Alice Fornasiero

Eliška Zlatohlávková
Miroslav Kindl

From studiolo
to gallery
Secular spaces for collections in the Lands
of the Bohemian crown on the threshold of
the early modern era
From
studiolo
to
gallery

Secular spaces for collections

in the Lands of the Bohemian
crown on the threshold of the
early modern era
From
studiolo
to
gallery

Alice Fornasiero
Eliška Zlatohlávková
Miroslav Kindl
From studiolo to gallery
Secular spaces for collections in the Lands of the
Bohemian crown on the threshold of the early modern era
Authors of the texts | Alice Fornasiero, Eliška Zlatohlávková, Miroslav Kindl
Reviewers | Friedrich Polleroß, Ondřej Jakubec
Translation | Daniel Řezníček, Alice Fornasiero, Eliška Zlatohlávková, Miroslav Kindl
Proof-reading | Simon Gill, Ashley Davies
Photography | Rijksmuseum Amsterdam — 1, 2, 3, 4, 38, 44, 45; Castello Sarmato — 5; Metropolitan Museum
of Art — 6, 40, 41; Národní památkový ústav — 7, 8, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 54, 60, 61, 62; Eliška Zlatohlávková
— 9, 10, 11, 57; bpk, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, photo: Jürgen Karpinski — 12; Martin Zlatohlávek
— 14; Archiv Pražského hradu — 15, 16, 56, 73; Správa Pražského hradu, photo: Jan Gloc — 17, 59; Direzione
Regionale Musei Lazio – Caprarola (VT) — 18; Fabrice Lepeltier — 20; SOA Třeboň — 21; Ministero per i
beni e le attività culturali e per il turismo – Palazzo Ducale di Mantova — 23; Panství Bechyně s.r.o., Alice
Fornasiero — 27, 28; Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig — 29; The Lobkowicz Library and Archive,
Nelahozeves Castle, Czech Republic — 30, 31; database © IPR Praha, Jindřich Vaněk — 37; Staatsgalerie
Stuttgart, Graphische Sammlung — 46; Bayerische Schlosserverwaltung Schwenk, München — 47; Archiv
hl. m. Prahy — 48; Veronika K. Wanková — 49, 50; Fondazione Casa Pia dei Ceppi – Palazzo Datini Onlus
— 53; Východočeské muzeum v Pardubicích — 55; Ústav dějin umění AVČR, Prokop Paul — 58; Lobkowicz
Collections, Lobkowicz Palace, Prague Castle, Czech Republic — 63, 67, 68, 69, 70; Lobkowicz Collections,
Chateau Nelahozeves, Czech Republic — 64, 65, 66; Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf — 72;
Royal Academy of Arts, London — 74; Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale — 75; Národní archiv Praha —
76; Getty Research Institute — 77
Cover, graphic layout | Miroslav Kindl
Desktop publishing | Miroslav Kindl, Eliška Zlatohlávková
Indexes | Veronika Fousková
Font | Tisa Sans Pro
Printing | Reprotisk, s.r.o., M. R. Štefánika 318/1, 787 01 Šumperk
Print run | 300
Publisher | Catholic Theological Faculty, Charles University, Thákurova 3, Prague 6, 160 00, Czech Republic

© 2020 — Alice Fornasiero, Eliška Zlatohlávková, Miroslav Kindl

© 2020 — Catholic Theological Faculty, Charles University, Prague

ISBN — 978-80-87922-28-6
This book is the result of the research study Collecting in 17th-century Bohemia. From Kunstkammer to Picture
Gallery, financed by the PRIMUS/17/HUM/14 project at the Catholic Theological Faculty of Charles University.
Special thanks go to the Siro-Moretti Costanzi Foundation of Perugia for the support demonstrated throughout
the duration of the project.
Further thanks go to Fabio Marcelli, Marco Moschini, Laděna Plucarová, Aleš Stejskal, Edvard Oberfalcer,
Veronika K. Wanková, Miloslav Záškoda and Jan Zikmund.
Contents
Preface 8
I | Introduction to the collection of Rudolf II in the light of the legacy of the Habsburgs 13
The places for the preservation of the Rudolfine collection 20
II | Studiolo 27
The beginnings of studioli in the 14th century 34
The beginnings of studioli in Bohemia 37
The Green Chambers 45
Studioli in the 15th century in the Czech Lands and examples from
Italy – Kutná Hora, Urbino, Gubbio 49
Humanistic libraries as collection depositories 53
The studiolo of Rudolf II at Prague Castle 61
The studiolo in the White Tower 66
The development of studioli in the 16th and 17th centuries in the Czech Lands 72
III | The Treasury 97
IV | The Kunstkammer 111
The Kunstkammer of Rudolf II 117
The Kunstkammer of Peter Wok of Rosenberg 122
Carolus aquirens. Karl I of Liechtenstein and his spaces for collections 126
V | The Antiquarium 155
The New Hall at Prague Castle 163
Bučovice 165
Ambras 169
VI | The Gallery 173
Painted loggias, representative halls, and the beginning of the
gallery in the Czech Lands 175
Genealogical cycles, heraldic cycles, viri illustri, portrait galleries 189
Galleries at Prague Castle 212
Bibliography 226
Personal index 256
Local index 262
Space for your notes 264
Preface
The ambition of this monograph is to deep-
en the knowledge of the spaces dedicated to
the collection of objets d’art in the aristocratic
world of the Lands of the Bohemian Crown
in the period between the fifteenth and ear-
ly seventeenth centuries. The main goal is
to reconstruct the relationship between the
patron and the collection and the space in
which it was located. An attempt was made
to go beyond the approach mainly followed
by previous research, especially oriented to-
wards the reconstruction of individual archi-
tectural and decorative projects and of the
content of the collections, in order to render
the unity between the patron, the collection,
and its space.1
In taking shape, the monograph saw the
extraordinary figure of Emperor Rudolf II
become its central pivot. His presence is felt
in almost every section of the book, making
clear how his collecting manifested itself un-
der the multifaceted aspects of this complex
phenomenon. Rudolf’s collection occupied
the different typologies of space analysed
here: a studiolo, a Kunstkammer, an antiquar-
ium, a series of galleries... Together with the
spaces in which it was exhibited, it became
a model to emulate for the Bohemian and
Moravian nobility and it conveyed the cul-
tural and artistic developments coming from
the main centres of power of the Habsburgs
1 On collecting in general in the Lands of the
Bohemian Crown see in particular slavíček 1993 and
slavíček 2007, both with quotations of an older
bibliography. For the individual collections and
patrons, reference is made to the bibliography
throughout the book.
|8|
and of the rest of Europe by introducing them
into the Lands of the Bohemian Crown. The
secular collecting of this geographical and
cultural area has been inserted here into a
broader context, not in relation to its content
and artistic value, but considering the spac-
es dedicated to the collection of objets d’art
within an aristocratic dwelling.
The book focuses mainly on secular spac-
es. Aware of the importance of the religious
and spiritual dimension in this context, chap-
els, sacristies, and the treasuries of churches
and monasteries were only considered mar-
ginally in the chapters dedicated to the stu-
diolo and the treasury. Their role in the de-
velopment of the spaces for collections is
fundamental. Nevertheless, we have limited
ourselves to mentioning it only when neces-
sary, as for a complete analysis they would
deserve an independent study.2
We therefore warn the reader that the
following pages are the reconstruction of a
broad panorama on the subject, which could
appear incomplete in some aspects. The
book does not in fact aim to have an ency-
clopaedic character. We have not sought the
completeness that one might expect from a
catalogue of the spaces for collections in Bo-
hemia and Moravia. We only discussed em-
blematic cases with the aim of emphasising
that, as in the rest of Europe, the evolution of
2 The religious aspect concerning the
phenomenon of collecting deserves due attention. In
the context of Rudolf II’s collection it has been
studied by ivanič 2019, pp. 177–191. From a more
general perspective see also wetter 2017 or clifton
2017, pp. 474–486.
collecting and consequently of the various ty-
pologies of space dedicated to it occurred in
the Lands of the Bohemian Crown too.
The chosen subject is anything but de-
void of pitfalls. In fact, we immediately had
to face the problem of defining spaces: the
difficulty of adumbrating under the catego-
ries of studiolo, treasury, Kunstkammer, an-
tiquarium, and gallery places that housed
heterogeneous collections, created by the
ambitions and needs of various personalities,
with different intellectual backgrounds and
financial means.
One could affirm that a series of family
portraits, the images of the sovereigns, or
richly woven tapestries are functional in the
representation of social status rather than
testifying to a passion for collecting. Simi-
larly, a series of religious paintings, reliquar-
ies, or regalia could not be considered an ar-
tistic collection before 1600.3 Nevertheless,
all these manifestations were substantial
preliminary stages of the phenomenon of
collecting.
For this reason, we had to include in the
various chapters examples of spaces that at
first glance do not centre on collecting be-
cause they are dictated by other needs (rep-
resentative, political, economic, religious,
etc.); nevertheless, they must be included in
the study in order to understand the overall
development and the gradual assimilation of
the impulses coming from the outside.
Even considering a nobleman a collector
and his collection worthy of being designated
as such can be arbitrarily questioned by all.
We did not feel compelled to initiate a debate
3 The role of the mediaeval treasury in the
development of collecting, as underlined by Julius
von Schlosser, must be approached with caution, as
its primary function lies within the devotional
dimension. On this topic see in particular his
important book schlosser 1908.
|9|
on this topic for each case considered. This
was not our primary task, but rather to give
as complete (and complex) an image as pos-
sible to outline a phenomenon in continuous
development, made up of various facets and
individual cases.
The typological separation we chose as
the backbone of the book might evoke the
idea of a direct evolution. Nevertheless, it is
extremely difficult to separate the different
typologies of space and consider them auton-
omously. Although a temporal and cultural
development is inevitable, there has not al-
ways been a logical evolution in the phenom-
enon of collecting and consequently not even
with regard to the spaces devoted to it. How-
ever, categorisations and periodisations are
inevitable if some explanatory clarity is to be
achieved.
At the beginning of each chapter dedicat-
ed to a specific space, a definition has been pro-
vided which identifies its main characteristics.
Because of our awareness of the complemen-
tary role they played in the collecting of the
Early Modern Era, libraries, armouries, and
sacristies remain only sporadically mentioned.
In order to have guidelines in relation
to the typological characteristics of the in-
dividual spaces, reference was made to the
previous fundamental studies. For the studi-
olo, the essential study by Wolfgang Lieben-
wein4 and the work by Renate von Busch5 in
particular for the German territory have been
taken into consideration. For the Kunstkam-
mer in general there is the book edited by An-
dreas Grote, Macrocosmos in microcosmo: Die
Welt in der Stube: Zur Geschichte des Sammelns
1450–1800. 6 For Rudolf’s Kunstkammer the
4 liebenwein 1977.
5 von busch 1973.
6 grote 1994.
contribution by Eliška Fučíková,7 the texts
by Beket Bukovinská, 8 and the crucial text
on the inventory of Rudolf’s Kunstkammer by
Rotraud Bauer and Herbert Haupt represent-
ed the fundamental studies on the subject.9
For the antiquarium the new book by Dirk Ja-
cob Jansen10 and again the theses of Renate
von Busch have been our guidelines. For the
development of the gallery we referred to the
study by Wolfram Prinz11 and its reviews by
Volker Hoffmann and by Frank Büttner.12 To
place the gallery in a broader context we also
considered the studies by Christina Strunck
and Elisabeth Kieven 13 and by Claire Con-
stans and Mathieu da Vinha.14
The investigations could not be support-
ed without taking into consideration the
sources: archival documents, inventories,
letters, plans, and drawings, as well as the
appearance of the spaces, when they still ex-
ist in their original state.
The inventories proved to be an indispen-
sable source, providing information not only
on the content of the collections, but also on
defining the space. The quotation “the room
with the fireplace where the Lord loves to sit” (in
the case of the studiolo of Zacharias of Hra-
dec in the Castle of Telč or the one of Wil-
liam of Rosenberg in the Rosenberg Palace
in Prague) leads us to interpret this space as
a studiolo. Was that a simple writing room?
Could we really define this space as a studio-
lo, intended as a private space also used for
7 fučíková 1987.
8 bukovinská 2007; bukovinská 2009.
9 bauer – haupt 1976.
10 jansen 2019.
11 prinz 1970.
12 hoffmann 1971, pp. 102–112; büttner 1972,
pp. 75–80.
13 strunck – kieven 2010.
14 constans – da vinha 2010.
| 10 |
the enjoyment of objets d’art? The presence
of objects made of precious material (also
connected to the intellectual and writing
activities of the lord) and devotional items,
combined with a mural decoration with an
iconographic programme centred on the fig-
ure of the owner (see the already-mentioned
studiolo of Zacharias of Hradec or the studiolo
of Peter Wok of Rosenberg in Bechyně Castle),
support a positive answer. We have to con-
sider that these spaces were conceived by
cultured personalities with a demonstrated
intellectual and artistic sensitivity. It is not
necessary here to launch into digressions on
the artistic and cultural osmosis existing be-
tween the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, the
neighbouring territories, and Italy, which in-
tensified in particular starting from the 16th
century. The Bohemian and Moravian aris-
tocracy travelled on diplomatic missions and
grand tours, getting to know new models and
fashions. However, even without physical dis-
placement, the diffusion took place through
other means: plans, drawings, written de-
scriptions, and, of course, agents, artists, and
architects, guaranteed the transfer of artistic
and cultural innovations.
Concerning the Kunstkammer, it needs to
be said that there exist certain differences.
In many archival sources, this word can be
found or its rich variations as khunst cam-
er, Kunsstkammer, khunst stuben, etc. Un-
der these terms, however, there is usually a
space where works of art were mostly stored
without any system, similar to a treasury. In
this monograph, we focus mainly on the Kun-
stkammer as a space in which the objects that
were stored were systematically divided ac-
cording to the main categories as artificial-
ia, naturalia, and scientifica and embody the
idea of a macrocosmos depicted in a micro-
cosmos and we describe the most significant
examples.
 Other hard-to-categorise spaces that we
can sometimes call collections and at oth-
er times only do so with difficulties are the
guardaroba or armoury, spaces sometimes
similar to a Kunstkammer, sometimes purely
utilitarian in their purpose. In this book, both
these are presented in a case study dedicated
to the important courtier of Rudolf II and the
founder of the Liechtenstein princely family,
Karl I of Liechtenstein. We are aware of the
thin line that distinguishes utilitarian spac-
es (albeit with very valuable objects inside
them) from collectors’ spaces with a clear
concept. However, the lack of archival and
other materials does not always allow us to
make absolute judgments. Complicated ex-
amples also include the very widespread sil-
ver chambers, mentioned in several places in
our volume, but from the perspective of the
book spaces that are often difficult to define
easily. This is why we often ask questions and
look for answers that may sometimes already
seem clear.
Another problem comes with the identi-
fication of a gallery: where exactly is the limit
in defining a space as a hall rather than a gal-
lery? In its initial manifestations the gallery
shared very similar characteristics with the
hall in architectural, decorative, and func-
tional terms. In the chapter dedicated to the
beginnings of the gallery in the Lands of the
Bohemian Crown some examples that have
never been interpreted in relation to the ty-
pology of the gallery are mentioned; even
though they cannot be defined as galleries,
they share similar characteristics to contem-
porary galleries in the rest of Europe. They
| 11 |
have to be considered the antecedents to the
assimilation of the gallery in Bohemia and
Moravia, and as such they find their place in
the book.
Something that lies a little outside the
focus of the other parts of the book is the
chapter devoted to the development of por-
trait and genealogical cycles. It begins in the
Middle Ages and ends with a reflection on the
relevance of the present. We do this on pur-
pose. This is another case study, but this time
not focused on personality, but on a phenom-
enon which often, especially in the old days,
related more generally to patronage than
purely to collectors’ spaces. But it was part
of the cultural history that led to the topic
of our book.
Starting from the renovations carried out
by Rudolf II at Prague Castle, the gallery af-
firms itself as an architectural typology as-
sociated with an authentic desire to exhibit
objets d’art. Following the example of the Em-
peror, the first extremely receptive noblemen,
such as Peter Wok of Rosenberg, would make
the new fashion their own by introducing the
gallery into the renovation projects of their
castles and residences.
It is at this point that the actual chapter
on the galleries opens up: in the first decade
of the 1600s, when the projects of Rudolf II
reached their completeness and full splen-
dour. In the Lands of the Bohemian Crown too,
the gallery is now intended as a space entire-
ly dedicated to an art collection of paintings
exhibited for their artistic value.
| Alice Fornasiero – Eliška
Zlatohlávková – Miroslav Kindl |
I | Introduction to the
collection of Rudolf II in
the light of the legacy
of the Habsburgs
The Rudolfine collections belonged among
Europe’s largest at the time. Over the course
of his life, Rudolf II (1576–1612) compiled a
formidable collection comprising several
thousand paintings, sculptures, objets d’art,
weapons, precious stones, natural materials,
and exotic items. To house his collection, he
had extensive premises built in the western
part of Prague Castle that were connected
with the emperor’s private apartment so
that he could covertly retire to these rooms
and rejoice in his beloved artworks whenever
he pleased. Only selected persons were al-
lowed to behold the masterpieces celebrat-
ed all over Europe, especially emissaries and
statespersons. One of them was Cardinal
Alessandro d’Este, who visited Prague Castle
in 1604 in order to acquaint the emperor with
the territorial interests of his family in north-
ern Italy. He was welcomed at the Castle with
full honours and was granted the privilege of
seeing the imperial collections. The cardinal
then sent a letter to his brother, describing his
impressions from visiting the Kunstkammer.
Most of all, he was fascinated by the quality of
< 1 | Aegidius Sadeler, Family Tree of the Habsburg House, 1629, engraving, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.
| 13 |
the artworks.1 The last sentence of the letter
is significant, saying that the collections are a
valuable gem for the person who owns them:
“Et particolarmente li pitture per la quantità et
per la qualità mirabili. Oltre di cio vasi di pre-
tiose di più sorti, stanze et horologi, tesoro de-
gno di chi il possede [...] (And in particular the
paintings, admirable for quantity and quality.
Beyond that, vases of precious materials of var-
ious kinds, rooms and clocks, a treasury worthy
of he who owns it).”2 The Savoyard emissary
Carlo Francesco Manfredi di Luserna, who
brought several sculptures to Rudolf in 1605
as a gift from Charles Emmanuel I, the Duke
of Savoy, received the same privilege. Simi-
larly to Cardinal d’Este, he also reported on
his experience: “La galleria, e le sale dove sono
le sue pitture, cosa che sogliono li ambasciato-
ri ricercare quando pensano partirsi da ques-
ta corte. (The picture galleries and halls that
house the paintings are sought after by emissar-
ies before their departure from the court.)”.3 In
1 kaufmann 1978, p. 103.
2 kaufmann 1978, p. 104.; venturi 1885, p. 19.
3 kaufmann 1978, p. 108.
 fact, Rudolf II personally invited the Savoyard
emissary to a Kunstkammer that had not been
seen, according to the emperor as quoted by
Luserna in his dispatch, by anyone else before.
“Non la lascia veder à nessuno (he would not let
anyone see it).”4 Inside the Kunstkammer, Lus-
erna was especially enchanted by the chests
of drawers decorated with precious stones,
especially two bureaus inlaid with mosaic,
containers and vessels made from various
materials, the famous unicorn’s horn, the
imperial crown, and other precious jewels.
In his description, he also mentioned a large
agate bowl with a naturally formed inscrip-
tion reading “Christ” in the vein of the stone.5
Inspections of Rudolf’s collection also
represented a significant political act. In
1607, the Kunstkammer was visited by Chris-
tian II, the Elector of Saxony. This was a time
when Rudolf’s political power was already on
the decline under the pressure of his young-
er brother Matthias and the Catholic forces
within the Empire. Therefore, he was main-
taining close relations with Protestant rulers
and in this context the invitation of Christian
II to the imperial collections was an import-
ant political gesture. The close ties between
the Prague and Saxon courts were affirmed
through a gift. The emperor donated to the
elector a bronze bust of the latter made by
Adriaen de Vries, decorated with a medal-
lion around the sovereign’s neck bearing a
portrait of Emperor Rudolf. The plinth of the
bust had the form of two female figures with
mutually interwoven arms, symbolising the
concord between the two princely courts.6
4 kaufmann 1978, p. 108.
5 krčálová 1975, p. 500.
6 kaufmann 1978, p. 112. For more on the topic of
gifts being exchanged between Prague and Dresden,
see horacek 2013.
| 14 |
The admiration for the Rudolfine collec-
tion would continue even after the emperor’s
death. On 5 March 1612 the Venetian emis-
sary Girolamo Soranzo wrote a letter to the
Doge, Leonardo Donà: “Ogni dì si trovano nel
palazzo di cesare nove curiosità, essendo le pit-
ture in numero di tre milla e più quadri di mano
di pittori famosi antichi e moderni che non solo
riempiono tutte le sale, tutte le gallerie e tutte
le stanze, ma avene sono una quantità immen-
sa involte et ammassante in mucchi, di modo
che abondano tanto, che in vece d’ornar il pa-
lazzo, lo rendono quasi un fontico per esser in
tanto numero. De vasi pretiosi et di gioie ogni dì
sene trova quantità maggiore nascoste per ogni
angulo et per ogni ripostiglio. (Every day there
were new curiosities in the palace of the Emper-
or, being the paintings in the number of three
thousand and by famous painters, ancient and
modern, that not only fill all the halls and all the
galleries and all the rooms, but of which there is
an immense quantity packed and amassed in
piles, in a way that instead of adorning the pal-
ace, they render it almost a storehouse for be-
ing in such a number. Precious vases and jewels
are found in quantity every day, hidden in every
corner and in every broom closet.)”7
Collecting had a long-standing tradition
in the House of Habsburg. It was part of good
manners and also represented a powerful
tool of political propaganda. The Habsburgs
considered themselves to be the descendants
of the Trojan heroes and viewed the collecting
of antiquities, especially coins, as historical
evidence of the significance of their dynasty.8
Jacopo Strada, the art agent and antiquar-
ian of Maximilian II, regarded artistic and
collecting activities as an integral part of a
nobleman’s upbringing and education.9 The
7 voltelini 1899, reg. no. 17099.
8 rudolf 1995, p. 171.
9 rudolf 1995, p. 173.
first great collector who was related to the
Habsburgs through marriage was John the
Magnificent, the Duke of Berry (1360–1416).
His collection, comprising relics, books, and
jewels, was considered one of the most sig-
nificant at that time. In 1404–1406 the col-
lection was inventoried in great detail by the
antiquarius Robinet d’Estampes, who is re-
garded as one of the first connoisseurs of the
Modern Age. Not only did Robinet thoroughly
describe the individual items, including their
provenance and the date of acquisition, but
he also recorded where they were stored and
classified them into groups and sub-catego-
ries.10 This is where we can observe the first in-
dications of a conscious and systematic com-
piling of a collection, so crucial for the later
formation of cabinets of curiosities.
The first steps towards the establishing
of early modern museums in the Habsburg
family were taken by Margaret of Austria, the
Governor of the Habsburg Netherlands, in her
palace at Mechelen, where in 1530 there is a
mention of what was called a garden cabinet
with various natural materials, most notably
corals. Ferdinand I sojourned at the court of
his aunt in 1518–1521 and it is possible that her
cabinet had an influence on his later decision
to build a detached structure dedicated en-
tirely to art collections.11
Ferdinand I, who was the founder not
only of cabinets of curiosities within the
Habsburg family, but also of the very first mu-
seum situated north of the Alps, manifested
interest in the visual arts, precious natural
materials, scientific instruments, and exot-
ic items from overseas. One of the oldest
documents attesting to his collecting ac-
tivities is what is called the Kammerrationar,
written in 1521 by his Spanish chamberlain
10 minges 1998, pp. 20–21.
11 karner 2014, p. 211.
| 15 |
Martín de Paredes. The inventory, compiled
following the Castilian custom, mainly lists
fabrics, clothing, and bedclothes. Nonethe-
less, it also mentions gifts and items that
passed into Ferdinand’s possession after
the death of his grandfather Maximilian I,
as evidenced by the note “tesoro del emper-
ador Maximiliano (a treasure of the Emperor
Maximilian)” accompanying several items.
Furthermore, Ferdinand’s collection also
contained examples of Native American art,
items from overseas countries or of Turkish
provenance, goldsmiths’ works, gauges, com-
passes, clocks, and other instruments. The
collection was classified into several catego-
ries; silverware, church paraphernalia, and
jewels.12 From the 1540s, the antiquarius
tasked with administering Ferdinand’s col-
lection was Leopold Heyperger. It follows
from his inventory records that the emper-
or owned 35 chests that were placed in dif-
ferent sections of the Habsburg residence in
Vienna. One of them, the content of which
would later be transferred to the Harnisch-
kammer (armoury), originally stood in the
emperor’s bedroom. The silverware was kept
in a vaulted room referred to as the Gewölbe.
Prague Castle had a similar Gewölbe at the
time and, according to Heyperger, it housed
an imperial bed. Heyperger was the first to
use the term Kunstkammer in his inventory
(there is a note saying “hat Heypergern in der
Kunsstkammer” next to some of the items).
The inventory also mentions a room called
the Tapesserey.13 Up to the late 1550s, the im-
perial collection was scattered all over the
Viennese residence.14 The aforementioned
Gewölbe or Schatzgewölbe, as cited by Hey-
perger, was situated in two places; in the
12 rudolf 1995, pp. 169–170, 196, 198.
13 rudolf 1995, pp. 224–225.
14 See karner 2014, p. 203.
2 | Crispijn van de Passe (II),Rudolf II, 1611, engraving on paper, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.

southern tower close to the sacristy of the
castle chapel, and in the western tower. In
1537, there appeared the first mention of Fer-
dinand’s Silberkammer, which was located
in a vaulted room on the ground floor of the
north-east wing of the old castle. Even the
emperor’s wife, Queen Anna, had her own
Silberkammer in her private ladies’ rooms
in the north-east wing, also near the north-
ern tower. A Silberkammer, or a silver(ware)
treasury, would typically house valuable ob-
jects as well as articles for daily use, includ-
ing cutlery, which is why it was usually situat-
ed close to the kitchen for practical reasons.
Ferdinand I made a huge step forward
in the Habsburg collecting tradition. A re-
cord from 1558 informs us about the found-
ing of a new building designated specifically
for the Hofburg collections, the Kunstkam-
mergebäude (a building designated solely
for a cabinet of curiosities), located close to
the castle hall for ball games. “Auf Paw vnd
Zuerichtung der Neuen Zymer vnnd Stigen von
dem Saal im Gartten vnnd auf den Ganng Zw
den Augustinen Closster, vnnd erpauung ainer
Khunst Chamer. (To build new rooms and stairs
from the hall in the garden and on the corri-
dor to the Augustinian cloister, and to build a

