOGRAPHY Scheicher 1985 Elisabeth Scheicher: The Collection of Archduke Ferdinand II at Schloss Ambras: its Purpose, Composition and Evolution. In: The Origins of Museums. The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth-Century Europe. Ed. by Oliver Impey–Arthur McGregor. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1985. pp. 29–38. Schelle 1919 2. Auktion der Kunsthandlung August Johannes Schelle veranstaltet in den Sälen des Dorotheums. Enthaltend: Alte und neuere Meister, Miniaturen, Aquarelle und Handzeichnungen […] und eine Sammlung von Werken aus dem Nachlasse des Kunstmalers Josef Büche. Schaustellung und Versteigerung: 16. bis 22. Dezember. Wien, Dorotheum, 1919. Schepkowski 1010 Nina Simone Schepkowski: „So theuer als möglich in Berlin verkauft”. Heinekens Bilderverkäufe an Friedrich den Großen und der Prozess von 1763. Dresdener Kunstblätter, 54. 2010. pp. 151–61. Schlager 1850 Johann Ev. Schlager: Materialien zur österreichischen Kunstgeschichte. Archiv für Kunde österreichischer Geschichts-Quellen, 5. 1850. pp. 1–120. Schlégl 1980 István Schlégl: Samuel Hofmann (1595–1649) (Œuvrekataloge schweizer Künstler, 8.) Zürich, Gut, 1980. Schlichtenmaier 1988 Harry Schlichtenmaier: Studien zum Werk Hans Rottenhammers des Älteren (1564– 1625) Maler und Zeichner mit Werkkatalog. 314 Tübingen, Eberhard-Karls-Universität, 1988 (dissertation). Schlosser 1908 Julius von Schlosser: Kunst- und Wunderkammern der Spätrenaissance. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Sammelwesens. (Monographien des Kunstgewerbes, 9.) Leipzig, Klinkhardt & Biermann, 1908. Schmidt 2016 Harry Schmidt: Jürgen Ovens. Sein Leben und seine Werke. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der niederländischen Malerei im XVII. Jahrhundert. Kiel, Selbstverlag des Verfassers, 1922. Schnabel 1992 Werner Wilhelm Schnabel: Österreichische Exulanten in Oberdeutschen Reichstädten. Zur Migration von Führungsschichten im 17. Jahrhundert. München, C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1992. Schönborn 1867 Galerie de Pommersfelden. Catalogue de la collection de tableaux anciens du château de Pommersfelden a M. le Comte de Schönborn. Paris, J. Claye, 1867. Schöny 1970 Heinz Schöny: Wiener Künstler-Ahnen. Genealogische Daten und Ahnenlisten. Wiener Maler, I. Mittelalter bis Romantik. Wien, Selbstverlag der Heraldischen-Genealogischen Gesellschaft „Adler”, 1970. Schreiber 2004 Renate Schreiber: „Ein Galeria nach meinem Humor”. Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelm. (Schriften des Kunsthistorischen Museums, 8.) Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2004. BIBLIOGRAPHY Schreiber 2006 Renate Schreiber: Darstellungen der Galerie von Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelm bei David Teniers d. J. – Fiktion oder Wirklichkeit? Römische Historische Mitteilungen, 48. 2006. pp. 347–58. Sebastiano del Piombo 2008 Sebastiano del Piombo, 1485–1547. A cura di Claudio Strinati–Bernd Wolfgang Lindemann. Catalogo della mostra, Roma, Palazzo di Venezia–Berlin, Gemäldegalerie. Milano, Federico Motta Editore, 2008. Schuster 2016 Martin Schuster: Das Buch als Kunstwerk. Das „Making of” eines Galeriewerks. In: Fürstenglanz. Die Macht der Pracht. Hg. von Agnes Husslein-Arco–Tobias G. Natter. Wien, Belvedere, 2016. pp. 46–63. Seelig 1980 Lorenz Seelig: Die Ahnengalerie der Münchner Residenz. Untersuchungen zur malerischen Ausstattung. In: Quellen und Studien zur Kunstpolitik der Wittelsbacher vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. Hg. von Hubert Glaser. (Haus der Bayerischen Geschichte: Mitteilungen des Hauses der Bayerischen Geschichte, 1.) München, Hirmer Verlag (et al.), 1980. pp. 253–327. Schütz 1980 Karl Schütz: David Teniers der Jüngere als Kopist im Dienst Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelms. In: Original–Kopie–Replik–Paraphrase. Hg. von Heribert Hutter. (Bildhefte der Akademie der Bildenden Künste in Wien, 12– 13.) Wien, Akademie der Bildenden Künste, 1980. pp. 21–33. Schütz 1992 Karl Schütz: Das Galeriebild als Spiegel des Antwerpener Sammlertums. In: Von Bruegel bis Rubens. Das Goldene Jahrhundert der flämischen Malerei. Hg. von Ekkehard Mai– Hans Vlieghe. Ausstellungskatalog, Köln, Wallraf-Richartz-Museum. Köln, Locher, 1992. pp. 161–70. Schütz 1998 Karl Schütz: Die Sammlung Erzherzog Leopold Wilhelms. In: 1648 – Krieg und Frieden in Europa, II. Hg. von Klaus Bussmann– Heinz Schilling. Ausstellungskatalog, Münster, Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte. Münster–Osnabrück, Veranstaltungsgesellschaft 350 Jahre Westfälischer Friede, 1998. pp. 181–90. Seibold 1982 Gerhard Seibold: Die Pellersche Gemäldesammlung. Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums, 1982. pp. 70–82. Seifertová 1977 Hana Seifertová: Paupertate premor, sublevor ingenio. Ein moralisierendes Porträt des Christopher Paudiss. Umění, 25. 1977. pp. 224–41. Seifertová 1989 Hana Seifertová: Německé malířství 17. století z Československých sbírek. Praha, Národní galerie v Praze, 1989. Seifertová 1997a Hana Seifertová: Prager Kabinettmalerei 1690–1750. In: Dialog mit alten Meistern. Prager Kabinettmalerei 1690–1750. Ausstellungskatalog. Hg. von Hana Seifertová, in Zusammenarbeit mit Anja K. Ševčík. Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, 1997. pp. 9–35. 315 BIBLIOGRAPHY Seifertová 1997b Hana Seifertová: Blick in eine Gemäldegalerie – das Antwerpener Thema aus Prager Perspektive. In: Dialog mit alten Meistern. Prager Kabinettmalerei 1690–1750. Ausstellungskatalog. Hg. von Hana Seifertová–Anja K. Ševčík. Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, 1997. pp. 36–45. Seifertová 1997c Hana Seifertová: „Kompagnons” – Pendantgemälde: eine neue Gestaltungsaufgabe der Prager Kabinettmaler. In: Dialog mit alten Meistern. Prager Kabinettmalerei 1690– 1750. Ausstellungskatalog. Hg. von Hana Seifertová–Anja K. Ševčík. Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, 1997. pp. 46–53. Seifertová 2007a Hana Seifertová: Malby na kameni / Painting on Stone. Praha, Národní galerie v Praze, 2007. Seifertová 2007b Hana Seifertová: Zwei untergegangene barocke Gemäldesammlungen in Prag – Die Sammlungen Czernin und Wrschowetz. In: Museen und fürstliche Sammlungen im 18. Jahrhundert. (Kolloqiumsbände des Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museums, 3.) Hg. von Jochen Luckhardt. Braunschweig, Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum, 2007. pp. 94–101. Seifertová–Třeštík 2002–3 Hana Seifertová–Jiří Třeštík: Were the paintings by Roelant Savery the Garden of Eden and the Landscape with Birds originally pendants? Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague, 12–3. 2002–3. pp. 97–103. Seiler 2011 Friedrich Seiler: Deutsche Sprichwörterkunde. Barsinghausen, Unikum Verlag, 2011. 316 Serving Understanding 2002 Slavomír Brodesser–Jan Břečka–Jiří Mikulka: Serving Understanding and the Glory of the Land. History of the Moravian Museum. Brno, Moravian Museum, 2002. Seyfarth 1995 Jutta Seyfarth: Bildbesitz in Kölner Familien zur Zeit der Gülichschen Wirren und ein neues Inventarium der Sammlung Imstenraedt. Wallraf-Richartz-Jahrbuch, 56. Köln, Dumont Buchverlag, 1995. pp. 225–54. Seyfarth 1999 Jutta Seyfarth: Ein Schatzhaus des Apelles (Iconophylacium). Beschreibung der Bildersammlung des Kölner Ratsherrn Franz von Imstenraedt, 1667. In: Coellen eyn Croyn. Renaissance und Barock in Köln. (Riss im Himmel. Clemens August und seine Epoche, 1.) Hg. von Werner Schäfke. Köln, DuMont, 1999. pp. 157–254. Shakeshaft 1986 Paul Shakeshaft: „To Much Bewiched with Thoes Intysing Things.” The Letters of James, Third Marquis of Hamilton and Basil, Viscount Feilding, concerning Collecting in Venice 1635–1639. The Burlington Magazine, 128. 1986. no. 995. pp. 114–132. Shapley 1968–73 Fern Rusk Shapley: Complete Catalogue of the Samuel H. Kress Collection. Italian Paintings XV–XVI Century, I–II. London, Phaidon Press, 1968–73. Simons 2002–3 Madelon Simons: Erzherzog Ferdinand II. als Statthalter von Böhmen, sein Mäzenatentum und sein künstlerisches Dilettantismus. Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorisches Museums Wien, 4–5. 2002–3. pp. 121–5. BIBLIOGRAPHY Simons 2007 Madelon Simons: „Unicornu in membrana elegantissime depictum”. Some thoughts about the activities of Archduke Ferdinand II in Prague, 1547–1567. Studia Rudolphina, 7. 