Construction transformations

of the Bertramka estate

in the first half of the 20th Century

Klára Mezihoráková

Bertramka was one of several dozen estates created in Smichov’s vineyards. Over the
course of the 18th century, it was transformed into a summer residence to better serve the
recreational needs of wealthy Prague denizens. The residential building was even enriched
with the characteristic features of a château: a two-flight staircase and a sala terrena which
opens up to a garden. Thanks to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart’s stay as a guest of the Dušek
family, the estate rose to prominence overshadowing many other similar buildings at the turn
1 — On the history and the building-historical develop- of the 1780s and 1790s.1 The period up to the end of the 18th century was indeed decisive
ment of Bertramka see: [?] Zelený, V rodišti Dona Jua- for Bertramka´s architecture and, from 1840 on, the estate did not undergo further changes
na, Světozor XXI, 1887, No. 48, pp. 753–758; Rudolph to its ground plan.2 Despite this fact, the current appearance of the residential building and
Procházka, Mozart in Prag, Prag 1892, pp. 54–65; Fran- other buildings in the estate‘s courtyard proves that the later 19th and 20th century periods
tišek Hansl et al., Smíchovsko a Zbraslavsko, Smíchov distinctly changed them. Moreover, the history of the buildings was influenced in these later
1899, pp. 369, 370, 371; František Ruth, Kronika král. periods specifically by the intentions of Mozart admirers.
Prahy a obcí sousedních II., Praha 1904, p. 752; Luboš
Jeřábek, Bertramka v době Mozartově i nyní, Praha 1930;
Vlastimil Blažek, Bertramka, Praha 1934; Jaroslav Patera,
Bertramka v Praze. Mozartovo památné sídlo, Praha 1948;
Alexander Buchner, Bertramka, památník W. A. Moza-
rta a manželů Duškových, Praha 1956; Pavel Naumann
– Klement Ossendorf, Stavební vývoj a obnova pražské
Bertramky čp. 169, Zprávy památkové péče XVI,1956,
pp. 279–288; Timoteus Č. Zelinka, Staré usedlosti na
Smíchově, in: Ochrana památek. Sborník klubu Za starou
Prahu, Praha 1959, pp. 86–87, 90–92; Bohuslav Čížek –
Eva Paulová – Oldřich Pulkert, Památník W. A. Mozarta a
manželů Duškových. Průvodce expozicí, Praha 2000; Bar-
bora Lašťovková – Jiří Koťátko, Pražské usedlosti, Praha
2001, pp. 33–35; Pavel Vlček, Usedlost Bertramka, in:
Veverka Přemysl – Matějka Ivan – Lukeš Zdeněk – Vlček
Pavel – Ebel Martin, Slavné stavby Prahy 5, Praha 2005,
pp. 37–38; Klára Mezihoráková, “Zde bydlel W. A. Mozart”.
Ke stavebním dějinám domu usedlosti Bertramka v 19. a
20. století, Zprávy památkové péče 74, 2014, No. 2, pp.
115–123; Klára Mezihoráková, Čp. 169/XVI, in: Dalibor
Prix (ed.), Umělecké památky Prahy. Velká Praha M/Ž. 1.
M/U, Praha 2017, pp. 521–526.

2 — See cadastral map of Smíchov, 1840:

https://archivnimapy.cuzk.cz/uazk/skici/skici/ RAK/
RAK321018400/RAK321018400_index.html
Bertramka in 1927. Reprophoto: Quido Maria Vyskočil,
Po stopách Mozartových v Praze, Salon VI, No. 8, sine pag.

The connection of Bertramka with this revered personality became generally known, espe-
cially after 1838, when the estate was bought by Mozart’s enthusiastic admirer, the merchant
Lambert Popelka. Lambert’s son Adolf and his wife Emanuela, in turn, continued taking care
of this memorable estate. On the occasion of the 120th anniversary of the composer’s birth
(1876), Bertramka had already become a venue for solemn acts, albeit only minor ones. In