| 16 |
Kunstkammer)”15 The construction was com-
pleted in 1563. Access was enabled through
a simple staircase leading from the lower
garden (Unterer Lustgarten) or a small spiral
staircase located in the eastern corner and
adjacent to the building where the kitchen
of Archduke Charles II was. Originally, the
building had windows only on one side, fac-
ing the lower garden.16 However, two extra
floors were added during the reign of Max-
imilian II. In 1578 there appeared the first
mention of what were called the Untere and
Obere Kunstkammer, i.e. two cabinets of cu-
riosities situated on the first and third floors
of the wing: “unnder khunst Camer oberhalb
der Für. Dur. Erzherzog Ernsten Zimmer (under
the Kunstkammer above the rooms of Archdu-
ke Ernst)” and “ober khunst Camer in der Burg
unnder dem Tachwerch ob der Für. Dt. Erzher-
zog Ernsten Zimmer (above the Kunstkammer
in the castle under the roof of the rooms of Arch-
duke Ernst)”.17 After Rudolf II’s accession to
the throne, certain construction works had
to be carried out because of the unsatisfac-
tory condition of the structure. Within the
framework of these modifications, an apart-
ment for Rudolf’s younger brother Ernest
was constructed on the second floor.18
The erection of a special building intend-
ed solely for imperial collections was a sig-
nificant founding act that directly influenced
not only the next two generations of the
Habsburg family (in Archduke Ferdinand II of
Further Austria and Rudolf II), but also the
design of the Munich Kunstkammer and the
Antiquarium, founded by Ferdinand’s son-in-
law, Duke Albert V. He visited Vienna person-
15 karner 2014, p. 204.
16 karner 2014, pp. 206–208.
17 karner 2014, p. 205, note 963.
18 karner 2014, pp. 42–43.
| 17 |
ally in 1560 and witnessed the construction
of the building intended to house the cabinet
of curiosities, which was under way and from
which he could draw inspiration for a building
to house his own collection.19
Nonetheless, a part of the art collection
remained in the ruler’s personal rooms even
after the founding of the special building. On
24 January 1567, a fire broke out in the Hof-
burg, as we learn from a message sent by the
Spanish emissary. The dispatch is mainly im-
portant in relation to the art collection, as it
reports on the fact that chests with Maximil-
ian II’s cosas de gabinette and precious items
described as joyas were being taken out of the
emperor’s rooms during the fire.20
Maximilian’s collection was described in
two inventories. The first of them was elabo-
rated between 1550 and 1558 under the su-
pervision of Maximilian’s first chamberlain,
Count Georg von Thun. The second inven-
tory is from 1568. Both documents classify
the items into 46 groups. Some of the works
were acquired through bequests or as gifts,
while others were purchased by Maximil-
ian himself. The lists do not omit the most
valuable family items, such as the horn of
the mythical unicorn, an agate goblet, a roy-
al crown (perhaps Ferdinand I’s), the Crown
of Saint Stephen, and a small crown inlaid
with precious stones. Other items included
seals, precious stones, exotic natural mate-
rials, measuring instruments, and devices,
compasses, or weapons.21
Maximilian’s large collection also includ-
ed paintings. According to the Italian noble-
man Ottavio Landi, who reported on the Elec-
19 karner 2014, pp. 210–211.
20 rudolf 1995, p. 225. The Spanish term joyas
was used to refer to artworks and objets d’art.
21 rudolf 1995, pp. 191–194.
tor of Saxony’s visit to the Viennese court in
1573, there were pitture et altre cose (paintings
and other items) in an unspecified camera. 22
From a young age, Maximilian’s great pas-
sions included gardens adorned with sculp-
tures. He perceived them as places of repose,
primarily because of the symbiosis between
the works of nature and the products of hu-
man beings. He was active in founding gardens
all of his life, starting from his return from
Spain.23 He was inspired by the contemporary
Florentine and Roman gardens that featured
sculptures from classical antiquity. In this
way, Maximilian followed Seneca’s example
of De tranquilitate animi. In fact, he preferred
relaxing in the countryside to going to Mass,
according to an account written by the Span-
ish emissary Monteagudo on 14 May 1573.24
The emperor founded, for example, the mag-
nificent gardens around the hunting lodge of
Ebersdorf, not far from Vienna, which he had
rebuilt between 1558 and 1561 after it had been
looted by Turkish troops.25 In the last decade
of his life, he founded other extensive gardens
nearby Ebersdorf, enriched with fountains and
grottoes, where he subsequently built the Neu-
gebäude summer residence.26 Both of these
construction projects were meant to combine
the emperor’s love of gardens and the visual
arts. Precious stones and corals were kept at
the Ebersdorf lodge, where Maximilian used
to sojourn rather often.27 According to some
theories, the Neugebäude summer residence
was intended specifically for the depositing of
imperial collections, given the building’s over-
all design. There were two galleries, located at
22 rudolf 1995, p. 166.
23 lietzmann 1987, p. 29.
24 rudolf 1995, passim.
25 lietzmann 1987, p. 31.
26 rudolf 1995, p. 177.
27 rudolf 1995, p. 182.
| 18 |
each side of the central avant-corps. Some of
the sculptures were to be laid out in the gar-
den, following the example set by the Italian
villas. Contemporary sculptures were proba-
bly placed in the numerous niches. Giulio Li-
cinio’s frescoes in the vestibule of the central
avant-corps, depicting scenes from ancient
Greek and Roman history, served as a refer-
ence to classical antiquity.28 The notion of the
Neugebäude residence as the new place for
the storage of Maximilian’s collections seems
to be supported by the existence of a studiolo
in the north-western tower.29 There are sev-
eral hints that justify the identification of this
small room as a former studiolo. They include
the content of a letter sent by Maximilian to
the Munich-based Duke Albert V, the room’s
location in the tower following the example
of French mediaeval estude, or the proximity
to the giardino segretto, which was situated in
a courtyard that was surrounded by arcades
and delimited by four towers. The studiolo was
located in one of these towers. The layout that
is described is very similar to the position of Is-
abella d’Este’s studioli in the Ducal Palace in
Mantua. The original appearance of the studio-
lo in the Neugebäude tower remains unknown.
Unfortunately, Maximilian did not live to see
the completion of the building. Emperor Max-
imilian II endowed the family collecting tradi-
tion with a modern form. He compiled his col-
lection, housed in various parts of the Hofburg
in Vienna, summer residences, and the Ebers-
dorf and Neugebäude chateaux, in a system-
atic manner and with a new conception. He no
longer collected the precious artworks, valu-
able objects, and exotic materials solely for
the purpose of his family’s representation and
for the sake of their aesthetic value, but main-
ly with the aim of broadening natural-scien-
28 lietzmann 1987, p. 170.
29 lietzmann 1987, p. 102.
tific knowledge and studying the relationship
between humankind and nature30 Unlike his
father Ferdinand, Maximilian was very fond
of the visual arts. He was able to discern and
appreciate the quality of individual artworks.31
Apart from the aesthetic criterion of the ren-
dition, he also placed a high value on its inven-
zione. That is why he employed renowned art-
ists whose works did not lack ingenuity and
required a learned viewer. The one artist who
stood out was Giuseppe Arcimboldo.
The family tradition was continued and
further developed by Rudolf II, for whom the
visual arts were a life-long love. He preferred
to spend his free time surrounded by artistic
jewels, but he also enjoyed them in difficult
political situations and in the moments when
the attacks of his mental illness manifested
themselves.32 Rudolf was a truly passionate
collector. As Archduchess Maria of Styria fit-
tingly noted, “Wovon der Kaiser weiß, meint er,
müßt’s haben (What the emperor knows about,
he has to have.)”33 In art, Rudolf found what
he himself valued; beauty, ideal forms and
shapes, and a deeply hidden meaning.34 The
collection he compiled during his life includ-
ed both natural materials and man-made ob-
jects and it belonged among the best-quality
and most voluminous collections of its time.35
30 rudolf 1995, pp. 167–168, cited according to
fučíková 1988, pp. 61–62 and kugler 1988, pp. 9–21.
31 See Maximilian’s letter to Count Fulvio Rangone
from 1561, in which the emperor praised the rendition
of a portrait of a Venetian woman. Cited according to
rudolf 1995, p. 168.
32 See lesný 1984a, pp. 271–279.
33 von schwarzenfeld 1961, p. 94.
34 von schwarzenfeld 1961, p. 91.
35 The inventory of the cabinet of curiosities
elaborated during Rudolf’s life, in 1607–1611, contains
almost 2900 items. The Inventory from 1621 lists about
615 paintings, despite the fact that a part of the
collection had already been transferred to Vienna in 1621.
| 19 |
It was universal in its nature, the items it con-
tained illustrated the knowledge of the world
that existed at that point in time, and it met
the criteria of theatrum mundi, set down by
Samuel Quiccheberg in his treatise.36 It was
a source of human knowledge, but also a rich
source of inspiration for court artists who
could in this way conduct a dialogue with the
eminent artists of the previous generations
through their own creative work. The collec-
tion included objets d’art, paintings, sculp-
tures, drawings and graphics, precious prints
and illuminated manuscripts37, measuring
instruments, natural materials, items from
overseas countries, and various curiosities.
After his father’s death, Rudolf inherited
a large part of his collection, mainly the items
that were part of the family property of the
Habsburgs. He also acquired a number of art-
works as gifts or through exchanges and was
intensively devoted to collecting activities
right from his ascension to the throne until
his death. His agents, who were tasked with
acquiring the best artworks for the emperor,
were active in a number of artistic centres. In
Venice in the 1580s, this position was held by
the German merchant Hans Jakob König. In
the 1590s, the main imperial art agent in Italy
was Rudolf Corraduz and in Spain it was Hans
Khevenhüller. Even the court artists them-
selves were often sent abroad to obtain in-
teresting pieces for Rudolf’s collection. Apart
from collecting the artworks of famous mas-
ters, Rudolf also strongly supported contem-
porary artists, whom he employed to work for
36 Samuel Quiccheberg and his treatise will be
discussed in more detail in the chapter dedicated to
Kunstkammer.
37 Rudolf’s collection also included the so-called
Devil’s Bible (Codex Gigas), which was captured by the
Swedish army in 1648 and is now kept in the National
Library in Stockholm. See the inventory published by
Dudík: dudík 1867, pp. 33–44.
him in Prague. The emperor also used to or-
der paintings from contemporary Italy-based
artists. Thus, Federico Barocci painted for
him his only painting with a profane theme,
Aeneas’ Flight from Troy.38
Although he focused predominantly on
contemporary European art in the field of
visual arts, his collection also included the
works by renowned names from the previous
generations such as Leonardo da Vinci, Ra-
phael, Titian, and Dürer, as well as antiquities,
attesting to Rudolf’s classical education and
his passion for this kind of art. He acquired
what was called the Bed of Polykleitos relief,
showing a love scene between Amor and
Psyche, and a statuette of a mourning young
man called Ilioneus from Ferrara.39 Another
part of his collection was what was called the
Gemma Augustea, a marble relief with an apo-
theosis of Emperor Augustus. 40
| Eliška Zlatohlávková|
The places for the
preservation of the
Rudolfine collection
“In the end, he chose Prague as his city of residence
and turned it into a miracle of its time. There he
founded large animal gardens, botanical gar-
dens, natural-scientific collections, and histori-
cal and art collections. He paid the most eminent
38 fučíková – bukovinská – muchka 1988, p. 215.
39 For more on antiquities in Rudolf’s collections,
see bober – rubinstein 2010.
40 See hejzlar 1961, pp. 113–134; chadraba 1970,
pp. 289–297.
| 20 |
scholars, painters, musicians, and other artists
to sojourn and work at his court. He spent huge
sums of money on expensive paintings, chemical
treatises, astronomical instruments, and expen-
sive stones and maintained correspondence with
many scholars and travellers that could satisfy
his curiosity. His court was very orderly and it was
an exemplar of temperance in relation to drinking
and eating, which cannot be said of his subjects.
He made wise decisions and through his mani-
fold knowledge he had a deep insight into the
art of governance. He was sincere, honest, affa-
ble, skilled at Latin, German, Spanish, and Czech,
and also able to communicate in French and Ital-
ian. He won general respect and veneration.”41
This is how Melchior Khlesl described the
emperor and the situation in Prague after Ru-
dolf had settled there on a permanent basis. He
had visited Prague on several occasions before
he took the decision. Prague Castle loomed
over the city in a similar way to the Alcázar
41 “Schließlich erwählt er Prag zu seiner Residenz und
machte die Stadt zum Wunder seiner Zeit. Denn er legte
in selbiger große Thiergärten, botanische Gärten,
Naturaliensammlungen und Kunstkammern an und zog
durch Belohnungen und Jahrgelder die berühmtesten
Gelehrten, Mahler, Sänger und andere Künstler an seinen
Hof. Er stellete häufige Ritterspiele an, bey welchen er fast
immer den Preis gewann. Er verwandte sehr große
Summen auf kostbahre Gemählde, chymische
Untersuchungen, Uhrwerke, astronomische Werkzeuge
und Edelgesteine, und unterhielt einen Briefwechsel mit
vielen Gelehrten und neugierigen und gereisten Leuten,
die seine Wißbegierde befriedigen konnten. Sein Hof war
sehr ordentlich und gab ein Muster der Mäßigkeit im
Trinken und im Essen, dem aber seine Untertanen nicht
folgten. Durch seine weisen Anordnungen und durch
seine mannigfachen Kenntnisse, tiefe Einsichten in alle
Gegenstände der Regierungskunst, scharfsinnige Wahl
der Maßregeln, Aufrichtigkeit, Ehrlichkeit, Leutseligkeit
gegen jeden der einen Zutritt zu ihm verlangte und die
Fertigkeit, sich in lateinischer, teutscher, spanischer,
böhmischer, franzözischer und italienischer Sprache gut
auszudrücken, erwarb er sich eine allgemeine
Hochachtung und Verehrung, die er aber gegen das Ende
seiner Regierung zum Theil wieder einbüßte.” sapper
1999, p. 2.
fortress over Toledo, and so Prague reminded
him of his beloved Spain, where he had spent
several years as a young man at the court of his
uncle, the King of Spain, Philip II. Vienna was
increasingly endangered by the attacks of the
Turkish troops and therefore Rudolf also felt
safer at Prague Castle.42 Over the course of the
thirty years that the Castle was his home, the
emperor modified it significantly and turned it
into a residence worthy of the supreme head of
the Holy Roman Empire. The most fundamen-
tal construction works performed at the Castle
during his reign include the reconstruction of
the private rooms in the southern part of the
complex and the construction of representa-
tive halls, as well as the establishment of the
rooms designated for his rich collections.
Rudolf launched the first construction
works shortly after his coronation as the King
of Bohemia in 1575. In the following years,
i.e.1576–1579, his attention focused on the
buildings located in the southern part of the
castle complex, near the White Tower, where
the palace intended for Queen Anna Jagiel-
lon (and then occupied by Archduke Ferdi-
nand II of Further Austria between 1545 and
1567) originally stood. 43 It was probably on
the second floor of this palace that the em-
peror’s apartment with rooms arranged one
behind the other was built. In contemporary
documents, the rooms were described as the
emperor’s bedroom, audience room, study,
and three summer rooms which were already
situated in a newly erected building with its
windows facing the southern gardens. The
rooms were called Sommerhaus in German
or vejstupek (a closet) in Czech in the original
sources. 44 The appearance of the emperor’s
42 von schwarzenfeld 1961, pp. 66–67.
43 uličný 2015a, pp. 142–154.
44 brykowska 1998, p. 220; krčálová 1975, p. 504.
A report about the reimbursement for the
| 21 |
private rooms was recorded by the French
emissary Pierre Bergeron during his visit to
Prague in 1600. The first room he enumerat-
ed was the one called the Trabantensaal (the
Knights’ Hall). This is where the entrance
staircase, located near the present-day Mat-
thias Gate, led into. Next, Bergeron men-
tioned three halls; weapons were displayed
in the first two halls and the walls of the third
hall were covered with leather wallpaper. 45
The construction of the Sommerhaus and the
summer rooms inside it (termed Sommer-
zimmer in the archival sources and invento-
ries) was completed in 1579. 46 A corridor ran
along the rooms in the northern part of the
Sommerhaus. It is in these three rooms and
construction of the summer rooms forms part of a
message from 12 November 1587, in which Rudolf’s
chamberlain tasked the Bohemian Chamber with
paying for the construction of the new Sommerhaus
and the Schreibstübels (studiolo) in the imperial
residence, and the founding of a garden. Ulrico
Aostalli is mentioned as the builder in this document.
See kreyczi 1894, reg. no. 11659.
45 fučíková 1989, p. 51. “Thereafter, we entered two
great halls full of gentlemen, after which Mr Marshall left
for the third chamber. That room and the first two rooms
are decorated with gilded leather wallpaper, this being
the most usual type of upholstery in this country.” A
Sommerhaus was also built for Rudolf in the Viennese
Hofburg in 1582–1585. See karner 2014, p. 43.
46 uličný 2017a, p. 384, note 33. “Nachdem wir zu
völliger zuerichtung und verfertigung unserer
neuerbauten schreibstuben und sommerhaus bei
unsern zimmer im schloss alhie auf maler, gold, tischler
und schlossewerch ainer summa gelds bedürftig seind,
so bevelen wir euch genediglich, das ir zu solchen
nottrufen unserm camerdiener und getreüen lieben
Hannsen Poppen alsbald sechshundert taler, die er
ordentlich verraiten soll, zustellen lasset. Damit die
arbait nit gehindert sondern schleinig damit fortgefaren
werden müge.” köpl 1891, reg. no. 8198, pp. LVI – LVII.
Another structural modification was made to the
summer rooms in 1587 (see uličný 2017a, p. 388, fig.
i). As part of this reconstruction, the three summer
rooms were furnished with a wooden, painted, and
partially gilded ceiling.
3 | Wenceslas Hollar, View of Prague, 1649, etching on paper from Topographia Bohemiae, Moraviae et Silesiae,
Frankfurt: Matthäus Merian, 1650, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.
in the corridor that the Rudolfine collections
were placed and where the court painters
had their workshops. Hans Ulrich Krafft, who
visited Prague in 1584 and was allowed to
see the rooms by Rudolf’s court painter Bar-
tholomeus Spranger, provides a valuable tes-
timony regarding the rooms: 47 “He received
me kindly and offered me, should I not mind, to
be my guide through the collections of His Maj-
esty, which is where he works, while we were
sitting at the same table. Since I welcomed
the offer without hesitation, we were shortly
ascending a strange narrow staircase leading
into the castle. He used a key to open four suc-
cessive doors, until we reached the right room.
There I marvelled at some rather great artworks
47 fučíková − bukovinská − muchka 1988, p. 220.
| 22 |
made by his own hand. Just like all the others,
they were painted according to reality, so there
was, for instance, a big, beautiful, white English
dog belonging to His Majesty, rendered very ac-
curately. Thereafter, Spranger took me to the
neighbouring room, which also housed beau-
tiful paintings made in Spain, mainly female
nudes painted according to reality, but also an-
tiquities and other most exquisite pieces that
only a few men could behold. Since it was time,
we retired to Spranger’s habitation. Sitting at
a table, he told me: ‘You shall see that His Maj-
esty will send for me in no time, for as soon as
he finishes his midday meal, he goes to the first
room and wants to see what I have painted. And
if there is anything His Majesty dislikes, I have
to improve the work.’ We were about halfway
into our lunch when an imperial servant came
with a message that Spranger should present
himself in front of His Highness.”48 In the first
48 von schwarzenfeld 1961, p. 49. Krafft’s
testimony reads as follows: “Er empfing mich freundlich
und erbot sich, wenn es mir nicht zuwider wäre, mich in
ihrer Majestät Kunstzimmer, in dem er arbeite, zu führen,
während hochdieselben bei Tafel säßen. Und, weil mir das
sehr willkommen war, zögerten wir nicht, sondern stiegen
bald auf einer absonderlich schmalen Treppe in’s Schloß
hinauf. Er öffnete mit einem Schlüssel vier Thüren, bis wir
in das rechte Zimmer kamen. In diesem bewunderte ich
einige ziemlich große Kunstwerke von seiner Hand, Alles
wie nach dem Leben gemalt; so z. B. war da ihrer Majestät
große, schöne, weiße, englische Dogge ganz ähnlich
abgebildet. Bald darauf führte mich Spranger in ein
anderes Zimmer nebenan, darin waren auch
wunderschöne Gemälde, in Spanien angefertigt, meistens
nackte Weibsbilder ‘nach dem Leben’ auch römische und
andere der besten welschen Stücke, die wenige vom
herrenstande und vom Adel zu sehn bekommen mögen.
| 23 |
room, Krafft saw paintings by Spranger that
were, according to his account, sizable. It
is possible that these were part of Sprang-
er’s cycle inspired by Ovid’s Metamorphoses,
which the painter was working on at the time.
It further follows from Krafft’s testimony
Weil es nun Zeit war, und aus dem Staube zu machen,
gingen wir nach H. Spranger’s Behausung. Über Tische
sagte dieser: ‘Ihr werdet sehen, ihre Maj. werden gleich
nach mir schicken; denn sobald sie ihr Mittagsmahl
eingenommen haben, gehn sie nach dem ersten Zimmer,
und zu sehn, was ich gearbeitet und wenn ihrer Majestät
etwas nicht gefällt, so muß ich, wenn es sein kann, es
vervollkommen. Bisweilen jedoch sassen sie sich auch
durch einen gründlichen Nachweis einer Bessern
belehren.’ Genug wir hatten kaum über die Hälfte zu
Mittag gegessen, so kommt ein kaiserlicher Diener und
fordert den Spranger auf, zu ihrer Majestät zu kommen.”
haszler 1861, p. 390.
that the adjacent halls housed paintings by
Spanish painters and works by Roman and
other Italian masters. It is possible that the
cycle of Allegories by Paolo Veronese could
also be found there. 49 This record remains
the only hitherto known contemporary de-
scription of the appearance and location of
the original premises where Rudolf’s collec-
tion was kept, serving at the same time as a
studio for the emperor’s court painters. Their
job was to paint the paintings commissioned
by the emperor, in the process of which they
could draw inspiration from distinguished
paintings by other masters from Rudolf’s
collection. 50 These rooms and the corridor
in the northern part of the wing are plotted
on the plans from the first third of the 18th
century, i.e. from before the Theresian recon-
struction of Prague Castle.51 Therefore, the
function of these rooms probably changed
after the relocation of the collections. They
were kept in the summer rooms at least until
1597, as substantiated by a written account
by the French aristocrat Jacques Esprin-
chard, who visited Prague in that year. The
summer rooms were part of Rudolf’s apart-
ment. Unfortunately, it is impossible to re-
construct its inner design and appearance
today. “Hans van Hac et le Spranger Flamens
tous deux valets de chambre de l’Empereur, et
49 fučíková 1997, pp. 16–20. — On Bartolomeus
Spranger see diez 1909–1910, pp. 93–151, kaufmann
1988, pp. 249–279, metzler 2014.
50 This refers to the story surrounding Heintz’s copy
of Parmigianino’s painting called Cupid Making His Bow.
According to several theories, Heintz’s painting was
not a replica of Parmigianino’s work, but was painted
after Rudolf had acquired the Italian original. See
rudolf 2002, pp. 3–15.
51 Although these plans come from as late as the first
half of the 18th century, they remain to this day the oldest
known testimony about the possible architectural layout
of Rudolf’s Prague residence. See podlaha 1920–1921, pp.
86, 89–90, map no. 46, and uličný 2015b, p. 53, fig. 3, “i”.
| 24 |
excellens a merveilles en l’art de peinture, me
menèrent en trois chambres du chateau, et m’i
feirent voir les plus excellens et rares tableaux
tant anciens que moderns qui se puissent ce
jourd’huy voir en aucun endroit de l’Europe […]
(Hans von Aachen and Bartholomeus Spranger,
both valets of the Emperor, and excellent in the
art of painting, led me to three rooms of the cas-
tle, and let me see the most excellent and rare
paintings, both ancient and modern, that are
to be seen anywhere in Europe today.)”52
Situating a collection in several rooms lo-
cated in close proximity to a private apartment
and a studiolo stems from a collecting tradi-
tion that was widespread in the 16th centu-
ry, especially in the German lands, whereby a
studiolo collection, originally concentrated in
one small room intended for reflecting, study-
ing, and relaxation, was gradually expanded
into more mutually connected rooms. This is
how collections were arranged in the houses
of wealthy German humanists and merchants,
such as Sebald Schreyer, Willibald Imhoff, or
the Fugger family. At least one room from the
set of rooms would typically serve the purpose
of the owner’s representation. Here, artworks
were displayed in clearly visible places so that
they could be admired for their artistic, aes-
thetic, and historical qualities. There are no
records regarding the original arrangement
of the artworks in the summer rooms and it
therefore cannot be said for certain whether
any specific placement system was applied.
Nonetheless, the summer rooms were not the
only place where Rudolf stored his artworks.
Pierre Bergeron (or Esprinchard) also report-
ed on the presence of artworks in the Royal
Summer Palace and in the summer palace of
the Royal Game Reserve during their visit to
Prague. From the year 1597 comes the testi-
52 chatenay 1957, p. 168; fučíková 1989, pp. 32–
33; uličný 2017b, pp. 901–906.
mony of Jacques Esprinchard about the inte-
rior decoration of the summer house: “[...] the
summer house in the park is very showy and has
chambers beautifully painted, especially on the
ceiling, and the walls are embellished with ex-
quisite and superb paintings.”53 Perhaps it was
the series of four paintings The Garden of Love
painted by Hans and Paul Vredemann de Vries,
which the Emperor ordered in 1596 for an un-
named summer palace.54
A decision was made in the second half
of the 1580s to build new spaces in which the
collection would be relocated. It is not com-
pletely clear why the emperor arrived at such
a major decision. The practical explanation
would be that the number of items in the
collection had grown so much that the sum-
mer rooms could no longer contain them.55
However, an important consideration sure-
ly stemmed from the idea of continuing the
family tradition of building new and modern
spaces for the collection56 that also served
representative purposes, providing addi-
tional prestige to the imperial residence at
Prague Castle, on which the whole of Eu-
rope had laid its eyes. Rudolf aimed to make
Prague Castle a magnificent residence corre-
sponding to his political status and to elevate
53 fučíková 1989, p. 33.
54 dobalová 2009a, p. 174.
55 Rudolf had the summer rooms and the
Schreibstuben modified only a few years after their
completion, in 1587. The following request addressed
to the Bohemian Chamber bears the date of 12
November 1587: “[...] auf erbauung des neuen
sommerhauses und schreibstübels in unserm
küniglichen schloss alhier, dann auch des gartens für die
küniglen und voglhorst in neuen thiergarten[...]” cit.
according to kreyczi 1894, p. XXVII, reg. no. 11659;
the premises were apparently still unsuitable for the
collection even after this reconstruction.
56 See above: the construction of a separate
building for the collections in Vienna during the reign
of Ferdinand I.
| 25 |
the Castle to the level of the Viennese Hof-
burg, where he had grown up, or the Madrid
Alcázar, where he had spent several years
during his boyhood.
The project included the Spanish Hall for
paintings, commissioned in 1586, to be erect-
ed above the stables in the north wing of the
Castle and completed around 1596/97, when
it was paved.57 In December 1597, the painter
Paul Vredeman de Vries was commissioned to
produce the illusionistic oil painting that dec-
orated its ceiling.58 The New Hall for sculp-
tures was built after 1601.59 The central wing,
called the Gangbau, that connected the two
representative halls on the north – the Span-
ish Hall and New Hall – with the residential
part of the Castle in the south wing, including
the Sommerhaus, was first characterised by
a simple corridor that ran above the stables
built by Ulrico Aostalli in 1576.Two overlap-
ping corridors were built above the stables
and completed around 1601: the one on the
first floor hosted the Kunstkammer, while the
one on the second floor was conceived as a
corridor-like gallery for paintings.60
| Eliška Zlatohlávková |
57 vilímková, kašička 1976, p. 389.
58 uličný 2015b, pp. 48–63.
59 vilímková, kašička, p. 389.
60 These spaces will be discussed in greater detail
in the following chapters.
II | Studiolo
The collecting of visual art is a phenomenon
that has been closely linked to humankind
since ancient history. The collecting of ar-
tefacts from classical antiquity originated
in Italy at the beginning of the 15th century.
By the end of the century, it had also spread
to the countries lying north of the Alps.1 The
beginning of the interest in the remnants of
monuments and inscriptions from classical
antiquity and their systematic description co-
incided with the onset of humanism and the
desire to revive the ancient world. It was also
associated with Petrarch, who was, among
other things, one of the first collectors of
coins from classical antiquity.2
The bloom of the collecting of artworks
and objets d’art from classical antiquity, main-
ly coins, medals, and small sculptures, at the
beginning of the Renaissance was instigated
by the new humanism and the idea of an ed-
ucated human being engaged in the study
of classical literature, in spaces specifical-
ly designed for this purpose. Originally, the
aforementioned objects served as study
aids. Stones with ancient inscriptions, coins,
or medals bearing the portraits of renowned
personalities of classical antiquity represent-
ed a material connection with classical an-
tiquity, thus acting as a physical complement
to classical texts. Works from classical an-
tiquity were also the subject of visual artists’
interest. For instance, the Paduan sculptor
1 von busch 1973, p. 1.
2 von busch 1973, p. 1.
< 4 | Anonymous artist after Albrecht Dürer, Saint Jerome in his Study, 1514–99, engraving on paper,
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.
| 27 |
Francesco Squarcione had a number of an-
cient sculptures in his workshop. Giorgio
Vasari described a similar collection in the
possession of Lorenzo Ghiberti. Understand-
ably, the reasons for collecting artefacts from
classical antiquity were different in the case
of these artists than in the case of humanists.
The latter pursued them for their evocation of
classical antiquity as an ideal and a deepen-
ing of their study from the philosophical point
of view, while the former appreciated their
aesthetic value and used them as a source
of inspiration.3
The newly formed collections of ancient
artworks were stored in humanistic studies
together with classical texts. These private
studies started to be known as a studiolo,
scrittoio in Italian, studium or studiolum in
Latin, and estude 4 in French. In the German
environment, the terms Schreibstuben and
Bücherkammer were used. A studiolo was
usually a small room located in the private
section of a residence, often close to the bed-
room, where the owners could contemplate,
meditate, and educate themselves.
However, the roots of studioli can be
traced all the way back to classical antiquity. A
number of authors in the era of classical antiq-
uity described in their texts the small rooms
that served as libraries in their houses. Pliny
3 fiorio 2011, passim.
4 For example, the estude in the papal palace in
Avignon or estudes of the French King Charles V at his
castle at Vincennes. Both examples will be discussed
later in the text.
the Younger had a small room in the shape of
an apse in his Laurentinum villa. It stood near
the heated bedroom and housed books. Vitru-
vius considered it a must, while Pliny the Elder
even mentioned the presence of precious met-
als in libraries in his Naturalis Historia.5 Pliny,
as well as Cicero, recommended that these
rooms should ideally be established in villas in
the countryside. Both authors emphasise the
connection with nature, or at least having a
view of greenery. Green was also recommend-
ed as the most suitable colour for libraries in
the era of classical antiquity.
The content of a humanistic studiolo was
stabilised during the course of the 15th cen-
tury. The centre of the stage was taken by
books and antiquities, such as coins, medals
with portraits of famous people, and busts.
The portraits of viri illustri, mainly of the Ro-
man emperors and philosophers, in the form
of both marble or terracotta busts and pan-
el or wall paintings, made it seem as if these
personalities were present and served the
owner of the studiolo as the epitome of vir-
tues. In this sense, the humanists revived the
tradition of classical antiquity. One of the ear-
liest studioli, furnished with busts, coins, and
engraved gems from classical antiquity, was
owned by the Italian humanists Niccolò de’
Niccoli (1364–1437) and Poggio Bracciolini
(1380–1459).6
One of the oldest preserved depictions of
personalities of Ancient times, in the form of
a fresco located in the bays of a groin vault,
is the portraits of the philosophers and ora-
tors Plato, Seneca, Demosthenes, and Cicero
5 pliny the elder, Book XXXV, Chapter 2: “Not
only do we consecrate in our libraries, in gold or silver, or
at all events, in bronze, those whose immortal spirits
hold converse with us in those places …”, accessed from:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ (29/07/2020).
6 budde 1996, p. 75.
| 28 |
found in the late mediaeval castle of Sarma-
to, near Piacenza, owned by the Scotti fam-
ily. The paintings were executed by the Cre-
mona-based painter Bonifacio Bembo on the
basis of an order placed by Alberto III Scot-
ti. They were painted prior to 1462, which is
when Scotti died.7 All four viri illustri are de-
picted as bearded old men seated on a throne.
Also depicted as seated on a throne were the
Muses, accompanied by their attributes, in
the no-longer-existing studiolo of the Palaz-
zo Belfiore of Leonello d’Este in Ferrara, which
was the very oldest humanistic studiolo with a
depiction of the Muses. According to the tra-
dition, the Muses, the daughters of Zeus and
Mnemosyne, were the bearers of divine inspi-
ration and the patrons of poets. After the Mid-
dle Ages, when they had been almost com-
pletely forgotten, they were “resurrected” at
the outset of the Renaissance and humanism,
in Italy in the 14th century,8 and their depic-
tions became another typical decoration of
a studiolo, along with portraits of viri illustri.
The earliest description of the Palazzo Belf-
iore studiolo comes from 1474, from the pen
of Ludovico Carbone. According to him, two
of the paintings of the Muses were rendered
by Maccagnino during the reign of Leonello,
while the others were executed later by Co-
simo Tura for Borso d’Este. Their presence in
the studiolo was supposed to point out the
good governance of the d’Este family and it
symbolised the revival of the culture of clas-
sical antiquity in the town. The depiction of
the nine Muses and Apollo echoed in the Cen-
tral European environment, too. For instance,
contemporary sources mention the Nurem-
berg library of the humanist Sebald Schrey-
er (1446–1520), whose walls were decorated
with the Muses and the portraits of philoso-
7 matteuci 1993, pp. 19–23.
8 guidobaldi 1992, p. 15.
5 | Bonifacio Bembo, The Philosophers, ceiling of the studiolo at Sarmato Castle, before 1462.
phers.9 A similar room could be found in the
house of the Canon of Constance, Johannes
Botzheim. Apart from the Muses, there were
also paintings representing St. Paul and Jesus
Christ on the Mount of Olives.
Ancient and contemporary portraits of viri
illustri in the form of panel paintings (portraits
of famous ancient and Christian personalities)
also decorated the walls of the studioli of Fed-
erico da Montefeltro in his palaces in Urbino
and nearby Gubbio, where the duke was born
in 1422.10 The set of portraits represents a com-
prehensive ideal genealogy of the Montefeltro
family and also underlined Federico’s virtues.
It was not only the choice of the personalities
whose portraits were present in the Urbino
studiolo that related to the owner, but also the
rest of the wall decoration. Along their inner
perimeter, Federico da Montefeltro’s studioli in
the Urbino and Gubbio palaces were decorat-
ed with illusive intarsias symbolising benches
above which there were cabinets with partial-
9 von busch 1973, p. 65.
10 remington 1941, p. 4.
| 29 |
ly open doors, housing scientific and musical
instruments, books, and weapons. In Gubbio,
the most frequent motifs were musical instru-
ments, whose illusive rendition was executed
in the greatest detail, and books, indicating
the duke’s favourite hobby.11 The objects ex-
pressed through the illusive intarsias were the-
matically related to the panel paintings that
hung above them around the walls and the
personality of the duke himself.12 They origi-
nally complemented the wall paintings show-
ing the personifications of the liberal arts, seat-
ed on an architecturally designed throne,13 and
the men who knelt in front of them.14
11 The duke was a great collector of books. They
were stored in a special room on the first floor of the
Urbino palace. See remington 1941, p. 8.
12 For example the Order of the Garter,
Montefeltro’s Eagle, etc. See fabiański 1990, p. 201.
13 This probably did not concern any specific
personalities, except for the portrait of Federico da
Montefeltro. See fabiański 1990, pp. 200 and 201.
14 Originally, they were seven panel paintings
authored by Justus van Gent, the court painter of
Federico da Montefeltro. See fabiański 1990, p. 199.
 Books and antiquities were gradually
supplemented with a collection of objets d’art,
paintings, curiosities, objects made from vari-
ous precious and natural materials. Again, the
selection reflected the personality of the own-
er and the breadth of his interests. They served
as his attribute and attested to his allegiance
to the class of learned collectors. Sabba da
Castiglione recommended scholars to choose
objects for their studioli according to their in-
terest and imagination. In this way, according
to Sabba, the owners of studioli become art-
ists themselves, building up their unique por-
trait through the choice of the objects com-
prising their collection.15 As an example of this
principle, we can mention the choice of specif-
ic philosophers and orators from classical an-
tiquity for the studiolo at the aforementioned
Sarmato Castle, relating to the personality of
Alberto III Scotti, an educated humanist and
a capable orator who served as the advisor to
the Duke of Milan, Francesco Sforza,16 or the
portraits making up the ideal genealogy of the
Montefeltro family. According to Castiglione,
coins and medals from classical antiquity rep-
resented a material connection with that his-
torical period, musical instruments referred
to the harmony between the celestial spheres,
and mirrors reflected the truth.17
Studioli were often the most decorated
rooms in the house. They were also somewhat
mystical places. Leon Battista Alberti called
them sanctum sanctorum in 1434. The studiolo,
as a place for contemplation and meditation,
originally developed from sacral spaces; mo-
nastic cells or private oratories. This assertion
can be supported by, for instance, the intar-
15 ruvoldt 2006, pp. 640–657, p. 645.
16 matteuci 1993, pp. 21.
17 Musical instruments were employed as one of
the decorative motifs of the intarsia-decorated
cabinets in the studioli in Urbino and Gubbio.
| 30 |
sia-decorated cabinets in Gubbio and Urbino
resembling choir benches. What is more, the
intarsias in Urbino depict the personifications
of theological virtues; Faith, Hope, and Char-
ity. The maiolica tondos by Luca della Robbia
in Piero the Gouty’s studiolo in the old Medici
Palace in Via Larga, showing agricultural work
carried out throughout the year, resemble the
decorative programme of sacral spaces and
especially the prayer books of hours.18 Accord-
ing to Pico della Mirandola, it was possible to
connect oneself with God through study and
contemplation. He claimed for himself that
his studies were guided by the divine hand.
Usually, only the lord of the house
could enter a studiolo. Moreover, it was not
uncommon that he used to do so in a special
costume made from precious fabrics. The
act of changing one’s clothes and dressing
up represented a symbolic withdrawal from
mundane matters and preparing to enter
the intellectual world of philosophers and
scholars.19 The process was described by,
among others, Niccolò Machiavelli: “[…]In the
evening, I return to my house and go to my study
(scrittoio). At the door I take off the clothes I have
worn all day, mud-spotted and dirty, and put on
regal and courtly garments. Thus appropriately
clothed, I enter into the ancient courts of ancient
men, where, being lovingly received, I feed on the
food which is mine alone and which I was born
for; I am not ashamed to speak with them and
to ask the reasons for their actions and they
courteously answer me. For four hours I feel no
boredom and forget every worry; I do not fear
poverty, and death does not terrify me. I give
myself completely over to the ancients.”20
18 ruvoldt 2006, pp. 641–642.
19 ruvoldt 2006, p. 643.
20 Cited according to: cochrane – kirschner 1986,
pp. 183–184. the original text: machiavelli 1961, pp.
301–306.
 Studioli, private sanctuaries intended for
relaxation, contemplation, and study, could
be found not only in the houses of humanists,
but also in aristocratic palaces and the hous-
es of wealthy and educated burghers. In these
cases, the present artworks did not serve ex-
clusively study purposes, but they were rath-
er meant to make the time devoted to recre-
atio between study “stints” more pleasant.21
Artworks and objets d’art, often made from
precious materials, gradually grew in signif-
icance in the furnishing of studioli and start-
ed to become a fully-fledged antipole to their
spiritual dimension. Artworks started to be
appreciated for their aesthetic and artistic
value. The composition of each individual
collection reflected the interests of its owner
and was therefore a significant complement
to his personality and a means of self-pres-
entation and the manifestation of his social
status. Studioli slowly started to spread into
more rooms. One of them remained a private
buon retiro, while the others were accessible
to selected visitors, so that the artworks that
were displayed could convey their owner’s so-
cial status. At the same time, the collections
served as interior decoration.22
One of the first studioli to house artworks
predominantly for their aesthetic value rath-
er than as study aids was the scrittoio in the
old Medici Palace in Florence. It was found-
ed by Cosimo the Elder (1389–1464) and then
expanded during the life of his son Piero the
Gouty (1416–1469) and subsequently under
the reign of Lorenzo the Magnificent (1449–
1492). The earliest description of the unpre-
served scrittoio comes from the poems writ-
ten by Galeazzo Maria Sforza as regards sent
to his parents in 1459, when Sforza was resid-
ing in the Medici Palace as a guest during the
21 von busch 1973, pp. 83–84.
22 ruvoldt 2006, pp. 640–657.
| 31 |
reign of Piero the Gouty (1416–1469). “Qual
va nel triunfante et pulcro studio / cha tanto in-
giegnio et ordine et misura / che rappresenta
angielicho trepudio / Chon arte intera intarsia
enpittura / in prospettiva et sublimy intagliaty
/ et in gran magistero darchitettura / Gran nu-
mer ve di libri molto ornaty / et vasi dalabas-
tro et chalcidoni / che son doro et dargiento
proffilati / Et tutto cio che ve son belly et buoni
/ chi dannatura et chi dangiengnio humano /
chondotti chon intere prefezzioni.”23 It follows
from Galeazzo’s words that the interior of the
studiolo was decorated with intarsias with il-
lusive architecture and that it housed valu-
able books, vases made from semi-precious
stones, natural materials and objects, and
man-made artefacts.
A more detailed description of this scrit-
toio or studietto can be found in a treatise by
Filarete from 1464. After Lorenzo’s death in
1492, the first inventory of the entire palace
was compiled. It included the objects and art-
works located in the studiolo.24 The studiolo
was part of an apartment situated in the pi-
ano nobile, consisting of the camera grande,
antichamera, the palace chapel, and the main
hall. The vaulted ceiling was decorated with
twelve maiolica tondos with the motifs of
months and typical rural work tasks appro-
priate to each season by Luca della Robbia.
In addition to stationery, paintings with re-
ligious motifs, religious objects and utensils,
and profane objects made from precious ma-
terials, most notably engraved gems, came-
os, and inlaid stones, predominantly from the
collection of Pope Paul II, were also stored
in this studiolo. Furthermore, the inventory
recorded maps, small bronze sculptures and
coins, illuminated manuscripts, and various
23 bulst 1970, p. 385.
24 bulst 1970, pp. 369ff.
6 | Francesco di Giorgio Martini, Studiolo from the ducal palace in Gubbio, 1478–1482, walnut, beech, rosewood,
oak, and fruitwoods on a walnut base, Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York.