2007. pp. 34–43. Sinzendorf 1823 Catalogue de la collection de tableaux delaissée par feu S. A. M. le Prince Prosp. de Sinzendorf dont Vente publique le [17. Mars] 1823 et jours suivan[t]s. Vienne, Rue Obere Schenken Strasse Nro 58. Vienne, Th. noble de Schmidbauer, 1823. Škréta 2013 Karel Škréta (1610–1674). Dílo a doba. Studie, dokumenty, prameny. Ed. Lenka Stolárová– Kateřína Holečková. Praha, Národní galerie, 2013. Slama–Swoboda 2007 Ina Slama–Gudrun Swoboda: Zur historischen Praxis von Formatveränderungen in der Stallburg-Galerie Kaiser Karls VI. Guido Renis „Reuiger Petrus”. Technologische Studien, 4. 2007. pp. 102–21. Slavíček 1983 Lubomír Slavíček: Příspěvky k dějinám nostické obrazové sbírky. (Materiálie k českému baroknímu sběratelství). Umění, 31. 1983. pp. 219–43. Slavíček 1993a Lubomír Slavíček: Delitiae Imaginum. The Nostitzes as Collectors and Patrons of the Arts. In: Artis pictoriae amatores. Evropa v zcradle pražského barokního sběratelství. Ed. by Lubomír Slavíček. Praha, Národní galerie v Praze, 1993. pp. 386–400. Slavíček 1993b Lubomír Slavíček: Antwerpen, Wien und die böhmischen Länder. Die Antwerpener Malerei 1550–1650 im Lichte des Wiener Kunsthandels und der böhmischen Gemäldesammlungen. In: Die Malerei Antwerpens – Gattungen, Meister, Wirkungen. Studien zur flämischen Kunst des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts. Hg. von Ekkehard Mai–Karl Schütz–Hans Vlieghe. Köln, Verlag Locher, 1993. pp. 145–54. Slavíček 1995 Lubomír Slavíček: Paralipomena k dějinám berkovské a nostické obrazové sbírky (Materiálie k českému baroknímu sběratelství, II.) Umění, 43. 1995. pp. 445–71. Slavíček 1996a Lubomír Slavíček: Visual documentation of the Aristocratical Collections in Baroque Bohemia, Opuscula Historiae Artium, F 40. 1996. pp. 75–100. Slavíček 1996b Lubomír Slavíček: Dvě podoby barokního šlechtického sběratelství 17. století v Čechách – sbírky Otty Nostice ml. (1608–1665) a Františka Antonína Berky z Dubé (1649–1706). In: Život na dvorech barokní šlechty (1600–1750). Opera Historica, 5. Editio Universitatis Bohemiae Meridionalis, 1996. pp. 483–513. Slavíček 1999 Lubomír Slavíček: Inventáře Dietrichsteinské sbírky obrazů (Mikulov, Vídeň). Opuscula Historiae Artium, Studia minora facultatis philosophicae Universitatis Brunensis, F 43. 1999. pp. 67–112. Slavíček 2000 Lubomír Slavíček: The National Gallery in Prague. Flemish paintings of the 17th and 18th 317 BIBLIOGRAPHY Centuries. Illustrated Summary Catalogue, I/2. Praha, The National Gallery in Prague, 2000. Slavíček 2002–3 Lubomír Slavíček: Die Auktionen der Gesellschaft patriotischer Kunstfreunde in den Jahren 1796–1835. Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague, 12–3. 2002–3. pp. 25–50. Slavíček 2006 Lubomír Slavíček: Obrazová sbírka Thunů kolem roku 1700. Umění, 54. 2006. pp. 357–66. Slavíček 2007 Lubomír Slavíček: „Sobě, umění, přátelům”. Kapitoly z dějin sběratelství v Čechách a na Moravě 1650–1939. Praha, Společnost pro odbornou literaturu–Barrister & Principal, 2007. Slavíček 2009 Lubomír Slavíček: „[…] dieweilen meine Curiosität meistens in Mallerey bestehen.” Die Sammlungen des Olmützer Bischofs Karl Graf von Liechtenstein-Castelkorn (1623–1695). In: Höfe und Residenzen geistlicher Fürsten. Strukturen, Regionen und Salzburgs Beispiel in Mittelalter und Neuzeit. (Residenzenforschung, 24.) Hg. von Gerhard Ammerer et al. 2009. pp. 191–204. Slavíček 2014 Lubomír Slavíček: Zámecká obrazárna v Rájci nad Svitavou a sběratelství rodu ze Salm-Reifferscheidtů ve světle pramenů. Opuscula Historiae Artium, 63. 2014. pp. 94–119. Sošková 2000 Martina Sošková: Emperor Leopold I in Allegorical Dress from the Equestrian Ballet La Contesa dell´Aria e dell´Acqua. Bulletin of the National Gallery in Prague, 10. 2000. pp. 68–73. 318 Sovrane passioni 1998 Sovrane passioni. Le raccolte d’arte della Ducale Galleria Estense. A cura di Jadranka Bentini. Modena, Federico Motta Editore, 1998. Spaček 1889 Karl Spaček: Catalog der Erlaucht Gräflich Harrach’schen Bilder-Gallerie. Wien, 1889. Speck von Sternburg 1998 Maximilian Speck von Sternburg. Ein Europäer der Goethezeit als Kunstsammler. Hg. von Herwig Guratzsch. Leipzig, Seemann, 1998. Spenlé 2006 Virginie Spenlé: Kunstsammeln und Kunsthandel am Hof: die Tätigkeit von Carl Heinrich von Heineken als Kunsthändler. In: Sammeln als Institution. Von der fürstlichen Wunderkammer zum Mäzenatentum des Staates. Hg. von Barbara Marx–Karl-Siegbert Rehberg. München–Berlin, Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2006. pp. 125–33. Spenlé 2008 Virginie Spenlé: Die Dresdner Gemäldegalerie und Frankreich. Der „bon goût” im Sachsen des 18. Jahrhunderts. Beucha, Sax Verlag, 2008. Spenlé 2015 Virginie Spenlé: Die Dresdner Gemäldegalerie. Entstehungsgeschichte eines fürstlichen Museums im Kontext sächsisch-preußischer Sammelkultur. Sachsen und BrandenburgPreußen im kulturellen Wettstreit der Großmächte. In: Die Bildergalerie Friedrichs des Großen. Geschichte–Kontext–Bedeutung. Hg. von der Generaldirektion der Stiftung Preußische Schlösser und Gärten Berlin–Brandenburg. Berlin, Schnell–Steiner, 2015. pp. 51–77. BIBLIOGRAPHY Speth-Holterhoff 1957 Simone Speth-Holterhoff: Les peintres flamands de Cabinet d’Amateurs au XVIIe siècle. Bruxelles, Elsevier, 1957. Springell 1963 Francis C. Springell: Connoisseur & Diplomat. The Earl of Arundel’s Embassy to Germany in 1636. London, Maggs Bros. Ltd., 1963. Steneberg 1966 Karl Erik Steneberg: Le Blon, Quellinus, Millich and the Swedish Court „Parnassus”. In: Queen Christina of Sweden. Documents and Studies. Ed. by Magnus von Platen. Stockholm, Norstedt, 1966. pp. 332–64. Stephan Kessler 2005 Stephan Kessler, 1622–1700. Ein Tiroler Maler der Rubenszeit. Hg. von Leo Andergassen– Helmut Stampfer. Ausstellungskatalog. Brixen, Südtiroler Landesdenkmalamt und Diözesanmuseum Hofburg Brixen, 2005. Sterck 1918 Johannes Franciscus Maria Sterck: Oorkonden over Vondel en zijn kring. Met portretten en facsimilé’s. Bussum, Uitgeversmaatschappij, v. h. Brand, 1918. Sternberg 1793–4 [Joachim von Sternberg:] Auszug einer Reisebeschreibung eines Schweden im Jahre 1688. Lieferungen für Boehmen von Boehmen, 3. 1793–4. pp. 73–80. Sternberg-Manderscheid 1884 Catalog eines Theils der nachgelassenen Gemälde-Sammlungen Sr. Erlaucht des Herrn Franz Grafen von Sternberg-Manderscheid […] sowie aus dem Besitze Ihrer Durchlaucht der Fürstin Marie Lobkowitz. München, Carl Maurer, 1884. Stillfried 2008 Silvia Stillfried: Frans de Neve, ein flämischer Maler im 17. Jahrhundert auf Wanderschaft in Süd- und Mitteleuropa. Wien, Universität Wien, 2008 (MA thesis). Stockhausen 2000 Tilmann von Stockhausen: Gemäldegalerie Berlin. Die Geschichte ihrer Erwerbungspolitik 1830–1904. Berlin, Nicolai, 2000. Stoll 2012 Peter Stoll: Der Südtiroler Barockmaler Stephan Kessler in Schwaben. Zwei biblische Gastmähler und eine Arche Noah. Augsburg, Universitätsbibliothek, 2012. pp. 1–25. URL https://opus.bibliothek.uni-augsburg.de/opus4/ frontdoor/index/index/docId/1890 (Last retrieved on 30 November 2017). Stolzenberger 2010 Jana Stolzenberger: Höfisches Sammeln und internationale Tendenzen der Kunst um 1600. In: Renaissance, Barock, Aufklärung. Kunst und Kultur vom 16. bis zum 18. Jahrhundert. Hg. von Daniel Hess–Dagmar Hirschberger. (Die Schausammlungen des Germanischen Nationalmuseums, 3.) Nürnberg, Verlag des Germanischen Nationalmuseums, 2010. Storffer 1720–3 Ferdinand Storffer: Neu eingerichtetes Inventarium der Kayl. Bilder Gallerie in der Stallburg welches nach denen Numeris und Maßstab ordiniret und von Ferdinand à Storffer gemahlen worden. In: Die Galerie Kaiser Karls VI. in Wien. Solimenas Widmungsbild und Storffers Inventar (1720–1733) Hg. von Sabine Haag–Gudrun Swoboda. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2010. pp. 63–93. 319 BIBLIOGRAPHY Stüwe 1998 Rainer Stüwe: Dürer in der Kopie. Die Gemälde und Graphiken der Nürnberger Dürer-Kopisten des 16. und 17. Jahrhunderts zwischen „altdeutscher Manier” und barockem Stil. Heidelberg, Universität, 1998 (dissertation). Sumowski 1983 Werner Sumowski: Gemälde der Rembrandt-Schüler, IV. Ch. Paudiss–Anonyme. Landau/Pfalz, Edition PVA, 1983. Sumowski 1985 Werner Sumowski: Drawings of the Rembrandt School, IX. Ed. and transl. by Walter L. Strauss. New York, Abaris Books, 1985. Svátek 1879 Josef Svátek: Culturhistorische Bilder aus Böhmen. Wien, Wilhelm Braumüller, 1879. Swoboda 2008 Gudrun Swoboda: Die Wege der Bilder. Eine Geschichte der kaiserlichen Gemäldesammlungen von 1600 bis 1800. Wien, Brandstätter Verlag, 2008. Szentesi 2000 Edit Szentesi: Birodalmi patriotizmus. Történelemszemlélet, történetírás, történeti publicisztika és történeti témák ábrázolása az Osztrák Császárságban 1828-ig. In: Történelem–kép. Szemelvények múlt és művészet kapcsolatából Magyarországon. Ed. by Árpád Mikó–Katalin Sinkó. Exhibition catalogue. Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Galéria, 2000. pp. 73–91. Tacke 1995 Andreas Tacke: Die Gemälde des 17. Jahrhunderts im Germanischen Nationalmuseum. Bestandkatalog. Mainz, Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1995. Telesko 2006 Werner Telesko: Geschichtsraum Österreich: die Habsburger und ihre Geschichte in der bildenden Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts. Wien– Köln–Weimar, Böhlau, 2006. Tesori di Praga 1996 Tesori di Praga. La pittura veneta del ’600 e del ’700 dalle collezioni nella Repubblica Ceca. A cura di Ladislav Daniel. Milano, Electa, 1996. Swoboda 2010 Gudrun Swoboda: Die verdoppelte Galerie. Die Kunstsammlungen Kaiser Karls VI. in der Wiener Stallburg und ihr Inventar. In: Die Galerie Karls VI. in Wien. Solimenas Widmungsbild und Storffers Inventar (1720–1733). Hg. von Sabine Haag–Gudrun Swoboda. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2010. pp. 10–31. The Stylish Image 1991 The Stylish Image. Printmakers to the Court of Rudolf II. An exhibition organised in Collaboration with the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam. Introductory Essays by R. J. W. Evans and Eliška Fučíková. Catalogue Notes by Mungo Campbell. National Gallery of Scotland, 1991. Syndram 1997 Dirk Syndram: Die Schatzkammer Augusts des Starken. Von der Pretiosensammlung zum Grünen Gewölbe. Leipzig, Seemann, 1999. Theatre of Painting 2006 David Teniers and the Theatre of Painting. Ed. by Ernst Vegelin van Claerbergen. London, Courtauld Institute of Art Gallery, 2006. 320 BIBLIOGRAPHY Theuerkauff 1981 Christian Theuerkauff: Zur Geschichte der Brandenburgisch-Preußischen Kunstkammer bis gegen 1800. In: Die Brandenburgisch-Preussische Kunstkammer. Eine Auswahl aus den alten Beständen. Red. Josephine Hildebrand–Christian Theuerkauff. Berlin, Staatliche Museen Preußischer Kulturbesitz, 1981. pp. 13–33. Thieme–Becker 1926 Allgemeines Lexikon der bildenden Künste von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart, XIX. Hg. von Ulrich Thieme–Felix Becker, unter Mitwirkung von Hans Vollmer. Leipzig, Engelmann, 1926. Thieme 1959 Gisela Thieme: Der Kunsthandel in den Niederlanden im 17. Jahrhundert. Köln, Verlag der Löwe, 1959. Thomas 2004 Petra Thomas: Der Katalog im Bild – das Bild im Katalog. Anmerkungen zur Präsentation einer Gemäldesammlung in Bildern von David Teniers d. J. In: Forschung 107. Kunstwissenschaftliche Studien, 1. Hg. von Susanne H. Kolter–Barbara Stempel–Christine Walter. München, Herbert Utz Verlag, 2004. pp. 57–84. Thöne 1963 Friedrich Thöne: Wolfenbüttel. Geist und Glanz einer alten Residenz. München, Bruckmann, 1963. Tietze 1931 Hans Tietze: Geschichte und Beschreibung des St. Stephansdomes in Wien. (Österreichische Kunsttopographie, 23.) Wien, Dr. Benno Filser Verlag, 1931. Tilg 2006 Stefan Tilg: Zu Paulus Ricius (ca. 1480– 1541/1542): eine außergewöhnliche Karriere in der Zeit des Humanismus. Aschkenas – Zeitschrift für Geschichte und Kultur der Juden, 16. 2006. pp. 561–82. Tipton 2010 Susan Tipton: Correggio unter Verschluss: Alessandro Segni besucht Wien im Winter 1666/67 und besichtigt die kaiserlichen Sammlungen. In: Rondo. Beiträge für Peter Diemer zum 65. Geburtstag. Hg. von Wolfgang Augustyn und Iris Lauterbach. München, Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte, 2010. pp. 145–56. Toman 1887 Hugo Toman: Das Verzeichniss der gräfl. Wrschowetz’schen Bildersammlung in Prag vom Jahre 1723. Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft 10. 1887. pp. 14–24. Tomaschek 1997 Johann Tomaschek: Äbte und Mönche als Herren auf Strechau: Die Geschichte der Burg während der Zeit ihrer Zugehörigkeit zum Benediktinerstift Admont (1629–1892). In: Hannes P. Naschenweng: Burg Strechau. (Zeitschrift des Historischen Vereines für Steiermark, Sonderband 24). Liezen, H. Boesch–Gemeinde Lassing, 1997. pp. 45–62. Trümper 2011 Timo Trümper: Jacob Weyer (1623–1670) und die Hamburger Malerei im Kontext der niederländischen Malerei. In: Grenzüberschreitung. Deutsch–niederländischer Kunst- und Künstleraustausch im 17. Jahrhundert. Hg. von Nils Büttner–Esther Meier. Marburg, Jonas Verlag, 2011. pp. 91–102. 321 BIBLIOGRAPHY Unverfehrt 1980 Gerd Unverfehrt: Hieronymus Bosch. Die Rezeption seiner Kunst im frühen 16. Jahrhundert. Berlin, Gebrüder Mann, 1980. Urban 1973 Stanislav Urban: Poslední řezáč z rodu Miseroniů. K životu a dílu Ferdinanda Eusebia Miseroniho. Umění, 21. 1973. pp. 515–27. Uylenburgh & Son 2006 Friso Lammertse–Jaap van der Veen: Uylenburgh & Son. Art and Commerce from Rembrandt to De Lairesse 1625–1675. Zwolle, Waanders Publishers, 2006. Vácha 2014 Štěpán Vácha: The School of Prague or Old German Masters: Rudolfine Painting in the Literary and Visual Discourse of the 17th and 18th Centuries. Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 77. 2014. pp. 361–84. Valentini 1704 Michael Bernhard Valentini: Museum Museorum oder vollständige Schau-Bühne. Franckfurt am Mayn, Johann David Zunner, 1704. Vécsey 2013 Axel Vécsey: A Balen–Brueghel csere. Fejezet az Esterházy-képtár történetéből. In: Als ich can. Tanulmányok Urbach Zsuzsa 80. születésnapjára. Szerk. Gábor Gaylhoffer-Kovács– Miklós Székely. Budapest, CentrArt, 2013. pp. 174–6. Veen 1992a Jaap van der Veen: Met grote moeite en kosten. De totstandkoming van zeventiende-eeuwse verzamelingen. In: De wereld binnen handbereik. Nederlandse kunst- en rariteitenverzamelingen, 1585–1735. Red. Elinoor 322 Bergvelt–Renée Kistemaker. Amsterdam– Zwolle, Amsterdams Historisch Museum– Waanders Uitgevers, 1992. pp. 51–69, 294–6. Veen 1992b Jaap van der Veen: Dit klain Vertrek bevat een Weereld vol gewoel. Negentig Amsterdammers en hun kabinetten. In: De wereld binnen handbereik. Nederlandse kunst- en rariteitenverzamelingen, 1585–1735. Red. Elinoor Bergvelt–Renée Kistemaker. Amsterdam– Zwolle, Amsterdams Historisch Museum– Waanders Uitgevers, 1992. pp. 232–58. Venturelli 2005 Paola Venturelli: Le collezioni Gonzaga. Cammei, cristalli, pietre dure, oreficerie, cassetine, stipetti. Intorno all’elenco dei beni del 1626–1627. Da Guglielmo a Vincenzo II Gonzaga. Milano, Silvana Editoriale, 2005. Venturelli 2013 Paola Venturelli: Splendissime gioie. Cammei, cristalli e pietre dure milanesi per le Corti d’Europa (XV–XVII secc.). Firenze, Edifir edizioni, 2013. Venturi 1885 Adolfo Venturi: Zur Geschichte der Kunstsammlungen Kaiser Rudolf II. Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, 8. 1885. pp. 1–23. Vergara 1989 W. Alexander Vergara: The Count Fuensaldaña and David Teniers: Their Purchases in London after the Civil War. The Burlington Magazine, 131. 1989. pp. 127–32. Vertue 1759 George Vertue: A Description of the Works of the Ingenious Delineator and Engraver Wenceslaus Hollar. London, William Bathoe, 17592. BIBLIOGRAPHY Verzeichnis Braun 1827 Verzeichnis einer Sammlung Öhlgemälde, Kupferstiche und Kunstbücher, welche, vom 2ten Jänner 1828 angefangen in der Stadt Rauhensteingasse Nro 987 im zweyten Stocke öffentlich versteigert werden. Wien, B. Ph. Bauer, 1827. Vey 1999 Horst Vey: Eberhard Jabach III. (1567–1636). In: Coellen eyn Croyn. Renaissance und Barock in Köln. (Riss im Himmel. Clemens August und seine Epoche, 1.) Hg. von Werner Schäfke. Köln, DuMont, 1999. pp. 101–56. Viczay 1833 Verzeichniß der Oelgemälde aus der Graf Viczay’schen Verlassenschaft, welche zu Pressburg in Ungarn im Verlaufe des Jahres 1833 […] öffentlich versteigert werden. Red. von [Franz] Steinfeld und [Eduard] Engert[h] aus Wien. Preßburg, C. Snischek, 1833. Vlnas 1996 Vít Vlnas: «Znovuvyzdvižení umění a vkusu». Společnost vlasteneckých přátel umění v letech 1796–1884 / «Resurgence of art and good taste». The Society of Patriotic Friends of the Arts 1796–1884. In: Obrazárna v Čechách 1796–1918. Ed. Vít Vlnas. Katalog výstavy, uspořádané Národní galerií v Praze u příležitosti dvoustého výročí založení Obrazárny Společnosti vlasteneckých přátel umění v Čechách. Praha, Národní galerie v Praze, 1996. pp. 23–35, 257–61. Vlnas 2007 Vít Vlnas: The Phantom Rottenhammer – Hans Rottenhammer in the Tradition of Collecting Art in Prague. In: Hans Rottenhammer (1564–1625). Hg. von Heiner Borggrefe–Vera Lüpkes–Lubomír Konečny– Michael Bischoff. (Studien zur Kultur der Renaissance, 4.) Marburg, Jonas Verlag, 2007. pp. 178–83. Vlnas 2014 Vít Vlnas: Die Malerfamilie Škréta und ihre Bilder für Karl Eusebius von Liechtenstein. Ein Beitrag zur Situation des Kunsthandels im barocken Prag. In: Liechtenstein und die Kunst. (Veröffentlichungen der Liechtensteinisch-Tschechischen Historikerkommission, 3.) Vaduz, Verlag des Historischen Vereins für das Fürstentum Liechtenstein, 2014. pp. 315–30. Vollenweider–Avisseau-Broustet 2003 Camées et intailles, II. Les portraits romains du Cabinet des médailles. Catalogue raisonné, réd. par Marie-Louise Vollenweider– Mathilde Avisseau-Broustet. Paris, Bibliothèque nationale de France, 2003. Volpe–Lucco 1980 Carlo Volpe–Mauro Lucco: L’opera completa di Sebastiano del Piombo. Milano, Rizzoli Editore, 1980. Voskuil-Popper 1976 Noémi Voskuil-Popper: Johan de Cordua. A forgotten Vanitas Painter 17th Century. Gazette des Beaux-Arts, 118. 