75
 Bertramka nowadays. Photo: Klára Mezihoráková.

the loggia a plaque was installed above the first floor entrance to one of the rooms of house,
with the inscription: Hier wohnte/W. A. MOZART/im Jahre/1787,3 and installed in the park
was the composer’s bust, created by sculptor Tomáš Seidan, on top of a stone plaque under
the chestnut tree, precisely the shade spot in which Mozart used to sit and where he sup-
posedly completed the score to the opera Don Giovanni.4 Bertramka’s fame arose mostly be-
cause it was associated with the “birthplace of Don Juan”5 and, logically, the ensuing interest
concentrated on the two rooms in which Mozart supposedly lived and worked, whereas the
estate’s architecture itself was deemed essentially worthless. This attitude persisted even up
until the beginning of the 20th century. The firmly held belief that the value of Bertramka lies
only in the sanctification resulting from a genius’ stay on its premises was still expressed in
the Deutsche Zeitung Bohemia by an unknown author (initials F.A.) in 1917:
3 — [?], Pamětní deska (Denní kronika), Posel z Prahy 3. 6.
1876, No. 133, p. 2.
4 — [?], Slavnost Mozartova v Praze (Denní kronika), Posel
z Prahy 8. 6. 1876, No. 137, p. 2; Patera (note 1), pp.
27–28.
5 — See the title of the article of Zelený (note 1): „V rodišti
Dona Juana“ (In the birthplace of Don Juan).

The courtyard façade of Bertramka in the 1920’s. Photo: Institute of Art History,
Czech Academy of Sciences, inv. no. 16524.

76

6 — F. A., Besuch auf der Bertramka zum heutigen Don
Juan-Jubiläum, Deutsche Zeitung Bohemia 28. 10. 1917,
No. 296, p. 7.
7 — Blažek, Bertramka 1934 (note 1), p. 13.
8 — K. Emingerová, Co je s Bertramkou?, Národní listy 22.
5. 1919, No. 120, p. 5.
9 — Blažek, Bertramka 1934 (note 1), p. 13–15.
10 — See e. g. photographs in: Zelený (note 1), p. 757;
Quido Maria Vyskočil, Po stopách Mozartových v Praze,
Salon VI, No. 8, sine pag.
11 — See e. g. photographs in: Hansl (note 1), pp. 370,
371.
„Kein Baudenkmal von selbstisch fortwirkender architektonischer Pracht zeugt hier von entschwundenem Glanz
und Größe. Aber die Weihe, die das Verweilen des Genius der Stätte gegeben, teilt sich dem Besucher mit und
ehrfurchtsvoll betritt er die Räume, in welchen Mozart vielleicht die glücklichste Zeit seines Erdendaseins zugebra-
cht hat.“6
Despite the deaths of Adolf Popelka (1895) and his wife Emanuela (1916), both have placed
in their wills a number of provisions which should guarantee a reverent maintenance of Ber-
tramka as a Mozart memorial for future generations. Emanuela had initially entrusted the
estate to Matilda Slivenská, the widow of her cousin Lambert. After Matilda’s death in 1925,
however, ownership of the estate was to be transferred to the Salzburg foundation, the
Mozarteum.7 This decision, which became publicly known, aroused a significant outrage
of nationalistic character and out of a public fear that this monument to a great episode in
Prague’s musical history would be misused for the sake of profits.8 Bertramka truly became
a property of the Mozarteum in 1925, a fact which motivated the creation of the Czecho-
slovak Mozart Society so that this new society could buy Bertramka (coincidentally, the Mo-
zarteum was in no way enthusiastic to assume care of what was known to be a significantly
dilapidated building at that time). In 1927 the Mozart Society in Czechoslovakia was defini-
tively established. Thanks to the great efforts of its members and a significant cost of indebt-
edness, the society was able to acquire Bertramka in 1929.9
The courtyard façade of Bertramka nowadays. Photo: Klára Mezihoráková.
The period that this paper focuses on, namely the first half of the 20th century, specifical-
ly 1925 to 1956, is the time when Bertramka ceased to be private property and instead
became property of an association whose primary intent was to care for it and make the
national monument accessible to the public. The estate was subject to an ongoing general
restoration which significantly affected its appearance from this time period through the end
of the post-war period (1956).
When the Mozart Society officially took over the estate in 1929, the house was in a very
different condition than as seen today. The style of the façades was marked by a historic
finish with rectangular suprafenestras and the northeast loggia by a glazed veranda.10 The
room by the courtyard façade (between the hall and the sala terrena), called the salon of
Mrs. Dušková, was partitioned into two spaces. A demolished wall portion in the maid’s back
room became a new entrance leading into the sala terrena. The sala terrena itself, on the
other hand, was transformed into two rooms separated by a partition and of its three original
French windows opening into the garden, two were reduced to ordinary rectangular window
openings. In the eastern corner of the floor was a tiny room worshiped as “Mozart’s Room”.
Like the neighbouring “Mozart Salon”, it had a plastered stucco ceiling and walls covered in
wallpaper.11 The entrance to the estate’s courtyard was created by a single pair of simple
pillars with slatted doors instead of today’s representative gate. Some of these adjustments
were made after 1873, a significant milestone in the building’s construction history. In that
77
The ground plans of Bertramka house, 1st storey, S. Vacek, 1956,
National Heritage Institute, sign. PPOP–991–5–1717.