curiosities, including a narwhal tusk. 25 The Musaeum

collection was not limited only to the scrittoio
spaces (this is the term used for the studiolo
in the contemporary documents), but it also
extended to two courtyards with sculptures
from classical antiquity and contemporary
artworks, the palace gardens, and the nearby
San Marco monastery.26
25 boström 1987, pp. 59–60.
26 fiorio 2011, pp. 13–14.
As far as studioli are concerned, we can also
come across the term musaeum in the his-
torical documents of the period. It was first
mentioned in 1517 in relation to Cuspinian’s
collection. The term is identical with the
terms “study” and “library”. 27 A similar ter-
minological analogy was also used in the Ital-
ian environment with regard to the descrip-
tion of Pietro Bembo’s collection in Padua.
Musaeum originally referred to the proper-
ty of the Muses. The term comes from the
27 von busch 1973, p. 66.

| 32 |
Greek word mouseion; a place consecrated
to the Muses. Strabo, the author of the ex-
tensive encyclopaedia called Geographica,
used the term when describing the arcade
courtyard inside the Library of Alexandria in
Egypt, built during the reign of Ptolemy I in
the fourth century BC. It was a place where
scholars and poets gathered to discuss cul-
tural and spiritual matters. 28 In the era of
humanism, the terms continued to be used
to refer to places where intellectual activ-
ity under the protection of Apollo and the
nine Muses was engaged in. An example of
such a place was the aforementioned Belf-
iore studiolo in Ferrara, whose interior dec-
oration was based on the iconographic pro-
gramme by Guarino Veronese, dedicated to
the Muses.29 Since they were the goddesses
of inspiration, they have been the patrons of
poets and scholars since time immemorial.
Therefore, we can regard mouseia as the pre-
decessors of the libraries of classical antiqui-
ty. The libraries in Rome and Alexandria used
to be connected with shrines of the Muses or
Apollo. Later, poets and philosophers start-
ed to unite to form schools that were, at the
same time, religious fellowships serving the
Muses. The founder of this tradition was Py-
thagoras. During the late period of the Ro-
man Republic, a musaeum was often part of
late Hellenistic villas. A well-known exam-
ple of such a musaeum belonged to Marcus
Terentius Varro. 30 Cicero described Varro’s
villa as the place where the most profound
ideas were conceived and texts written. The
museum was viewed by Cicero as a private
place designated for study, which laid the
foundations for the usage of the term in the
Renaissance; the word museum (musaeum)
28 fiorio 2011, pp. 3–4.
29 fiorio 2011, p. 4.
30 von busch 1973, p. 67.
| 33 |
was revived in Italy in the 15th century and
after 1500 it could even come across north of
the Alps. Paolo Giovio’s (1483–1552) own villa,
standing by Lake Como, was called Musaeum.
The room of the Muses was the central part of
the whole house and its walls were covered
in portraits of the Muses.31
The nine Muses, together with Apollo,
were also depicted in a chapel in the Urbino
Palace of the Montefeltro family. It was lo-
cated on the ground floor of the palace, next
to the Chapel of the Holy Spirit. However, its
original function is not entirely clear nowa-
days. Judging by its small dimensions, it proba-
bly did not serve ritual purposes, as was usual
in classical antiquity, despite the fact that it
housed an altar. Poets in classical antiquity
used to place their works on altars and sacri-
fice them to the Muses. In practice, the texts
would become part of the library of the shrine.
A similar spatial arrangement was used in
Urbino. The private ducal studiolo, serving the
function of a library, was located on the floor
above both chapels.32 The first description of
the Urbino musaeum comes from Vasari, who
nonetheless already called the chapel a studi-
olo secreto: “Nella corte degl’illustrissimi di Urbi-
no, sono di sua mano (di Timoteo Viti) Apollo e
due Muse mezzo nude in uno studiolo secreto
belle a maraviglia…( In the court of the most illus-
trious of Urbino, there is Apollo and two half-na-
ked Muses that are beautifully wonderful by his
hand (Timoteo Viti’s) in a secret studiolo.)”33 Ber-
nardino Baldi described the chapel in the fol-
lowing manner: “Degli studi, un’altro ve n’è sotto
questo nell’appartamento inferiore, la metà più
picciolo: perciocchè, dove lo spazio dello studio
di sopra, tutto è libero, quello di sotto che gli ris-
ponde, è diviso nello studio di che parliamo, ed
31 von busch 1973, p. 71.
32 von busch 1973, p. 71.
33 According to calzini 1908, p. 225.
in una capelletta, di cui parleremo poco dopo.
Questo oltre gli scorniciamenti di legno dorati,
tarsia ed altri ornamenti, è diviso in alcuni spazi,
ne’ quali, per mano di Timoteo Viti, famoso pit-
tore di que’ tempi, sono dipinti una Pallade con
l’egida, un Apollo con lira, e le nove Muse, cias-
cuna col suo proprio instrumento. (Of the studi-
oli, there is another one beneath this one in the
lower apartment, half as small, so that the space
in the upper studiolo is all free, while the space
of the lower studiolo is divided into the studiolo
of which we are speaking and a small chapel, of
which we will speak later. This, apart from the
gilded wooden cornices, inlay, and other orna-
ments, is divided into some spaces in which Timo-
teo Viti, a famous painter of those times, painted
Pallas with the aegis, Apollo with a lyre, and the
nine Muses, each with their own instrument.)”34
Museums were very versatile places. They
contained books and various artworks, just
like studioli. From the 15th century, it was once
again usual to decorate these rooms through
the depiction of the Muses. They would typi-
cally be accompanied by Apollo and the spe-
cific form of depiction was twofold. They were
displayed either in a group setting (the most
famous examples being the paintings of The
Parnassus by Mantegna and Raphael)35 or in-
dividually (as in the aforementioned Ferrara
paintings or the tarots of Ferrara).36
As far as the territories north of the Alps
are concerned, the word musaeum first ap-
peared in written records in 1517 in relation
to the description of the collection of the
humanist Johannes Cuspinian (1473–1529).37
Another museum was documented in Vienna,
34 calzini 1908, p. 226.
35 von busch 1973, p. 75.
36 von busch 1973, p. 76.
37 von busch 1973, p. 66. Cuspinian was one of the
leading figures of Sodalitas litteraria Danubiana. See
gastgeber 2015, p. 24.
| 34 |
in the house of the humanist Johannes Sam-
bucus, in the 1560s. A similar terminological
analogy was also used in the Italian environ-
ment with regard to the description of Pietro
Bembo’s collection in Padua.38
| Eliška Zlatohlávková|
The beginnings
of studioli in the
14th century
Studioli first appeared in the first half of the
14th century in France, in the papal palace in
Avignon, where the popes moved from Rome
in 1309 and would remain till 1378. The orig-
inal local episcopal palace had to be rebuilt
in order to meet the papal demands. During
the pontificate of John XXII (1316–1334), the
first documentable studiolo was built here,
which would quickly become a model for oth-
er French studioli. The papal apartment in the
south wing of the palace consisted of a pri-
vate bedroom (called the camera pape) with
access to a terrace, a corridor leading to the
palace chapel, and two studioli, one behind
the other. One of them was located right next
to the camera pape and the other was proba-
bly identical with the camera secreta, which
also housed the library.39 In the accounts for
joiner’s work from 1 April 1319, there is a men-
tion of libraria et maianos (walls) studiorum
domini nostri in camera nova and librarii stu-
dii. 40 Both studioli served primarily as places
38 von busch 1973, p. 77.
39 kerscher 2000, pp. 91–92.
40 liebenwein 1977, p. 31.
for relaxation and contemplation and were
reserved exclusively for the Pope and his
closest circle. At the same time, books, valu-
ables, and living animals (parrots) were kept
inside. 41 John’s original studioli have not been
preserved to this day, as they ceased to exist
as a result of reconstructions performed dur-
ing the subsequent pontificates.
Further modifications were made to the
papal residence under Pope Benedict XII. A
small reception room was appended to the
great audience hall (Grand Tinel) with cam-
era paramenti from the southern side. From
this room, it was possible to enter the second
floor of the newly-built keep (donjon), erect-
ed in 1335–1337, with the Pope’s private room
(camera pape). The vaulted ground floor of
the keep served as a treasury, the first floor
was designed as the chamberlain’s room, the
second floor housed the Pope’s room, and on
the third floor there was a second, private
treasury with a library. In 1337, the construc-
tion of a three-storey tower-like extension
was commenced in the north-eastern cor-
ner between the great keep and the camera
paramenti. The individual floors were con-
nected by means of a spiral staircase. Inside,
there was a private archive connected with
the treasury, above it a papal dressing room
accessible from the chamberlain’s room, and
above that the Pope’s studiolo. 42
This second studiolo is the oldest pre-
served studiolo in the world. It was proba-
bly finished in 1339, when the painting works
were completed. The room, with the dimen-
sions of 7 × 5 metres, could be accessed either
from the camera paramenti or the camera
pape. The window was situated in the east-
ern wall and provided a view of the garden.
The wall paintings that have been preserved
41 kerscher 2000, p. 96.
42 liebenwein 1977, p. 31.
| 35 |
to this day show red flowers on a blue back-
ground. 43 It is impossible to ascertain the ex-
act date of their creation, but it was roughly
between 1338 and 1365, when the paintings
in the adjacent camera pape were also creat-
ed. The floor of the studiolo was inlaid with
tiles of Spanish provenance with floral and
animal motifs. The first reports about the in-
terior furnishing of the studiolo come from an
inventory compiled in 1369, during the pon-
tificate of Benedict’s successor. There was a
bed, a large and a small bench, seven stools,
and one closable chest. The only decorative
element was the curtain. 44
Several years later, studioli also started
to appear in the secular environment, namely
in the residences of King Charles V of France,
who ruled from 1364 to 1380, in the Hôtel
Saint-Pol in Paris, at the castle in Vincennes, in
Saint-Germain-en-Laye, and in Melun. There
were two estude (the French term used for
Charles’s studioli in the 14th century) at Vin-
cennes Castle, just like in Avignon. The first
of them, the estude en la poterne, was located
between two towers, above the main gate. It
had a square ground plan with the dimensions
of 3 × 3 metres and was overarched by a groin
vault, and its window faced east. This estude
was the most important place of the entire
castle complex. It was situated in a place from
43 liebenwein 1977, p. 33. For more recent
literature on the Avignon papal apartment, see
kerscher 2000, pp. 91–223.
44 hoberg 1944, pp. 447–448: “Item in studio
domini nostri pape iuxta cameram paramenti 1 bonum
matalacium de fustana alba de lana. Item bancale
maioris forme de opere Atrebatensi. Item 1 parvum
bancale parvi valoris (Dominus H. Habuit). Item 1 coffrus
serratus. Item 1 pannus longitudinis 2 cannarum cum
dimidia de opere Atrebatensi istoriatus cum hominibus
armorum. Item 1 matalacium parvum longitudinis 2
cannarum vel circa supra bancum dicti studii (Dominus
H. Habuit). Item dictum studium domini pape munitum.
Item 7 scabella. Item 1 capsa parva de sapino.”
which it was possible to see the whole castle.
Therefore, it symbolised the ruler’s throne,
making it the centremost place of the entire
state. From there the king “oversaw” his king-
dom, surrounded by the precious items from
his collection, which were stored in the cas-
tle as well. 45 In the outer façade, under the
window, there are niches for (originally) five
standing figures and in between them one can
still discern the contours of the original coats
of arms. Above the window, a big square cor-
bel was preserved. It is probable that a seated
figure used to be placed on it. 46
The estude en la poterne was not part of
the private rooms. There was a bridge leading
from the gate to the six-storey donjon keep,
which had additional corner towers arranged
around all four sides. On each floor of these
towers, there were small octagonal vault-
ed rooms accessible from the main rooms
through narrow corridors. A vast audience
hall was located on the first floor.47 On the sec-
ond floor of the keep, there was the king’s pri-
vate, and the corner room in the south-east-
ern tower was designed as the second estude
with the precious items from the royal collec-
tion. It was entered straight from the king’s
bedroom. In the bedroom wall next to the
entrance to the estude, there was a niche for
books. The octagonal room in the north-east-
ern corner was furnished as a private orato-
ry and adjoining it was a chapel. The oratory,
where precious reliquaries were stored, was in
fact a space for keeping a collection too, just
like the estude on the other side of the floor.48
However, unlike the estude en la poterne, it was
an integral part of the king’s apartment. Its
function was different, too. It was located on
45 albrecht 1986, p. 37.
46 liebenwein 1977, p. 39.
47 albrecht 1986, p. 37; liebenwein 1977, p. 38.
48 liebenwein 1977, pp. 38–39, fig. 14.
| 36 |
the calmer side of the residence, facing the
forest, and was therefore a suitable place for
relaxation, contemplation, and prayer, unlike
the estude en la poterne, which was an embod-
iment of the king’s political power.49
Formal and ideological similarities with
the papal studiolo in Avignon are more than
apparent. Their location in both of the resi-
dences, their size, and the fact that the win-
dows are facing east are similar. Charles V
was compared to Solomon by his contempo-
raries and regarded as Rex christianissimus
and the defender of the Church by laymen,
which put him on a par with the Pope.50
The reign of Charles V marked an impor-
tant functional transformation of studioli.
They no longer served exclusively study pur-
poses, but artworks from Charles’s collection
were already on display there.51 Christine de
Pizan, who wrote Charles’s biography short-
ly after his death, mentioned in this work the
estude and the “choses belles et nettes” and
the arrangement thereof within the estude.
Nonetheless, she did not state that these
items were directly related to study as tools
and aids. Rather, she extolled their beauty, on
the basis of which we can deduce that they
were probably precious jewels and gems. It
follows from different parts of the biography
that Charles V rejoiced at these objects, de-
posited in the estude, during times of repose.
Christine’s words are corroborated by the in-
ventories of Charles’s collection, which did
indeed register the precious articles as be-
ing present in the estude. Among them were
frankincense, straps and bands inlaid with
pearls, little bells, clocks, mirrors, candle-
holders, precious stones, goblets carved from
semi-precious stones, goblets made from pre-
49 albrecht 1986, pp. 39.
50 liebenwein 1977, pp. 40–41.
51 liebenwein 1977, p. 43.
cious metals, and a small box with jewels. In
addition to these, the inventory names astro-
nomical instruments, terrestrial globes, and
statuettes depicting Narcissus looking in a
mirror, but also various curiosities such as
flasks of antidote potions or the essences for
blending fragrances. The estude also housed
a desk with writing accessories.52 Given its lo-
cation within the private apartment and its
furnishings, Charles’s estude is one of the ear-
liest documented studioli that also served as
a storage space for an art collection, not only
for study and contemplation.
The design of these Early Modern Era stu-
dioli was influenced by the Italian humanist
Petrarch and his treatise De vita solitaria. Pe-
trarch himself had his own studiolo in Vau-
cluse, not far from Avignon. It was located in
a cave on an island and was connected with
the house via a small bridge. Petrarch spent
the closing stages of his life in the small village
of Arquà, near Padua. He also set up a private
studiolo there, in the house he occupied, and
it has been preserved to this day, albeit with-
out the original furnishings. Nonetheless, an
idea about its appearance was conveyed by a
wall painting that could originally be found
in Padua, in the palace of Petrarch’s patron
Francesco I da Carrara, in the Sala dei Gigan-
52 liebenwein 1977, pp. 41–42. Collecting had a
tradition in the king’s family. His brothers Philip the
Bold and John, the Duke of Berry, belonged among
the most eminent collectors of their time. Charles V
was not the only person in the mid-14th century who
had some items from his collection displayed in an
estude. A similar collection could be found around the
same time in what was called the camera rubea in the
Palazzo Falier in Venice, owned by the Trier notary
Olivier Forzetta. The collection was documented in
an inventory from 1351. It contains books, mainly by
authors from classical antiquity, and artworks. There
is no description of how the collection was arranged.
It is unknown whether it was located in one room (a
kind of museum) as a whole or dispersed across
different rooms of the house. See fiorio 2011, p. 11.
| 37 |
ti, executed shortly after Petrarch’s death in
1374. The scene shows us a view of Petrarch’s
studiolo, which had a rafter ceiling and was
equipped with a lectern and a table with writ-
ing accessories. A window opened up a view
of the surrounding landscape. A chest with
books stands in front of the table and a curled-
up dog is sleeping next to it. The animal was
viewed as a symbol of faithfulness. Therefore,
in relation to the studiolo, it is meant to signi-
fy that the scholar was devoted to his calling
and task, that is, study. What is more, Petrarch
himself mentioned it in his letters and the dog
accompanied its master during his study stay
in Vaucluse. A copy of the fresco, depicting the
scholar while studying, appeared on the fron-
tispiece of the work called De viris illustribus
from 1400. Another typical piece of studiolo
equipment was the clock, as an allusion to
vanitas, the passing of earthly time. The clock
is also indirectly mentioned by Petrarch, who
said that a scholar studying in solitude can re-
gain the time that has been lost. The limitation
of time also used to be symbolised by a skull.53
| Eliška Zlatohlávková|
The beginnings of
studioli in Bohemia
Thus far, the opinion has prevailed that the
concept of the studiolo as a place for medi-
tation and study was unknown to the Bohe-
mia of the High Middle Ages, as it is habitu-
ally associated with the onset of humanism.
The first studiolo (studiolum) in Bohemia
was probably set up in the Old Royal Palace
53 boström 1987, p. 55.
at Prague Castle during the reign of Charles
IV. Prague Castle started to be rebuilt at
the beginning of the 1330s, presumably on
the instructions of Charles’s father John of
Bohemia (also called of Luxembourg), but
the works primarily picked up speed under
Charles IV, who reinstated the Castle as the
main residence of the kings of Bohemia.54
The royal palace from the times of the reign
of the House of Luxembourg has only been par-
tially preserved. Further structural modifica-
tions were implemented during the reign of
the Jagiellonian dynasty55 and, later, the Castle
was substantially damaged by the fire of 1541.56
After Charles IV’s arrival in Prague in 1333, only
the basement and the floors above it, which
were unfit for habitation, remained of the roy-
al palace. The reconstruction initiated by the
young King Charles incorporated the older Ro-
manesque parts of the Castle: the basement,
the All Saints’ chapel on the eastern side (con-
secrated in 1185), and the Romanesque tower
on the western side (the Romanesque core re-
mains preserved to this day).
A second tower was newly built next to
it. It was several floors high, angled slight-
ly southwards, and served for habitation in
the era of the House of Luxembourg. A col-
umned hall, whose vault was supported by
two columns, was constructed on the prem-
ises between the towers on the western side
54 němec 2015.
55 In 1490, the construction of the Vladislav Hall
started at a place where there had been a similar-
ly-sized hall built under the House of Luxembourg.
Furthermore, the private apartment located in the
western part of the Old Royal Palace was reconstruct-
ed. A provisional throne hall was probably set up here
during the time when the Vladislav Hall was under
construction. It was situated in front of Vladislav’s
private rooms and its walls were decorated with por-
traits of the kings of Bohemia. See uličný 2018a p. 471.
56 The impacts of the fire were described by hájek
z libočan 1541.
| 38 |
of the Old Royal Palace and the chapel on
its eastern side.57 Above the ground floor of
the west wing, there was another floor with
a large space which was on the same level
in terms of height as the Vladislav Hall is
today. 58 The hall also had the same width
as the later Vladislav Hall, i.e. 16 metres. It
was probably divided into three parts using
wooden partitions. The exact arrangement of
these parts can nowadays be only estimated
on the basis of the window axes in the south-
ern wall. The throne stood in its eastern part,
described as sala regia in the coronation order
of the kings of Bohemia, a chapel consecrated
to the Virgin Mary was located in the middle,
and the third part on the western side prob-
ably served as a courtroom.59 The hall as a
whole was used both for representative and
judicial purposes, similarly to the grande salle
in the city hall in Paris.60
On this floor, the west wing of the royal
palace was connected with the Cathedral of
St. Vitus by means of an arcade bridge.61 The
hitherto generally accepted description of
the wing’s interior structure was based on the
structural and historical survey conducted by
Karel Fiala and the notes he took.62 However,
in aiming for a more detailed reconstruction
of the original interior layout of the Old Roy-
57 In the older literature, this room was regarded
as a project initiated by King Wenceslaus IV. It was
dated between 1380 and 1400 and Peter Parler was
considered to have been the architect. However,
according to more recent research, the room was
already in existence during the reign of Charles IV,
see němec 2015, p. 46.
58 This hall had already come into existence
during the rule of the House of Luxembourg, see
němec 2015, p. 48.
59 uličný 2018a, p. 466.
60 němec 2015, p. 54.
61 němec 2015, p. 53.
62 They were first mentioned by Richard Němec.
7 | Chapel of the Holy Cross, Karlštejn Castle, consecrated 1365.
al Palace from before the mid-14th century,
we can proceed from the coronation order of
the kings of Bohemia, called Ordo ad coronan-
dum regem Boemorum, which describes some
of the rooms of the private royal apartment
from before 1347,63 as it takes us through the
coronation process, including describing the
rooms where the individual stages of the cer-
emony took place. The crucial part is the de-
scription of the second day of the coronation,
mentioning the thalamus,64 from which the
royal hall (sala regia) was accessed. Accord-
ing to the coronation order, the thalamus was
used for the reception of church officials and
the young heir to the throne. The future king
was ushered here on the eve of the corona-
tion and in the morning the high chamberlain
would dress him in the coronation robe here.
It can be judged on the basis of this informa-
tion that the room also served as a bedroom
63 němec 2015, p. 37.
64 The term thalamus was also used in the Reims
coronation order to denote a bed, which was a
synonym for a bedroom. See němec 2017, p. 131.
| 39 |
and the official vestiarium.65 The spatial lay-
out of the rooms, as described in the corona-
tion order, is similar to the floor plan of the pa-
pal palace in Avignon. Both structures were
predetermined by older buildings on the site;
the remnants of the old Přemyslid palace in
Prague and the original episcopal residence
in Avignon. In both cities, the construction
projects commenced in the mid-1330s and
the private apartments started to be built
first. In Prague, they adopted the Avignon
succession pattern of two specific rooms;
tinellum parvum and camera paramenti. Both
rooms were connected with the hall and the
papal residential rooms. The Avignon camera
paramenti was used as an antechamber and
a bedroom for the persons who were closest
to the Pope. Here, audiences took place and
dignitaries and officials were dressed and
65 němec 2015, p. 61. It is impossible to substantiate
whether the thalamus was a permanent bedroom. The
latter might also have been situated in the western
residential tower, where underfloor heating is
documented as having existed. němec 2015, p. 62.
inducted into their functions. During nor-
mal operation, the room served represent-
ative purposes. The rooms in Prague were
ordered and arranged similarly according
to the coronation order. Adjoining the halls
was the thalamus, which might have had a
similar function to the camera paramenti in
Avignon. A second room, from which the ar-
cade bridge to the Cathedral of St. Vitus was
accessed, was possibly adjacent to the thal-
amus, too. The rooms were probably entered
using a spiral staircase located in the addi-
tional western building, just like in Avignon.66
Therefore, the spatial layout of Prague Castle
matched the one in Avignon; a wing with a
residential tower housing a chamber and an
adjacent studiolo, the latter being connect-
ed with the thalamus, and an assumed an-
ticamera 67 with access to an arcade gallery.
This private part of the apartment was inter-
nally connected with the above-mentioned
great hall, divided into three parts using par-
titions. The Bohemian coronation order does
not mention a studiolo, but there are many
indications that it might have been located in
the area between the old Romanesque tow-
er and the newly-built residential tower next
66 němec 2015, p. 68.
67 Uličný identifies the second room of the
apartment, located in front of the bedroom, as a
study, referring to the apartment at Karlštejn Castle.
Using an archival report from 1597 (wocel 1858, pp.
67–74), it is possible to reconstruct the function of the
rooms on the second floor of the residential palace;
the great hall with the royal genealogical tree, study,
bedroom, and oratory above the Chapel of St.
Michael. The study that was part of the Prague
apartment was mentioned once in contemporary
documents, namely in a deed from 1353, in which
Charles informs that “in our royal chamber at our
castle in Prague […] ([…]Ac demum in castro nostro
Pragense, et in regali nostra camera matura
deliberacione previa ad tue virtutute merita regia
consideracionis oculum accuracius[…]” (See böhmer
1870, no. 851, p. 573). See uličný 2018a, p. 471.
| 40 |
to it. The first proof is the above-described
similarity between the interior floor plans
of the Avignon and Prague palaces. Another,
even more interesting proof is the identical
location to that of the estude en la poterne in
Charles V’s castle in Vincennes. Charles IV
visited the castle personally on 11 January
1378 as one of the first official guests of the
French king.68
In several ways, the castle in Vincennes,
built by the Dauphin of France, later King
Charles V, between 1361 and 1380, is formally
and ideologically similar to Karlštejn Castle,
built between 1348 and 1367. In Vincennes,
the most important rooms, including the dau-
phin’s apartment with a private oratory and
an estude, were located in the six-storey don-
jon keep, which was surrounded by its own
wall.69 Both of the Karlštejn towers were also
originally designed as residential donjons.
They are the Lesser Tower, which nowadays
houses what is called the Church of the Vir-
gin Mary and St. Catherine’s Chapel, and the
Great Tower, housing the Chapel of the Holy
Cross. Moreover, both of the rulers were ar-
dent collectors of sacred relics.70 In Decem-
ber 1356, at the session of the Imperial Diet
held in Metz, Charles IV received two thorns
from Jesus Christ’s crown of thorns as a gift
from his nephew, the future King Charles V
of France. Together with the thorns, King
Charles IV probably also received a piece of
wood from the True Cross. These events are
depicted in what are called the Relics Scenes
on the southern wall of the Church of the Vir-
gin Mary in the Lesser Tower. The third scene
of the cycle shows Charles IV depositing the
piece of wood from the Cross into a golden
68 albrecht 1986, p. 37.
69 dengler 1992, p. 76.
70 For more on the collection of sacred relics see
otavský 2003, pp. 129–141.
reliquary in the shape of a cross, which the
king had made for the sacred relic. Charles
IV mentioned the cross for the first time in
a petition sent to the Pope in Avignon on 21
December 1357. According to him, the gold-
en cross was decorated with pearls (“precio-
sissimum iocale regnum et regni Boemie”) and
was meant to remain in the castle for ever.71
The cross is also depicted in a wall painting
on the western wall of St. Catherine’s Oratory,
above the entrance. It is a space with a floor
plan of 2.5 × 3.88 m, situated in the mass of
the southern wall of the Lesser Tower.
As we have already mentioned, the Less-
er Tower was originally designed to be resi-
dential. The second floor, where the oratory is
currently located, was intended to be the em-
press’s apartment. The ideological change
with regard to the function of this space came
in 1357, when Charles IV decided to transform
the castle into a strongbox for sacred relics
and the imperial crown jewels. On 26 March
of that year, two chapels were consecrat-
ed in the Lesser Tower. The following day, a
special castle chapter was founded, tasked
with serving masses in the newly consecrat-
ed chapels.72 The deed of consecration men-
tions a chapel consecrated to the tools used
during Christ’s martyrdom and the Chapel of
the Virgin Mary. What is called St. Catherine’s
Chapel or Oratory73 is labelled as the emper-
or’s private oratory, a private spiritual space,
71 otavský 2003, p. 136.
72 fajt 2009, p. 251.
73 The academic literature usually uses this
historical name. The room, named as St. Catherine’s
Chapel, was first mentioned by Wenceslaus Hájek
of Libočany, from whom this consecration was
adopted by Bohuslav Balbín and later others.
Nevertheless, the more recent literature speaks of a
chapel originally consecrated to the Virgin Mary. See
more in the text below.
| 41 |
in selected academic literature.74 Mediae-
val private oratories are usually understood
as sacral antipoles to humanistic studioli.75
The interpretation of the fact that the chap-
el was consecrated to St. Catherine, as first
put forward by Wenceslas Hájek of Libočany,
was based on the depiction of a saint with an
attribute, a wheel, on the lateral side of the
mensa Domini part of the altar. However, the
dedication to St. Catherine is not mentioned
in the deed of foundation or indeed any oth-
er contemporary documents. What is more,
the saint depicted on the side of the mensa
Domini is probably not St. Catherine but St.
Euphemia, who usually shares the same at-
tribute and whose remains were kept at the
castle. The deeds of consecration cite the
Chapel of the Virgin Mary and a chapel con-
secrated to the relics of Our Lord’s martyr-
dom. On the basis of its original decoration,
what is called St. Catherine’s Oratory can be
safely identified as the Chapel of the Virgin
Mary mentioned in the deed of consecration.
A scene of the Madonna seated on a throne,
with the infant Jesus on her lap and Charles
IV and his wife Anna of Schweidnitz kneel-
ing by their sides, was painted in the altar
niche of the chapel after 1357. On both sides
of the niche, the scene was flanked by a de-
piction of the apostles St. Peter and St. Paul.
Around the perimeter of the walls, 15 figures
were originally painted; ten apostles and the
figures of the patrons of Bohemia. Two black
consecration crosses can still be seen among
the saints.76 In this first stage, the chapel was
used by the chapter for holding masses. The
function of the room was changed after the
year 1362, probably because of the growing
74 The first person to interpret the chapel in this
way was Antonín Friedl. See friedl 1949, pp. 7–8.
75 liebenwein 1977, p. 52.
76 fajt 2009, pp. 256, 258.
8 | Oratory of Saint Catherine, Karlštejn Castle, '50s–'60s of the 14th century.