1976. pp. 61–74. Wald 2002 Robert Wald: Parmigianino’s Cupid Carving his Bow. History, Examination, Restoration. In: Parmigianino e il manierismo europeo. A cura di Lucia Fornari Schianchi. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi – Parma, 13–15 giugno 2002. (Biblioteca d’arte). Silvana editoriale, 2002. pp. 165–81. 323 BIBLIOGRAPHY Waterfield 2006 Giles Waterfield: Teniers’s Theatrum Pictorium: Its Genesis and its Influence. In: Theatre of Painting 2006. pp. 41–57. Waterhouse 1952 Ellis Kirkham Waterhouse: Paintings from Venice for Seventeenth-Century England. Some Records of a Forgotten Transaction. Italien Studies, 7. 1952. pp. 1–23. Weijtens 1971 Weijtens, F. H. C.: De Arundel collectie. Utrecht, Rijksarchiv, 1971. Weiss 1953–5 Eduard Weiss: Barokní obrazárna v kolowratském zámku v Rychnově nad Kněžnou, Praha, 1953–5 (typescript). Wellnhofer 1936 Matthias Wellnhofer: Der kurbayerische Geheimrat und Kunstsammler Franz von Mayr (†1699). Zeitschrift für Bayerische Landesgeschichte, 9. 1936. pp. 421–31. Welzel 1997 Barbara Welzel: Neuerwerbungen in höfischen Galerien: Ereignis und Repräsentation. Anmerkungen zu den Galeriebildern von David Teniers d. J. Marburger Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft, 24. 1997. pp. 179–90. Welzel 1998 Barbara Welzel: Armoury and Archducal Image. The sense of touch from the Five Senses of Jan Brueghel and Peter Paul Rubens. In: Albert & Isabella 1598–1621. Ed. by Werner Thomas–Luc Duerloo. Bruxelles, Brepols, 1998. pp. 99–106. 324 Werke für die Ewigkeit 2002 Werke für die Ewigkeit. Kaiser Maximilian I. und Erzherzog Ferdinand II. Hg. von Wilfried Seipel. Ausstellungskatalog, Innsbruck, Schloss Ambras. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum, 2002. Wethey 1971 Harold Edwin Wethey: The Paintings of Titian. Complete edition, II. The Portraits. London, Phaidon, 1971. Wilhelm 1911 Franz Wilhelm: Neue Quellen zur Geschichte des fürstlich Liechtensteinschen Kunstbesitzes. Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Institutes der k. k. Zentral-Kommission für Denkmalpflege, 5. 1911. no. 1–4. pp. 89–142. Winkelbauer 1999a Thomas Winkelbauer: Fürst und Fürstendiener. Gundaker von Liechtenstein, ein österreichischer Aristokrat des konfessionellen Zeitalters. (Mitteilungen des Instituts für Österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband, 34.) Wien–München, R. Oldenbourg Verlag, 1999. Winkelbauer 1999b Thomas Winkelbauer: Fürst Gundaker Liechtenstein, der Auftraggeber und Erstbesitzer von Roelandt Saverys Gemäldepaar Paradieslandschaft und Landschaft mit Vögeln aus dem Jahre 1628. Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museums Wien, 1. 1999. pp. 307–9. Woermann 1887 Karl Woermann: Bilder aus der Prager Sammlung Wrschowetz in der Dresdner Galerie. Repertorium für Kunstwissenschaft, 10. 1887. pp. 153–9. BIBLIOGRAPHY Woermann 1908 Karl Woermann: Katalog der Königlichen Gemäldegalerie zu Dresden. Dresden, Kunstanstalt Wilhelm Hoffmann, 1908. Woltmann 1877 Alfred Woltmann: Die Gemäldesammlung in der kaiserlichen Burg zu Prag. Mitteilungen der k. k. Central-Commision zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der Kunst- und Historischen Denkmale, N. F. 3. 1877. pp. 25–50. Wrschowetz-Sekerken 1661 Jaroslaw Wrschowetz-Sekerken von Sedczicz: Antigraphum des uhralt-gräffl. Wrssowetz-Sekerkischen Geschlechts […] So wol den Namen / als Stam(m) und Wapen betreffend / […] zu Rettung dieses löblichen Geschlechts dem unpassionirten Leser / mit viel nöth- und nützlichen Erinnerungen vor Augen gestellet. Dreszden, Melchior Bergen, 1661. Wurm 1955 Heinrich Wurm: Die Jörger von Tollet. (Forschungen zur Geschichte Oberösterreichs). Graz–Köln–Linz, Hermann Böhlaus Nachfolger, 1955. Wurzbach 1863 Constantin von Wurzbach: Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Österreich, X. Wien, Kaiserlich-königliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1863. Wurzbach 1870 Constantin von Wurzbach: Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Österreich, XXII. Wien, Kaiserlich-königliche Hof- und Staatsdruckerei, 1870. Würbs 1864 [Karl Würbs]: Verzeichniss der Gräflich Nostitz’schen Gemälde-Galerie in Prag. Prag, Druck der k. k. Hofdruckerei von Gottlieb Haase Söhne, 1864. Záruba-Pfeffermann 2009 Josef Záruba-Pfeffermann: The Kolowrat Picture Gallery in Rychnov nad Kněžnou. In: Mistrovská díla z kolowratské obrazárny v Rychnově nad Kněžnou. Ed. Olga Kotková. Praha, Národní galerie v Praze, 2009. pp. 11–31. Zimerman 1888 Heinrich Zimerman: Urkunden, Acten und Regesten aus dem Archiv des k. k. Ministeriums des Innern. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 7. 1888. pp. XV–LXXXIV. Zimerman 1889 Heinrich Zimerman: Inventare, Acten und Regesten aus der Schatzkammer des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 10. 1889. pp. CCI–CCCXXIV. Zimerman 1895 Heinrich Zimerman: Inventare, Acten und Regesten aus der Schatzkammer des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 16. 1895. pp. I–LIX. Zimmer 1971 Jürgen Zimmer: Joseph Heintz der Ältere als Maler. Weißenhorn, Anton H. Konrad Verlag, 1971. 325 BIBLIOGRAPHY Zimmer 2009 Jürgen Zimmer: Aus den Sammlungen Rudolfs II. „Der” Kameo. Studia Rudolfina, 9. 2009. pp. 110–26. Zimmer 2010 Jürgen Zimmer: Aus den Sammlungen Rudolfs II. „Die Zwölff Heidnischen Kayser sambt Iren Weibern”. Mit einem Exkurs: Giovanni de Monte. Studia Rudolphina, 10. 2010. pp. 7–47. Zimmer 2013 Jürgen Zimmer: Nicht aus den Sammlungen Rudolfs II. Was der Kaiser wünschte und nicht bekam. Studia Rudolphina, 12–3. 2013. pp. 7–31. Zimmermann 1903 Heinrich Zimmermann: Inventare, Akten und Regesten aus der Registratur seiner k. und k. Apostolischen Majestät Oberstkämmereramtes. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 24. 1903. pp. I–XCVII. Zimmermann 1905 Heinrich Zimmermann: Das Inventar der Prager Schatz- und Kunstkammer vom 6. Dezember 1621. Nach Akten des k. u. k. Reichsfinanzarchivs in Wien. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaisershaues, 25. 1905. pp. I–LXXV. Zimmermann 1910–1 Heinrich Zimmermann: Auszüge aus den Hofzahlamtsrechnungen in der k. k. Hofbibliothek. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, 29. 1910–1. pp. I–XLVI. Zwierlein-Diehl 1997 Erika Zwierlein-Diehl: „Interpretatio christiana”. Gems on the „Shrine of the Three 326 Kings” in Cologne. In: Engraved Gems: Survivals and Revivals. Ed. by Clifford Malcolm Brown. (Studies in the History of Art, 54.) Washington, National Gallery of Art, 1997. pp. 62–83. Zwierlein-Diehl 2007 Erika Zwierlein-Diehl: Antike Gemmen und ihr Nachleben. Berlin–New York, Walter de Gruyter, 2007. Zwierlein-Diehl 2008a Erika Zwierlein-Diehl: Magie der Steine. Die antiken Prunkkameen im Kunsthistorischen Museum. Mit Beiträgen von Alfred Bernhard-Walcher–Paulus Rainer. Wien, Kunsthistorisches Museum–Christian Brandstätter, 2008. Zwierlein-Diehl 2008b Erika Zwierlein-Diehl: Antike Gemmen im Mittelalter. Wiederverwendung, Umdeutung, Nachahmung. In: Persistenz und Rezeption. Weiterverwendung, Wiederverwendung und Neuinterpretation antiker Werke im Mittelalter. Hg. von Dietrich Boschung–Susanne Wittekind. Wiesbaden, Reichert, 2008. pp. 237–84. Zwollo 1968 Ann Zwollo: Pieter Stevens, ein vergessener Maler des rudolfinischen Kreises. Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien, 64. 