78
The ground plans of Bertramka house, 2nd storey, S. Vacek, 1956,
National Heritage Institute, sign. PPOP–991–5–1717.

79
year, a fire broke out which burned down surrounding buildings (sheds in the courtyard) and
the roof of the house. Subsequently, an extensive restoration had to be carried out, though
Mozart’s Room was not affected.12 The aforementioned plain courtyard entrance was real-
ized after 1900 by the Karlín architect Ferdinand Brož.13 Surprisingly, the changes to Mrs.
Dušková’s Salon and the maid’s room were already commissioned by the Mozart Society in
1927 (before it officially took over the estate), consequently awarding the contract to the
Prague builder V. Kopecký,14 and only implemented sometime later.
12 — [The news about the fire at Bertramka], Národní listy,
3. 1. 1873, p. 2; [The news about the fire at Bertramka],
Dalibor 17. 1. 1873, p. 23.
13 — The plan of the entrance to the estate’s courtyard, F.
Brož, after 1900, Prague 5-Municipal District of the Cap-
ital City of Prague, the archive of the building documen-
tatiton.

14 — The plan in the archive of the building documen-

tation, Prague 5-Municipal District of the Capital City of
Prague.

The plan of adjustments in the first floor, V. Kopecký, 1927,

Prague 5-Municipal District of the Capital City of Prague.

In the 1920s, Bertramka was in very poor condition,15 in sharp contrast to its condition prior
to the end of the 19th century. A surviving photographic print from 1887 proves that the es- 15 — See e. g. photographs in: Vlastimil Blažek, Bertram-
tate had been a carefully maintained structure in the hands of Adolf Popelka at that time.16 ka, Pestrý týden 9. 9. 1927, p. 2.
When the Mozart Society officially acquired Bertramka, the municipal commission found
serious structural concerns caused by leaks from the stables onto the ground floor of the 16 — Zelený (note 1), p. 757.
residence (it had served as a stable for livestock up until then). The foundation had shifted
in the corner of the house, resulting in cracks to the vaulting of the ground floor rooms. In
the ensuing years, the Prague Municipality repeatedly called upon the Mozart Society to
repair the falling plaster on the house façade and to secure the walls enclosing the estate
which were threatening to collapse, but unfortunately, the society was financially depleted by
its acquisition of Bertramka and without much of a permanent income.17 Thanks to several
state subsidies at the end of the 1930s, however, some repairs to the roof of the building 17 — The building documentation 1929–1940 in the ar-
and other necessary interventions became possible,18 but a substantial improvement to its chive of Prague 5-Municipal District of the Capital City of
dire status did not come until 1940-1941, paradoxically speaking, precisely during the Nazi Prague.
occupation.
18 — Vlastimil Blažek, Za českou mecenášku, Národní
A subsidy from the German Reich enabled a comprehensive restoration of the entire com- politika 16. 2. 1935, No. 47, pp. 1–2; Vladimír Hnízdo, Mo-
plex.19 The intent of the subsidy was to transform the so-called Bertramhof into a Reich me- zartova Bertramka, Pestrý týden 25. 11. 1939, No. 47, pp.
morial in Mozart’s
​​ honour. This massive undertaking (it was supposed to extend beyond the 10–11.
wider surroundings of Bertramka), however, was forgotten before the end of World War II.20
Despite efforts of the Reich’s Protector Office to liquidate the Czechoslovak Mozart Society, 19 — Patera (note 1), p. 86.
its members, especially the warden of Bertramka, Jaroslav Patera, did not lose control of
the construction work.21 During the 1940s, he oversaw the reconstruction of the estate and 20 — Oldřich Pulkert, Bertramka, manželé Duškovi a W. A.
subsequently summarized the new findings from a newly performed survey in a book issued Mozart, in: Čížek – Paulová – Pulkert (note 1), p. 25.
in 1948.22 This publication was the first and, for a long time, also the only text in which in-
depth attention was paid to the architecture of the estate as well as an attempt to write the 21 — Patera (note 1), p. 86; J. Keprta, Opravuje se Ber-
history of modifications to the structures and their architecture. tramka. Slavná mozartovská památka v Praze, Lidové novi-
ny 9. 3. 1941, No. 124, p. 5.
As has already been indicated, the restoration in the 1940s was of an entirely different
character than all previous building interventions. Not only the residential building with its 22 — Patera (note 1).
commemorative rooms were to be reconstructed but also the courtyard of Bertramka and
the farm buildings, with the specific aim to modify and repurpose the entire complex as a
museum and memorial. Thus, Bertramka would definitively cease to serve as a private res-
idence. The romantic approach of the 19th century was replaced by professional efforts to