| 42 |
 number of relics, which Charles IV was col-
lecting intensively between 1354 and 1362.
The dean of the chapter, Litold, was tasked
by the emperor with transforming the liturgi-
cal space into a castle treasury for the cross-
shaped reliquary that sheltered two thorns
from the crown of thorns, a part of a sponge,
a piece of wood from the Cross, and other
most precious relics found in the Kingdom
of Bohemia. The ideological transformation
of the room was accompanied by a change
in its decoration. The new iconographic pro-
gramme related to the most important rel-
ic stored there, the piece of wood from the
True Cross. The walls of the chapel were
newly covered with polished semi-precious
stones of irregular shapes, up to the level of
the vaulting. It is only in the place where there
was a plank from the wagon that was used
to transport the body of St. Wenceslas from
Stará Boleslav to Prague that the polished
semi-precious stones are missing and part
of the original paintings from the first stage
– seven heads of saints – can be seen. The ceil-
ing was decorated with gilded tin crosses and
thorn-shaped rosettes. The front of the men-
sa Domini was embellished with a painting
of the Crucifixion. The Cross is also depict-
ed above the entrance to the treasury, as an
exaltatio crucis; a scene showing Charles IV
and Anna of Schweidnitz lifting the cross-
shaped reliquary. The transformation of the
chapel into the treasury was not recorded in
any archival materials. This assertion is sup-
ported by the badly-damaged painting of the
Virgin seated on a throne and the partially
preserved thin golden-green twigs along the
entire length of the southern and northern
walls. The original altar was removed and it
is probable that a wooden cabinet was placed
on the mensa Domini, damaging the surface
of the painting. The exact purpose of the
twigs remains unknown, but we can assume
| 43 |
that they served for displaying the relics. One
of them probably held the curtain sheltering
the plank from St. Wenceslas’s wagon.77
The function of the Great Tower, original-
ly conceived as a residential donjon, was also
changed in 1362, when Charles IV had a sa-
cral space established on its second floor. It
was the Chapel of the Holy Cross and it would
serve as a treasury for the imperial relics and
the regalia.
As we have already touched upon, there
are certain formal similarities between
Karlštejn and Vincennes. There were two
estudes in Vincennes. The probable exist-
ence of Charles’s studiolo at Prague Castle
was proved between two towers, as part of
the king’s private apartment. Therefore, the
question presents itself whether Charles also
had a similar studiolo at Karlštejn or not. The
Lesser Tower was connected, via a wooden
gallery, with the imperial palace. This orig-
inally one-storey building was rebuilt into a
two-storey structure and extended on the
northern and eastern sides after the trans-
formation of both towers into treasuries.
The emperor’s private rooms were situated
on the new second floor. In the western part
of the floor, there was a chamber decorated
with wall panelling and next to it was a hall
with the royal genealogical tree, starting with
the Biblical hero Noah. Next to the hall there
was a smaller chamber which was described
as “the room in which Emperor Charles IV used
to dwell” even in 16th-century documents.78
On the eastern side, this room bordered on
a chamber that was identified as the em-
peror’s bedroom because of the garderobe.
From the bedroom, it was possible to use
the pointed arch to go to the adjacent ora-
tory, already located in the semi-circular St.
77 fajt 2009, p. 264.
78 wocel 1858, p. 70.
Nicholas Tower which adjoined the old im-
perial palace. A spiral staircase was located
in the southern wall of the oratory, leading
up to the third floor, which was occupied by
the empress and her female retinue at the
time of Charles IV’s reign.79 On the basis of
a 16th-century mention of the fact that the
emperor liked to spend his time in this small
room and its location within the apartment,
it is tempting to label it as a private studiolo.
Nonetheless, there is a lack of more direct
proof for this assertion to be made.
Karlštejn Castle was constructed as the
spiritual centre of the entire empire, as a sa-
cred treasury for the imperial relics and rega-
lia (in the Chapel of the Holy Cross) as well as
the Bohemian treasure of relics kept in the
cross-shaped reliquary (in the original Chap-
el of the Virgin Mary, called St. Catherine’s Or-
atory). Although the Chapel of the Holy Cross
resembles the later and very famous studioli
of the Montefeltro family in Urbino and Gub-
bio, because of its location in the tower and
the decoration in the form of panel paintings
with the portraits of saints, prophets, church
fathers, and their remains (similar to portraits
of viri illustri), it was primarily a treasury. Nev-
ertheless, it was not merely a strongroom but
mainly a spiritual place, a consecrated chapel
that housed precious relics and where mass-
es were held several times a year. Viri illustri,
the portraits of renowned personalities from
classical antiquity such as philosophers, ora-
tors, or emperors, were employed in studioli in
order to create the impression that these per-
sons were present and to help the owner of the
studiolo commune with times past and gain a
better grasp of the culture of classical antiqui-
ty. At the same time, they were the epitomes
of virtues. The panel paintings in the Chapel of
the Holy Cross represent what was called the
79 menclová 1958, pp. 10–12.
| 44 |
Heavenly Host. Its presence in the room, sup-
ported by the physical presence of a piece of
the remains of a given saint in the frame of the
painting, was meant to safeguard the treasure
(together with the monks from the Cistercian
monastery in Stams).80 Therefore, it functions
as a certain spiritual parallel to the viri illustri.
The liaison person who acquainted the
builder of the new royal residence at Prague
Castle with the design of the Avignon palace,
considered the ultimate model for monarchi-
cal residences in its time, might have been the
Bishop of Prague, Jan IV of Dražice (in office
between 1301 and 1343). Following his sus-
pension by the Pope on 1 May 1318 for heresy,
on the basis of an accusation by the provost
of Litoměřice, Jindřich of Šumburk, he lived in
exile in Avignon for several years.81 If Bishop
Jan really was the concepteur of the reconstruc-
tion of the Old Royal Palace, it is appropriate
to ask the question whether the episcopal pal-
ace in Malá Strana (the Lesser Town of Prague),
which he had reconstructed after his return
from Avignon in 1329, according to chroniclers,
did not also include a studiolo. Almost noth-
ing of the original palace has been preserved
to this day and there are no contemporary de-
scriptions thereof either. The chronicler Fran-
tišek Pražský only mentions the decoration of
the palace chapel and dining hall. According
to him, the chapel was embellished with wall
paintings and sculptures, or with paintings de-
picting the Bishops of Prague.82 The walls of
80 fajt 2009, p. 280.
81 němec 2017, p. 133.
82 The possibility is entertained that the chapel
once used to house a small painting depicting the
crucifixion of Christ, what was called the Kaufmann
Crucifixion, one of the earliest examples of the
typically Italian depiction of the crucifixion, featuring
complex events beneath the cross and a number of
supernumeraries, found north of the Alps. It is dated
around 1340. See fajt 2015, p. 59.
the dining hall bore inscriptions of moral les-
sons and the coats of arms of Bohemian noble-
men. The Bishop’s bedroom contained paint-
ings of prophets and apostles with the bands of
the inscription bearing the lyrics of the credo.83
However, there are several documents that in-
directly attest to the existence of a treasury
at the Bishop’s court, which might have also
served as a studiolo. The Bishop belonged
among the most educated men of his time, so
it is more than probable that he would follow
the example of the Avignon Pope and have his
private studiolo in his Prague residence. Undat-
ed documents from between 1334 and 1338 re-
corded the Bishop’s order to excommunicate
the people who attacked the episcopal court
at night and stole the crozier, chalices, chas-
ubles, horse riding clothes, and jewels.84 In a
document from 3 January 1373, which was a
time when the archiepiscopal office was held
by Jan Očko of Vlašim, there is a passage that
reads “Ante cameram olim thesauri [...] (in front
of the room, formerly the treasury)”.85 The words
olim thesauri prove that the room (camera) was
83 See royt 2009, p. 269. “[...] specialiter curiam
suam circa pontem Pragensem venustissime reformavit;
nam prius porta eius de nudi opere cum lignis et septis et
alia commoda intrinseca facta fuerunt, ipse vero in porta
turrim de lapidibus sectis et dolatis fortissimam erexit et
grannaria usque ad turrim pontis cum aliis pluribus
edificiis valide perfecit, lateribus ea firmietr tegendo.
Capellam pulcherrimus picturis depingi procuravit, in
qua ymagines omnium episcoporum Pragensium
secundem ordinem sunt situate. Palacium vero sive
cenaculum scripturis et picturis extat repletum, multi
quidem versus doctrinales et morales sunt ibi notati, et
multi clipei principum, baronum ac regni nobilium sunt
decenter depicti. Speciale vero commudum suum variis
ymaginibus fuit decoratum et simbolum prophetarum et
apostolorum cum suis propriis figuris et scripturis exstat
signatum in optima proporcione, quod de curia cum
prefatis versibus attulit romana.” frb, IV, p. 368.
84 Cited according to papík 1972, p. 151.
85 Libri erectionum I, p. 89, no. 185, from the orig.
fol. 89, cited according to papík 1972, p. 153.
| 45 |
probably a treasury during the episcopate of
Jan IV of Dražice and might have housed a part
of the aforementioned items that were stolen,
according to the record.
| Eliška Zlatohlávková|
The Green Chambers
In the last quarter of the 15th century, when
studioli became an integral part of Italian pal-
aces, a new type of secular room appeared in
the residences of the Bohemian and Moravi-
an nobility. The modern Czech art history lit-
erature terms it the Green Chamber, because
of the dominant green colour in the interior
of these rooms.86 The common denominator
of the rooms, which were otherwise rather di-
verse in terms of their size and location within
the castle complex, is the predominant green
vegetal decoration spreading over most of
the area of the walls, supplemented with var-
ious figures, or used as an interconnection be-
tween individual scenes of a mostly secular,
but sometimes also religious character.
Several of these chambers from the end
of the 15th century have been preserved in Bo-
hemia and Moravia, such as at the chateaux
of Houska, Blatná, Žirovnice, Dolní Kounice,
Jindřichův Hradec, and Uherský Ostroh. The
professional literature, starting with Josef
Krása,87 has approached them mainly from
the point of view of the visual concept of the
wall paintings and sought to classify them in
terms of the date of their origin and identify
their authors and the possible models that
were drawn from before their execution.
86 The term was first coined by Josef Krása. See
krása 1964.
87 krása 1964.
 Most of the Green Chambers share the
motifs of their decorative wall paintings.
The most frequently appearing themes are
scenes from a hunt or a tournament. Vedutas
and illusive landscapes are also quite usual,
and there are also scenes with love themes
or from the judgement of Paris. Secular mo-
tifs are often combined with religious mo-
tifs, such as Christ and the Samaritan Wom-
an in Dolní Kounice, Judith with the Head of
Holofernes at the Žirovnice Chateau, or Scenes
from the Life of Jesus Christ at the Blatná Cha-
teau. The paintings are often accompanied
by a gallery of the coats of arms of the own-
ers of the residence and their affiliated fami-
lies, often to point out the high social status
of the owner.
Nonetheless, the function of Green
Chambers has not hitherto been clearly elu-
cidated. Originally, they were understood
as secular halls depicting the contempo-
rary merrymaking of the nobility.88 However,
what are, at first sight, the disparate scenes
that are usually found in the Green Chambers
call for varied interpretations.89 Apart from
depicting the pastimes of the nobility, they
also contain a moral element warning of their
fleetingness, encouraging us to focus rather
on spiritual issues that transcend this world.
In the Czech environment, at least two
types of spaces which we call Green Cham-
bers can be recognised. I believe that one of
them was public and the other private or at
least semi-private. The first type, the pub-
lic one, could evolve from a knight’s hall to a
dance or audience hall. However, I am inter-
ested in the second type, which appears in
the Czech environment in spaces similar to
mediaeval treasuries and could have evolved
from them. It is a more or less private space,
88 krása 1964.
89 dienstbier 2019.
| 46 |
which its owner could use in ways similar to a
studio. A good example is the Blatná Chateau,
rebuilt by Lev of Rosental and Blatna (1425–
1480), which housed two halls: a Knight’s Hall
on the second floor of the Old Palace, easily
accessible and serviceable and with sufficient
dimensions for proper representation, and a
Green Chamber located on the second floor of
the tower in a square space with richly deco-
rated walls and a Gothic vault, which leads us
to believe that it was more of a private space,
which served as a study, and in which, because
of its safe location, the owner could store val-
uables. Similarly to the estude en la poterne at
the castle of Vincennes, this Green Chamber
is situated in the tower above the entrace into
the castle. This space served as a study room
of Lev of Rosental and the rich fresco deco-
ration resembles his great journey across Eu-
rope in the years 1465–1467 to gain support
for the Bohemian King Georg of Kunštát and
Poděbrady, which led Lev to Germany, France,
England, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Austria. It
is assumed that the decoration was made af-
ter his return and the scenes were intended
to remind him of his trip, especially his visit
to the residence of Philip Le Bon in Brussels,
because the figures depicted on the walls are
wearing typical Burgundian garments.90 This
idea is also supported by the depiction of coats
of arms in a strip along all the walls, which
demonstrate Lev’s political commitments and,
above all, the depiction of the coat of arms of
Edward IV, King of England – three golden leop-
ards above each other on a red field next to the
coats of arms of the Lords of Vartemberk and
Lords of Cimburk.91 Lev was a great supporter
of the fine arts and paid attention to the dec-
oration of his residences. The highlight of his
self-representation was the Green Chamber
90 petráň 1985, pp. 52–53.
91 trnková 2016, p. 45.
9 | Green Chamber at Blatná Castle, '70s of the 15th century.

| 47 |
at Blatná Castle. It cannot be excluded that
he visited the papal residence in Avignon with
its estude,92 and that he brought back from his
trip the works of art he collected in his study.
On the evidence of the interpretation of
the wall paintings, some other Green Cham-
bers, such as that in Dolní Kounice, were de-
termined as private rooms designated for the
closed high court society and their meeting
and wine drinking.93 The studioli found in the
houses of the members of the humanist so-
dalitas served a similar purpose. The bibliote-
ca of Sebald Schreyer (1446–1520) served as
a private study and as a place for gathering,
as did the musaeum of Johannes Cuspinianin
Vienna and the study in the house of Conrad
Peutinger.94 In the Moravian environment of
the same period, we know of an unpreserved
studiolo located in the house of Augustin of Ol-
omouc.95 Humanist fellowships used to meet
in these rooms in order to imitate the sympo-
sia of classical antiquity. There are two proofs
of the existence of such a room in Olomouc,
in the form of the ekphrasis by Valentin Eck
called Panegyricus in laudem praestantissimi
viri doctoris Augusti Moraviae […] and the gold-
en bowl that presumably served for drinking
wine during these sessions. The purpose for
which some of the Green Chambers might
have been used is very similar to the function
of the humanist studiolo. The functional sim-
ilarity between the Green Chambers and stu-
dioli is sometimes further supported by their
location within a castle or chateau complex.
92 Šašek of Bířkov referred to the stay in Avignon
in his diary kept during the trip of Lev of Rožmitál.
See šašek z bířkova 1974, p. 140.
93 dienstbier 2019, p. 117.
94 von busch 1973, p. 65.
95 His house was located in the canon’s residence,
today Křížkovského 8 in Olomouc. See nather 2007,
p. 240.
| 48 |
The aforementioned Green Chamber in Dolní
Kounice can be found on the ground floor of
the western bastion of the chateau. Similar-
ly, what is called the Courtroom in Jindřichův
Hradec is located on the upper floor of the
Red Tower. Lastly, a Green Chamber is also
present in the tower of the castle in Uherský
Ostroh.96 It was quite typical for studioli, es-
pecially those from the 14th century, like the
estude of the King of France, Charles V, to be
established inside towers for better privacy
and a greater sense of security. The Avignon
Pope Benedict XII placed his studiolo on the
third floor of the keep, with the dimensions
of 7 × 5 m, close to the library.97
A studiolo is usually characterised as a
small, expensively furnished room designat-
ed for study. The interpretation of these cham-
bers as the equivalents of studioli is supported
by the literary legacies of Pliny the Elder and
Cicero, who described the studios of classical
antiquity and their location in villas outside
towns with views of greenery or with a direct
connection with the garden. The view out-
side, of the greenery, was supposed to evoke
pleasant sensations and bring about a calm
atmosphere. The colour green was also rec-
ommended as the ideal colour for libraries, as
it is pleasing to the eye and fits well with coins
and paintings.98 Unfortunately, there are no
contemporary reports relating to the Green
Chambers in the Bohemian and Moravian
princely residences that mention the furnish-
ings of these rooms, which could help us to
elucidate their function. Because of the ex-
tensive wall paintings, it cannot be presumed
that the chambers were equipped with book-
shelves. Nonetheless, the presence of a table
or a reading desk cannot be ruled out.
96 janiš – vácha – vrla 2011, pp. 109–123.
97 liebenwein 1977, pp. 31–32.
98 liebenwein 1977, p. 14.
 The phenomenon of the Green Chambers
in the Bohemian and Moravian aristocratic
residences was further developed in the fol-
lowing century too. A number of Renaissance
residences include a Green Chamber, such as
the chateau in Jindřichův Hradec. They were
part of the apartment and acquired their
name from the green colour that decorated
their walls.
| Eliška Zlatohlávková|
Studioli in the 15th
century in the Czech
Lands and examples
from Italy – Kutná
Hora, Urbino, Gubbio
The small room with a square ground plan,
vaulted with a Gothic groin vault and located
in the western avant-corps, on the first floor
of what is called the “Kutnohorský hrádek (the
small castle of Kutná Hora)” is the oldest pre-
served space in Bohemia whose layout and lo-
cation within a residence makes it very similar
to a studiolo. The castle was purchased by Jan
Smíšek in 1490.99
The gable of this small, square room with
a Gothic vault is decorated with the coat of
arms of the lords of Vrchoviště, featuring a uni-
corn. There are two windows, located in the
southern and western walls of the room. De-
spite the fact that the architectural design is
still purely Gothic, the painting of the interior
wall already shows traces of the upcoming Re- 100 záruba 2016, p. 164.
99 See šamánková 1952, pp. 282–300.
| 49 |
naissance. The wall paintings predominantly
have the form of illusive architecture, strictly
copying the elements found in the Vladislav
Hall at Prague Castle, and elements such as
Ionic entablatures with consoles that were not
yet known in Prague at the time. The walls are
divided into two belts. The lower belt is filled
with illusive architecture. In terms of the ver-
tical segmentation, the walls are sectioned us-
ing illusive pilasters, bearing an Ionic entab-
lature and ending with a sima decorated with
acanthus ornaments. Pairs of festoons are
painted between the pilaster capitals and lion
heads are depicted in the middle of them. The
background is painted blue. A Vladislav sym-
bol, featuring the letter “W”, is located above
the entrance portal.100 Apart from the illusive
architectural paintings, the walls also bear
figural scenes. One of them, heavily damaged,
has a stylised background and shows a figure
whose left hand rests on an open book, while
the right hand holds a flower. It was probably
originally accompanied by a second figure and
the entire scene might have been a depiction
of a disputation. On the northern wall, there is
a scene featuring a virgin and a unicorn, with
a lectern standing to the right of the unicorn.
Once again, the scene is unfolding against a
stylised background; there is a slanting tree
standing in the middle and the background
is blue. The coat of arms of Smíšek of Vrcho-
viště is painted on the western wall, opposite
the entrance, and Christ performing a bless-
ing according to a graphic template by Martin
Schongauer is depicted on the southern side,
above the window. A chalice, as a reference to
the Eucharist and the symbol of the Utraquists,
is painted to the left of the figure of Christ.101
101 záruba 2016, p. 165. For more on the wall
paintings, see všetečková 2011, pp. 90–91;
matějková 1960, pp. 233–236.
 What is interesting here is the combina-
tion of purely ecclesiastical themes, such as
Christ performing a blessing with a chalice,
and the secular themes, such as the depiction
of a disputation. The meaning of the icono-
graphic programme of the paintings is not
entirely clear. It is possible that it is a man-
ifestation of the effort to present the moral
purity and integrity of Jan Smíšek of Vrcho-
viště. This assertion seems to be supported
by the scene with the virgin and the unicorn,
which was also the armorial animal of the
family.102 From the formal point of view, the
depiction of Christ performing a blessing is
very similar to the statuettes with the same
theme that were venerated, especially in nun-
neries, at the turn of the 15th and 16th cen-
turies. Therefore, the paintings might be a
reference to female spirituality, which leads
to the hypothesis that the room could have
served as the privatissimo of a woman, name-
ly the second wife of Jan Smíšek, Anna Frát-
ská, who outlived her husband by four years
and took over his entrepreneurial activities
after his death.103 Studioli arranged only for
women are also known from the Italian en-
vironment.104 One floor lower in the south
wing of the castle, there is a room decorated
with Late Gothic figural consoles. This room
might have served as the private study of Jan
Smíšek of Vrchoviště.105 Thus, both the hus-
band and the wife might have had a private
room of their own. The elements of the illu-
sive architecture decorating the walls have
their origin in the Urbino Palace of the Mon-
tefeltro family, which housed one of the first
studioli ever, from where they found their way
into the Vladislav Hall in the form of pilaster
102 matějková 1960, p. 236.
103 mudra 2012, p. 117.
104 See thornton 1997.
105 matějka 2014, p. 47.
| 50 |
capitals. There are no records as to the pur-
pose of the room or its furnishings. The wall
paintings do not constitute a typical decora-
tion of a studiolo, which is why a certain lev-
el of wariness would be appropriate should
we want to identify the room as a studiolo.106
Given its location right next to the bedroom,
the room certainly served private purposes,
but we are unable to ascertain what exactly
these were.
In addition to the studiolo found in what is
called the Kutnohorský hrádek (or the Hrádek
of Kutná Hora), a depiction of another space re-
sembling a humanistic studiolo can be found
in the same town. It concerns a wall paint-
ing that is part of the lower row of paintings
found in the Smíšek chapel of the Cathedral
of St. Barbara, once belonging to the patrician
family of Smíšek of Vrchoviště. The decora-
tion of the chapel was executed on the basis
of a commission by Michal Smíšek, who was a
mining entrepreneur in the town and also the
director of the works aimed at the comple-
tion of the Cathedral.107 In 1551, Smíšek was
buried in this chapel.108 The paintings date
back to the 1490s and bear the features of
an early Renaissance rendition. A scene rep-
resenting Michal Smíšek and his two sons can
be seen in the lower row, on the front wall of
the chapel. The two sons are found in a space
vaulted by a barrel vault. The rear part of the
106 The relation with the Italian studiolo was first
pointed out by František Záruba. See záruba 2016,
pp. 155–168.
107 Michal Smíšek was first cited in historical
documents in 1475 as the sexton of the Cathedral of
St. Barbara. From 1481, he was the chief supervisor of
the construction works. Michal Smíšek was allegedly
the brother of Jan Smíšek, the owner of the
Kutnohorský hrádek. See vlčková 2013, p. 121.
108 This information is presented in the Memoirs of
Mikuláš Dačický of Hesov. Cited according to vlčková
2013, p. 119.
10 | Studiolo in the Hrádek of Kutná Hora, end of the 15th century.