1968. pp. 119–80. Zwollo 1988 Ann Zwollo: Pieter Stevens, Addenda zu seinem Werk mit einem Anhang über ein Porträt der Westonia. In: Prag um 1600. Beiträge zur Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II. Hg. von Eliška Fučíková. Freren, Luca Verlag, 1988. pp. 326–33. INDEX INDEX Index of names Page numbers in italics refer to illustrations Aachen, Hans von 24–5, 145, 151, 164, 178, 180–1, 189, 191–3, 200, 223 Aertsen, Pieter 230 Albani collection 60 Albani, Francesco 134 Albert Casimir of Saxony, Duke of Teschen 152 Albert Sigismund of Bavaria, Bishop of Freising 99, 106, 135, 137 Albert VII, Archduke of Austria, Governor of the Habsburg Netherlands 114, 151, 159, 189, 192 Alexander I, Tsar of Russia 38 Allegri, Antonio, see Correggio Altomonte, Martino 253 Amalia of Saxony, Duchess of Bavaria 188 Amerling, Friedrich von 156, 254 Angermayer, Johann Adalbert 232 Antony Ulrich, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel 192 Anzelewsky, Fedja 148 Apponyi, Antal 81 Apshoven, Ferdinand, the Younger 83–4 Arslan, Edoardo 201, 204, 207, 220 Arundel, Alethea Talbot, Countess of 127, 141, 143–4, 148–50 Arundel, Thomas Howard, 2nd Earl of 36–7, 42, 126, 140–6, 150, 182 Auerbach, Johann Carl 78 Auersperg, Vinzenz von 92 Augustus I, Elector of Saxony 210 Augustus II (the Strong), King of Poland (Frederick Augustus I, Elector of Saxony) 56 Augustus III, King of Poland (Frederick Augustus II, Elector of Saxony) 60, 83, 244–5 Azzolino, Decio 38, 185–6 Bachmann, Georg 158, 265 Baeck, see Bake Baellieur, Cornelis de 73–4 Bake van Wulverhorst family 41–2 Bake van Wulverhorst, Jakoba 41, 43–4 Bake van Wulverhorst, Laurens, the Elder 41 Bake van Wulverhorst, Laurens, the Younger 41–2, 49 Bake, Joost 41 Baldung Grien, Hans 88, 235, 236–8, 239–42, 244–5, 246–7, 259, 260 Balen, Hendrick van 166, 175, 249 Balla, painter 198 Ballarin, Alessandro 206 Barbo, Pietro, see Paul II Pope Baren, Jan Anton van der 69, 76, 84, 181 Bassano, Francesco, the Younger 134, 205, 206–9, 213–6, 220 Bassano, Jacopo 151, 193, 201–2, 205–7, 208–210, 212–5, 216–20, 233, 269 Bassano, Leandro 203–5, 213, 220 Baur, Johann Wilhelm 106, 268 Beauharnais, Joséphine de 38 Beger, Lorenz 32, 59 Bellange, Jacques 150 Bellini, Giovanni 21, 263 Bellori, Pietro 56, 60 Bellotto, Pietro 134 Benson, Ambrosius 88, 103–4 Bergner, Paul 170, 239 Berka von Duba und Leipa, Franz Anton 27–8, 107, 112, 116–21, 117, 129–30, 132, 134, 151, 163–5, 170, 174, 231, 254 Berka von Duba, Hynek 116 Berka von Duba, Zbyněk 116 Berka z Dubé, see Berka von Duba Besana, Andrea 54 Bicker, Roelof 46 Biela, [Wilhelm?] 146 Bikessy, László 136–7 Binoit, Peter 135, 268, 270 Birken, Sigismund von 41, 70 329 INDEX Birkenstock, Johann Melchior von 199 Bisschop, Jan de 127 Blockland, Anthonis 151 Bloemaert, Abraham 233–4, 262 Blommaert, Esther Barbara 39 Blommendael, Jan 116 Blon, Michiel le 41–3, 46 Blümegen, Hermann Hannibal 25 Boccamaggiore, Camillo 131 Boel, Pieter 113, 265 Bonasone, Giulio 134 Bondy, Oskar 225 Bora, Katharina von 221 Borggrefe, Heiner 167 Borgia, Lucrezia 186–7 Borgia, Stefano 192 Bosch, Hieronymus 228–30 Boschini, Marco 69, 70, 198 Both, Andries 268 Bourguignon, Le, see Courtois, Jacques Böhm, Joseph Daniel 146–8 Bramer, Leonaert 25 Brandl, Petr 181, 195, 231 Braschi, Giovanni Angelo, see Pius VI, Pope Braun, Adam 199, 250 Breitenbacher, Antonín 145 Breu, Jörg, the Elder 246 Briers, Adriaen de 196 Briers, Daniel de 164, 185, 194–6, 200 Brinkmann, Bodo 148 Brown, Edward 37, 57 Bruegel, Pieter, the Elder 22, 113, 115–6, 117–8, 128, 151, 226, 227, 228–9, 233–4, 263–5, 268, 269 Brueghel family 22, 112–3, 115, 118, 193, 230, 247, 259, 266, 268 Brueghel, Anna 72 Brueghel, Jan, the Elder 22, 72, 113–4, 151, 166, 169, 175, 182, 190, 192, 233–4, 248–50, 260, 264 Brueghel, Jan, the Younger 22, 247–8, 260, 265 Brueghel, Pieter, the Younger 113, 115, 118 330 Brukenthal, Sámuel 225 Brunszvik collection 109 Brüssel, David de 194 Buberl, Paul 202 Buchner, Christian 178 Buckingham, George Villiers, 1st Duke of 42, 60–1, 66, 217, 219 Buquoy, Bonaventura von 220 Burjas, Géza 128 Bussmann, Georg 246 Butsch, Fidelis 146 Buzási, Enikő 16, 70 Bys, Johann Rudolf 182, 232 Caledon, James, 4th Earl of 206 Callot, Jacques 260 Cano, Alonso 134 Caravaggio (Michelangelo Merisi) 144 Carol I, King of Romania 214 Caroni brothers 53 Carracci, Annibale 22, 63, 234, 259 Carracci, Ludovico 187 Castiglione, Baldassare 46 Černín z Chudenic, see Czernin von Chudenitz Černoch, Jan Jiři 181 Cesi, Carlo 134 Cevoli de’ Marchesi del Carretto, Niccolò 45 Charles (the Posthumous), Archduke of Austria, Prince-Bishop of Wroclaw 226 Charles I, King of England 58, 144 Charles II August, Duke of Zweibrücken 195 Charles II, Archduke of Austria 210 Charles II, King of England 46 Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor 38 Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor 70, 98, 159 Charles X Gustav, King of Sweden 40 Charles XII, King of Sweden 49 Chigi collection 60 Christina, Queen of Sweden 37, 41–2, 46, INDEX 61, 151, 159–60, 184–8, 192, 199, 200, 212, 214 Clam-Gallas collection 132 Claudius, Roman emperor 32, 36 Clemens Franz de Paula, Prince of Bavaria 195 Clerck, Hendrick de 169, 175 Cleve, Marten van 118 Coello, Alonso Sánchez 134 Coesvelt, William Gordon 162 Constantin (the Great), Roman emperor 11, 31, 32, 270 Cordua, Johann de 21, 99, 100–1, 102, 104–5, 131, 233, 255, 261 Correggio (Antonio Allegri) 20, 22, 63–4, 151, 160, 178, 180–1, 198–200, 214, 261 Cortona, Pietro 134 Cosattini, Giovanni Giuseppe 130–1, 262, 266 Cossiau, Jan Joost van 136 Courtois, Jacques 235, 269 Cranach, Lucas, the Elder 39, 95, 104, 135, 151, 193, 221–6, 222–4, 23–4, 263–4, 267, 270 Creuzammer, Johann 178 Cruys, Willem van der 21, 102, 112 Curjel, Hans 239 Custos, Domenicus 164, 219–20 Czartoryski collection 88 Czernin collection 71, 88–90, 112, 130, 195 Czernin von Chudenitz, Franz Joseph 89 Czernin von Chudenitz, Humprecht Johann 71, 129, 132, 134 Czernin von Chudenitz, Johann Rudolf 110 DaCosta Kaufmann, Thomas 192–3 Delignon, Jean-Louis 162 Dernjač, Josef 100, 102 Diamantini, Giuseppe 134 Dianti, Laura de’ 183–5, 187, 188 Dichtl, Martin 21, 98, 110, 111, 135, 233, 234, 262, 269 Dietrichstein family 171, 181, 199 Dietrichstein, Ernestine von 78 Dolci, Carlo 267 Domenichino (Domenico Zampieri) 134 Doria Pamphilj collection 188 Dudík, Beda 212 Dürer, Albrecht 21, 64, 121, 135–6, 138– 43, 139, 142–3, 145, 147–50, 154, 178–9, 182, 193, 241–3, 246, 259, 264 Dyck, Anthonis van 22, 77, 113, 145, 232–4, 261, 262 Edelstein auf Hohberg, Gottfried von 39–40, 42–3, 45, 47–49, 145, 254 Egk und Hungersbach collection 91, 171, 220 Egk und Hungersbach, Johann Carl von 92, 137 Eisen, Johann Jakob von 106, 233, 259, 260–1, 263 Eitelberger, Rudolf von 147–8 Eleanor, Holy Roman Empress 130–1, 233 Elisabeth Christine, Princess of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, Holy Roman Empress 121 Engerth, Eduard 203 Enzmilner, Joachim 171 Eosander, Friedrich 58 Ermels, Johann Franz 135, 263 Erp, Magdalena van 41 Ertz, Klaus 118, 248 Esprinchard, Jacques 180 Este, Alfonso I d’, Duke of Ferrara 183, 186, 187 Este, Cesare d’ 183–4, 187 Este, Isabella, d’ 37 Esterházy collection 16, 77, 124, 189, 199, 249 Esterházy, Nikolaus II 249 Esterházy, Paul 15–6, 19, 70 Eugene, Prince of Savoy 107 Eyck, Jan van 231 Faille de Waerloos, René della 137–8 Fanti, Vincenzio 214 331 INDEX Farnese, Alessandro 37 Fendi, Peter 122 Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor 66, 210–1 Ferdinand II (of Tyrol), Archduke of Austria 209–12, 220 Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor 20, 49, 63, 68, 72, 131, 171, 181, 184, 188, 194, 212, 254, 261 Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor 58, 60–1, 64, 66, 74, 76, 141, 198 Ferdinand, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel 148 Festetits, Sámuel 81 Fetti, Domenico 134 Fiammingo, Paolo (Pauwels Franck) 214 Finson, Louis 174 Fischer, Theodor 240 Flinck, Govaert 156, 268 Flocket, Bartholomeus 112 Floris, Frans 112, 201 Forchoudt company 21, 79, 107, 112, 114, 116, 122, 151 Forchoudt, Alexander 112 Forchoudt, Guillam, the Elder 113, 151 Forchoudt, Guillam, the Younger 113 Forchoudt, Marcus 113 Forchoudt, Marie-Anne 268 Forchoudt, Melchior 113 Francis Albert, Duke of Saxe-Lauenburg 37 Francis I, King of France 38, 65 Francken, Frans, the Elder 96, 113, 123 Francken, Frans, the Younger 80, 81, 96–8, 113, 123, 164, 178, 263, 265, 268 Francken, Hieronymus 73, 263 Frederick I, King of Prussia (Frederick III, Elector of Brandenburg) 32, 43, 45, 58 Frederick II, Landgrave of Hesse-Homburg 48 Frederick III, King of Denmark 63 Frederick William I, Elector of Brandenburg 46 332 Frederick, Duke of Württemberg 164 Frimmel, Theodor von 16, 81–2, 87, 109, 121, 128, 150, 196, 239, 249 Fröschl, Daniel 150 Fučíková, Eliška 150, 193, 201 Fuensaldaña, Alonso Pérez de Vivero, Count of 76 Führich, Joseph von 122 Fürleger family 140–3, 148–50, 182 Fürleger, Christoph 141 Fürleger, Paul Konrad 141 Fürstenberg family 92, 151 Garas, Klára 16, 20, 77, 100, 199, 203 Gardia, Magnus Gabriel de la 48 Gärtner, Georg 139, 150 Gevigney, Jean-Baptiste-Guillaume 229 Ghisi, Giorgio 154 Ghisi, Teodoro 178 Giambologna (Jean de Boulogne) 156 Giorgione (Giorgio Barbarelli da Castelfranco) 89, 145, 231 Giovanna d’Austria, Granduchess of Tuscany, see Johanna of Austria Giulio Romano (Giulio Pippi) 163–5 