80

23 — As Bertramka was called in German language build-
ing documentation.
24 — Einschreibung über die am 22. Jänner 1942 in den
Gute No 169 in Prag XVI Bertramka, Vordere Mozart-
strasse stattfindende Baukommission, Prague 5-Municipal
District of the Capital City of Prague, the archive of the
building documentatiton.
25 — Patera (note 1), p. 21, ill. 6.
26 — Ibidem, p. 114.
The so-called Mozart’s Room in 1887. Photo: Světozor XXI, 1887, No. 48, p. 761.
recreate Bertramka based on surveys as it was been during Mozart’s time. Although attention
was paid to the entire site and not just Mozart’s rooms (unlike what had been done up until
then), the starting point remained the same: only what was found (truly or supposedly) to be
related to Mozart was valuable. According to the thinking at that time, “Bertramhof”23 was
reconstructed so that it could be returned to its original state during Mozart's time.
Reconstruction works were carried out by
the Prague builder Jaroslav Libánský and
his comprehensive list of them is detailed
in the building inspection protocol, dated
22 January 1942.24 The roof frame was
repaired, even taken down and rebuilt over
the sala terrena. The loggia was stripped
of the glazing and all of its first-floor pillars
were repaired and fitted with stucco cap-
itals instead of the previous wooden ones.
The first pillar on the northeast side (prior to
the sala terrena) was extended to the roof
as it once apparently had been. The division
The so-called Mozart’s Room after the restoration of the façades from the 1870s, the cornices
in the 1940‘s. Photo: Jaroslav Patera, Bertramka and the stucco windows were removed. The
v Praze. Mozartovo památné sídlo, Praha 1948, ill. 10. shutters were reinstalled on the windows
(the existence of their use was proven by the
presence of preserved metal hinges). All of the doors and windows were reconstructed or
replaced by new ones “nach der alten Muster”, particularly the three doors leading from the
loggia to the rooms on the first floor of the house. In the sala terrena, the French windows
were reopened, revealing paintings in their interior. This long-forgotten function of the win-
dows was rediscovered thanks to a pen drawing by Matěj Wehli in 1876.25 The partitions in
the sala terrena and in the so-called Mrs. Dušková’s Salon were knocked out.
Nevertheless, the most fundamental change took place in the most venerated part of Ber-
tramka, Mozart’s Room. During reconstruction surveys it was discovered that the southwest
wall of this room (it was divided by a great niche) served as an additional partition which split
the formerly larger rectangular room. The masonry of the partition was evaluated and found
to be made of “modern format” brick.26 A baroque ceiling beam (albeit in damaged condition)
was hiding behind the plastered ceiling and stucco decorations and extended to the rest
of the room behind the partition. The fireplace turned out to be non-functional and purely
decorative, installed in front of the original window opening. On the basis of these findings,
Mozart’s so-much celebrated room was described as a false recreation attempt almost 100
years after Mozart’s stay.27 During the second half of the 19th century and even still at the
81
beginning of the 20th century, this room stirred great emotions in Mozart’s admirers. A text by 27 — Patera (note 1), pp. 112–115.
the author with the surname Zelený, printed in 1887 in Světozor (Worldview), shall serve as
just one example:

“… only a door prevents us from seeing the Bertramka sanctuary. We will open it and stand in the room where
Mozart lived at Bertramka – and we find it essentially in the same condition as it was a century ago. An interesting
ceiling, a finely inlaid floor, a welcoming tapestry, an Italian chimney and paintings on the walls, everything appears
to a moved eye as it used to be when the immortal master’s eyes rested on it.”28
28 — Zelený (note 1), p. 754.
No pictures of Bertramka dating from either the end of the 18th century or the first half of
the 19th century have survived, unfortunately. We therefore do not know when this so-called
“false” recreation came into being. Judging by the stylish character of this and the second
room (the Mozart Salon), however, it seems that adjustments took place shortly after 1800
and not, as Jaroslav Patera identified, after the fire in 1873.29
29 — For more details see Mezihoráková, “Zde bydlel W.
During the restoration of the 1940s, the interior struc- A. Mozart” (note 1), pp. 119–121.
ture, in particular the first floor of the house, was
stripped of everything. Based on an evaluation at that
time, this must have come later than Mozart’s time.
While the aforementioned painted ceiling beam was
discovered in Mozart’s Room, its painting is of an early
Baroque character and it has not been ruled out wheth-
er it was already covered by a plastered ceiling (in late
baroque-style) at the time of Mozart’s stay. In Mozart’s
Salon, the existing ceiling was lowered (the ceiling was
actually raised in this room during the restoration follow-
ing the fire in 1873) by hanging a wooden ceiling cov-
ered with reed and plaster. The wallpaper was removed
in both rooms, but from today’s point of view was very
interesting proof of the 19th century furnishings present
in the rooms. Several layers of decorated plaster were
discovered, dating back to different periods. The oldest
preserved layer was identified to be of Baroque origin
The fragment of the 19th century and became the model for the new (current) painting of
painting in the so-called Mozart Salon. rooms in light green tones with decorative braiding.30
Photo: Klára Mezihoráková. Behind the entrance doors to Mozart’s Salon a frag- 30 — Patera (note 1), pp. 19–22, 110–115.
ment was left from one of the later layers featuring a
floral décor. A number of earlier decorative elements were removed, for example, the marble
frame of the fireplace in Mozart’s Room (replaced by a simple sandstone frame). The result
was a very purist feeling.31
31 — See Patera (note 1), ill. 10, 11.

The plan of the new gate of Bertramka, J. Libánský, 1941, Prague City Archives, sign. MAP P V 3/3183.

82

32 — The plan of the gate of Bertramka, J. Libánský, 1941,
Prague City Archives, sign. MAP P V 3/3183.
33 — The project Bertramka. Technický projekt úpravy zah-
rady. Brána, S. Vacek, 1955, National Heritage Institute,
sign. PP0P–992–55034.
34 — See e. g. Ladislav Honeiser – Eva Skalická, Pražské
usedlosti, Praha 2006, pp. 70–71.
35 — Jana Marešová – Klára Mezihoráková – Kristina
Uhlíková, Akademické soupisy uměleckých památek, Pra-
ha 2014, p. 6.
36 — The project Bertramka. Ideový návrh na úpravu celé
Bertramky a okolí. Zahrada a divadlo, S. Vacek, 1953, Na-
tional Heritage Institute, sign. PPOP-992-5-5010.
37 — Cadastral map of Smíchov (note 2).
The extent of desired measures undertaken to present Bertramka as a building from the
time of Mozart is best exemplified by the estate’s existing entrance gate. Jaroslav Libánský
designed the impressive “Baroque” gate to replace the previous modest entrance in 1941.32
This entrance, modelled after a gate “from the time of Mozart’s stay” preserved at nearby
Nr. 80, was installed in 1955–1956,33 and later became a popular subject of photographic
shots.34 Naturally, it is necessary to see the interventions while keeping in mind that the ar-
chitecture of the 2nd half of the 19th century was not perceived as having any historic value
(during the 1940s, for example, buildings from the period after 1850 were not yet included
in the inventories of monuments prior to World War II).35 Nevertheless, a number of inter-
ventions within the scope of Bertramka’s reconstruction appear to be questionable now,
especially the next phase during the 1950s which pretty much continued in the same way.
Moreover, the reconstruction that took place during this time occurred under the pressure of
communist propaganda. After World War II, the Mozart Society officially retained ownership
of Bertramka but was forced to hand over the buildings’ administration to the National Muse-
um in 1958. At the beginning of the 1950s,
the Bertramka complex was – similar to the
previous Nazi occupation and its propagan-
da-like thinking – subject to new ideas of
extensive reconstruction. According to this
new project characterized by the megalo-
mania typical of totalitarian regimes, a large
concert hall was to be built in the area in
front of the residential house, necessitating
the reconstruction of the surrounding struc-
tures (the granary, barn and other adjacent
farm buildings) and a subsequent integration
into the hall. An amphitheatre-style auditori-
um for open-air concerts was to be recessed
The gate of the estate Nr. 80. into the slope above the courtyard. The ter-
Photo: Klára Mezihoráková. race above the former winepress was to be
expanded and used as a natural podium.36
Nevertheless, the oversized designs of architect Stivo Vacek were never implemented, thus
preserving the farm buildings to this day, albeit in a dilapidated but relatively original state.
These are valuable buildings, thanks to which the Bertramka complex retains its farmstead
character. All of these structures were documented and surveyed on the cadastral map of
1840,37 but their origins are certainly older. In one instance in 1948, for example, the cre-
ation or reconstruction of a barn was identified to date back to at least 1817 based solely
on evidence stemming from a weather van no longer in existence. The present state of the
buildings, by contrast, is indicative of modifications which occurred during the second half
of the 19th century. In particular, the building housing the winepress was rebuilt (originally a
The gate of Bertramka nowadays. Photo: Klára Mezihoráková.
83
 The unrealized project of the Bertramka complex, S. Vacek, 1953,
National Heritage Institute, sign. PPOP-992-5-5010.