| 51 |
11 | Smíšek chapel, Cathedral of Saint Barbara, Kutná Hora, '90s of the 15th century.
wall is supplemented with an illusive niche
housing books. The three figures are depict-
ed while engaging in liturgical operations re-
lating to the preparation of a mass,109 which
is why the space was identified as a sacristy.
This interpretation is supported by the illu-
sive bell at the peak of the vault. Neverthe-
less, the scene is usually called a votive scene
in the academic literature and its theme has
not yet been entirely clarified.110 Part of the
votive scene is a lectern with an open book,
with one of Smíšek’s sons standing next to
it. An illusive niche housing books and can-
dlesticks is depicted on the side (western)
wall of the chapel, on the left, as a separate
109 A possible reference to the role of Michal Smíšek,
who was the sexton of the Cathedral of St. Barbara.
110 The scene is usually interpreted as a group
portrait of Michal of Vrchoviště and his sons during
the preparation of a mass or as a brotherhood of
literati. See vlčková 2013, p. 125.
| 52 |
still life. Next, the illusive half-open doors of
a cabinet are painted on the right. The coat
of arms of the lords of Vrchoviště, featuring
a white unicorn, is located above them. Both
illusive scenes are strongly reminiscent of the
intarsias representing illusive half-open cab-
inets filled with books, musical instruments,
and scientific devices that can be found in the
studioli of the Montefeltro family in Urbino
and Gubbio.
The figural paintings of the Smíšek chap-
el (the Crucifixion, the Vision of the Emperor
Augustus, and a torso of a figure on the east-
ern wall of the chapel and the Justice of Tra-
jan and the Meeting of King Solomon and the
Queen of Sheba on the western wall) are sty-
listically very similar to the paintings of Jus-
tus van Gent and his fellow-worker Pedro
Berruguete, who are the authors of the viri
illustri portraits found in the Urbino studio-
lo. Just as in Urbino, the figures in the Smíšek
chapel are rendered in a three-quarter view
and are set in an illusive space with the aim of
generating an impression as close to reality
as possible. The painter who authored these
scenes probably knew the Urbino paintings.111
The intermediary that passed the Urbino in-
fluences on to the painter active in Kutná
Hora was the Buda court of Vladislav II of
Hungary, a significant Renaissance centre
of Central Europe that was associated with
the Urbino court through Beatrice of Naples,
the second wife of Vladislav’s predecessor on
the throne, Matthias Corvinus. The author of
the frescoes in the Smíšek chapel was proba-
bly a painter sent from Buda. The intermedi-
ary in relation to the illusive still life found in
the Smíšek chapel was the wooden intarsias
found not only in the Urbino studiolo, but also
in the Buda palace of Matthias Corvinus, as
recorded by the chronicler Bonfini.112
Michal Smíšek, depicted in one of the
scenes, maintained close contacts with the
Buda court and the humanist, Bishop of
Várad, and Archbishop of Esztergom John
Vitéz, who is considered the possible author
of the entire iconographic programme of the
chapel. Vitéz also served as the chancellor
of the Hungarian King Matthias Corvinus.
He resided in a chateau in Esztergom, which
housed his private studiolo decorated with
wall paintings from the 1460s.113
| Eliška Zlatohlávková |
111 vacková 1971, p. 265.
112 vacková 1971, p. 270.
113 prokop 2011, pp. 293, 310.
| 53 |
Humanistic libraries as
collection depositories
The mediaeval spaces that served as libraries
can be regarded as parallels to the develop-
ment of studioli, since their main content dur-
ing the late Middle Ages and the subsequent
period of humanism was books.
The tradition of book collecting was
also practised in the Lands of the Bohemian
Crown. Already in the early and high Middle
Ages, the Bohemian nobility owned liturgical
books that were used in castle chapels. At the
beginning, there were no special spaces des-
ignated for keeping the books, as they were
stored in chests or cabinets which were com-
monly present in residential rooms.114 The
earliest reports on libraries come from the
time of the reign of King Wenceslas IV, the
son of Charles IV and a great lover of the book
culture. Wenceslas IV met personally with his
uncle, King Charles V of France, who collect-
ed books all his life and had a special space
modified for them in the Tour de la Faucoin-
nier tower in the Louvre. Therefore, the King
of Bohemia might have personally acquaint-
ed himself with Charles’s estude found in his
residences. Wenceslas dwelled at the Old
Town royal court near the present-day Hy-
bernská Street, where there were many illu-
minators’ workshops and scriptoriums, which
the king tasked with copying and illuminating
precious manuscripts. We can assume that
a certain part of his books was stored there,
although there are no records relating to the
existence of a library. On the other hand, in-
formation is available regarding his library
at Kunratice Castle, built towards the end
of Wenceslas’s life.115 In his chronicle called
114 záruba 2016, p. 155.
115 záruba 2016, p. 156.
The Origins of the Hussite Uprising, Laurence
of Březová refers to the looting of the castle,
mentioning a vaulted room designated for
books.116 According to him, it was located on
the first floor of the main palace building.117
The book culture was also cultivated in
Bohemia during the Hussite Wars. After their
end, with the rise of humanism in Bohemia,
libraries started also to appear in the resi-
dences of the Catholic nobility. For instance,
a huge library comprising approximately 500
volumes was documented as part of the prop-
erty of Jan of Rabštejn.118 A similarly large li-
brary was owned by Hanuš II of Kolovraty (died
in 1483).119
A prominent place among the personal-
ities of Bohemian humanism from the turn
of the 15th and 16th centuries belongs to Bo-
huslav Hasištejnský of Lobkowicz (1441–1510).
He graduated in Roman and Canon Law at Bo-
logna and Ferrara. During his studies, he iden-
tified Dante and Petrarch, who viewed the res-
toration of the original tradition of classical
antiquity as the way to reinstate the glory
of Italy and revive true humanity, as his role
models.120 After his return to Bohemia in 1491,
he settled permanently at the castle where
he was born, Hasištejn (Hassenstein in Ger-
116 “[...] und als Fulsteyn viele Bücher mit anderen
Gegenständen, nicht seinen eigenen, sondern die dem
König gehörten, auf dem ihm überlassenen Wagen
aufgeladen hatte, stürzte sich das gemeine Volk draußen
vor der Burg im Sturm auf den Wagen und raubte alles
Augeladen, was einer nur ergreifen konnte. Aus diesem
Grunde wollte das gemeine und habgierige Volk zum
Wegschleppen der Einrichtungsgegenstände auch in die
Burg eindringen, und weil man sie nicht hineingelassen
hat, drangen sie durch Untergraben der Mauer ein und
kamen zum Gewölbe der Bücher[...]” quoted according
to záruba 2016, p. 157.
117 See záruba 2016, p. 158.
118 See šmahel 1958, pp. 93–113.
119 záruba 2016, p. 159.
120 menclová 1969, p. 13.
| 54 |
man) in western Bohemia. He brought with
him about 200 prints, which became the foun-
dation of his famous library, which comprised
almost 800 volumes at the end of his life.121
The set of Bohuslav’s books was long
thought to be irretrievably lost. The extensive
collection, originally kept at Hasištejn Castle,
was transported to Chomutov after the noble-
man’s death and then, at the end of the 1580s,
passed into the possession of the other branch
of the Lobkowicz family, namely Georg Popel
of Lobkowicz. His property was confiscated by
Emperor Rudolf II. However, the library was
acquired by Georg’s relative Zdeněk Vojtěch
Popel of Lobkowicz, who transferred it to his
palace at Prague Castle. In 1671, the collection
was relocated to the newly constructed family
residence in Roudnice nad Labem. As of today,
we know of 757 prints, 18 Latin manuscripts,
16 Greek manuscripts, and one Hebrew man-
uscript that were part of the collection. The
library was the largest private library in Bohe-
mia and it bore comparison with the best hu-
manistic libraries of Central Europe. The com-
position of Bohuslav’s library was very broad
in terms of its thematic scope. The nobleman
strove to approximate himself to the contem-
porary humanistic ideal of a scholar as best
as he could. A fifth of the total volume of the
collection was constituted by the works of the
authors of classical antiquity, early Christian
authors, and the contemporary output of Ital-
ian and German humanists, usually rhetori-
cal and poetic works. The library also includ-
ed a number of theological treatises and legal
texts. There were also natural scientific com-
pendia and works on astronomy, reflecting
Bohuslav’s general interest in knowledge of
all kinds.122 Furthermore, he would acquire as-
tronomical instruments from abroad, such as
121 záruba 2016, p. 159.
122 kyzourová – boldan 2007, p. 75.
astrolabes and terrestrial and celestial globes.
Unfortunately, none of these instruments has
been preserved to this day, with the sole ex-
ception of a paper model of an astrolabe that
was part of one of the prints.
It is probable that a special building was
designated for the books at the castle and
was situated between the round tower and
the entrance gate.123 The furnishings of the
library included astronomical instruments,
maps, and other collector’s items. For the
purpose of his astronomical observations,
Bohuslav had a new lower floor with a wide
internal stone gallery added in the round
tower located next to the library. Eight small
windows were established on this floor, the
jambs of which had a very acute angle, allow-
ing a good observation of the night sky.124
The room that housed Bohuslav’s library
and the collection of astronomical instru-
ments was a kind of studiolo used by its owner
for the purpose of studying. This hypothesis
is supported not only by the presence of the
astronomical instruments, but also by the
fact that the nobleman was a great admirer
of Petrarch, who himself had a studiolo set up
in a cave near his house in Vaucluse, close to
Avignon, as well as in his house in Arquà, not
far from Padua, which he bought towards the
end of his life. On top of that, Petrarch em-
phasised the necessity of having one’s own
private space in his treatise De vita solitaria.125
Hasištejn Castle can be viewed as yet an-
other piece of evidence attesting to the ad-
vanced cultural level of the Lands of the Bo-
hemian Crown and their capacity to catch up
with the arrival of humanism.
123 záruba 2016, p. 159.
124 kyzourová – boldan 2007, p. 84.
125 boström 1987, p. 53.
| 55 |
Augustin of Olomouc
Bohuslav Hasištejnský was close friend with
the Moravian humanist Augustin Käsenbrot,
known as Augustin of Olomouc (1467–1513).
He studied Canon Law and the Liberal Arts
in Padua, similarly to Bohuslav. In this way he
acquainted himself with the Italian human-
istic environment and the culture of the lo-
cal studioli. In 1496, he became the chancel-
lor and later the personal secretary of King
Vladislav II of Hungary in Buda. Additional-
ly, he also held several ecclesiastical offices
in Brno, Prague, and Wrocław. From 1511, he
was permanently settled in Olomouc, where
he became one of the leading figures of hu-
manism.126 He was a member of the humanist
fellowship called Sodalitas litteraria Danubia-
na and maintained personal contact with the
humanist and professor at the University of
Vienna Conrad Celtis.127
Käsenbrot owned a voluminous collec-
tion of books, stored in a room specially des-
ignated for this purpose and artistically dec-
orated. Neither the library nor the house has
been preserved. Nonetheless, a very valua-
ble testimony describing its design is availa-
ble to us, attesting to the existence of Augus-
tin’s studiolo, the oldest of its kind in Bohemia
and Moravia. The library must have been very
rich as it captured the attention of contempo-
rary humanists such as the aforementioned
Valentin Eck or Johannes Cuspinian, who
mentioned that the library included the best
books from all fields and that Augustin liked
to lend them to his friends. According to Eck’s
ekphrasis, Augustin owned texts by authors
from classical antiquity, legal texts from clas-
sical antiquity, and historical works. Augustin
was the provost of the chapter of Olomouc,
126 konečný 2003a, p. 185.
127 gastgeber 2015, p. 11.
which is why he bequeathed his library to the
chapter. From the works it included, we can
mention a copy of Alberti’s De re aedificatoria,
originally elaborated for the King of Hunga-
ry, Matthias Corvinus. Augustin acquired this
work while working for King Vladislav II, Mat-
thias’s successor on the Hungarian throne, in
Buda between 1497 and 1511.128
Augustin’s collection of books was sup-
plemented with a few objets d’art. One of
them was a golden bowl, decorated with
coins from classical antiquity and a classical
antiquity-style round relief, presently de-
posited among the collections of the Grünes
Gewölbe in Dresden.129 Augustin’s owner-
ship is evidenced by the inscription on the
bowl that reads AVG.OLOM.SIBI.ET.GRATAE.
POSTERITATI.MDVIII and by his family coat
of arms.
The bowl belongs among the very few ob-
jects from the turn of the 15th and 16th centu-
ries that are decorated with coins dating back
to classical antiquity. Its shape resembles
containers from the times of classical antiq-
uity that were often presented as gifts among
princes and humanists. A similar bowl was
brought for Matthias Corvinus from France.
After his death, it passed into the possession
of King Vladislav II. Augustin’s collection ac-
tually included more of these bowls. There
is a record from 1513 that states that Augus-
tin donated a bowl with ancient coins to the
Cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Wrocław,
where he served as the canon.
The Dresden bowl was originally set
with 40 coins. Approximately half of them
were removed in the 18th century, but four
coins were later re-fitted. The bowl was
probably made to Augustin’s order on the
128 bistřický 1980, p. 125.
129 Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, inv. no.
IV 40.
| 56 |
basis of an initiative stemming from the hu-
manistic literary fellowship Sodalitas litter-
aria Danubiana, which he was a member of.
The author remains unknown. It is possible
that it was made by an Italian goldsmith
active in Buda, or a Central European gold-
smith based in Hungary or Bohemia.130
The bowl bears the date 1508. Howev-
er, that does not necessarily have to mean
that it was cast in that year, but rather put
together from its constituent parts. Its most
precious element is the round relief on the
bottom of the bowl, depicting a winged Bac-
chus seated on an altar.131 The high quality
and the fine rendition of the relief point to,
very probably, an Italian origin, perhaps a
Paduan artist from the late 15th century. It
is possible that Augustin acquired the relief
during his studies in Padua. Above the head
of the ancient god, there is a text that reads
GENIO.LIBERO.Q[VE].PATRI, which means
that the entire object is dedicated to two
beings; the genius or the protector of the
owner of the bowl and a divinity called Liber
pater. A number of humanists owned con-
temporary texts or ones dating back to clas-
sical antiquity that mentioned the inspira-
tional force of the wine god. Augustin’s bowl
is the earliest known depiction of Bacchus
as the god of poets’ inspiration and their pa-
tron. The Renaissance debates over the new
role of Bacchus are reflected in the texts
found on the edge of the bowl: PHOEBIGE-
NUM. SACRATA. ET. MYSTICUS. ORDO. HAC.
PATERA. BACCHI. MVNERA. LARGA. FERRANT.
PROCVL. HINC. PROCVL. ESTE. PROPHANI.
The bowl was consecrated to both Bacchus
and Apollo and served for drinking wine dur-
ing the poetic symposia that were viewed by
the humanists as an attempt to revive the
130 fučíková 1980, p. 26.
131 konečný 2003a, p. 185.
Platonic Academy and the Dionysian Myster-
ies. Nothing in the text suggests which hu-
manistic fellowship used the bowl.132
The preserved Dresden bowl and the
mention of other similar bowls in Augustin’s
possession are an important piece of evidence,
documenting that in addition to books, Au-
132 konečný 2003a, pp. 189–190 and 193.
12 | Golden bowl of Augustin of Olomouc, beginning of the 16th century, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden.
| 57 |
gustin also owned objets d’art, most notably
coins from classical antiquity. Such coins, to-
gether with books, formed the basic and foun-
dational equipment of humanistic studioli, as
is known from Italy. From there, the concept
of a humanistic studiolo was brought to Cen-
tral Europe through the humanists who had
studied in Italy. These spaces established in
the houses of Central European humanists
are usually labelled as libraries in the con-
 temporary documents, since their main con-
tent took the form of the books that were to
be studied there. The sets of books were of-
ten complemented with collections of arte-
facts with a provenance dating back to clas-
sical antiquity; coins, medals, and medallions
with the portraits of ancient philosophers and
emperors, and small sculptures and statu-
ettes whose purpose was to “make present”
the classical authors whose texts were stored
in these libraries. The earliest mention of a
studiolo in the German environment can be
found in the inventory of the estate of the
Nuremberg-based merchant Conrad Imhoff,
who died in 1486. It was located in his house
in Ledergasse and connected with the bed-
room. The inventory describes its furnishings:
“Item ain hechel, Item ain ledlein mit venedis-
chen trinckglesern. Item ain Schreibzeug. Item
ain messing Imhof schilt. Item ain fledrin kop-
flein und sunst alt hadern, Geldbeutel.” Some
of the books were kept in Imhoff’s bedroom.133
One of the first collectors of artworks with a
provenance dating back to classical antiquity
in the Transalpine region was Augustin’s con-
temporary Conrad Peutinger (1465–1547),
an Augsburg-based humanist and antiquar-
ian. During the 1480s, he studied at various
north Italian universities, graduating in Pad-
ua in 1491. Upon returning to his home town,
he became the leading figure of humanism
in Augsburg.134 His collection included stones
with inscriptions and sculptures,135 and prob-
ably even portraits, statuettes, and bronze ob-
jects. He adapted his house to the appearance
and design of houses of classical antiquity and
133 budde 1996, p. 73, note 18.
134 von busch 1973, p. 2.
135 Peutinger owned a sculpture from classical
antiquity of Hercules, which he donated to Emperor
Maximilian I during his visit to Peutinger’s house. See
hauttmann 1921, p. 35.
| 58 |
made it available for the use of the local hu-
manistic sodalitas. The courtyard of his house
was designed as an atrium and stones with
inscriptions were displayed there.136
At about the same time, a collection of
sculptures from classical antiquity was also
recorded in the possession of the Nurem-
berg-based lawyer and humanist Willibald
Pirckheimer (1470–1530). Furthermore, sim-
ilar sculptures were also owned by the Vien-
nese humanist Johannes Cuspinian (1473–
1529), who maintained close contacts with
Augustin of Olomouc. Pirckheimer’s and
Cuspinian’s collections were kept in a library
and they included objets d’art, such as small
sculptures made of marble or bronze, serv-
ing study purposes. In 1597 an inventory of
Pirckheimer’s original collection was com-
piled, describing three rooms in which the ob-
jects were kept. They were termed studioren
or Bücherkammern, i.e. libraries. The walls of
these rooms were decorated with paintings
and prints. It also follows from the inventory
that various weapons and rare objects were
stored here and that stuffed animals hung
from the ceiling.137 Pirckheimer’s collection
already included the category of naturalia, i.e.
natural materials. These were an integral part
of Renaissance cabinets of curiosities.
Pirckheimer’s house was literally a Roman
lapidarium and a favourite place to visit for
other humanists such as Johannes Cuspinian,
who also followed Pirckheimer’s example.138
On the basis of its similarity to the col-
lections of the German humanists, we can
assume that Augustin’s collection of books
and objets d’art was also placed in some kind
of a Bücherkammer or studioren. As far as
Augustin’s collection is concerned, there is
136 von busch 1973, pp. 13–14.
137 von busch 1973, p. 64.
138 hauttmann 1921, p. 36.
no inventory or a posthumous list of the es-
tate, unlike in the case of the German hu-
manists. The only report on the appearance
of the library-studiolo remains to be Eck’s ek-
phrasis celebrating Augustin and describing
his house in Olomouc, called Panegyricus in
laudem praestantissimi viri doctoris Augusti
Moraviae [...]139 Valentin Eck probably wrote
it during his stay in Olomouc in the years
1510–1511, when he was Augustin’s guest. In
his description of the library, he says that it
was decorated with marble columns and wall
paintings depicting the deeds of Hercules.140
This cycle was the earliest depiction of scenes
from the hero’s life north of the Alps.141
The second preserved studiolo associated
with Augustin of Olomouc is nowadays part
of the Moravian Museum in Brno, which is
based in what was originally called the Bish-
op’s Court under the Petrov hill, used by the
local provosts and the chapter between 1306
and 1588. The studiolo, with the dimensions of
3.96 × 2.35 m, is located on the second floor of
the tower and is vaulted by a series of two Late
Gothic groin vaults.142 On the ceiling between
the arches, there are tondos with the depic-
139 Its printed version was published in 1513 and up
until today, only three copies are known: Kraków,
Biblioteka Jagielońska, Cim. 5538; Wrocław,
Ossolineum, XVI. Qu. 3593, and Strängnäs, Cathedral
Library, Q. 304; the last originally came from the
Jesuit College in Olomouc.
140 “[…] namque Augustini domus ardua fulta
columnis / Marmoreis tales praesentat imagine formas,
/ Ut quis posse loqui credat, suspendere gressus / Atque
movere modo, nec non imitarier ore / Sermones
hominum, vovosque ostendere vultus / Quae si pertenui
vellem pictasmata metrro / Enumerare, diem Phoebus
depelleret orbe, / Antea quam possem summatim
attingere cantu. / Hic etenim Herculeos admirarier
ausus […]” verse 170.
141 hlobil – petrů 1999, p. 158.
142 kratinová 1950, p. 413. Nonetheless, Kratinová
regards the room as a chapel.
| 59 |
tion of four Church Fathers seated by lecterns.
These four portraits are complemented by the
scenes of The Beheading of St. Catherine and The
Mass of St. Anthony of Padua, also executed in a
round format. The illusive tondos are painted
on a richly decorated green background with
floral motifs, resembling the Green Chambers,
secular rooms often found in the Bohemian
and Moravian castles and chateaux from the
turn of the 15th and 16th centuries. With re-
gard to their overall character, the scenes in
the tondos correspond to the period after the
year 1500, which is why Augustin of Olomouc
is regarded as their orderer, since he served as
the superior of the Brno chapter from 1507.143
Under Bishop Franz of Dietrichstein, the
room was remodelled into a chapel.144 Never-
theless, its original character was secular – a
private studiolo – as attested by the wall paint-
ings that depict the Church Fathers seated in a
study by lecterns. Unlike in the library located
in Augustin’s house in Olomouc, the walls of
which were decorated with themes adopted
from the mythology of classical antiquity ac-
cording to Eck’s ekphrasis, the Brno studiolo
contains exclusively figural motifs of a reli-
gious nature. Given that the studiolo was part
of the premises of a provost court and served
as the study of a clergyman, the sacral motifs
are well justified. Similar rooms located in the
residences of clerics were no exception and
they were often decorated with religious mo-
tifs, sometimes in combination with themes
from the mythology of classical antiquity,
such as in the studiolo found in the house of
the canon of Constance, Johannes Botzheim
(it housed paintings of St. Paul, Jesus Christ
on the Mount of Olives, and a depiction of
the nine Muses145) or the abbot’s studiolo in
143 vítovský 1999, p. 218.
144 kroupa 2009, p. 26.
145 von busch 1973, p. 71.
13 | Studiolo in former provost court, now provost chapel, wall paintings 1510–1513, Brno.
the monastery pertaining to the Church of
Sant’Abbondio in Cremona, built in 1509–1511.
In the centre of the ceiling the Virgin Mary is
depicted, surrounded by grotesque motifs
and monochromatic scenes in circles. In the
lunettes there are portraits of philosophers
and astronomers.146
Written accounts and contemporary tes-
timonies are all that remains of the collection
of Ladislav of Boskovice, originally located at
the chateau in Moravská Třebová. It included
precious manuscripts, artworks, and measur-
ing instruments. Ladislav of Boskovice stud-
ied in Italy at the instigation of the bishop of
Olomouc, Protasius of Boskovice. After com-
pleting his studies of mathematics, history, ge-
ography, physics, and Greek and Roman litera-
ture, he travelled around Italy, as well as Asia
and Africa. From his journeys, he brought back
home “a plethora of books and manuscripts,
mathematical, physical and musical instru-
146 adorni – tafuri 1986, p. 91.
| 60 |
ments and devices, paintings, and sculptures.”147
Between 1492 and 1495, he had a chateau
erected in Moravská Třebová, for the decora-
tion of which he had portraits in the form of
reliefs of himself and his wife Magdalena of
Dubá made, carved in white marble. These
were probably the earliest Renaissance por-
traits in Moravia.148 The chateau burnt down in
1840. The original interiors housed his rich col-
lection. “In the magnificent halls of the chateau,
Ladislav of Boskovice cherished his precious col-
lections, both scientific and art collections, which
he brought from his voyages. They included a li-
brary abundant in manuscripts and Italian incu-
nabula by Greek and Roman authors. As far as
the number of books is concerned, only the library
of Bohuslav Hasištejnský of Lobkowicz housed
in his castle of Hasištejn in Bohemia could bear
any comparison with it. At this new chateau of
his, Ladislav was often visited by learned men and
147 šembera 1840, p. 40.
148 See chlíbec 2008, pp. 277–278.
14 | Ceiling of the abbot‘s studiolo at the Sant‘Abondio cloister, 1509–1511, Cremona.
artists from nearby or afar who enjoyed his gener-
ous hospitality. Even King Vladislav himself laid
his eyes upon the memorable collections on his
journey from Prague to Olomouc and to Hungary
in 1497.”149 There is a valuable testimony relat-
ing to the visit of Ladislav’s collections, almost
completely destroyed by the fire of 1840, from
Rudolf Agricola in 1517: “I was astonished when
you kindly presented to me the library, placed in
open cupboards and filled with the manuscripts
of the most far-famed composers, and when you
showed me astronomical, geographical, and
musical instruments, so skilfully made, while
explaining to me diverse things and concepts
that only the most learned men can know […]”150
| Eliška Zlatohlávková |
149 šembera 1840, p. 41.
150 Cited according to šembera 1840, pp. 41–42.
“prope stupidus haesi, qum bibliothecam illum omnium
illustrium skriptorium monumentis confertissimam,
reclusis valis, advenae mihi indicasti.”
| 61 |
The studiolo of Rudolf II
at Prague Castle
Following the initial settlement of Rudolf II
at Prague Castle, a space referred to as the
Schreibstuben (writing room) was established,
which in the accounting book and inventories
was always mentioned together with the Som-
merhaus, thus denoting their possible prox-
imity. In June 1579 Rudolf asked the Czech
Chamber for 600 thalers for the completion
and furnishing of the recently built “Schreib-
stuben und Sommerhaus”. 151 In 1583, after the
proclamation of Prague as the official imperial
seat, the emperor ordered the reconstruction
of the Schreibstuben and Sommerhaus; both
were completed at the end of 1587.152
151 köpl 1889, reg. no. 8198, pp. LVI–LVII.
152 kreyczi 1894, reg. no. 11659, p. XXVII; muchka
1988, pp. 85–93.
 The west wing of Prague Castle followed
the tradition of the typical Burgundian-Span-
ish layout constituted by a series of represent-
ative halls, two antechambers, an audience
room, a bedroom, and a studiolo.153 In 1600,
Pierre Bergeron mentioned a series of repre-
sentative spaces in the Imperial Palace con-
sisting of a knights’ hall, two antechambers,
and an audience room.154 Rudolf’s bedcham-
ber probably followed the audience room and
had a bay window and access to the garden
via a staircase.155 The sequence of the rooms
described by Bergeron can be found in the
plans of Prague Castle from the first third of
the 18th century. One of them also includes
a record of the function of each room. Start-
ing from the staircase near what was called
the Matthias Gate the inscriptions are: “Kay-
sers Trabanten Stubn, Ritter Stuben, Erste Ant
Cammer, Zweyte Ante Cammer, Rath-Stubn,
Erste Reterade des Kaysers, Reterade, Reterade,
SchlaffCammer (Emperor’s Knights’ Hall, First
Antechamber, Second Antechamber, Council
Hall, First Emperor’s Retreat, Retreat, Retreat,
Bedchamber)”.156
As was customary for a studiolo, Rudolf’s
Schreibstuben must have been situated near
the bedchamber, probably identifiable in one
of the “Reterade”.157
It is worth mentioning that shortly af-
ter the completion of the Sommerhaus in
Prague, Rudolf II ordered the construction
of a longitudinal wing in Vienna, also called
153 polleross 1998, p. 97; hoppe 1996, pp. 443–444.
154 pariset 1980, pp. 180–189; fučíková 1989,
pp. 78–89; muchka 1988, pp. 88–89.
155 muchka 1988, pp. 88–89.
156 podlaha 1920–1921, pp. 82–83.
157 On the disposition of the studiolo in the archi-
tectural layout of an aristocratic dwelling in particu-
lar liebenwein 2005, pp. 12–24, 66–68 (original
German edition: liebenwein 1977.)
| 62 |
the Sommerhaus in contemporary sources.158
A private apartment of the emperor was es-
tablished in both of these new parts of the
two imperial residences. In 1587, the recon-
struction of another wing commenced in Vi-
enna. It was located on the castle bastion
and adjoined the Sommerhaus at a right an-
gle. The interior layout of this building dur-
ing the reign of Rudolf II is described in a re-
port on the works carried out by the Viennese
painter Hans Apfellman: “Rathstuben, Gängl,
Zwischen der Rathstuben vnnd Anlang stuben,
mer ain Gangl, Mer ain gangl nahent bey dem
Frauenzimmer, Anlang stuben, Erste Cammer
neben der Sommer Stuben, Schreybstübl, Ander
Cammer, Dritte Cammer, Grossen Saall, Den
Gang, Camer In den Turm (Council Hall, Corridor,
Between Council Hall and a room along, more
one corridor, more one corridor close to the La-
dies’ Room, along a Room, First Room next to
Summer Room, Studiolo, another Room, Third
Room, Great Hall, the corridor, room in the tow-
er)”. 159 Apfellman’s accounts mention a stu-
diolo (Schreybstübl) near the imperial apart-
ment.160 The interior layout of the Viennese
palace was very similar to the arrangement
of the rooms in Rudolf’s wing built in the
southern part of Prague Castle. Apfellman’s
list can be considered proof of the fact that
the plans of Prague Castle from the first third
of the 18th century capture the original lay-
out of the rooms from the times of Rudolf II.
The inventory of Prague Castle from 1621
recorded the following arrangement of the
rooms: “Folgen nun die gemähl, so in den kai-
serlichen zimmern sich befünden: In der rath-
stuben, In des kaisers schreibstüblein aufm ge-
sims, In einem kleinen stüblein darneben, In
158 Specifically speaking, a report from 1582 mentions
the “Summerhaus auf der Pasteien”. karner 2014, p. 131.
159 karner 2014, pp. 131–136.
160 karner 2014, p. 136.
den sommerzimmern (Now follow the paintings
that are in the imperial rooms: in the Council
Hall, in the Imperial studiolo on the cornice, in
a little room next to it, in the summer rooms)”,161
thus also confirming the location of Rudolf’s
studiolo in the vicinity of the audience room
and the Sommerzimmers.
No description has survived of the ap-
pearance of Rudolf’s studiolo. The only infor-
mation that can be recovered comes from
the inventory of 1621,162 compiled nine years
after the emperor’s death, when some paint-
ings and objects had probably already been
moved elsewhere. The inventory contains
thirty entries, mostly paintings with female
subjects, among them the famous Lady with
an Ermine by Leonardo. The list includes
typical furnishings for a studiolo – a beauti-
fully inlaid wooden table and a wooden chair
decorated with jasper.163 The 1635 inventory
also mentions the emperor’s studiolo, which
housed only three paintings in that year.164
The 1648 inventory is the last record to men-
tion the Schreibstuben, where fifty small and
large paintings, twenty bronze statuettes,
and a metal Themis are listed.165
Evidence for the existence of Rudolf’s
studiolo is provided by a number of let-
ters containing reports of the appreciation
shown for various gifts received by the em-
peror from Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of
Savoy, Cesare d’Este, Duke of Modena, and
Vincenzo I Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua.166 In a
letter sent from Prague on 4 July 1604, the
envoy Carlo Francesco Manfredi di Luserna
mentions to the Duke of Savoy that his gifts of
161 zimmermann 1905, pp. XIII–LXXV.
162 zimmermann 1905.
163 zimmermann 1905, p. XLIX.
164 zimmermann 1905, p. LIX.
165 dudík 1867, pp. XXXIII–XLI.
166 fornasiero – zlatohlávková 2020, pp. 239–244.
| 63 |
statues and paintings have arrived in Prague.
Among them, the emperor had appreciated
the paintings of the fruit and fish markets,
Christ at the Column, and the small minia-
ture paintings, which he personally took to
his cabineto: “Gionsero le Statue et piture il
primo giorno di luglio [...] S. M. [Rudolf II] l’ha
agradite estremamente massime li due merca-
ti della frutta et pesceria, il Cristo alla colonna
et li piccioli quadretti miniati, quali egli stesso
subito portò nel suo cabineto. (The statues and
the paintings came on the first of July [...] S. M.
[Rudolf II] liked them very much, especially the
fruit market and the fish market, the Christ at
the column and the small miniature paintings,
which he himself took into his cabinet)”.167 The
Savoyard envoy reported that the emperor
remained motionless for two and a half hours,
contemplating the paintings of the fruit and
fish markets: “hieri l’Imperatore stete due ore
e mesa assentato senza moversi da guardare li
quadri delli mercati di frutta e pescaria manda-
ti da V. A. [Duke of Savoy] (yesterday the Emper-
or stayed two hours and a half set motionless
intent on looking at the paintings of the fruit
market and the fish market sent by V. A. [Duke of
Savoy])”.168 The two paintings in question are
the Fruit Seller and the Fish Seller by Vincenzo
Campi, which were later exhibited in the gal-
lery on the second floor of the Gangbau, as the
same envoy relates in a letter of 4 February
1605: “Li due quadri della pescaria e fruta che
V. A. li ha donate, li hanno onorati di metterli
nelle due teste della galleria. (The fruit market
and the fish market that V. A. donated, were hon-
oured by being hung on the two heads of the gal-
167 Archivio di Stato di Modena, ASMo, Cancelleria,
Carteggio ambasciatori, Germania b. 69, letter dated
4 July 1604.
168 ASMo, Cancelleria, Carteggio ambasciatori,
Germania b. 69, letter dated 7 July 1604.
15 | Plan of the second floor of Prague Castle with the Imperial Palace in the south wing, 1744, Archiv
Pražského Hradu.

| 64 |
lery.)”169 While these larger works were hung
in the picture gallery, the emperor still kept
the miniature paintings in his cabineto: “quelli
di miniature che V. A. li mandò, li tiene nel suo
cabineto. (The miniature paintings that V. A. has
sent, he keeps them in his cabinet.)”.170 There is
no doubt that Manfredi was referring to the
studiolo and not the Kunstkammer. When the
Savoyard envoy was taken on a tour of Rudolf’s
Kunstkammer he referred to it as the guard-
arobba, and not cabineto: “Venero due uomini,
che io non conoscevo che mi condussero in una
guardarobba sopra la stalla dove vidi in quantità
grande di cose di molta valuta. (Two men came,
who I did not know, who brought me into a guard-
aroba above the stable where I saw things of high
value in great quantity.)”.171
Among other beautiful paintings, the
emperor arranged in his “gabinetto delitio-
sissimo” the two paintings gifted in 1593 by
Vincenzo I Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua.172
It was also in his studio or gabinetto that
the emperor admired what was called the
capita iugata, the long-awaited cameo donat-
ed by Vincenzo I Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua.
On 29 September 1603, Aderbale Manerbio
reported to Vincenzo I Gonzaga that “Il Lungo
[Philipp Lang] mi ha detto sua maestà [Rudolf
II] far gran conto di esso cameo, et ha comanda-
169 ASMo, Cancelleria, Carteggio ambasciatori,
Germania b. 69, letter dated 4 February 1605. In the
1621 inventory they are mentioned as “Ein fishmark
vom Campo Cremonio” and “Ein obstmark vom Campo
Cremonio”. zimmermann 1905, p. XLII; paliaga 1998,
pp. 222–223.
170 ASMo, Cancelleria, Carteggio ambasciatori,
Germania b. 69, letter dated 7 July 1604.
171 The Kunstkammer was located above the
stables, which were on the ground floor of the
Gangbau. promis 1877, p. 594.
172 Archivio di Stato di Mantova, ASMn, AG,
b. 467m f. II, cc. 282–283 (C), letter sent by Guidoboni
Guidobono to Vincenzo I Gonzaga from Prague on 21
December 1593.
| 65 |
to che gli sia fatto un bellissimo ornamento d’oro
[…] mentre stava nelo studio o gabinetto dove
tiene le cose più rare e teniva in mano il cameo.
(Lungo [Philipp Lang] has told me that His Maj-
esty [Rudolf II] is counting much on that cameo,
and he ordered to have a beautiful golden orna-
ment made for it […] while he was in the studio or
gabinetto where he keeps the rarest things and
he had the cameo in his hand.)”.173 When the
emperor received a bronze relief by Giambo-
logna from Cesare d’Este, Duke of Modena, he
personally took it to his private room, where
he placed it on a small cupboard.174
The assertion that the Schreibstuben as
quoted in the sources and inventories should
be interpreted as the authentic studiolo of Ru-
dolf II – a place designated for study, relaxation,
and enjoyment of artworks for the emperor– is
supported not only by the contemporary de-
scriptions of German study collections that
also employ the term Schreibstuben, but also
by the items listed in the inventories and men-
tioned in the letters of the Italian ambassadors,
such as a richly inlaid table, a decorated arm-
chair, and small and miniature paintings.
| Alice Fornasiero |
173 ASMn, ag, b. 482, fol. i 9, cc. 354–5 (c). On the
cameo see zimmer 2009, pp. 110–126.
174 The bronze relief is the Allegory of Francesco I de’
Medici by Giambologna, which was copied by Adriaen
de Vries, and today is housed in the Kunsthistorisches
Museum in Vienna, Kunstkammer. seipel 2006,
p. 282, cat. no. 37; venturi 1885, pp. 16–19; ASMo,
Cancelleria, Carteggio ambasciatori, Germania b. 69,
letters dated 26 April 1604 and 28 June 1604.
The studiolo in the century and the beginning of the seven-
teenth century.176
White Tower The White Tower belonged to the Roman-
esque fortifications and was originally high-
The room on the second floor of the White er before being lowered to the level of the
Tower at Prague Castle, whose vault is dec- room frescoed by Spranger during the ren-
orated with the fresco Mercury and Minerva ovations carried out under Empress Maria
by Bartholomeus Spranger, could have been Theresa.177 At least from the twelfth century
another studiolo of Rudolf II, considering its and until the time of Rudolf II, it functioned
location and decoration.175 as a prison.178 In a letter dated May 1585 ad-
Like the Tower of St. Vitus’ Cathedral, dressed to the architect Ulrico Aostalli, the
the White Tower overlooked the entire area emperor ordered the removal of the prison,
of Prague Castle, as emphasised by the views expressing the desire to use the building for
of the castle from the end of the sixteenth

176 See, for example, the view of Prague Castle, by

175 This hypothesis was first advanced by Petr
Johannes Wechter, Philip van den Bossche, Aegidius
Uličný; see uličný 2017a, pp. 385–386; fornasiero
Sadeler, View of Prague Castle with the White Tower and
2019, pp. 521–536. The presence of more than one
the Tower of St Vitus Cathedral, 1606. Archiv hl. města
studiolo in the same palace is not unusual. See for
Prahy, sbírka grafiky sign. g 13 and g 14.
examples the many studioli of the Medici family in
the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence. See liebenwein 177 vlček 2000, pp. 157–159.
2005, pp. 108–122. 178 vlček 2000, pp. 157–159.

16 | Prague Castle, longitudinal section of the central wing, mid-18th century. Detail with White Tower, gateway
and south wing, Archiv Pražského Hradu.

| 66 |
himself.179 In 1607, the roof of the White Tow-
er was replaced with an open terrace with a
balustrade, probably because the Roman-
esque walls were no longer able to support
its weight.180 At this point, the tower acquired
the name of “Illuminationsturm”, because of
the fireworks prepared by the alchemists of
Rudolf II and set off from its terrace.181
On the basis of the emperor’s letter ad-
dressed to Aostalli, the decoration of the
White Tower was realised by Bartholomeus
Spranger after May 1585.182 The fresco por-
179 fučíková 1989/1990, pp. 42–43; neumann 1970,
pp. 142–170.
180 uličný 2017b, pp. 841–846.
181 formánek – parkán – svoboda – et al. 1965,
p. 85; neumann 1970, p. 143; russell 2000, p. 191.
182 The execution of the fresco painting was dated
around 1590 or later; see fučíková 1989/1990,
pp. 42–43; neumann 1970, pp. 142–170.
| 67 |
trays Mercury and Minerva up among the
clouds, with their respective attributes of a
rooster and an owl. The golden stucco sur-
rounding the fresco, consisting of a double
edge of pearls, continues, connecting to the
walls and highlighting the vaulted structure.
On the walls above the cornice there are still
four small empty tondos with frames of gold-
en stucco, which in the past must also have
contained fresco paintings.183 It is likely that,
also considering the presence of the tondos,
the decoration of the room was originally in-
tended to be more complex and extensive,
covering the majority of the surface of the
vault, the cornice, and probably the walls
with stucco decorations and fresco paintings.
183 neumann 1970, pp. 142–170; metzler 2014, cat.
no. 58, pp. 130–131.
17 | Bartholomeus Spranger, Mercury and Minerva, ca. 1590, fresco, diam. 275 cm, White Tower, Prague Castle.
© Správa Pražského hradu, photo: Jan Gloc 2010.