Glaser, Paul 158 Goltzius, Hendrick 23, 151, 153, 193, 266 Gonzaga collection 38, 178 Gonzaga di Novellara, Camillo 102 Gonzaga di Novellara, Catarina 102 Gonzaga, Lavinia Tecla 70, 79 Gonzaga, Vincenzo I 37 Gonzaga-Nevers, Eleonora Maddalena, see Eleanor, Holy Roman Empress Graf, Hans 130, 265 Granberg, Olof 160, 184 Greco, el (Domenikos Theotokopulos) 134 Grimoard, Guillaume de, see Urban V, Pope Gruber, Tobias 110 Grund, Norbert 173–4 Guiducci, Angelo 217 Gundelach, Matthäus 151, 193–6, 231, 265 Günther, Jeremias 193 INDEX Haas, Carl 198 Hadrian, Roman emperor 32, 34–5, 37 Hainhofer, Philipp 141 Hajdecki, Alexander 100 Hallart, Ludwig Nikolaus 49 Hamilton, James, 1st Duke of 61, 72, 199, 214–5, 220 Hamilton, James, 2nd Marquess of 219 Hamilton, Philipp Ferdinand de 136 Hampisch, Anton Franz 88, 89 Harrach collection 77–81, 78, 87, 90, 100–1, 103–4, 112, 124, 130, 254 Harrach, Alois Thomas Raimund von 77 Harrach, Ernst Adalbert von 102–3, 131 Harrach, Ernst Guido von 78 Harrach, Ferdinand Bonaventura von 69, 70, 77–8, 100, 102–4, 134, 173, 180, 255 Harrach, Franz Albrecht von 173 Harrach, Johann Nepomuk von 104 Harrich, Jobst 150 Hautefeuille, Jean de 166 Hedwig Eleanor of Holstein-Gottorp, Queen of Sweden 40 Heemskerck, Martin van 112 Heineken, Carl Heinrich von 243 Heintz, Joseph, the Elder 151, 162, 164–5, 192–3, 199, 221 Heinz, Günther 103 Heiss, Ulrich 174 Helst, Bartholomeus van der 45, 46 Herberstein family 171 Herbert, Philipp, see Pembroke, Earl of Herodotus 96 Herp, Willem van 102, 104 Herr, Michael 172 Hertzog von Sittau, Gottfried, see Edelstein, Gottfried von Hertzog, Heinrich 39 Herzog, Mór 225 Hirschvogel, Augustin 156 Hoffmann von Grünbühel und Strechau, Anna Potentiana 171 Hoffmann, Hans 135, 139–41, 149–51, 154, 233, 259, 261, 266, 267 Hoffmann, Johann Valerian 154 Hofmann, Samuel 154 Holbein, Hans, the Younger 42–3, 147, 234, 268 Hollar, Wenceslaus (Václav) 142–3, 147–150 Holm, Jan 185 Hooft, Pieter Cornelisz. 41, 42 Hoorn, Simon van 46 Hormayr, Joseph von 122 Howard, Thomas, see Arundel, Earl of Howard, William, see Stafford, Viscount of Hoy, Nicolas van 67, 98, 197, 198, 263 Huys, Pieter 229 Imhoff collection 140–2 Imhoff, Hans Hieronymus 140–1 Immenraed family 145 Imstenraedt, Bernhard Albert von 126, 144, 149, 182 Imstenraedt, Franz von 126, 144–5, 149, 182 Jabach, Everhard 144 Jahn, Johann Jakob Quirin 110 James II, king of England 199 Jode, Pieter de, the Elder 158 Johanna, Archduchess of Austria, Granduchess of Tuscany 210 John George II, elector of Saxony 40, 48 John William, elector of the Palatinate 116 Jordaens, Hans, the Younger 73–4 Jordaens, Jacob 21, 92, 93, 94, 97, 118, 145, 269 Jörger family 171 Jörger, Anna Magdalena 173 Jörger, Dorothea 171 Jörger, Helmhard, the Elder 170 Jörger, Helmhard, the Younger 171 Jörger, Johann Septimius 168, 170–3, 171–2, 254 Jörger, Karl 171, 173 Jörger, Wolfgang 171 333 INDEX Kaňka, Jan 224 Kaunitz-Rietberg, Wenzel Anton von 249–50 Kessler, Stephan 132–4, 232, 268 Keyßler, Johann Georg 39 Khevenhüller family 171 Kilian, Lucas 158, 164–5, 219–20 Kilian, Wolfgang 217, 219–21 Kinsky, Wenzel Norbert von 48 Kisters, Heinz 183, 185 Kleinberger, Franz (Ferenc) 225, 230 Kleinschmidt, Friedrich August 92, 198 Klinkosch, Josef Carl von 114 Kolowrat collection 12, 23, 86, 87–90, 132, 195, 239, 254 Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, Franz Anton von 239 Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, Franz Karl II von 89 Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, Maria Anna von 176 Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky, Norbert Vinzenz von 89 Kolowrat-Novohradsky, Franz Anton von 110 Kopp, Margit 16 Korthals, Altes Everhard 24 Königsegg-Rothenfels, Leopold Wilhelm von 39, 48 Königsmark, Hans Christoph 152 Körner, Stefan 16 Krafft, Albrecht 203 Krafft, Hans Ulrich 180 Krämer, Gode 174 Krätsch, Matthias 54 Kuefstein family 171 Kurz, Otto 38 Laer, Pieter van (Bamboccio) 99 Lahousen, Antonia von 137 Lamberg family 171 Lamberg, Johann Franz von 68 Lamberg, Johann Maximilian von 100, 104 334 Lamberg-Sprinzenstein, Franz Anton de Paula von 225, 249 Lanfranco, Giovanni 134 Lauch, Christoph 69 Leopold I, Holy Roman Emperor 40–1, 54, 77, 126, 129, 144, 199, 201 Leopold Wilhelm, Archduke of Austria 24, 58, 60–1, 66–9, 67, 71–7, 76, 78–9, 80, 83–90, 84–6, 93–8, 115, 118, 129–31, 162, 173–4, 178, 199, 203–4, 214–5, 217, 219–20, 223, 226, 240 Leplat, Raymond 83, 124 Leyden, Lucas von 95, 135, 151, 201, 234, 260 Lhotsky, Alphons 121 Liberi, Pietro 21, 69, 264 Libštejnský z Kolovrat see KolowratLiebsteinsky Lidl family 20, 24 Lidl, Matthias 20 Lidl, Melchior 20, 112 Lidl, Ulrich 20, 270 Liechtenstein collection 23, 99, 124, 130, 151, 174, 195 Liechtenstein, Gundakar, Prince of 106, 152, 178 Liechtenstein, Johann Adam Andreas, Prince of 27, 69, 116, 118, 145, 163, 180, 231 Liechtenstein, Karl Eusebius, Prince of 20, 52, 69, 70, 99, 106, 112, 129, 136–7, 145, 180, 214, 220 Liechtenstein, Karl, Prince of 180, 195 Liechtenstein, Maria Karolina von 122 Liechtenstein, Maximilian, Prince of 181 Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn, Karl von 20, 98, 126, 129, 144–5, 178, 181 Lier, Volckard Adriaen van 21, 23, 99, 102, 112, 233–4, 262, 264, 268, 269 Lievens, Jan 45 Limouze, Dorothy Ann 186 Lipperheide collection 187 Lippmann, Friedrich 139, 254 Lobkowicz collection 151 INDEX Loix, Caspar 20, 270 Loth, Johann Carl 134 Louis Philippe, Duke of Orléans 160 Louis XIV, King of France 58 Lowitzsch, Nadja 73 Lucini, Pietro Paolo 54 Luhn, Joachim 192 Lunden, Arnold 118 Luther, Martin 171, 221–2, 226, 229–30, 264 Machytka, Lubor 83, 243 Major, Johann Daniel 68 Mander, Carel van 151, 154, 159 Mandyn, Jan 229 Mannagetta, Johann Wilhelm 131 Mannagetta, Matthäus 131, 233–4, 262, 263, 265 Mansfeld, Bruno von 220 Mansfeld, Ernst von 220 Maratta, Carlo 116, 134 Marcussen-Gwiazda, Gabriele 200 Maria Anna, Archduchess of Austria 75 Maria Theresa, Holy Roman Empress 70, 249–50 Masnago, Alessandro 51, 53 Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor 33, 37, 171 Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor 210 Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor 156, 178, 210 Maximilian III, Archduke of Austria 226 Mayer, Franz von 189, 191 Mayr, Johann Ulrich 112 Mazzola, Girolamo Francesco Maria, see Parmigianino Mechel, Christian von 93, 225, 227 Medici family 25, 124 Medici, Francesco I de’ 53, 210 Megan, Renier 106, 129–31, 232, 263 Meller, Simon 16 Metzler, Sally 156 Meyssens, Cornelis 129 Michelangelo Buonarroti 42, 180 Miethke, Hugo Othmar 139, 156 Miller, Johann Martin 134 Miseroni, Alessandro 181 Miseroni, Dionysio 53 Miseroni, Ferdinando Eusebio 53 Miseroni, Ottavio 53 Momper, Joos de 113, 119–21, 269 Moncony, Balthasar de 99 Mont, Hans 211 Montecuccoli, Raimundo 116 Morigia, Paolo 51, 52 Morsbach, Christiane 105, 128 Mostaert, Gillis 232, 267 Muller, Frederik 138 Muller, Jan Harmensz. 158 Mus, Prosper Franz de 214 Musson-Fourmenois company 21 Muytincx, Nicolaas 113 Müller Hofstede, Justus 193 Müller, Johann Sebastian 69 Müller, Jürgen 138 Mündler, Otto 147 Napoleon I, Bonaparte, Emperor of the French 38, 241 Nave, Bartolommeo della 214 Negretti, see Palma Netscher, Caspar 127 Neumann, Jaromír 121, 185, 201, 215, 217 Neve, Frans de, the Elder 129 Neve, Frans de, the Younger 112, 129, 157, 232, 233, 261 Neverov, Oleg 38 Norvins, Jacques Marquet de Montbreton, Baron de 241, 242 Nosseni, Giovanni Battista 210 Nostic, see Nostitz Nostitz collection 107, 109–10, 116–17, 119–21, 132, 167, 169–70, 174, 224, 254 Nostitz family 12, 107, 112 Nostitz-Rieneck, Anton Johann von 82, 107–8, 116, 119–21, 165, 167, 169 Nostitz-Rieneck, Franz Wenzel von 109 Nostitz-Rieneck, Friedrich Johann 110, 167 335 INDEX Nostitz-Rieneck, Johann Hartwig 107 Novohradský z Kolovrat, see KolowratNovohradsky Odescalchi, Livio 38, 185–8 Orsini, Fulvio 37 Ossenbeeck, Jan van 98–9, 102, 112, 129, 131, 263, 265, 268 Osten, Gert van der 246 Otto Henry, Elector of the Palatinate 247 Ovens, Jürgen 124–8, 125, 127, 269 Overbeck, Matthias van 141 Oxenstierna, Axel 41 Oxenstierna, Bengt Gabrielsson 48 Pacassi, Nicolaus 217 Palacios, Francisco 134 Pallucchini, Rodolfo 187 Palma Giovane (Jacopo Negretti) 60, 219 Palma Vecchio (Jacopo Palma) 151 Pandolfini, Pietro 54 Parmigianino (Girolamo Francesco Maria Mazzola) 21–2, 64, 154, 178, 192, 196, 197–200, 234, 262 Patin, Charles 47 Paudiss, Christoph 106–9, 108, 131, 135, 261 Paul II, Pope (Pietro Barbo) 38 Peller, Martin 179 Pelletier family 240 Pembroke, Philip Herbert, 4th Earl of 144 Pérez de Vivero, Alonso, see Fuensaldaña, Count of Perger, Anton