half-storey hayloft which burnt down in 1873 and was replaced with a terrace). The interior
then received new segmented vaulting.

Thus, a full reconstruction of the residential building was attempted only in 1955 and com-
pleted by the ceremonial opening of Bertramka as a Memorial to W. A. Mozart and the
Dušeks on 25 May 1956.38 Within the construction work, a number of interventions were un-
dertaken, mainly affecting the ground floor of the house. The room of the former shepherd’s 38 — The project Úvodní projekt Bertramky, S. Vacek,
dwelling was divided into two parts. The space of the stable arched over a central pillar (the 1953, National Heritage Institute, sign. PPOP–992–5–
original gutters were still present in 1941) was divided in 1955 by a transverse wall and its 509–547; Bertramka. Kolaudační plány, S. Vacek, 1956,
north-eastern half was brutally altered to make space for a boiler room recessed below the National Heritage Institute, sign. PPOP–991–5–1717.
ground level. Space in the south corner of the stables was altered to accommodate a new
staircase leading to the first floor on the southeast façade adjacent to the sala terrena. Part
of the wall was then demolished to allow for a new entrance (the older entrance documented
in the 1927 plan was walled up), however, this disrupted the rocaille vase painting in the
hall. The relevant cut-out of this painting was therefore transferred to the wallpaper door in
the sala terrena in an unsuccessful attempt to render this intervention invisible. The stables
under the sala terrena received partitions due to the installation of sanitary facilities and its
southeast wall was split by windows. On the first floor there was a newly modified entrance
hall, complemented by a welcome panel with Mozart’s bust.39
39 — On the state of Bertramka in 1956 see Buchner
In Mozart’s Room, the partitions were knocked out and the original roof beam exposed, (note 1); Naumann – Ossendorf (note 1).
complemented by a replica of the parts destroyed by the fire in 1873 (the repainting was
done by the Bohumír Číla).40 The fireplace was definitively removed and the original window
opening was knocked out again. The paintings in the sala terrena were covered with wallpa- 40 — One of the beams carries the inscription of Bohumír
per because of their poor condition. They were restored only later during the second half of Číla from 1941.
the 20th century.

These aforementioned construction activities in the 1940s and 1950s resulted in a “cleansed”
or sterile building, especially in the interior. This sterile feeling is most obvious in the so-called
Mozart’s Room whose previous room arrangement (a very impressive and authentic adapta-
tion, nonetheless) had to disappear because it was not from the time of the composers’ stay.
This is why, viewed from today’s perspective, the search for “Mozart’s Bertramka” seems to
lead to a path with only a dead end. Even with the present-day modifications to Mozart’s
rooms we are not sure if these were the conditions on which “the master’s eyes rested”. At
the same time, however, it is clear that the estates’ status as a monument to Mozart, in fact,
guarantees its continued existence. Without this connection to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart,
it might have been lost among the many Smíchov estates and we would not have the oppor-
tunity today to appreciate, as a whole, its historically and aesthetically valuable architecture,
whether it be from the time of Mozart’s life or from later periods.

84