Spranger’s painting of Mercury and Miner- Farnese; in particular, he collaborated in the

va makes reference to the fresco Hermathena
by Federico Zuccari and his assistants, dat-
ed 1566–1569, which decorates the ceiling
of the Gabinetto dell’Ermatena at the Pala-
zzo Farnese in Caprarola.184 During the be-
ginning of his activity as a painter, Spranger
contributed to the decoration of the Palazzo
realisation of the paintings in the cornice of
the adjacent Stanza del Torrione.185
The Gabinetto dell’Ermatena was the pri-
vate studiolo of Cardinal Alessandro Farnese,
and like the adjacent Stanza del Torrione it
must have served as a place for aesthetic

185 neumann 1970, pp. 142–170; metzler 2014, pp.

184 On the Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola see in 26–29. On the fresco paintings in the Palazzo Farnese
particular frezza 1999. in Caprarola see faldi 1961, pp. 31–32.

| 68 |
18 | Federico Zuccari and helpers, Gabinetto dell’Ermatena, detail of the fresco, 1566–1569, Palazzo Farnese in
Caprarola, photo: Direzione Regionale Musei Lazio – Caprarola (VT).

enjoyment and cultural activities, where the
cardinal kept objects belonging to his collec-
tions.186 The books were located on the up-
per floor, which was accessible only from the
Gabinetto dell’Ermatena via a spiral staircase.
In the Renaissance, the subject of Her-
mathena was considered a symbol of the
academy in general. The oldest reference
to Hermathena was Cicero, who had cho-
186 riebesell 1989, pp. 106–150.
sen it as a symbol of his academy. Marsil-
io Ficino, one of the leading spokespersons
of alchemy in the sixteenth century, repre-
sented his academy in the union of Hermes
and Athena. The decoration of the Gabi-
netto dell’Ermatena in Caprarola alluded to
Achille Bocchi’s Accademia Ermatena or Acc-
ademia Bocchiana, a symbol of the encyclo-
paedic research of which Cardinal Farnese
was a leading member as a result of his pas-
sion for the arts and literature and his inter-

| 69 |
est in the fields of astrology and alchemy.187
In addition, it has been demonstrated that
the decoration of both the Gabinetto dell’Er-
matena and the Stanza dell’Aurora (the car-
dinal’s bedroom) take their inspiration from
alchemical symbolism.188
During his activity in Caprarola, Sprang-
er must have learned of the meanings rep-
resented by the Hermathena in the studiolo
of Cardinal Farnese, and probably suggest-
ed the representation of the same subject for
the studiolo of Rudolf II in the White Tower.
The first key of interpretation of the fres-
co Mercury and Minerva is the allusion to the
Academy through the symbols of Wisdom,
embodied by Minerva, and Eloquence, relat-
ed to Mercury.189 However, similarly to the
Hermathena in Caprarola, the two divinities
represented by Spranger might also be relat-
ed to Alchemy, one of the occult sciences fa-
voured by Rudolf II.190 The two basic elements
of alchemy, Sulphur and Mercury, are repre-
sented by the two snakes wrapped around
the caduceus of Mercury, the symbol of their
union and an essential tool of all alchemical
transmutations.191 Before being linked to the
image of Mercury, the caduceus was related
to Hermes Trismegistus, the legendary an-
cestor of the traditional magical arts meant
as the summary of universal knowledge in all
its applications. These references were not
unknown to Rudolf II, who shared hermeti-
187 angelini 2003, p. 63, note 4; parlato 2000,
pp. 159–191; casini 2009, pp. 115–134.
188 gasbarri 2007, pp. 43–50.
189 irmscher 2009, pp. 77–84, 93.
190 It must be remembered that the fireworks, one
of the most spectacular alchemical artifices made by
Rudolf’s alchemists, were set off from the terrace of
the White Tower. formánek – parkán – svoboda et
al. 1965, p. 85; neumann 1970, p. 143; russell 2000,
pp. 139–204.
191 gasbarri 2007, pp. 48–49.
| 70 |
cal and alchemical interests with Cardinal
Farnese, as well as with the cultural entou-
rage of the princely courts of the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries. Moreover, be-
cause of his collections, the Kunstkammer,
but also his laboratories, stables, aviaries,
ponds, and gardens, Rudolf II was identified
as the new Hermes Trismegistus, and he used
to define himself with this appellation.192
The image of the Hermathena, where Min-
erva is often represented as the patron god-
dess of wisdom and the arts, was later often
represented by the Rudolfine artists as proof
of the high symbolic value that the subject ac-
quires in relation to the emperor.193 Rudolf II’s
decision to relocate the prisons and install his
personal studiolo in the White Tower recalls
the tradition of placing studioli in towers, and
refers to the symbolism of the representation
of power. The studiolo of the duke, king, or em-
peror was often located in a tower whose de-
fensive and dominant value from above high-
lighted the monarchical virtue that governs
and controls everything.194 In addition, Ru-
dolf’s intention to locate a studiolo in the
White Tower was certainly inspired by the
closest examples of the Habsburgs’ residenc-
es. In the Neugebäude, the complex that Max-
imilian II built from 1559 and was completed
after his death by Rudolf II himself,195 one of
192 mout 1982, pp. 161–189; kaufmann 1989/1990,
pp. 110–111.
193 gerszi 1969, pp. 755–762; kaufmann 1986/1987,
pp. 168–172; irmscher 2009, pp. 77–101.
194 baldwin smith 1965, pp. 10–16. The papal studi-
olo in Avignon and Charles V‘s estude in the castle of
Vincennes were located in a tower near the bedroom
with an annexed chapel. In the Vatican palace too,
the room in the tower built by Pope Alexander VI was
used as a guardaroba and treasure chamber. See in
particular liebenwein 2005, pp. XV, 39–55.
195 On the Neugebäude see in particular:
lietzmann 1987; lippmann 2006–2007, pp. 143–168.
the four towers that enclosed the garden, the
Kronturm, was reserved for the emperor. Its
exact function remains uncertain,196 but the
assertion in a letter sent by Maximilian II in
1574 to his father-in-law, Duke Albert V of Wit-
telsbach, suggests that the emperor had his
personal studiolo in this tower.197 Like the ceil-
ing in Rudolf’s studiolo in the White Tower, the
ceiling of the Kronturm was decorated with a
fresco by Bartholomeus Spranger, whose pre-
paratory drawing was probably The Gathering
of the Gods, today preserved at the Albertina
in Vienna.198
Studioli located in towers could similarly
be found in the Habsburg residences in Spain,
where, together with his brother Ernest, Ru-
dolf had spent eight years at the court of their
uncle Philip II (1563–1571). It is therefore worth
remembering that in the north-west corner of
the Alcázar in Madrid at the time of Charles V
there was a tower called the Tower of France or
Torre Dorada because of the colour of its interi-
or decoration. Above the main room, with ac-
cess via a narrow staircase, there was another
room decorated with a golden ceiling and with
a viewing point over the landscape. This room,
equipped with cupboards and desks, served
as a studiolo of Charles V, and perhaps some
books were already located there in his time.199
When in 1626 Juan Gómez de Mora designed
some parts of the Alcázar by order of Philip IV,
the king’s library was still located in the Torre
Dorada, defined as the “Apossento donde tiene
el Rey sus libros (the room where the King has his
books)”.200 In 1633, at the behest of Philip IV, the
196 lietzmann 1987, p. 102, note 344, pp. 94, 139–
153; lippmann 2006–2007, p. 149.
197 lietzmann 1987, p. 170, note 79.
198 lietzmann 1987, pp. 152–155; metzler 2014,
pp. 37–39, cat. no. 97.
199 checa 1994, p. 320.
200 checa 1994, pp. 325–326.
| 71 |
library was transferred to the second Torre Do-
rada, also known as the Torre del Despacho or
Torre Alta.201 This tower was built by Philip II be-
tween 1561 and 1566 in the south-west corner
of the building, facing the main façade of the
palace on one side and overlooking the river on
the other. Philip II accommodated his studiolo
on the main floor of the tower, where precious
clocks and automata also found their place.202
Bergamasco and Cincinato had painted the
room with the story of Ulysses, adorned with
stucco and grotesque decorations. The decora-
tion, now lost, reportedly resembled the Torre
de la Reina in the Palace of El Pardo, similarly
decorated with mythological stories surround-
ed by gilded stuccos.203
Rudolf II, probably upon the suggestion
of Spranger, had the ceiling of his studiolo
frescoed with a subject similar to the one
painted by Federico Zuccari (whose work was
praised and long desired by the emperor) in
Cardinal Farnese’s studiolo. The decoration of
the room, with Mercury and Minerva at the
centre, perhaps closely resembled the lost
frescoes of the Torre Dorada of the Alcázar in
Madrid, as demonstrated by the slight simi-
larities to the decorative setting of the Torre
de la Reina in El Pardo.
The studiolo in the White Tower proba-
bly represented a less private space than the
above-mentioned Schreibstuben in the em-
peror’s private apartment. Once the construc-
tions of the north wing of Prague Castle and
the Gangbau were finished at the beginning
of the 1600s, the studiolo in the White Tower
could have represented a sort of continuation
of the representative halls and of the corri-
201 checa 1994, pp. 325–326.
202 checa 1994, pp. 320–321; morán – checa 1985,
pp. 120–121.
203 checa 1994, p. 144. On the decoration of the
Torre de la Reina see garcía-frías checa 2005.
dor gallery on the second floor of the Gang-
bau, from where a door provided access to the
room. This spatial organisation was very sim-
ilar to that of the Alcázar in Madrid, in which
the long Galeria Dorada, which occupied the
west wing of the palace, led directly to Philip
II’s studiolo in the Torre Dorada.204
As already underlined by Jarmila Krčálová,
aspects in common are also envisagable be-
tween the central wing of Prague Castle and
the Uffizi corridor concerning the arrange-
ments of the spaces.205 Krčálová underlined
how the corridors in the Gangbau were placed
in front of smaller rooms of older buildings in
the same manner as the Uffizi corridor gal-
lery after the adaptations by Bernardo Buon-
talenti for the Medici collections.206 In addi-
tion, similarly to the Tribuna of Francesco I de’
Medici located along the corridor gallery of
the Uffizi, the room in the White Tower was
also located along a corridor gallery. Like the
Medici Tribuna, created to exhibit selected
artworks from Francesco’s collection, could
the room in the White Tower have been con-
ceived as an integral part of the system of ex-
hibition halls and picture gallery dedicated to
Rudolf’s collection?207
| Alice Fornasiero |
204 See the plan of Juan Gómez de Mora dated
1626: Juan Gómez de Mora, Piano nobile of the old
Alcázar of Madrid, 1626 (Biblioteca Apostolica
Vaticana, mss Barb. Lat 4372, pl. 3)
205 krčálová 1983, pp. 1029–1051; carrai 2003,
pp. 370–384. Further details in the chapter dedicated
to the galleries in Prague Castle.
206 krčálová 1983, pp. 1029–1051; carrai 2003,
pp. 370–384.
207 Unfortunately, the content of this room in the
time of Rudolf II remains uncertain. According to the
literature, it contained weapons; see neumann 1970,
pp. 147–148; muchka 1988, p. 89.
| 72 |
The development of
studioli in the 16th
and 17th centuries
in the Czech Lands
The aforementioned examples attest that stu-
dioli, in terms of their architectural form and
function, were known in the Lands of the Bo-
hemian Crown. Considering the proximity to
the German milieu and the contacts between
the Italian environment and the Bohemian
and Moravian nobility, concepts of the stu-
diolo, as a private space used for intellectual
activities including the enjoyment of artistic
objects, must have been long assimilated by
the higher strata of the society. During the six-
teenth century and at least until the begin-
ning of the seventeenth century, studioli were
present in some aristocratic residences of the
Bohemian and Moravian aristocracy. They
took on the features of strictly private spac-
es reserved for intellectual activities and rec-
reation. Their function justified the presence
of personal belongings, writing instruments,
and books, but also devotional objects such
as reliquaries, artworks, and items made of
precious materials that contributed to study
and to spiritual and aesthetic enjoyment.
From the time of its origin, the studiolo
was often connected to the bedroom, the
oratory, or the chapel and sometimes to the
treasury. These spaces were often closely in-
terrelated.208 The treasury contained jewels
and money, precious stones and metals, gold
and silver, ornaments, and silver plates for
banquets. It could also contain documents,
symbols, and insignia testifying to the social
208 liebenwein 2005, pp. 12–24, 66–68.
 position of the owner. Further assortments of
items rather belonging to the furnishing of a
sacral space like a chapel or an oratory, such as
books, reliquaries, and objects that might be
considered to have had either a curiosity or sa-
cral value, also found their place into treasure
chambers.209 The difference between studiolo,
treasury, and chapel did not lie in the variety
of objects they contained, but rather in the
way they were exhibited and utilised by their
owner within the spaces.
In Telč Castle, the studiolo, the treasury,
and the chapel are adjacent, thus denoting a
strong interrelation between them. Neverthe-
less, they are diversified in terms of decoration.
The renovations of the east wing of the
Castle undertaken by Zacharias of Hradec
(1526/7–1589) in the 1550s included the dec-
oration of what is called the Banquet Hall and
the adjacent Treasury, both dated 1553, and
the reconstruction of the Chapel of St. George.
The Banquet Hall is a space that more
closely resembles the concept of the studi-
olo. Both the preserved interior decoration
and the 1589 inventory210 present an image
of a reserved space, with the function of a
study room and – together with the adjacent
treasury – a room for displaying personal be-
longings, precious objects, and artworks. It
was in these rooms that Zacharias of Hradec
“nejčastěji bejvati ráčil (loved to stay often)” to-
wards the end of his life.211
Zacharias was a Catholic nobleman who
held a number of important posts in the
Moravian part of the kingdom. In 1557 he sat
209 liebenwein 2005, pp. 66–68. More on the
treasury in the chapter III, dedicated to this space.
210 Státní oblastní archiv, SOA, Třeboň, pracoviště
Jindřichův Hradec, RA páni z Hradce, inv. n 51 1, sign.
IT K 12, kart. 124, 125. The inventory is published in
hrdlička 1994, pp. 178–184.
211 kroupa – jakubec 2013, pp. 27–45.
| 73 |
in the Moravian Regional Court, in 1558 he
became the highest chamberlain, and in 1567
the provincial governor. Later he occupied the
position of Supreme Chamberlain and Moravi-
an Vice-President.212 From June 1551 to Janu-
ary 1552, he took part in an expedition of the
most important Czech, Austrian, and Hungar-
ian noblemen who accompanied the future
King Maximilian II during his trip to Spain.213
The noblemen stopped in Genoa, from where
Maximilian II continued to Spain by sea. During
the trip across the Italian peninsula and while
they were awaiting Maximilian’s return, the
members of the expedition had enough time
to acquaint themselves with Renaissance art
from the northern parts of Italy.214 The pre-
served itinerary of their journey records that
Trento was one of the first major cities they vis-
ited. Then they arrived in Mantua, where they
stayed for one day, and for two more days upon
their return. While in Mantua, at least some
of them might have been invited to visit the
Ducal Palace or the Castle of San Giorgio and
perhaps the Palazzo Te. The noblemen con-
tinued to Cremona, Milan, and Pavia, and fi-
nally reached Genoa.215 The trip undoubtedly
impressed the noblemen very much, among
them William of Rosenberg, Vratislav II of
Pernstein, and Zacharias of Hradec, who were
later to gain renown for their patronage activi-
ty in the field of the visual arts and architecture.
Immediately after Zacharias’s return
from Italy, renovations were undertaken in
Telč Castle, including decorations of both the
212 koukal 1996, p. 51; ledvinka 1993, p. 206;
kratinová – samek – stehlík 1992, p. 47.
213 On the expedition of the Czech, Austrian, and
Hungarian noblemen who accompanied King
Maximilian II during the trip to Spain see in particular
pánek – polívka 2003.
214 muchka 2013, pp. 39–41.
215 pánek – polívka 2003, pp. 99–102.
19 | View of the interior of the so-called Banquet hall (Studiolo of Zacharias of Hradec), black and white and
ochre sgraffito, 1553, Telč Castle.
studiolo and the treasury, which were com-
pleted just one year after his return to his
homeland. Zacharias described how “v těch
pokojích dolních i prostředních, v kterýchžto já i
moje manželka má sme bydleli na zámku Telči, a
těch pokojů k pohodlí svému a potřebám užíval
(in those lower and middle rooms in which my
wife and I have lived in the castle of Telč, and
those rooms for your comfort and needs)”.216
Zacharias’s studiolo (today named the
Banquet Hall) is a vaulted room on the ground
floor with a rectangular plan measuring
4.20 × 7.75 metres. The studiolo is adjacent to
a small vaulted room referred to in the 1589
inventory as “Golden”, which is the treasury.
A square chapel consecrated to St. George,
measuring approximately 4 × 4 metres and
216 hrdlička 1994, pp. 178–184.
| 74 |
decorated with stucco reliefs, adjoins the
treasury.217 The sequence – studiolo, treasury,
chapel – refers to a tradition that dates back to
the fourteenth century, in which private spac-
es such as the bedchamber, the chapel, the
treasury, and the studiolo were adjoining and
often located in a tower. The archive and the
library could also find their place within this
sequence. This was the case of the pontifical
apartments in Avignon at the time of Benedict
XII, where the treasury and the library were
located above the Pope’s bedchamber in the
Tour des Anges. With the addition of a second
217 On the decoration of these spaces see fromek
– tiray 1905, pp. 49–57; krčálová 1952, pp. 1–6;
lejsková-matyášová 1959, pp. 402–403; křížová
1979, pp. 534–540; salava 2008. On the stucco of the
chapel see hečková – tišlová – waisser et al. 2020,
pp. 103–111.
20 | View of the interior of the Chambre du Cerf, 1343, 4th floor of the Tour de la Garde Robe, Papal Palace in
Avignon, photo: Fabrice Lepeltier 2012.
tower from 1337, the archive, the guardaroba
and the studiolo of the Pope were also add-
ed.218 Like the disposition of the papal studiolo
in Avignon, the estude of the donjon of Charles
V in Vincennes was located in a tower, adja-
cent to the bedchamber and with an oratory
or a chapel as an annex.219 A similar disposi-
tion is to be found in Renaissance Italy. Duke
Federico da Montefeltro had his bedroom ad-
jacent to the guardaroba located on the first
floor of the Ducal Palace in Urbino. From the
Sala delle Udienze adjacent to the Duke’s bed-
room, a small corridor gave access to the or-
atory and to the studiolo. Under the studiolo
on the ground floor there was a place for a
218 liebenwein 2005, pp. 40–43.
219 liebenwein 2005, pp. 48–50. See Chapter II in
this book.
| 75 |
chapel for reliquaries and the Tempietto delle
Muse – a kind of secular temple.220 The same
spatial disposition of the treasury and studi-
olo was applied in the Toretta di San Niccolò
at the Castle of San Giorgio in Mantua during
the time of Isabella d’Este. Her studiolo was
located in the former “chamerino intarssia-
to” from the year 1490, and the floor below
was the location of what was called the grot-
ta, Isabella’s secret treasury where she kept a
part of her artistic collection, especially coins
from antiquity and small bronze statues. Both
spaces were connected vertically, and created
a significant part of Isabella’s private suite.221
When Isabella decided to move her dwellings
220 liebenwein 2005, p. 123.
221 brown – lorenzoni 1977, pp. 155–171; brown
2005, pp. 35–38, 46.
 in the Corte vecchia in 1519–1520, the Apparta-
mento della grotta was erected on the ground
floor and was constituted by an antechamber
(“camera grande”) from which a narrow cor-
ridor led to a secret garden, while two doors
opened into the studiolo and to a series of
small chambers. It was only from the studiolo
that one could enter the grotta.222 These were
without doubt mostly private spaces belong-
ing to Isabella, and it is unlikely that the Czech
noblemen visiting Mantua, including Zachari-
as, were admitted there. However, while in the
city they must have heard about the arrange-
ment of these spaces and their contents, given
the fame they enjoyed.
The north wing of Telč Castle housed
representative spaces, what was called the
Golden Hall and the neighbouring Blue Hall,
which functioned as an audience hall, both
equipped with carved coffered ceilings. This
tract continued with what could most proba-
bly be identified as Zacharias’s bedroom (the
elongated room with the ceiling decorated
with the main Roman emperors) and an ad-
jacent studiolo which occupied the north-east
turret.223 The disposition of this second studi-
olo is connected to the traditional location of
the space near the bedroom and in the tower,
which guaranteed Zacharias intellectual iso-
lation and at the same time a prominent po-
sition. The lack of sources that indicate the
decoration and the furnishing of this space
does not allow us to understand the reasons
why Zacharias had two studioli, although, as
seen in previous examples, this situation was
not unusual.
In the 1589 inventory, the studiolo on the
ground floor is referred to as the long room
“kde Jeho Milosti pan Zachariaš z Hradce bejva-
222 liebenwein 2005, pp. 147–157.
223 kroupa – jakubec 2013, p. 40.
| 76 |
ti ráčil (where His Grace Lord loved to sit)”, 224
while on another occasion Adam Slavata
located the room where there was an Ital-
ian chimney and there was a view from the
room to the garden. 225 Following tradition,
the studiolo of Zacharias faced a garden and
was equipped with a fireplace.226
The entire surface of the walls is deco-
rated with the technique of black and white
and ochre sgraffito. According to the inscrip-
tion placed above the western entrance, the
mural decoration dates from 1553.227 The au-
thor of the decoration drew inspiration from
the work of Hans Burgkmair the Elder, Virgil
Solis, Heinrich Aldegrever, Hans Holbein the
Younger, and Jacques Androuet du Cerceau,
Quoniam apud veteres alio structurae genere
templa, published in 1550.228 The mural paint-
ing is divided into two bands: the first consists
of a low arcade with an illusion of a space be-
hind it, while the second one shows hunting
scenes and above them scenes from the Old
Testament and mythology. In the arches on
the eastern and western walls, female figures
personifying the seven vices are represented.
224 hrdlička 1994, p. 183.
225 hrdlička 1994, p. 180. The letters exchanged
between Adam Slavata and Adam II of Hradec are
preserved in SOA Třeboň, pracoviště Jindřichův
Hradec, RA pánů z Hradce, inv. n. 432, sign. III A 3, kan.
54. See the letter from Adam Slavata dated 24
February 1589.
226 See, for example, the arrangement and location
of the studioli of Petrarch. liebenwein 2005, pp. 60–
65.
227 The depiction of the two coats of arms makes it
clear that the decoration was created after 15 January
1553, when the wedding of Zacharias of Hradec and
Katherine of Waldstein took place at the Polná
Chateau. salava 2011, pp. 20–35.
228 On the mural decoration see fromek – tiray
1905, pp. 49–57; krčálová 1952, pp. 1–6; lejsková-
matyášová 1959a, pp. 402–403; lejsková-
matyášová 1959b, pp. 66–67; müller 1998, pp. 97–
99; salava 2008, pp. 25–52; salava 2011, pp. 20–49.
On the southern lunette in the southern wall
there is a figural scene depicting the behead-
ing of St. John the Baptist. From this scene, a
group of figures follows towards the left-hand
side. Here, Salome hands the saint’s head on a
dish over to the feasting Herod and Herodias
under a baldachin drapery. A structure with a
wall and towers is depicted in the background.
In the courtyard there is a balustrade with mu-
sicians, a fountain with a pair of lovers, and a
tree. The second band with the hunting scene
is based on a print by Virgil Solis.229 The oppo-
site wall features an illusively painted portal
with a tympanum, in which there is a medal-
lion with a profile portrait traditionally regard-
ed as a portrait of Zacharias. The main scene
in the lunette of the northern wall is set in a
clearing populated by various animals, a dog,
a deer, a lion, a panther, and even a unicorn. In
the left-hand part of the scene, the painting of
Orpheus playing to the animals is based on
the tenth book of the Metamorphoses by Ovid.
In the upper arcade of the western wall the
figure of Hector is depicted as the personifica-
tion of the good pagan, from a series of prints
probably taken from the work of Hans Burg-
kmair the Elder or Daniel Hopfer.230 Hector
represents the counterpart to the figures in
the jamb of the side entrance in the northern
wall, which have been identified as personi-
fications of Alexander the Great as the good
pagan and King Arthur as the good Christian.
The entire vault is covered with vegetal orna-
ments, which in some cases feature anthro-
pomorphic and zoomorphic forms that can be
interpreted as an allegory of living nature.231
229 lejsková-matyášová 1959a, pp. 402–403;
lejsková-matyášová 1959b, pp. 66–67.
230 kratinová – samek – stehlík 1992, p. 85.
231 fromek – tiray 1905, pp. 1–6; lejsková-
matyášová 1959a, pp. 402–403; salava 2008,
pp. 25–42.
| 77 |
The elaborate mural painting in Zachari-
as’s studiolo is reminiscent of the decoration
of the Green Chambers that appeared as pri-
vate spaces in late 15th-century aristocratic
residences in the Czech Lands, with which
it shares motifs based on hunting and tour-
nament scenes and episodes based on love
themes, often combined with religious mo-
tifs integrated with vedutas and illusive land-
scapes.232 The decoration of the studiolo in
Telč can also be related to the pictorial motifs
of Italian and French aristocratic residences
dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth cen-
turies, where the use of naturalistic scenes for
the mural decorations of private spaces de-
fined a privileged place reserved for the life
of the lord, based on the model of the locus
amoenus or hortus conclusus, which is one of
the iconographic topoi characterising socie-
ties in those centuries.233 The prototypes of
these decorations can mainly be traced to the
French environment, and found expansion in
Italy through direct contacts with France. In
the Palazzo Datini in Prato, the property of
the merchant Francesco Datini, the natural-
istic decoration of the ground floor rooms with
trees and birds is inspired by the fresco decora-
tion of the Tour de la Garderobe in the Papal Pal-
ace in Avignon. In particular, the room known
as the Camera terrena delle scritture, Francesco
Datini’s bedchamber, also had the function of
a studiolo, as testified by an inventory in which
232 See the subchapter dedicated to the Green
Chambers in this book.
233 prinz 2006 p. XII; for the concept of the hortus
conclusus in relation to the private dwellings see
garbero zorzi 1980, pp. 309–315. On the topos of the
secret garden as a locus amoenus in relation to love in
the 14th and 15th centuries see watson 1979; ceri via
1986. The prevalence of the colour green in the wall
decoration must be related to the symbolism
attributed to that colour in courtesan poetry in 15th-
century France: youth, love, joy, vitality. pastoureau
1986.
21 | Anonymous draughtsman, Silver throne of Zacharias of Hradec, 1577, drawing, SOA Třeboň.

| 78 |
a table for writing and chests with locks, one
of which contained books, are listed.234
The similarities between these examples
and the decorations in Zacharias’s studiolo are
remarkable, underlining the reserved charac-
ter of the room in Telč Castle. The mural paint-
ing decoration and the objects that found their
place in the room represented material man-
ifestations of the variety of Zacharias’s inter-
ests and, by extension, evidence of his virtues,
in particular centred on Christian values.235
According to the 1589 inventory, in the
room on the table by the chimney there was
a silver and gilded ship, and a small box on
top of it which contained money, a clock be-
longing to the Chancellor, probably Zachari-
as’s nephew Adam II of Hradec, a silver inkpot,
and on top of it a watch set in crystal; a sil-
ver thurible (thuribulum to produce incense);
a silver crucifix with a small cross; a silver
hourglass.236 On the second table there were
samite books with the letters Z and A where
Zacharias had a list of the furniture kept in his
residence, clocks with a camel, one large and
one smaller; a silver inkpot, and many other
deeds and documents lying on all the tables
and benches.237
The precious golden table clock and the
two-storey golden jewel box with embossed
figural decorations which stand on the table
depicted in Zacharias’s portrait, dated 1570
and located in Telč Castle, give an idea of the
objects located in the studiolo, from where
they probably also came.238
234 romagnoli 2012, pp. 111–124; gnoni mavarelli
2012, pp. 141–144.
235 On this topic see syson – thornton 2001, pp.
12–36. On the importance of the Christian virtues for
Zacharias of Hradec see salava 2011, p. 34.
236 hrdlička 1994, pp. 183–184.
237 hrdlička 1994, pp. 183–184.
238 The monogrammist BI (or BH), Portrait of
Zacharias of Hradec, Telč Castle, oil on canvas, 1570.
| 79 |
Considering the equipment of the space
where inkpots and documents were placed
on the tables, Zacharias’s studiolo had the
function of a personal writing room. At the
same time, in this room Zacharias was sur-
rounded by artistically elaborate objects such
as the clocks and the box containing money,
made of precious materials.
The adjacent treasury is a barrel-vaulted
room with a square ground plan measuring
5 × 4.30 metres decorated by the grey-toned
sgraffito technique.239 The decoration depicts
various examples of illusionist architecture
in perspective inspired by engravings by the
draughtsman Rudolph and the carver Jeremi-
as Wyssenbach,240 while the vault is painted
with an ornament with putti and birds. The
architectural component of the wall painting
can lead to the concept of an ideal city, as dis-
cussed in I dieci libri de l’architettura by Leon
Battista Alberti, dated 1452, or in the Tratta-
to di Architettura, written between 1460 and
1464, where Filarete discussed the concept of
the ideal city of Sforzinda.241 In addition, the
mural paintings in the Telč Treasury place
particular emphasis on the representation of
closed and opened portals. In the Renaissance,
the gateway to the city or citadel – often rep-
resented as a triumphal arch flanked by two
towers – took on a symbolic value, and became
the symbol of the city itself.242 Similar illusion-
239 mžyková 1996, pp. 145–153; salava 2008,
pp. 43–52.
240 From a series of woodcuts in Architectura antiqua,
Das ist, Warhaffte Contrafacturen ettlich alter schönen
Gebeuwen, Zurich, Johann Wolf 1596. As one of the
sheets is dated 1558, Georg Kaspar Nagler assumes
that the series had already appeared in an earlier
publication. nagler 1858–1879, IV. 3838.
241 mžyková 1996, pp. 145–153.
242 liebenwein 2005, pp. XVI–XVII; On the
importance of the representation of gateways to the city
in the Renaissance see marconi – fiore – muratore et
al. 1973.
22 | View of the interior of the Treasury, 1553, grey-toned sgraffito, Telč Castle, photo: Gabriela Čapková.