von 184 Perger, Sigmund Ferdinand von 198 Perugino, Pietro (Pietro Vannucci) 145 Peter I, Tsar of Russia 33, 49 Peters, Frans Lucas 267 Petty, William 37, 140 Philip II, King of Spain 58 Philip IV, King of Spain 75, 76 Philip William, Elector of the Palatinate 48 Philippe II, Duke of Orléans 162, 185 Piane, Giovanni Maria delle 120–1 336 Pianni, see Piane Pilat(i) von Tassul (Pilati di Tassulo) family 102–3 Pilati, Friedrich 103 Pilati, Karl 103 Pilati, Nikolaus 103 Pilgrim, Hermann 159 Piombo, Sebastiano del (Sebastiano Luciani) 125–7, 269 Pirckheimer, Willibald 140 Pius VI Pope (Giovanni Angelo Braschi) 38 Platz-Horster, Gertrud 36 Plutarch 96, 235 Pock, Hans Georg 233–4, 262 Poelenburg, Cornelis van 112 Pontius, Paulus 93–4 Porcellis, Jan 113, 234, 264 Praun collection 154 Preti, Mattia (Cavaliere Calabrese) 261 Procaccini, Giulio Cesare 174 Pryloski (?) family 64 Pyrker, János László 149 Quellinus, Artus 45 Quellinus, Erasmus 113, 232, 267 Raczyński, Athanasius 88, 240–1 Raimondi, Marcantonio 178, 179 Raphael (Raffaello Santi) 21–4, 42, 46, 178–9, 183, 233–4, 263, 269 Refinger, Ludwig 246 Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn 45–6, 106, 124–5, 265 Renier, Nicolas 207 Reynst, Gerrit 45–6, 60 Reynst, Jan 45 Ribera, Jusepe de 232, 260 Riccio, Paolo 210–1 Ridolfi, Carlo 184, 186, 188 Rijckere, Bernaert de 234 Ritz, Paul, see Riccio, Paolo Roggendorff, Raffaela von 122 Rogozienski, Frank and Demi 156 Romanelli, Giovanni Francesco 134 INDEX Rothschild collection 79, 81, 83, 86–7, 90 Rothschild, Anselm von 81 Rottenhammer, Hans 138, 145, 151, 167– 70, 168, 174–7, 176, 233, 264, 266, 268 Rottmayr, Michael 253 Roux du Cantal, Pierre 241 Rovere, Giovanni Battista della 54 Rösel von Rosenhof, Franz 135–7, 136, 260, 263 Rubens, Pieter Paul 22, 42, 99, 113–4, 116, 118, 145, 174, 190, 192, 201, 233–4, 262, 264, 267, 268 Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor 24–5, 33, 37–8, 51–4, 61, 63–4, 66, 103, 115, 142, 151–4, 156, 158–9, 161–2, 164, 171, 177–81, 183–5, 188–9, 192–4, 198, 203, 211–2, 214, 220, 222, 226, 230, 253 Russ, Karl 122 Ruthart, Karl Andreas 106, 269 Ryckaert, Maerten 266 Sacchi, Andrea 134 Sadeler family 207, 219, 220 Sadeler, Aegidius, the Younger 116, 183, 185–9, 210 Sadeler, Jan, the Elder 134, 207–11, 208, 214 Sadeler, Marcus 186 Sadeler, Raphael, the Elder 207–9 Sadeler, Raphael, the Younger 161–2 Salla, Maximilian Anton von 117 Salm-Reifferscheidt collection 122, 135, 199, 254 Salm-Reifferscheidt, Anton Joseph von 122 Salm-Reifferscheidt, Franz Ernst von 123 Salm-Reifferscheidt, Hugo I Franz 122 Sandrart, Jacob von 43, 171 Sandrart, Joachim von 24, 31–3, 35–6, 39, 41–6, 42–4, 49–50, 69, 70, 99, 128, 135–6, 154, 162–4, 166, 189, 191, 262, 270 Sandrart, Johann Jacob von 39 Sarto, Andrea del 145 Savery, Roelandt 145, 151–2, 173, 232, 234, 259, 269 Schaller, Jaroslaus 120, 169–70 Schelle, August Johannes 235 Schiavone, Andrea 134 Schlüter, Andreas 58 Schmid, Paul 54 Schmidt, Harry 124 Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Ludwig Ferdinand 122 Scholten, Hendrick 125–7 Schott, Johann Carl 32, 33 Schönborn, Friedrich Karl von 109 Schönborn, Hugo Damian von 33 Schönborn, Johann Philipp von 99 Schönborn, Lothar Franz von 60, 82–3, 109, 124, 136, 167, 182, 195, 231 Schönborn-Buchheim collection 136 Schönfeld, Johann Heinrich 83, 102, 106, 112, 264, 266 Schöpfer, Abraham 246 Schreiber, Renate 73 Schröder, Christian 181–2 Schröder, Wilhelm 39, 48 Schumann, Johann Christoph 45 Schütz, Karl 75, 77 Schwarz, Christoph 22, 39, 151, 160, 161–5, 166, 189–91, 192–3, 211, 264, 267 Schwarzenberg collection 135, 174 Schwarzenberg, Johann Adolf 76, 83–4, 85–86 Seelig, Lorenz 33 Seghers, Hercules(?) 264 Sekerka ze Sedčic, see Vršovec, Count of Servi’ Costantino de’ 210 Sinzendorf, Prosper von 137 Škréta, Karel 107, 116, 132, 231 Slavata z Chlumu a Košumberka, Vilém 220 Slavíček, Lubomír 92, 120–1, 167, 170, 239 Snyders, Frans 22, 113, 269 Soldani, Massimiliano 180 Solis, Virgil, the Younger 151, 153, 264 Sophie Elisabeth, Duchess of Brunswick-Lüneburg 37 337 INDEX Spagnoletto, see Ribera Spazio, Pietro 66 Speck von Sternburg, Maximilian 148 Spiering (Spierinx), Peter 41–2 Spillenberger, Johann 20, 99, 102, 112 Spork, Johann Rudolf 121 Spranger, Bartholomäus 145, 151, 152, 155, 156–9, 157, 180, 209, 211, 214, 221, 232, 264, 268 Sprinzenstein-Neuhaus, Johann Albrecht von 209–11, 214 Stafford, William Howard, 1st Viscount of 144 Stalbemt, Adriaen van 166 Starhemberg, Heinrich Wilhelm von 220 Steen, Frans van der 67, 85, 197, 198 Steinhammer, Christoph Friedrich 135, 137–8, 168, 170, 172, 174, 260 Sternberg collection 98, 110, 113, 132, 254 Sternberg, count 145 Sternberg-Manderscheid, Franz von 110–1 Stevens, Pieter 151–3, 265, 269 Storffer, Ferdinand 70 Stöber, Johann 250 Stradano, Giovanni 124, 128, 260 Straet, Jan van der, see Stradano, Giovanni Strudel, Peter 253 Stubenberg family 171, 173 Sturm, Jakob 247 Stuyck del Bruyère collection 166 Stüwe, Rainer 150, 154 Sudermann, Caspar 20, 270 Sustris, Lambert 160, 162 Swoboda, Gudrun 61 Tacke, Andreas 158–9 Talbot, Alethea see Arundel, Countess of Tamm, Franz Werner 253 Teich, Johann Georg 20, 270 Tempesta, Antonio 25 Teniers, Abraham 225 Teniers, David, the Younger 67, 72–7, 76, 78–9, 80–84, 85, 86–90, 98, 102, 338 104–5, 113, 215, 242–3, 259, 261 Thomas, Jan 80, 91–3, 99, 260, 262, 270 Thun family 145, 176, 187 Thun, Sigmund Alfons von 103 Thun, Wenzel Joseph von 176 Thun-Hohenstein, Franz Anton 176 Thurn, Heinrich Matthäus von 220 Tintoretto, Jacopo (Jacopo Robusti) 266 Titian (Tiziano Vecellio) 22–3, 41, 145, 152, 154, 159–60, 162, 178, 182, 183–9, 219, 231–2, 260, 264 Toorenvliet, Jacob 128–9, 232, 266, 267 Torlonia collection 187 Torre, Francesca del 201 Torrentius, Johannes (Jan Simonsz. van der Beeck) 235, 263 Trapp, Moritz Wilhelm 191 Trichet du Fresne, Raphaël 42, 185 Triest, Antoon 75–6 Uffelen, Lucas van 45–6, 185–7 Ungnad family 171 Urban V, Pope (Guillaume de Grimoard) 38 Uylenburg, Hendrick van 124–5 Uylenburgh, Gerrit 46, 124–5 Vaga, Perino del 145 Valckenborch, Frederick van 135, 260 Valdštejn, see Waldstein Vasari, Giorgio 124, 199 Vasterhaven, Frans 268 Veen, Jaap van der 45, 47 Vendramin, Andrea 45, 60 Verbeeck, Frans 201, 229 Verbeeck, Jan 201 Vermeyen, Jan 53 Veronese, Paolo 23, 268 Viczay, Mihály, the Younger 81 Villiers, George, see Buckingham, Duke of Vinzenz, Johann 239 Vischer, Georg 188 Vivant Denon, Dominique 33 Vlooitz, Jan 112, 113 INDEX Voet, Jacob Ferdinand 116 Vondel, Joost van den 41–3, 145 Vos, Marten de 112, 134 Vos, Simon de 122–3, 128, 266 Vrancx, Sebastian 119 Vršovec, Felix Sekerka ze Sedčic, Count of 12, 81–3, 87, 89–90, 107, 124, 136, 167, 169–70, 182, 195–6, 231–32, 254 Vršovec, Jaroslav Sekerka ze Sedčic, Count of 82 Vršovec, Karl Felix Sekerka ze Sedčic, Count of 82 Vrtba, Franz 110 Waagen, Carl 146–7 Waagen, Gustav Friedrich 146 Wagner, Gottfried 36 Waldstein collection 23, 83, 87, 132, 151, 195, 198, 242–3, 246, 247, 254 Waldstein family 12, Waldstein-Wartenberg, Franz Joseph von 83–6, 90, 243 Wallenstein, see Waldstein Weber, Eduard F. 228 Wedewer, Hermann 151 Wendland, Hans 240 Wenzelsberg, Johann Kunibert von 98 Wertemann, Johann Maria 200 Wetzlar, Hans 166 Weyer, Jacob Matthias 25 Wichem, Catharina von 145 William IV, Duke of Bavaria 246 William V, Duke of Bavaria 141, 211 Willmann, Michael 107, 243 Windischgrätz, Gottlieb von 48 Winghe, Joos van 116 Witsen, Cornelis Jan 45–7 Witsen, Cornelis, the Younger 45 Witsen, Jan 45, 47 Witsen, Jonas 45 Witsen, Lambert 45 Witsen, Nicolaes 45, 47 Wolfgang Wilhelm, Count Palatine of Neuburg 192 Wolgemut, Michael 149 Woltmann, Alfred 169, 202 Wouters, Frans 93 Wrangel, Carl Gustav 42 Wrschowetz, see Vršovec Ykens, Frans 104, 259 Ykens, Johannes 199 Záruba-Pfeffermann, Josef 87–8 Žerotín family 12, 145 Zimmermann, Heinrich 184, 212 Zrínyi, Péter 129 339 INDEX Index of places Amersfoort 143 Amsterdam 11, 20–1, 24, 26, 28, 38, 41–3, 45–9, 99, 106, 112, 124–7, 138, 141, 143–4, 148, 150, 159, 166, 180, 182, 219, 229–30, 254 –Amsterdam Museum 46 –Rijksmuseum 41–43, 93, 94, 138, 139, 143, 153, 161–2, 178–9, 183, 185, 197, 198, 207–9, 229–30 Antwerp 21, 24–5, 45, 60, 73, 79, 98–9, 106, 112, 122, 124, 129, 138, 143, 145, 151, 152, 159, 166, 175, 180, 184–5, 187, 199, 200, 219 –Royal Museum of Fine Arts (Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten) 175–6 Aquileia 130, 262, 266 Augsburg 20, 106, 112, 134, 137, 141, 146–8, 161, 164, 174–5, 196, 219–20 –Art Collections and Museums (Kunstsammlungen und Museen Augsburg) 173–4, 193–4 Bamberg 196 Basel 154, 240 Berlin 11, 32–3, 39, 50, 56, 58–60, 139, 