| 80 |
istic architectures are also found in one of the
wooden panels of the studiolo of Federico da
Montefeltro in the Ducal Palace of Urbino.243
Whilst the use of the sgraffito technique on
exterior façades was popular in the surround-
ings of Telč, the exceptional nature of the dec-
oration of the treasury lies in the use of the
sgraffito technique in the interior, which can
be found near Telč only in house no. 4563 in
Slavonice, in the Castle of Letohrad, and in the
Town Hall in Moravská Třebová.244
As for the content of the treasury, in ad-
dition to Zacharias’s famous silver throne,
which, however, might previously have been
located in the Throne Hall,245 the 1589 inven-
tory lists a large quantity of money in chests,
gold and silver which must have had the
function of a financial reserve. In the treas-
ury there were four tables: on the table on the
right there was a crucifix, a small chest with
gilded plates, a compass, a golden bezoar, a
small silver altar, above the aforementioned
small chest, there was a piece of ore or stone,
gilded into silver and with a gilded cross, on
the third table there were gilded inkpots in
a small chest with glass, a small silver bot-
tle containing water from the Jordan, and on
the fourth table, various sheets of paper scat-
tered over the table.246
The presence of objects that belonged
to the categories of naturalia and artificialia
(the golden bezoar, precious stones), scientifi-
ca (the compass), together with religious ob-
jects and curiosities (the crucifix, the small
silver altar, the small silver bottle with water
from the Jordan), lends the room the spirit of
an early-stage Kunstkammer.
243 liebenwein 2005, pp. 120–136.
244 lejsková-matyášová 1959a, pp. 402–403.
245 On the silver throne see lukášová – smolová
2018, p. 59.
246 hrdlička 1994, pp. 183–184.
| 81 |
Together with Zacharias of Hradec, Wil-
liam of Rosenberg (1535–1592) was one of the
members of the Czech nobility who accompa-
nied Maximilian II to Spain. 247 The view of the
Renaissance palaces of northern Italy must
have remained etched in William’s memory,
in particular the Palazzo del Principe Doria
in Genoa and its gardens, a substantial part
of which had already been completed at the
time of the trip. As already noticed by previ-
ous scholars, the certain similarity between
the arcade of the façade facing the sea of the
Palazzo del Principe and the western part and
gardens of the Rosenberg Palace in Hradčany
seems to confirm this impression.248
William’s interest in architectural patron-
age is also attested to by the dedication of the
seventh book on architecture of Sebastiano
Serlio – the last and most extensive – to Wil-
liam of Rosenberg by Jacopo Strada.249 Wil-
liam’s efforts were oriented toward convert-
ing a mediaeval castle like Český Krumlov to a
representative seat suited to his social status.
In accordance with Serlio’s suggestions, by en-
closing the eastern tower, William managed
to create a new residential dwelling on three
floors: the first floor was reserved for William,
the second floor for his wife, and the third floor
for what was called the fraucimor. The connec-
tion between the three floors was ensured by
a spiral staircase which functioned as a pri-
247 kroupa – jakubec 2013, pp. 40–41; pánek –
dvořáková 1989, pp. 67–83; pánek 1993, pp. 9–24.
248 muchka 2013, pp. 39–41. On the Rosenberg
Palace in Prague see kubíček 1953/1954, pp. 308–318;
krčálová 1970, pp. 469–485; muchka 1993, pp. 353–
359; pánek et al. 2011, pp. 209–217.
249 Serlio’s Seventh Book on architecture, first
published in 1575, was dedicated to William of
Rosenberg, though not by Serlio himself (he died in
1555) but by Jacopo Strada, who bought the
manuscript from Serlio. serlio 1575; salaba
1902/1903, pp. 279–280; muchka 2013, pp. 41–43.
 vate secret staircase.250 In general, the internal
structure was in accordance with Serlio’s the-
ory, which formulated a residential apartment
into the sequence of antechamber – chamber
– back chamber (“anticamera – camera – dietro
camera”).251 On the basis of the current state
of knowledge, it can only be assumed that the
back room could have been used as a private
studiolo. This architectural scheme is quite re-
current in the aristocratic residences of the
Lands of the Bohemian Crown and, as seen be-
fore, it was also used in the private apartment
of Rudolf II in Prague Castle.252 The same se-
quence of spaces is to be found in other resi-
dences of the Rosenbergs: the Kratochvíle Cha-
teau and Bechyně Castle.
As the oldest plans of the Český Krumlov
Chateau only date from 1842, after the castle
had undergone multiple reconstructions, the
inventories remain the main source of infor-
mation, in particular the one dated 14 March
1600, written by Václav Březan.253 The inven-
tory appears to be only a partial list focused
mainly on textiles, even though a few paint-
ings are also mentioned. For the most part,
Březan arbitrarily refers to different rooms
as a chamber (“pokoj”, “komora”, “světnice”),
making it difficult to distinguish their func-
tion. The inventory does not specify the ap-
plicable residential units, i.e. apartments
or groups of rooms that belonged to one
specific person. Adjectives that specify the
250 kubíková 1993, pp. 367–378.
251 muchka 2013, p. 41.
252 A similar sequence of rooms is to be found in
residences within the German territory. See hoppe
1996, pp. 383–445. For Rudolf II see the chapter
dedicated to his studiolo.
253 gross 1929, pp. 16–26; ourodová-hronková
2011, pp. 574–588. Other inventories for the years
1600–1605 are preserved in SOA Třeboň, pracoviště
Český Krumlov, Velkostatek Český Krumlov, zn. I 7 I 2,
fol. 288–317, 377, 598–522.
| 82 |
names of the rooms appear only exception-
ally, such as for the room of the Lord, “v po-
koji Jeho Mti páně”, “v komoře Jeho Mti páně”,
or “v pokoji královském, slove zlatý (in the king’s
room, [which] is named golden)”, or “v pokoji Pe-
likánovém (in the Pelican Room)”.254
Among the few paintings listed in the
inventory, the presence of nine portraits of
Roman emperors in the room above the old
fraucimor is particularly interesting. Evidently,
this room belonged to the typology of what
was called a Císařský pokoj (Imperial Room),
which recalls the typical furnishings of what
was called the Camerino or Gabinetto dei Cesa-
ri, like the one in the ducal palaces in Mantua
and in Sabbioneta.255 The Gabinetto dei Cesari
of Mantua is a small room located between
the Sala delle Teste and the Saletta dei Falconi
in the Appartamento di Troia, the complex built
between 1536 and 1539 for Duke Federico II on
the basis of a project by Giulio Romano.256 Af-
ter the duke’s death in 1540, for a few decades
the apartment continued to function as the
official seat of representation of the Gonzaga,
thus being where the most illustrious guests
were received. It is therefore not by chance
that the cycles that adorned these rooms were
aimed at paying homage to the great heroes of
Troy, to the Roman emperors, and to the major
principles of the Renaissance. The Gabinetto
dei Cesari was decorated jointly by Titian, who
painted the half-length portraits of the elev-
en Emperors (Bernardino Campi painted the
twelfth emperor in 1562), and the workshop of
254 kubíková 1993, pp. 367–378; muchka 2013,
pp. 45–47.
255 In 1585, in order to celebrate his obtaining the
distinguished Order of the Golden Fleece, Vespasiano
Gonzaga ordered Bernardino Campi to produce a
replica of Titian’s cycle of the emperors from the
Ducal Palace in Mantua.
256 On the Gabinetto dei Cesari in Mantua see in
particular koering 2012, pp. 165–194.
23 | View of the interior of the Gabinetto dei Cesari, 1536–39, Ducal Palace in Mantua.
Giulio Romano, who provided the wall decora-
tion.257 The series of drawings made by Ippoli-
to Andreasi 1567 upon the request of Jacopo
Strada restores the original appearance of
the wall decoration, whose lower part is oth-
erwise lost.258 Titian’s cycle of the emperors
gained huge renown, and was copied by many
painters; apart from Bernardino Campi, also
by Fermo Ghisoni and Aegidius Sadeler, and it
was possessed by renowned personages. One
of the copied cycles hung between the win-
dows in the Spanish Hall at Prague Castle.259
The 1600 inventory of the Český Krum-
lov Chateau was compiled during the period
of residence of William’s brother, Peter Wok
of Rosenberg (1539–1611), before the estate
was sold to Emperor Rudolf II. The following
year Peter Wok transferred his seat from Český
Krumlov to Třeboň, and shortly afterwards
commissioned the painter Tomáš Třebocho-
257 koering 2012, pp. 165–194.
258 jansen 2019, pp. 701–708.
259 zimmer 2010, pp. 7–47.
| 83 |
vský to paint a cycle of Roman emperors for the
Třeboň Chateau.260 The portraits are not pre-
served, but it is possible that both the cycle at
Český Krumlov and the one realised by Třebo-
chovský for Třeboň relied on the famous cycle
of the Gabinetto dei Cesari in Mantua, probably
through graphic patterns or on the basis of the
copies preserved at Prague Castle.261 In particu-
lar, the portraits of the emperors in the Třeboň
Chateau hung between painted columns and
illusory niches, a pictorial motif that directly
recalls the wall decoration of the Gabinetto dei
Cesari in the Ducal Palace in Mantua.262
The inventories of William of Rosen-
berg’s palace in Hradčany are more detailed.
The 1570 inventory records the presence of a
chamber with an Italian fireplace, where he
260 The commission was terminated in 1611;
kubíková 2016a, p. 35.
261 kubíková 2016a, p. 35.
262 “Item 12 romischer alten Kayser ire Contrfekt, die
daherumb zwischen der vorgmeldten Seulen und
Nytschen hancken sollen”, mareš 1896–1897, p. 654.
used to sit. 263 On the basis of this quotation,
it can be assumed that William had installed
his personal studiolo in this room. In addition,
according to the inventory, five tapestries
and a portrait of St. Jerome were kept here.264
The presence of a portrait of St. Jerome might
confirm the hypothesis that this room was
used as a private studiolo. Often represented
in his study, St. Jerome had become the sym-
bol of the attitude of introspection and re-
flection typical of the humanist scholar in his
study.265 For example, in his Politica Litteraria,
Angelo Decembrio, a humanist at the court
of Prince Leonello d’Este, expresses the ideal
arrangement of a library. He emphasises that
a portrait of St. Jerome in the desert would
have been suitable because it would have
brought solitude and silence to the library,
creating the necessary atmosphere for study
and concentration.266 The 1570 inventory of
the Rosenberg Palace in Prague continues
with the list of a Judith board and a crucifix
in the vaulted bedroom and eight tapestries
in the dining room. 267 It seems that in the fol-
lowing years William enhanced the furnish-
ings of his palace substantially. According to
the 1588 inventory, in his chamber William
had painted wardrobes, maps of Europe, Asia,
Africa, and America (“tabule mappi”) hung on
the walls, and a general map (“tabuli henerál-
ní mappa”). 268 Globes and maps traditionally
constituted the typical equipment of a stu-
diolo. In the estudes of Charles V there were
263 krčálová 1970, p. 479; SOA Třeboň, II. 217 A 4.
264 krčálová 1970, p. 479; SOA Třeboň, II. 217 A 4.
265 See St. Jerome in his Study by Jan Van Eyck, the
version located in the Medici studiolo, liebenwein
2005, p. 225.
266 liebenwein 2005, pp. 104–105; baxandall
1963, pp. 304–326.
267 krčálová 1970, p. 479; SOA Třeboň, II.217 A 4.
268 krčálová 1970, p. 479, SOA Třeboň, II.217 A 4.
| 84 |
mappa mundi and in what was called the scrit-
toio of Cosimo and Lorenzo de’ Medici there
were also globes and geographical maps. 269
Similar equipment was also recommended
in libraries and guardarobas. In the Convivi-
um religiosum (1523–24) Erasmus defines
the residence of a cultured man, where at
the centre of the library there was a globe,
while on the walls there were depicted geo-
graphical maps, as well as a series of portraits
of famous authors and the figure of Christ.270
Adjacent to the library was the location for
a studiolo, which Erasmus refers to as a Mu-
seion. 271 Geographical maps are painted on
the wardrobes of the Sala della Guardaroba
in the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence, which
contained “le più importanti cose e di pregio
e di bellezza (the most important things of val-
ue and beauty)” of Duke Cosimo de’ Medici.
This space was understood as a microcosm,
a metaphor for the macrocosm and a key
to knowledge represented by cosmography,
cartography, and the variety of the world as
summed up by the objects contained in the
wardrobes. 272
Next to the chamber, in William’s back
room (“ve svém zadním pokoji”) there were
two small woven carpets with emblems, a
green chest with a coat of arms, ten painted
wardrobes, and a small silver plate “Crucis
Christi”, perhaps a relief. In the second vault-
ed space behind this chamber, there was a ta-
ble, with Reliquiae inside of it, and a woven
269 liebenwein 2005, pp. 55, 105.
270 von rotterdam 1967, p. 118; liebenwein 2005,
p. 272 note 14; wackernagel 1951/1952, pp. 174–182.
271 Erasmus may have taken inspiration from the
houses he visited at Anderlecht, near Brussels, or the
house of Jerome de Busleyden in Mechelen.
liebenwein 2005, p. 272 note 14.
272 On the Sala della Guardaroba in the Palazzo
Vecchio in Florence see in particular cecchi – pacetti
2008, with references to older literature.
portrait of a certain pope. In his second back
room, furnished with red and yellow damask
tapestries, there were three panel paintings
made using oil paints. 273 These rooms evi-
dently constituted a sequence of strictly pri-
vate spaces, comprising an oratory and, given
the presence of painted wardrobes, probably
a studiolo and a library. The wardrobes prob-
ably contained books, as well as prints and
small objets d’art. William’s interest in books,
old coins, and antiques is testified to by his
relationship with Jacopo Strada, who, when
forced to sell his famous library because of
financial constraints, first turned to William
of Rosenberg as a possible buyer. In a letter
of 18 December 1573 mentioning that Stra-
da had recently seen William in Prague, he
offers his library to him, referring to him “as
my gracious Lord and patron”. 274 Strada tells
Rosenberg that he will give him a better
price than others “because of your longstand-
ing patronage and the daily favours your grace
grants me”.275 It may well be that Strada had
provided Rosenberg with books, prints, and
drawings and other collectibles such as au-
thentic original coins or one or more of his
albums of numismatic drawings. The Prague
copy of Strada’s A.A.A. Numismatωn Antiquo-
rum Διασκευέ may originate from the Rosen-
berg library.276 For certain, Rosenberg owned
a drawing of the complete relief of Trajan’s
Column in Rome, which Strada had sold to
Rosenberg before. 277 In 1573, Strada again
turned to Rosenberg, asking if he could bor-
273 krčálová 1970, p. 479; SOA Třeboň, II.217 A 4.
274 Quoted from jansen 2019, p. 521, note 8.
275 Quoted from jansen 2019, pp. 521–522.
276 It is likely that Strada had also provided William
of Rosenberg with either a selection of authentic
original coins or one or more of his albums of
numismatic drawings. jansen 2019, pp. 520–523.
277 jansen 2019, pp. 520–523, 684–692.
| 85 |
row the drawing of Trajan’s column that he
had previously given him, and which he now
needed to trace for some of his work.278
The correspondence between Strada and
Rosenberg about these objects testifies to
the cultural and artistic interests of William,
and supports the possibility of the presence
of a space – such as a studiolo – especially ded-
icated to housing them.
With the progressive assimilation of the
Spanish-Burgundian model into the interior
architecture of aristocratic residences, the
studiolo also found its place in the codified se-
quence of antechambers and private cham-
bers in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown.
According to the ceremonial Span-
ish-Burgundian hierarchy, selected guests
and courtiers could have access to the pri-
vate chamber of the lord, king, or emperor
through an enfilade of one or two antecham-
bers. From no later than the end of the fif-
teenth century, the principle of a sequence
of rooms situated in an enfilade was applied
to almost every aristocratic dwelling in Cen-
tral Europe.279
After the second half of the sixteenth
century, in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown
too the nobility adopted the new type of ar-
rangement of the living quarters. The im-
pulse toward the modernisation of interiors
was certainly one of the consequences of the
aristocratic fashions that young Bohemian
and Moravian noblemen adopted, especially
from southern and western Europe, but also
in the vicinity of the residences of the ruling
Habsburg family in Vienna and Prague.280
When Ferdinand I moved to Vienna in
1533, the transformation of the Hofburg be-
gan immediately and included representative
278 jansen 2019, pp. 520–523.
279 hoppe 2000, pp. 151–154; hoppe 1996, pp. 365–412.
280 polleross 1998, pp. 91–148.
spaces consisting of a hall, an antechamber,
and an audience room furnished with wood
panelling and coffered ceilings, including
paintings by Pietro Ferrabosco, tapestries,
landscapes, and, above all, portraits. 281 Af-
ter first settling at Prague Castle, Rudolf II re-
quested a sequence of representative rooms,
antechambers, and chambers to be installed
in the south wing of the castle. A Bodyguards’
Hall, a Knight’s Hall, two antechambers, and
the Audience Hall were followed by the em-
peror’s private quarters, comprising a bed-
chamber and a studiolo.282
Members of the aristocratic elite close
to the Habsburgs, pushed by the principle of
emulation, inevitably adopted the new lay-
out when the time came to undertake the
renovation of their estates. The first floor of
an aristocratic dwelling was normally occu-
pied by the living quarters of the lord, usually
composed of one or two antechambers fol-
lowed by an audience hall and a bedcham-
ber. The lord’s bedchamber had a number of
other functions. It was not a private space in
the present-day meaning of the word. It was
also a reception room, although the circle of
people who could enter it was limited and so-
cially hierarchised. Therefore, it in fact also
served as a social and living room. It was pre-
dominantly a room of great representation,
and it was furnished and decorated accord-
ingly.283 The bedroom was often connected to
a studiolo, characterised by a highly symbolic
and personal decoration, which could be used
as a writing room where, along with objects
281 polleross 1998, pp. 96–97, 104–106; thomas
1993, pp. 101–117.
282 muchka 1989–1990, pp. 95–98; uličný 2017a,
pp. 386–390; hoppe 1996, pp. 365–450; polleross
1998, pp. 104–108.
283 lukášová 2015, pp. 24–28; kubeš 2005a,
pp. 183–217.
| 86 |
for writing, precious items, artworks, and cu-
riosities could also be stored.284
In Jindřichův Hradec Castle, the main
seat of Adam II of Hradec (1549–1596), High-
est Burgrave of Prague and chancellor of Ru-
dolf II, the first floor of what is called Adam’s
wing houses an enfilade of rooms constitut-
ed by two anterooms, the last of which pro-
vides access to both the audience room and
Adam’s bedchamber. 285 It was only from the
bedchamber that Adam could access a small
room, his studiolo, furnished with a chimney.
These series of rooms (antechambers, bed-
chamber, studiolo) were called Green Cham-
bers, and Adam II had the murals adorning
their walls modelled on Dutch themes by
the cabinet maker Oldřich Dechsner from
Krumlov and the painters Raimund Paul,
Jiří Widmann, and Lorenc Ellyr from around
1584. 286 In Adam’s studiolo the coffered ceil-
ing is divided into two parts by rectangular
forms, within which Raimund Paul painted
two ovals with the figures of Mars and Jupi-
ter. Mars, the god of war and legendary fa-
ther of Romulus and Remus, the founders
of Rome, is wearing a suit of armour and sits
on a cloud surrounded by weapons, while Ju-
piter, the supreme god of the Pantheon, sits
astride an eagle and holds thunderbolts and
lightning flashes. The two compositions are
taken from the series of prints named Septem
Planetæ, produced by Adriaen Collaert on the
basis of a model by Maarten de Vos and pub-
lished by Gerard de Jode (1581). 287 The rep-
resentation of the gods as symbols of power
284 lukášová 2015, pp. 24–28, kubeš 2005a
pp. 183–217.
285 The bedchamber had a door that provided
direct access to the audience room, today walled up.
hrdlička 1998, pp. 127–144; novák 1901, pp. 71–77.
286 krčálová 1989a, pp. 70–71; krčálová 1986, p. 55.
287 krčálová 1986, p. 55.
24 | View of the studiolo of Adam II of Hradec, around 1584, Jindřichův Hradec Castle.
and supremacy attests to the ruler’s mili-
tary prowess and political consciousness. 288
Even though the furnishing of this room is not
known, the presence of a chimney, its prox-
imity to the bedroom, and the ceiling deco-
ration enable one to define this space as an
authentic studiolo.
The same sequence of spaces – ante-
chamber, bedchamber, studiolo – is to be
found on the first floor on the east wing in the
Kratochvíle Chateau, the summer residence
of William of Rosenberg, built between 1583
and 1589 and inherited by his younger broth-
er Peter Wok in 1592.289 The antechamber is
288 müller 1998, p. 95.
289 On the Kratochvíle Chateau see krčálová 1986,
pp. 31–39; hajná – havlová – troup et al. 2015;
jakubec 2012, pp. 98–119; bůžek – jakubec 2012.
| 87 |
decorated with stucco reliefs by Antonio Mel-
ana with tales from Roman history and var-
ious Antique and Christian themes. It is fol-
lowed by the bedchamber decorated with
stucco reliefs based on Titus Livy’s History of
Rome.290 From the bedchamber a door opens
into a small vaulted room, which had the
function of a private studiolo. Today the stuc-
co profiles are the only remains of an original
decoration that, like the adjacent bedcham-
ber, might have been constituted by an elab-
orate stucco decoration. The relics of a lav-
atory are still preserved in the niche in one
of the walls of the room. An auxiliary spiral
290 On the decoration of this room see lejsková-
matyášová 1963, pp. 360–370. On the importance of
ancient motifs in Rosenberg’s residences see
kindlmann 2010; kindlmann 2013.
25 | Detail of the ceiling with Mars and Jupiter, Studiolo of Adam II of Hradec, 1584, Jindřichův Hradec Castle.

staircase led from the studiolo to the ground
floor and to the attic, where the female living
quarters were located. The presence of a lav-
atory and a secret service staircase that pro-
vided the lord with an exit from the building
and to the various floors of the castle without
being seen further testify to the function of
the room as a private studiolo.291
The 1601 inventory of Kratochvíle Chateau
registers only the essential furnishings of the
rooms.292 In the bedchamber, apart from beds,
tables, and chairs, the most curious object
listed is a peacock feather fan. In the adjacent
vaulted room (the studiolo) the 1601 invento-
ry lists a table, a green velvet throne, a green
throne, and a green chair. 293 The predomi-

291 liebenwein 2005, p. 250; this was the case of 292 See stejskal 2004.
the Tesoretto of Cosimo I Medici and many other 293 “V pokoji Jeho Mi/losti/ páně: tabulky 3, sesle
examples in Renaissance Italy. červené soukenné 2, sesle černá kožená 1, sesle černého

| 88 |
nance of the colour green in the furnishings
might explain the appellation of this room as
a Green Chamber in the post-Rosenberg in-
ventories. The inventories from the time of
the last Rosenberg very rarely list paintings,
precious objects, tapestries, or textiles. These
precious and costly decorations might have
been recorded in separate inventories, or they
may have been transported to the Kratochvíle
Chateau before the arrival of the lord and his
guests. Kratochvíle, which was created as a
hunting lodge and a resting place, was always
used for short stays only, and consequently
most of the inventories reflect the state of
a chateau equipped with the most essential
furniture.294
To a certain degree, what is called the
Small Golden Room located on the first floor
in the Kratochvíle Chateau might also be in-
terpreted as a studiolo. Like the majority of
studioli, it is a room of small dimensions, and
is located next to what is called William of
Rosenberg’s bedchamber. Like the following
Golden Room – the great dining hall of the
chateau – the decoration of the Small Golden
Room is rich in gold.295 According to the 1601
inventory, it contained a locker, high glasses
with lids, chairs and stools, a backgammon set
with bone inlay, eleven earthen bowls with
powders, a Turkish carpet, covers on the ta-
ble made of green cloth and black samite and
with red stripes.296 The exclusivity of this room
was augmented by gilded locks and hinges on
the doors, as recorded in the inventory of 1608,
jaksamitu /sic!/ 1, voháňka pávová bílá 1, ve sklípku
tabulka 1, stolice zeleného aksamitu 1, stolice zelená
soukenná 1, stolička zelená 1, sklenice na vodu s
pouzdrem 1, trouba dlouhá dřevěná 1” stejskal 2004,
without pagination.
294 jakubec 2012, pp. 98–119.
295 bláha – čech – krhánková et al. 2007.
296 stejskal 2004.
| 89 |
and a gilded cupboard, locked in the wall.297
The decoration was created in several phases.
The paintings on the vault and lunettes by Jiří
Widmann and his assistants represent scenes
from the cycle of the Power of Women over Men,
which is reminiscent of the traditional deco-
ration of Green Chambers. The model for the
cycle was the woodcuts by Raphael Sadeler
from 1589, based on drawings by Joose van
Winge. Illustrations by Johann Bocksberg
the Younger and Jost Amman, which appear
in the Frankfurt Bible, were used for the re-
maining four paintings of the Samson cycle.298
According to the decoration and the furnish-
ings, the Small Golden Room seems to have
been a space for rest and unofficial meetings,
where precious objects and small artworks,
along with table games, contributed to the
amusement and entertainment of the Lord
and selected guests. Evidently, this room was
a place of intellectual and aesthetic entertain-
ment, in accordance with the use of the cha-
teau as a resting residence in the countryside,
a space certainly less private than the studiolo
in the east wing.
In the castle of Bechyně, which also
belonged to the Rosenbergs, Peter Wok of
Rosenberg started his bibliophile interests
and had a private studiolo installed.299 Specif-
ic information about Peter Wok’s library is pro-
vided by the list of books from December 1573,
containing 243 volumes.300 Nevertheless, it is
not clear if any room specifically built as a li-
brary was actually present in the castle.301 It is
297 stejskal 2004.
298 lejsková-matyášová 1963, pp. 360–370.
299 On the castle of Bechyně see krčálová 1986,
pp. 24–30.
300 The list is preserved in SOA Třeboň – z Rožmberka,
20 fol. 72r., 76r. On the library of Peter Wok of Rosenberg
see veselá 2005, pp. 73–74.
301 veselá 2005, p. 74.
26 | View of the so-called Small Golden Room, end of the 16th century, Kratochvíle Chateau.

| 90 |
certain that a studiolo was located on the first
floor of the north wing of the castle next to the
bedchamber. Today the two rooms are named
the Armoury and the Judge’s Room.
What is called the Armoury is a square
room with a slightly irregular ground plan
of approximately 10 × 10 metres. 302 The cof-
fered wooden ceiling was only added by the
new owner, Adam of Sternberg, after the sale
of the castle in 1600.303 It is divided into reg-
ular and complex geometric shapes, deco-
rated with five allegorical figures probably
representing virtues. 304 The square coffers
are in turn surrounded by regular geomet-
ric shapes containing floral and zoomorphic
decorations. The space between the square
coffers is occupied by four large octagonal
coffers containing the four evangelists, de-
rived from graphic prints by the Antwerp
engraver Philippe Gallo, based on Anthoine
Blocklandt’s drawings. 305 Square and elon-
gated hexagonal coffers decorated with or-
namental leaves, animals, centaurs, and
human half-bodies surround the octagonal
coffers. It is only from this room, which was in
302 The work on the coffered ceiling, according to
preserved reports by Burgrave Jan Benýdek, was
started by Bartoloměj Beránek-Jelínek in 1600. Ac-
cording to Jarmila Krčálová, the author of the ceiling
might be identified instead as Raimund Paul, who
worked on the decoration of the castles in Telč and
Jindřichův Hradec. The proof is provided by a compar-
ison of the depiction of the Bechyně evangelists and
the ancient gods Jupiter and Mars depicted in Adam’s
studiolo in Jindřichův Hradec Castle, and the analogy
with Hercules on the coffered ceiling of the Marble
Hall at Telč Castle, where Paul worked for Zacharias
of Hradec. krčálová 1963, pp. 27–29.
303 lejsková-matyášová 1962, pp. 111–112;
krčálová 1963, pp. 29–45.
304 Jarmila Krčálová’s hypothesis is that they are
rather beauties. krčálová 1963, pp. 27–29.
305 lejsková-matyášová 1962, pp. 111–112;
krčálová 1963, pp. 29–45; pechová – zbíralová
1956, p. 215.
| 91 |
all probability Peter Wok’s bedroom, that it is
possible to access a small rectangular room
of 5.5 × 4.5 metres, whose vaulted ceiling is
entirely covered by stucco decoration. 306 The
ceiling is attributed to Antonio Melana or one
of his helpers. In all probability this room had
the function of a private studiolo because of
the small dimensions and iconographic pro-
gramme of the decoration. 307 In addition, a
fireplace and a corridor that once led down
to the cellars and the prison and might have
been used as a service walkway are still pre-
served in the room.308 As already seen in the
preceding examples, these are also typical
features of studioli, underlining the private
and functional character of the space where
the lord spent a long time sitting (hence the
presence of the fireplace), and from where he
could reach the other parts of the dwelling
easily and unseen.
The main motif of the stucco decoration
in the vault of Wok’s studiolo is the memento
mori, while the eight lunettes present the sub-
ject of the victory of the virtues over vices.309
306 lejsková-matyášová 1973, pp. 1–17; krčálová
1963, pp. 29–45; stejskal – pouzar 1998, p. 39.
307 Milada Lejsková-Matyášová claims that what
was called the Armoury was Peter Wok’s studiolo,
while the smaller adjacent room served as his bed-
room. However, because of the small size and the
memento mori depicted in the Judge’s Room, this
room was more probably the studiolo. The same
arrangement was also applied in the Kratochvíle
Chateau, where the largest room was used as a bed-
room and the smaller adjacent room as a studiolo. As
in the Kratochvíle Chateau, in Bechyně Castle too the
studiolo was provided with a service staircase which
led to the other floors of the castle.
308 chleborád 1928, p. 166.
309 The memento mori in Peter Wok’s bedroom was
set in a wider context by Ondřej Jakubec, who noticed a
motif with a man on a boat taken from the Antialkorán
by Václav Budovec, with whom Peter Wok had a close
friendship. rejchrtová 1989, pp. 324–327; jakubec
2011, pp. 245–246; kindlmann 2013, pp. 139–140.
The inspiration for the stucco reliefs was the
copper engravings by Pierre de Bouzey (1563),
which were used in the book by Georgette
de Montenay entitled Emblematum Chris-
tianorum Centuria.310 The book was published
in Lyon in 1571, and Peter Wok bought a copy
for his library.311 The subject chosen for Peter
Wok’s studiolo is linked to the traditional sym-
bolism of the studioli, in which the theme of
Time played an important role in the furnish-
ing and decoration of these very private spac-
es.312 From the time of its origin, the studiolo
was a place to meditate on the transience of
the world, where a man could become aware
of everything and in particular of himself, al-
ways having the memento mori before his eyes.
This concept had been developed by Petrarch
in De Vita Solitaria.313 Peter Wok knew the con-
cepts expressed by Petrarch, of which he pos-
sessed a Czech translation from 1501 among
his book collection in the castle of Bechyně. 314
The emblem Victrix casta fides represented on
the ceiling of Wok’s studiolo, is not to be found
in the illustration of Montenay’s book, but it
could be linked to Petrarch. According to tra-
dition, the symbol representing laurel leaves
and a cross with the emblem Victrix casta fides
was engraved on the tomb of Laura, Petrarch’s
famous beloved.315
Memento mori and Cogita aeternitatem
were the mottos of the Rosenberg Order.
When Peter Wok died on 6 November 1611,
310 adams 2001, pp. 17–28; kleisner 2007, pp. 125–
131; lejsková-matyášová 1973, pp. 1–17; kindlmann
2013, pp. 138–140.
311 pánek 1985, pp. 479–480.
312 liebenwein 2005, pp. 58–62; quinones 1972, p. 106.
313 martellotti 1955, p. 356; liebenwein 2005,
pp. 25, 58–62.
314 veselá 2005, p. 76.
315 vrbová 2013, pp. 31–32; biografia 1828, vol. 41,
p. 129.
| 92 |
his heir Johann Georg of Švamberk (1548–
1617) fulfilled Peter’s wish for a memorable
and princely funeral. The funeral sermon was
based on the two mottos, and contains im-
portant information that might be read as a
possible indication of the furnishing of Peter
Wok’s studiolo, who at that time had trans-
ferred his residence in the chateau of Třeboň:
“[…] and let it be known that he was a master who
led a wise, cautious, and Christian life, and bore
death constantly in mind, that he always had a
skull on a shelf especially hung above the desk
in his room, and that he founded the Order of
the Skull, whose insignia was a golden skull of
8 ducats which he wore around his neck with the
inscription ‘Memento mori!’ (Remember death!)
on one side and ‘Cogita aeternitatem!’ (Contem-
plate eternity!) on the other”.316 The presence
of the skull on a shelf hung above Peter Wok’s
desk is connected to the concept of tempo-
rality, recalling the tradition of the studiolo
and its visual representations as in the case
of the many versions of St. Jerome in his study,
where the saint is often depicted contemplat-
ing a skull in a meditatio mortis stance.317
The proximity of the bedchamber and
studiolo is also to be found in the Lobkowicz
Palace, today the Schwarzenberg Palace, at
Hradčany. It was probably Christopher Popel
the Younger of Lobkowicz (1549–1609), High
Chamberlain and Chief Steward (Nejvyšší
hofmistr in Czech) of Bohemia, a member of
the innermost circle of Rudolf II, who initi-
ated the creation of the ceiling decoration
based on mythological themes of the rooms
316 březan 1985, p. 640; translated text quoted
from kleisner – holečková 2006, pp. 62–63.
317 See, for example, the representations of St.
Jerome in his study by Dürer: Albrecht Dürer, St Jero-
me in his study, engraving, Berlin, Kupfersichkabinett
or Albrecht Dürer, St. Jerome in his study, drawing,
Lisbon, National Museum of Ancient Art. liebenwein
2005, pp. XXII, XXIV.
27 | View of the coffered wooden ceiling in the so-called Armoury (bedchamber?), around 1600, Bechyně
Castle, photo: Panství Bechyně s.r.o., Alice Fornasiero 2020.
and halls on the second floor of the palace
dated around 1584. 318 The lord’s suite was
located in the north wing. In the lord’s bed-
chamber – decorated with ceiling paintings
representing Jupiter and Juno and equipped
with a fireplace – two side doors provide ac-
cess respectively to a room for servants and
to a vaulted room with remnants of decora-
tive wall paintings depicting fruit garlands.319
318 On the Schwarzenberg Palace see in particular
winzeler 2018, pp. 60–64, 112–143 (with references to
older literature); henslová 2011. When in Prague, he
resided in what was then the Lobkowicz Palace and is
now the Schwarzenberg Palace, which in 1590 he was
forced to sell for financial reasons to his distant relative,
Georg Popel of Lobkowicz. Two years later he bought
another house at Hradčany, where the Sternberg Pal-
ace stands today. tůmová 2014, pp. 79–91.
319 winzeler 2018, p. 121.
| 93 |
This vaulted room might have been used as
the studiolo of Christopher Popel the Young-
er of Lobkowicz. The possibility cannot be
excluded that the studiolo also featured a
mythological decoration, which has since
been lost. The furnishing of Christopher’s
studiolo is not known. Christopher’s patron-
age activity is evidenced in his diaries from
1602–1604, which contain notes he wrote on
printed calendars, where, alongside remarks
about his usual daily programme, there are
interesting reports about works of art he
commissioned. 320 He frequently commis-
sioned jewellery, gold cufflinks, small altars,
crucifixes, various silver objects, paintings,
320 Lobkowicz Library, Nelahozeves Castle, sign.
RLK VII Ad 119; chlíbec 2002, pp. 40−44; tůmová
2014, with the translation of the diary.
28 | View of the stucco decoration of the vault in the so-called Judge’s Room (Studiolo?), around 1600, Bechyně
Castle, photo: Panství Bechyně s.r.o., Alice Fornasiero 2020.