146–8, 154, 156, 158, 187, 204, 216, 220, 243 –State Museums of Berlin (Staatliche Museen zu Berlin) 32, 34, 140, 142, 147, 235–6 Biberach a. d. Riß 106 Bolzano (Bozen) 132–3, 268 Bouzov 214 Bratislava (Pressburg/Pozsony) 81, 91, 95, 199, 223 Braunschweig 94, 192 –Herzog Anton Ulrich Museum 37 Bressanone (Brixen) 133 Bruck an der Leitha 78, 102–3, 105 Brussels 24, 60, 61–2, 69, 72–3, 76, 78, 79, 86, 94, 98–9, 114–5, 129, 148, 151, 159–60, 175, 189, 191–3, 199, 203, 228 –Royal Museum of Art and History 340 (Musées royaux d’Art et d’Histoire de Bruxelles) 45 –Royal Museum of Fine Arts (Musées royaux des Beaux-Arts de Belgique) 94 Bucharest 214 Buda 95, 223 Budapest 109, 150, 225, 249 –Hungarian National Archives (Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár) 18, 19 –Museum of Fine Arts (Szépművészeti Múzeum) 95, 136–7, 139, 147, 149, 222–4, 248 –Hungarian National Museum (Magyar Nemzeti Múzeum) 223 Cambridge –The Fitzwilliam Museum 160, 162 Častolovice 12, 110–1 Celle 94 Český Krumlov 135 Cologne 37, 48, 112, 135, 144, 145, 175, 196 Constantinople 37, 38 Danzig 106 Darmstadt 48, 150 Děčín (Tetschen) 176, 187 Delft 21, 25–28 Doksy (Hirschberg) 198 Dresden 40, 43, 47–9, 56–7, 60, 82–4, 106, 110, 124, 164–5, 195, 199, 210, 224, 240, 242–4 –State Art Collections of Dresden (Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden) 35–6, 60, 83, 240, 242–4 Duchcov (Dux) 83, 151, 198, 242 Falknov (Falkenau) 107, 109, 120 Feldsberg, see Valtice Ferrara 183–4, 186, 187 Florence 53–4, 66, 124, 210, 211 Fontainebleau 38, 64, 65 Forchtenstein 189 Frankfurt am Main 112, 135, 140, 147, 164, 195–6, 200, 207, 240 INDEX –Städel Museum 142, 146 Freiburg im Breisgau 54 Freising 99, 100, 106, 135, 137 Gaibach 136 Gdańsk, see Danzig Göttingen 241 Hague, The 41, 48–9, 116 Hamburg 25, 40, 48–9, 116, 124–5, 128, 192, 196, 228, 243 –Hamburg Art Hall (Hamburger Kunsthalle) 125, 127 Hetzendorf 122, 123 Homburg 241 Hrádek u Nechanic 104 Innsbruck 54, 210–2, 220, 226 Jablonec 54 Jablonné v Podještědi (Deutsch Gabel) 116–7 Jílové 176 Jindřichovice (Heinrichsgrün) 120 Jindřichův Hradec 12, 89, 239 Kampen bei Kaltern 134 Karlsruhe 150 Kassel 94 Koblenz 48, 241 Kraków – The Princes Czartoryski Museum– National Museum in Kraków (Muzeum Książąt Czartoryskich– Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie) 87, 88 Kratochvíle 135 Kroměříž (Kremsier) 91–2, 129, 132, 144–5, 150, 182 Laxenburg 249 Liberec 204 Libochovice 181 Litoměřice 54 London 81, 84, 92, 124, 128, 144, 147, 160, 164–6, 185, 187, 193, 196, 206–8, 219, 226, 228, 230, 242 –The British Museum 164–5, 217, 219 –National Gallery 73, 75, 215 Luzern 240 Madrid 69, 74, 76–7, 79, 103–4, 134, 178, 180 –Prado National Museum (Museo Nacional de Prado) 75, 77, 190, 192, 207 Malmaison 38 Mantua 37, 58, 65–6, 70, 178, 220 Mikulov (Nikolsburg) 199 Milan 51–4, 249–50 Modena 178, 184, 187–8 Munich 74, 77, 98, 111, 146, 148–50, 154, 161–2, 175, 188–9, 191, 193, 196, 204, 210–1, 239 –Bavarian State Painting Collections (Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen), Alte Pinakothek 146, 148, 175, 194 Naples 126 Narva 49 Nemyslovice 117 Neuhaus an der Donau 211 New York 94, 230 –Metropolitan Museum of Art 113–4 Nový Falkenburk (Neufalkenburg) 117 Nuremberg 33, 38–9, 49, 70, 110, 112, 113, 134–6, 138–41, 151, 153–4, 156–60, 162, 166, 170–3, 172, 179, 182, 195, 200, 253–4, 260 –German National Museum (Germanisches Nationalmuseum) 157–8 Olomouc 20, 91, 98, 126, 144–6, 181–2 –Archdiocesan Museum (Arcidiecézní muzeum) 126–7 Paris 33, 38, 86, 94, 116, 119, 144, 147, 152, 154, 185, 187–8, 225, 229–30, 240–3, 250, 254 Pommersfelden 60, 82–3, 136 Poznań 88, 240 –National Museum in Poznań (Muzeum Narodowe w Poznaniu) 240, 245 Prague 37, 53–4, 60–4, 66, 68–72, 74–5, 82–3, 87–9, 92, 99, 102–3, 106–9, 341 INDEX 111–3, 115–6, 120–1, 128, 135–6, 139, 144–5, 151–69, 172–7, 180–9, 192–6, 198–205, 207–8, 210–5, 217–22, 224–30, 239, 246, 253–4, 265 –National Gallery in Prague (Národní galerie v Praze) 12, 83, 87, 88, 107, 108, 113, 116, 117, 119–20, 163–4, 167–9, 176, 204–6, 213, 222, 225 –Prague Castle Picture Gallery (Obrazárna Pražského hradu) 208, 215, 218, 222 –Strahov Monastery 137 Rájec nad Svitavou (Raitz) 122–3, 135, 199 Regensburg 20, 141, 171 Řevnice 213 Rohrau 71, 78, 100–4 Rome 25, 31, 37, 41, 58, 65, 98, 106, 116, 132, 134, 152, 184–5, 187–8, 189, 192, 200, 213, 220, 241 –Galleria Borghese 200 Rychnov nad Kněžnou (Reichenau an der Knieschna) 86–8, 239 Saint Petersburg 37, 94 San Diego 156 –San Diego Museum of Art 155–6 Schleißheim 75, 175, 199 Sibiu (Nagyszeben) 104, 199, 225 Slavkov u Brna (Austerlitz) 249 Steyregg 171 Stockau 189, 191 Stockholm 49, 107, 151, 159, 184, 185, 187–8, 192, 199, 200 Strasbourg (Straßburg) 106, 241, 247 Strechau 171 Stuttgart 56, 106, 147, 175 Toulouse 38, 225 Tournai 94, 123 Trent 102–3 342 Turnov 54 Udine 130 Utrecht 24, 144, 152 Valtice (Feldsberg) 69 Venice 38, 45, 58, 60, 62, 70–1, 116, 132, 134, 161, 179, 185–7, 196, 220, 250 Vienna 19–21, 23–6, 28, 32–3, 37–8, 40, 48–9, 54, 57, 60–4, 66, 67–73, 77–81, 90–2, 95–100, 102–7, 110, 112–7, 121–2, 124, 126, 128–132, 135–6, 139–41, 144, 147, 151–2, 154, 156–8, 166, 174, 181–2, 184, 189, 192–3, 196, 198–200, 202–3, 211–4, 221–2, 224–8, 230, 235, 247, 249, 253–4 –Albertina 152, 192 –Academy of Fine Arts (Akademie der bildenden Künste) 81, 224–5 –Kunsthistorisches Museum 51, 53, 61, 73–6, 81, 85, 91–2, 94, 96–7, 115, 151, 157, 197, 198, 201–4, 214, 216, 223, 225–7 –Austrian State Archives (Österreichisches Staatsarchiv) 40 Vizovice 25 Waldkirch 54 Warsaw 94, 243 –National Museum in Warsaw (Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie) 237, 239 Weimar 69 –Foundation of Weimar Classics, Castle Museum (Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Schlossmuseum) 238–9 Windhaag 171 Wolfenbüttel 192 –Herzog August Library 171 Wrocław (Breslau) 68, 239 Ypres (Ypern) 91, 99, 260, 262 Zittau 39, 49 Photographic credits Amsterdam, Amsterdam Museum 12 Amsterdam, Rijksmuseum 7, 8, 9, 32, 49, 52, 53, 57, 62, 73, 75, 81, 88, 89, 101 Antwerp, Koninklijk Museum voor Schone Kunsten 71 Augsburg, Kunstsammlungen und Museen Augsburg 70 Augsburg, Städtische Kunstsammlungen 79 (© Artothek) Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung 3 (© bpk / Johannes Laurentius), 4 Berlin, Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Gemäldegalerie 51, 102 (© bpk / Jörg P. Anders) Brno, Moravská galerie v Brně 76 Brno, Národní památkový ústav 41 Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára 1 Budapest, Szépművészeti Múzeum 33, 47, 56, 95, 96, 108 Cambridge, The Fitzwilliam Museum 61 Častolovice, zámek 37 Dresden, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden 5, 106 (© bpk / Elke Estel–Hans-Peter Klut) Erlangen-Nürnberg, Graphische Sammlung der FAU 69 Frankfurt am Main, Städel Museum 50 Hamburg, Hamburger Kunsthalle 43 Kraków, Muzeum Książąt Czartoryskich– Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie 29 (© Laboratory Stock MNK) Kreuzlingen, Stiftung Heinz Kisters 74 Leipzig, Museum der bildenden Künste 55 (© bpk / Ursula Gerstenberger) London, Bridgeman Images 42 London, Sotheby’s 98 London, The British Museum 64, 92 (© Trustees of the British Museum, cc by-nc-sa) London, The National Gallery 21 Madrid, Museo Nacional del Prado 77 Munich, Bayerische Staatsgemäldesammlungen, Alte Pinakothek 54 (© Artothek / Blauel–Gnamm) New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art 38 Nuremberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum 60 (© Dirk Meßberger, cc by-nc-nd) Olomouc, Arcidiecézní muzeum 44 (© Artothek) Poznań, Fundacja im. Raczyńskych przy Muzeum Narodowym w Poznaniu 107 Prague, Národní galerie v Praze 36, 39, 40, 63, 66, 72, 87 Prague, Správa Pražského hradu 91, 94 (© Prokop Paul) Rohrau, Graf Harrach’sche Familiensammlung 23, 35 Rome, Galleria Borghese 82 San Diego, San Diego Museum of Art (© Frank & Demi Rogozienski) 58 Venice, Fondazione Giorgio Cini 93 Vienna, Kunsthistorisches Museum, Museumsverband 13, 14, 20, 22, 30, 31, 34, 59, 81, 83, 85, 90, 97, 99 Vienna, Österreichisches Staatsarchiv, Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv 6 Warsaw, Muzeum Narodowe w Warszawie 103 343 Weimar, Klassik Stiftung Weimar, Schlossmuseum 104 (© bpk / Alexander Burzik) Wolfenbüttel, Herzog August Bibliothek 10, 68 Záruba-Pfeffermann, Josef 28

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS

Log In

Collecting Clues. In Search of an Art Collector in Seventeenth-Century Vienna

Collecting Clues. In Search of an Art Collector in Seventeenth-Century Vienna

Related Papers

RELATED PAPERS

RELATED TOPICS