and other valuable objects from artists be-
longing to the court, such as the goldsmith
Herzog van Bein. 321 In 1604 Bartholomeus
Spranger gave him a painting of St. Jerome,
and in 1608 Hans von Aachen created the
painting Bacchus and Silenus, in which the
artist portrayed Christopher as Bacchus and
himself as Silenus. The portrait of Christo-
pher from the Lobkowicz Collections was
also by Hans von Aachen. 322 In 1607 Aegid-
ius Sadeler dedicated a print depicting the
Vladislav Hall in Prague Castle to Christo-
pher, denoting his activity as a patron in the
field of graphic prints too. 323 Christopher
321 chlíbec 2002, p. 41; tůmová 2014, p. 86.
322 kubíková 2016b, pp. 7–15.
323 limouze 1990, p. 178; volrábová – kubíková
2012, pp. 54–55, cat. no. II/15.
was also interested in valuable timepiec-
es. One of his watches was in the shape of
a ring and was inlaid with diamonds. 324 He
also owned watches with a dead man’s head.
He was also interested in mechanical instru-
ments, which he purchased from the court
mechanic Erasmus Habernel. In a note from
5 April 1602, there is an interesting mention
of an instrument that originally belonged to
Tycho Brahe. 325 Some of these precious ob-
jects and paintings might have been located
in his studiolo.
At the turn of the sixteenth century the
studiolo continues as a presence in aristo-
cratic dwellings as a legacy of the tradition,
as part of the conventional layout of a no-
324 tůmová 2014, p. 89.
325 chlíbec 2002, p. 42.

| 94 |
bleman’s apartment. The pure introspection
which characterised the studiolo as a place
of the mind leaves space for a turn towards
a more ʻpublicʼ and representative use of the
spaces for the collection. The objects in the
studiolo – as an image of the owner’s interests
and culture for his exclusive use – began to
be offered for the view, the enjoyment, and
therefore the evaluation of visitors, thus ac-
quiring a representative function.
On 26 July 1600 Pierre Bergeron, accom-
panying the French ambassador on a visit to
the Spanish ambassador Don Guillén de San
Clemente, mentioned that “when we eventu-
ally left the dining table, we passed through sev-
eral antechambers in order to enter the cabinet
of the lord of the house, following the local cus-
tom. There were two tables of Augsburg prove-
nance, all covered with silver plates forged and
hammered into a relief”.326 The day after, at the
Trautson Palace, Bergeron commented that
after dining “we moved to the cabinet, where
there were six pieces of furniture of German
326 fučíková 1989, p. 57, note 75.
| 95 |
provenance, decorated with silver rather than
with inlaying. Furthermore, we saw several
marvellous paintings there […]”.327 At this point
the studiolo, with the concepts it embodied,
went into decline and was replaced by other
spaces, cabinets of curiosities and galleries.
On the one hand, the affirmation of the
interest in naturalia, artificialia, and scientifi-
ca finds its home rather in the Kunstkammern,
where objects were arranged according to the
criteria of their cataloguing. The research
character of the Kunstkammer updated the
humanistic culture of the studiolo towards
a scientific and rational culture, in step with
the times. On the other hand, because of the
subsequent extension of the collection and of
the spaces dedicated to it, galleries and halls
acquired public and representative functions,
fulfilled in particular by the presence of por-
traits of ancestors and emperors serving as
an example and occasion for pride and glory.
| Alice Fornasiero |
327 fučíková 1989, pp. 57–59.
III | The treasury
From the time of ancient Greece, the temple
housed the treasure of the community and
in it, alongside relics and bones of venerat-
ed heroes, which were often kept in precious
chests, historical mementos such as weap-
ons and trophies were kept. In the treasury
of the Greek temples, there were also pre-
served rare natural objects, bones of prehis-
toric animals considered to be giants’ bones,
ostrich eggs, coconuts, wild animals from
faraway lands, and ethnographic curiosities.1
Pliny mentions a whole series of objects be-
longing to Greek sanctuaries which are clas-
sifiable in the category of artificialia, those
that would later be found in the Kunst und
Wunderkammer, such as magic mirrors, rare
musical or surgical instruments, or artefacts
whose value was determined by their elabo-
rate artificial and artistic aspects.2
As with the temple for the Greeks, for the
Christians the church became the centre of
the spiritual life of the community. Trophies
stolen by merchants and sailors during sea
voyages found a place in the treasury of the
basilica of St. Mark in Venice, while during the
times of the Crusades, the treasury was fur-
ther enriched with all sorts of wonders from
the East.3
1 schlosser 2000, p. 15. (first German edition:
schlosser 1908)
2 schlosser 2000 p. 19; friedländer 1889, vol. II,
p. 179.
3 schlosser 2000, pp. 23–32.
<
29 | Albrecht Dürer, Detail from the Triumphal Arch print representing the Imperial Treasury of Maximilian I,
1517–1518, woodcut, Brunswick, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum.
| 97 |
Unicorn horns, in reality narwhal tusks,
often found a place of honour in churches,
as well as in princely treasuries. An ancient
specimen of a ʻunicorn hornʼ was passed from
the treasury of the Dukes of Burgundy to the
imperial treasury of Vienna, becoming part of
the inalienable possessions of the House of
Habsburg. 4 Precious stones and hardstones
were considered particularly valuable be-
cause of their purported protective power
against poisoning, and as antidotes against
diseases of various kinds.5 A similar power
was attributed to bezoars or the horns of rhi-
noceroses. Furthermore, rare naturalia, such
as pieces of coral, coconuts, or ostrich eggs,
also counted as transcendental objects. The
mystical character of these exotic marvels of
nature caused them also to be viewed as apo-
tropaic, universal remedies against poisons
and diseases.6 Fossils and animal bones took
on legendary meanings, such as the whale
bones in the church of Fontegiusta in Siena, or
the whale’s jaw which hung in the cathedral
of Arezzo until the nineteenth century.7 Also
preserved in the treasuries of churches were
secular treasures such as caskets with jew-
4 schlosser 2000, pp. 28–29; kaufmann 1994,
pp. 136–154.
5 koeppe 2008, p. 5; guiffres 1894–1896, vol. I,
pp. CXXII–CXXIII.
6 minges 1998, pp. 11–15; cordez 2015, pp. 121–130.
7 schlosser 2000, p. 30.
 els, toiletries, and even gaming tables.8 Most
of these mirabilia seem to have been placed
in a conspicuous position or kept in the trea-
sury cupboards, and they were often mount-
ed in gold and silver. It can be said that me-
diaeval treasuries prepared the way for the
Kunstkammer.9 Although access to the trea-
suries of the Hellenic temples and mediaeval
churches was granted to the community, and
the objects were preserved in a scattered way
beneath the divinity, they can be considered
precursors of the later Kunstkammer.10
In Mediaeval Latin, the word thesaurus
is used to indicate a collection of books and
artworks. Romanesque sources talk of trea-
sure as a body of material goods belonging
to a church. In the thirteenth century the
term indicates the inalienable assets of a
church, such as sacred vessels, liturgical or-
naments, and precious objects, particularly
reliquaries. From the thirteenth century on
and throughout the following century, the-
saurus meant, above all, a special room – the
treasury, Schatz or Schatzkammer in German
– usually separated from the sanctuary, where
precious objects were kept.11
The treasuries of churches and monas-
teries consisted of a set of objects for church
services made of expensive materials, includ-
ing consecrated and non-consecrated liturgi-
cal vessels and textiles, images and objects
related to the cult, and occasionally some
items of miraculous, mystical, or legendary
origin. The most precious part of an eccle-
siastical treasury was the relics, whose rel-
iquaries were made of precious metals and
8 schlosser 2000, p 31.
9 schlosser 2000, pp. 34–35; mariaux 2006,
pp. 214–232.
10 schlosser 2000, pp. 34–35; mariaux 2006,
pp. 214–232.
11 mariaux 2006, p. 214.
| 98 |
enriched with precious stones, and towards
the fourteenth century also images. The rel-
ics were a source of prestige and power for
the community. Their alleged properties
ranged from healing the sick to helping with
daily needs and giving protection. In the po-
litical sphere they were handled, shown, giv-
en as gifts, carried in processions, or taken
into battle to ensure protection.12 Church
treasuries performed a variety of functions,
the most important of which was their role
in liturgy and piety. They also embodied the
collective memory13 and represented the rul-
er’s status symbols, promoting his social posi-
tion.14 Among the most important examples,
the Abbey of St. Denis near Paris, completed
in 1144, was closely connected with the ruling
dynasty of the Capetians. It was not only the
burial place of the French kings, but also host-
ed an important treasury enriched in particu-
lar by Abbot Suger. 15 His statement that “the
spirit rises through rare material things” later
became a kind of ideology of the clergy. 16
The Sainte-Chapelle or Holy Chapel in
Paris, built some time after 1238 in the court-
yard of the royal palace on the Île de la Cité,
was conceived to house Louis IX’s collection
of relics of Christ, which included the crown of
thorns and other important treasures.17
In the Czech Kingdom similar places ex-
isted at least from the tenth century, when
donations were made to the churches and
monasteries under the patronage of the Pře-
12 horníčková 2009, p. 11.
13 marin 1993, p. 20.
14 le goff 2005, p. 646.
15 On the Abbey of St. Denis see in particular:
bruzelius 1985. On the treasury see inglis 2016,
pp. 14–42. On Abbot Suger see also: rudolph 1990.
16 eco 1986, pp. 10–13, 67–68.
17 cohen 2015, with references to older literature;
fricke 2011, pp. 34–55.
myslids.18 The main church treasuries were in
Prague: St. Vitus’ Cathedral and the Basilica
of St. Peter and St. Paul in Vyšehrad.
The Gumpold legend of St. Wenceslas
mentions the bringing of the relics of St. Vi-
tus to Prague by St. Wenceslas and the dec-
oration of the interior of the first church of St.
Vitus with precious metals.19 The two earliest
preserved collections of relics in the St. Vitus
treasury – the relics of St. Wenceslas and St.
Adalbert – date back to the tenth or eleventh
centuries.20
In 1039, Břetislav I Přemyslid (1002/1005–
1055) took the body of St. Adalbert to Bohe-
mia, while in the twelfth century, Vladislav II
and his son Bedřich donated relics and trea-
suries from their war booty.21
Soběslav II (1128–1180) endowed the trea-
sury at the Vyšehrad Chapter with rare books
and vessels. 22 Donations from King Wenc-
eslas II (1271–1305) considerably enriched
the treasury of the Cistercian monastery in
Zbraslav, providing a golden cross decorated
with gems, many gold and silver reliquaries,
a whole set of silver liturgical vessels, and
chalices.23
During the tenth century, the monaster-
ies of the Benedictine monks also developed
as the most powerful and richest institutions
of their time, becoming the natural centres of
culture and art. Representative personalities
of monasteries such the Abbot of Břevnov,
18 hlaváček 1966, pp. 63–64.
19 horníčková 2009, p. 62; podlaha – šittler
1903, p. 4.
20 See the oldest inventory of the St. Vitus
treasury from 1354; podlaha – šittler 1903, IV, V.
21 podlaha – šittler 1903, p. 5; pešina
z čechorodu, p. 40.
22 rokyta – skřivánek 1990, pp. 62–63. For more
on the Vyšehrad treasury see stehlíková 2001,
pp. 193–208.
23 žitavský 1873–1932, vol. 4, pp. 90, 133.
| 99 |
Bavor of Nečtiny, ordered works of art of the
highest quality and value, in terms of both the
use of precious materials and the virtuosity of
the craftsmanship. These items, whose main
function was liturgical, were therefore kept
in the monastic treasuries.24
Representatives of the church were
not the only passionate collectors of relics.
Among laymen, the oldest private collection
of relics in Prague was owned by a lawyer An-
drea, whose inventory includes a description
of their origin and dates back to 1327: “Testi-
monium de reliquiis sanctorum ab Andrea ju-
risperito de Praga collectis”.25
Certainly, the most active collector was
Charles IV, whose collecting activity was
strongly influenced by the cult of relics. 26
Like the majority of his contemporaries, he
believed in their supernatural power. In addi-
tion, for Charles IV relics acquired the status
of symbols of the legitimacy of his power, and
they represented an expression of his dynas-
tic policies.27 Charles’s relics were offered for
public veneration, using a language of public
ritual of display that corresponded with his
political aim of augmenting the authority of
government through the possession and de-
votion of relics.
In 1333 Charles returned to Bohemia
from France. He probably still had the French
model in mind when he established the pal-
ace chapel of All Saints in 1339 and rebuilt it
on the model of the Sainte Chapelle in both
form and content, possibly to house his col-
24 klípa 2014, pp. 256–281.
25 Regesta diplomatica nec non epistolaris bohemiae
et moraviae, (RBM), 1890, vol. III (1311–1333) reg. no.
1722, pp. 672–674.
26 On the relation of Charles IV with relics and
their use and collecting see in particular: kuthan
2015, pp. 23–46; schmid 2009, pp. 431–464; otavský
2003, pp. 129–141.
27 elsner 1997, p. 127; horníčková 2009, pp. 78–80.
lection of relics. 28 During Charles’s journey
to Germany and Italy in the years 1353–1355,
he sent relics that he collected all over the
territories. He endowed the treasury of St.
Vitus with a large shipment of relics and do-
nated relics to chapter and monastic trea-
suries across Bohemia. He obtained the rest
of the body of St. Vitus for the cathedral, and
added the cult of St. Sigismund. 29 Charles IV
was the founder of two of the most import-
ant treasuries in Bohemia, the metropolitan
treasury of St. Vitus and the royal treasury
in Karlštejn.30
The treasury of St. Vitus had already grad-
ually grown under the Přemyslid dynasty. In
particular, Charles’s mother, Elizabeth of Pře-
myslid (1292–1330), had already put signifi-
cant effort into the restoration of some of its
content, but it was Charles in person who con-
siderably enriched it.31 According to Francis-
cus of Prague, Charles gave many relics, rich
in gold, silver, and precious stones, together
with valuable garments, many chalices and
monstrances, and other church equipment to
the metropolitan church. He also decorated
the grave of St. Adalbert within the old basil-
ica with gold, silver, and precious ornaments
together with images and elaborate sculptur-
al decoration.32 After 1355, when the building
of the cathedral treasury of relics was almost
completed, the influx of relics slowed down,
as Charles turned his attention to the estab-
lishment of the royal treasury in Karlštejn.
28 otavský 2003, pp. 392–393.
29 On the treasury of St. Vitus’ Cathedral see in
particular: podlaha – šittler 1903; otavský 2010,
pp. 181–236.
30 otavský 2006, pp. 111–114.
31 On the donations see in particular horníčková
2009, pp. 90–98, with quotation of the inventory
records.
32 Quoted from horníčková 2009, p. 90;
františek pražský 1997, p. 164.
| 100 |
The Holy Cross Chapel in Karlštejn con-
tained the royal treasury, and it had the fea-
tures of a two-bay chapel, a fortress-like
character with deep windows, a dark interi-
or given lustre by gold vaults, and gold and
jasper walls with large half-figures of saints.33
The decoration was entrusted around 1360
to Master Theodoric, who painted the wood-
en panels with the figures of saints. 34 The
central object of the chapel was the large
gold reliquary cross. Several pieces of the
Wood of the Holy Cross, two thorns from
the crown of thorns, and other relics of the
Passion were mounted onto a cross in 1357.
This first cross was kept originally in the Em-
peror’s oratory, which today is St. Catherine’s
Chapel in Karlštejn, consecrated to the relics
of the Suffering of Christ. This oratory also
served as a place for the safekeeping of a
treasury. 35
Beside the treasuries of the churches, sec-
ular treasuries belonging to kings and princ-
es came into existence, distinguishing them-
selves rather for their content, and for their
limited accessibility. Charles V’s younger
brother, John the Magnificent, the Duke of
Berry, had a treasury where not only illumi-
nated manuscripts but also a great many jew-
els, magnificent silver, precious stones, gold-
smiths’ work, coins, medallions, gems, cameos,
works in cut stone, pieces of coral, shells, co-
conuts, and small statuettes in silver, enam-
elled gold, amber, and ivory were stored. 36
Apart from his satisfaction with the precious
materials and curious contents, the Duke of
Berry’s attention to the formal and artistic
33 horníčková 2009, p. 86.
34 On the painter Master Theodoric see fajt 1997.
35 horníčková 2009, pp. 86–87; otavský 2006,
p. 111.
36 On the Duke of Berry, see in particular:
guiffres 1894–1896.
values and a certain historical interest in the
objects contained in his treasury make him a
precursor of the true collector.37
The princely treasury usually contained
jewels, ornaments, and silver plates that
could be used at banquets and treasures in
the forms of minted and unminted metal. It
could also contain documents, symbols, and
insignia, as well as other items that support-
ed the dynasty’s claims, such as regalia, or the
lord’s wealth and power. At the same time,
the treasury functioned as a financial reserve,
since the gold and silver it contained could
be melted down or given as security at any
time as needed. Most treasures, consisting
of sophisticated enamelled gold statuettes,
magnificent silver and gold vessels, and elab-
orate mounts for rock-crystal bowls and co-
conut cups, were melted down and minted
into coins.38
Mediaeval castles throughout Europe
contained fortified rooms in which treasures
and important documents were kept safe.
Further assortments of items, among them
books, reliquaries, and objects that might
be considered to have had either a curious or
even sacral value, also found their place in the
treasury.39 Such treasuries were often situat-
ed at the top of a keep or fortified tower, in a
vaulted room with limited access. This dispo-
sition offered the advantage of being acces-
sible only through a narrow opening, usually
consisting of a spiral staircase that made the
treasury easier to defend. On the other hand,
the location in a tower allowed greater pro-
tection of precious objects against humidity
and fire. 40 The papal treasury was placed in a
37 schlosser 2000, p. 42.
38 henwood 1980, pp. 179–215; henwood 2004,
pp. 13–51.
39 liebenwein 2005, pp. 17–22.
40 liebenwein 2005, p. 43.
| 101 |
tower, the Tour des Anges, in the papal palace
in Avignon41 while, from the fifteenth century
onward, the treasury and archives at the dis-
posal of the head of the Church were kept in
a central room on the sixth floor of the Castel
Sant’Angelo in Rome. Rooms of this kind also
existed in secular seats of power. In the late
fifteenth century treasure chambers were lo-
cated in the tower in the castles of Pavia and
Milan. 42 From the late fifteenth century, the
treasury of the Dukes of Milan was located in
a fortified tower known as the Rocca in the
castle of Porta Giovia (now known as the Cas-
tello Sforzesco). The main room contained
the “arzenti grossi”, plates and other works
in silver on shelves running around the walls,
while documents, hardstone vessels, jewels,
and other small treasures were kept in the
adjacent chamber. 43
An idea of what a treasury might have
looked like at the beginning of the fifteenth
century is provided by the representation of
the imperial treasury of Maximilian I, from
a detail of a woodcut representing the Tri-
umphal Arch (Ehrenpforte). 44 The treasury
is represented as a small vaulted room with
thick walls and a small window barred with
a grille. In the centre stands a table with de-
votional artefacts, while to the left various
types of secular silver and gold vessels are ex-
hibited. Across from it, sets of jewels are pre-
sented beneath a baldachin, while an open
chest full of coins stands on the floor in the
41 liebenwein 2005, pp. 40–47.
42 liebenwein 2005, p. 24.
43 helfenstein 2013a, p. 432.
44 This is an arch of triumph on paper printed from
192 printing blocks to form a monumental viewing
panel about three and a half metres high and three
metres wide. Imperial Treasury, detail of the Triumphal
Arch, by Albrecht Dürer, Nuremberg, 1517–1518, wood-
cut, 41 × 44 cm, Brunswick, Herzog Anton Ulrich-Mu-
seum, inv. no. adürer wb 2.279.
foreground. 45 The content of this room was
intended to reinforce Maximilian’s political
leadership and at the same time functioned
as a financial reserve.
The Elector Augustus had a suite of four ad-
joining rooms covering a surface area of about
400 m2 on the ground floor of the west wing
of the Dresden Residenz, which had been des-
ignated as the Secret Vault since the late six-
teenth century, converted into a treasury. After
1572 these rooms were recorded as the Green
Vault because of the architectural elements
that were painted green. They contained not
only precious hardstone vessels, but also the
currency reserves of the country, which con-
sisted of both minted coins and gold ingots. In
addition, important archives and various types
of luxury items were stored there: goods that
were personal possessions of the royal family
and expensive pleasure-enhancing substanc-
es they indulged in, including snuff, textiles, or
recently acquired works of art.46 An inventory
drawn up in 1588 shows that six high cabinets
standing in the Green Vault were filled with rare
ore samples, gold and silver boxes, amber, sil-
ver-gilt services, and sixty vessels made of rock
crystal.47 This enumeration of treasure evokes
the image of a display collection intended to
impress, but unlike the Elector of Saxony’s
Kunstkammer, which was made accessible to
a larger circle of visitors during the course of
the seventeenth century, the Green Vault was
not open to the public.48
The Green Vault was directly below the
Elector’s apartments and linked with them
by an interior spiral staircase. The staircase
led from the treasury on the ground floor
45 lüken 1998, pp. 449–450.
46 syndram 1991, pp. 34–48. On the Green Vault
see also: syndram 1999.
47 syndram 1991, p. 37.
48 doering 1901, p. 195.
| 102 |
through the Electoral apartments on the first
floor and the Electoral Paradegemächer on the
second floor up to the Elector’s Kunstkammer
and turning workshop under the roof. 49 The
same vertical arrangement recurs in several
central German castles built in the sixteenth
century.50 In the German lands the treasury
was often located on the ground floor, as was
also the case for the majority of treasuries lo-
cated in the castles of the Czech Lands.
By contrast with the studiolo, the treas-
ury was a storeroom, a safe place where val-
uable objects were located and whose con-
tent was primarily distinguished by being of
both great value and convenient portability.
Whether hardstone or silver services, coins or
precious objects, the contents of the treasury
flowed in and out on a regular basis.
William of Rosenberg had a treasury in
Český Krumlov Chateau. According to the in-
ventory of the chateau from around 1602, the
treasury was located on the ground floor of
the east wing in the third courtyard: “neben
dissen Zimmern ober dem Weinkeller. Da die
Herren von Rosnberg Ihrer Schacz gehabt. Nah
und neben einander gewelbter. Uber der Schacz
Camer dess von Rosenberg Zimmer: Vergulter
Vorhaus mit Figuren – 1; Herren Stuben – 1; Auf-
warttstuben – 1; Gewelbts Vorhaus – 1; Labo-
ratorium darbay gewelb – 1; Gewolte Camer
– 1 (Next to these rooms above the wine cellar,
where the Lords of Rosenberg had their trea-
sure. Close and along a vault. Above the trea-
sury of the Rosenberg room: Golden vestibule
with figures – 1; Lord’s Room – 1; Waiting room
– 1; vaulted vestibule – 1; Laboratory close to the
vaulted room – 1; vaulted room – 1)”.51
49 syndram 2012, pp. 15–38.
50 hoppe 1996, pp. 120–122, 227, 437–441.
51 fučíková 2011a, p. 614. The inventory is
preserved in SOA Třeboň, oddělení Český Krumlov,
Velkostatek Český Krumlov, I 7l 3.
 According to the above-mentioned infor-
mation, the Schacz, i.e. the treasury, had sever-
al rooms directly under the rooms of William
of Rosenberg, from which it was possible to
enter the laboratorium through a vaulted ves-
tibule. However, neither this inventory nor any
other list tells us anything about the specif-
ic artworks or curiosities that were displayed
in the treasury.52 In 1551 William ordered the
sending of no less than 40 kg of silver from
Český Krumlov to a goldsmith in order to make
tableware and ornaments.53 Many of these ob-
jects might have been located in the treasury.
Therefore, the Lobkowicz illustrated inventory
enables us to at least partially reconstruct the
content of William’s treasury. The Lobkowicz
inventory was compiled after the death of Po-
lyxena of Lobkowicz (1566–1642), the widow
of William of Rosenberg. It documents a part
of the furnishings she was allowed to keep by
William’s younger brother, Peter Wok, which
ended up in the Lobkowicz Palace after she
married Zdeněk Vojtěch Popel of Lobkowicz
in 1603.54 A major part of the total set of 427
items recorded in the Lobkowicz invento-
ry belonged to the property of the House of
Rosenberg. Ten silver bowls were decorated
with the coats of arms of William of Rosenberg
and his four wives, and were probably part of
the equipment of Polyxena’s household after
her marriage to William in 1587.55 The collec-
tion of silverware included plates, bowls, can-
dleholders, and banquet table decorations.
Moreover, the inventory records other items,
such as small lamps, candle snuffers, devices
for warming the bed, and air fresheners. The
inventory also includes a number of items that
were unique in terms of their design, among
52 fučíková 2011a, pp. 614–615.
53 březan 1985, p. 53; pánek 1990, pp. 166–167, 185.
54 braun 1923.
55 pánek et al. 2011, p. 343; fučíková 2011a, p. 615.
| 103 |
which are a set of objects for baptisms from
the middle of the sixteenth century and two
gilded and richly decorated pots dating back
to the second half of the sixteenth century.56
The first of the two Nuremberg double goblets,
perhaps from the workshop of Ludwig Krug,
from the first quarter of the sixteenth cen-
tury, bears the coat of arms of the Rosenberg
family, and its pommel is decorated with the
figures of Adam and Eve.57 In total there were
five of these double goblets in the collection.
The goblet with the figures of lumberjacks may
also originate from Krug’s workshop.58 Three
circular and gilded carafes for the storage of
perfumes or a different liquid are decorated
with the Rosenberg emblem.59 There is also
a wall mirror whose design is based on Italian
templates and which comes from the late six-
teenth century.60 Another elaborate object is
a statuette of Diana riding a deer, placed on a
richly decorated stand.61 A gilded goblet from
the second half of the sixteenth century had
a bowl “aus dem Stein”, which could have been
a bezoar.62 Towards the end of the inventory,
there is a drawing depicting two goblets from
the second half of the sixteenth century. The
bowl of the first goblet is made of an ostrich
egg and its lid is decorated with a silver figu-
rine of Amor, while the second is made from
a coconut and features a scene of Lot and his
daughters.63 These kinds of objects, featuring
a combination of goldsmith’s work and natu-
ral ornaments, are very typical items found in
Kunstkammern.
56 fučíková 2011a, p. 615.
57 braun 1923, inv. no. 28.
58 braun 1923, inv. no. 413.
59 braun 1923, inv. nos. 73–75.
60 braun 1923, inv. no. 327.
61 braun 1923, inv. no. 412.
62 braun 1923, inv. no. 418.
63 braun 1923, inv. nos. 420, 422.
30 | Gilded field bottles decorated with a Rosenberg rider, second half of the 16th
century, The Lobkowicz Library and Archives, Nelahozeves Castle, Czech Republic.

| 104 |
31 | The Goddess Diana riding a deer, second half of the 16th century, The Lobkowicz
Library and Archives, Nelahozeves Castle, Czech Republic.

| 105 |
 Many of these objects were used on spe-
cial occasions, in particular during banquets
in honour of renowned guests.64 With the de-
velopment of the ceremonial and the code of
conduct imposed by it, the treasury was en-
riched with precious objects which functioned
for the performance of official ceremonies.65
Even though the treasury was a closed room,
this did not mean that the artworks stored
in it were never shown. Vessels of silver and
hardstone in particular were regularly taken
out of the vault on festive occasions at court
and gatherings such as weddings, baptisms,
or coronations. Because they reflected the ex-
clusive rank of the lord, valuable plates and sil-
ver tableware were indispensable elements of
the banqueting ceremonies. The pieces on the
table included cups, ewers, salt cellars, mag-
nificent chargers, and other table silver from
the treasury. Silver and gold plates had a place
on the banquet table and on what was called
a credenza, which usually stood behind the
table or was sometimes set up in the middle
of the room as a display dresser.66 A credenza,
often referred to as šenktyš or schenktisch in
the inventories of the aristocratic residences
in the Czech Lands,67 was a sideboard, a buffet,
or a cupboard, also referred to as a dressoir in
France and Flanders.68 It represented the ut-
most form of presentation of a family’s wealth
in the interior of an aristocratic residence. It
attested to the family’s status through the
valuables that were displayed. As indicated
by its Italian name, it was originally meant to
be a trustworthy, protected place where only
64 matějovičová 2011, p. 615.
65 helfenstein 2013b, pp. 159–166.
66 spenlé 2010, pp. 30–55.
67 lukášová – smolová 2018, pp. 54–60.
68 lukášová 2015, pp. 35–37. For the definition of
a “Credenza” see helfenstein 2013a, pp. 417–418,
433–436.
| 106 |
the most loyal servants prepared meals and
beverages for serving, thus preventing the
use of poison. Such tiered sideboards, whose
wooden case was covered in a luxurious fabric,
were most often displayed in a hall or the ad-
jacent lesser hall on the occasion of ceremo-
nial events. The individual levels were deco-
rated with precious tableware, which was not
intended for actual use. They included goblets,
salvers, and jars for sweets (termed drageoirs),
made of precious metals and decorated with
rare gemstones, exotic natural materials, and
masterly goldsmith’s items, as well as luxuri-
ous objects made of glass and maiolica.69 An
example of a credenza is shown in a copper-
plate printed in 1612 on the occasion of the
coronation of the Emperor Matthias. It fea-
tures the coronation banquet in the Römer in
Frankfurt am Main with objects that the Em-
peror had taken from the Schatzkammer and
brought to Frankfurt to present as insignia of
his power. The Holy Roman Emperor is seat-
ed on a dais at the head of the hall beneath a
baldachin with a high display dresser at his
side. Its five levels underscore his primacy in
the social and political hierarchy. A credenza
with three levels is displayed at the back of
each Elector of the Holy Roman Empire seat-
ed on the left and right of the hall. The cre-
denzas contained a remarkable treasure made
of objects of gold, silver vessels such as ba-
sins, ewers, beakers, standing cups and covers,
and plates. Exotic treasures such as coconut
cups, ostrich eggs, and the shells of marine
molluscs are also exhibited.70
Tableware and jewellery made of precious
metals served the Bohemian and Moravian ar-
istocracy mainly for the purpose of social rep-
resentation and as a financial reserve. Noble-
men commissioned gold and silver jewellery
69 lukášová 2015, p. 37.
70 stahl 2002, pp. 61–62.
32 | Coronation feast for Emperor Matthias, Frankfurt City Hall, 1612, engraving from Electio Et Coronatio
Sereniss. Potentiss. Et Invictiss. Principis Et Dn. Dn. Matthias I. […] = Wahl undt Krönung Matthiae I., Frankfurt, 1612.
to give as gifts and to wear especially on festive
occasions or while dining officially. The Rosen-
bergs, the Švamberks, and the Lords of Hradec
regularly ordered high-quality gold and silver
jewellery and silver and gilded tableware from
the most renowned goldsmiths, both from
abroad and from the court of Rudolf II.71
In the castle of Jindřichův Hradec, the trea-
sury located in the cellar contained precious
objects that were not used all the time, but
only on ceremonial occasions and special vis-
its. The inventory compiled by Katherine of
Hradec, née de Montfort (1556–1631), the wid-
ow of Adam II of Hradec, begins with a list of
the most precious and valuable items, mostly
71 bůžek – bůžková 1994, pp. 23–43.
| 107 |
fabrics and silver objects.72 According to the
inventory, the treasury even housed a simple
bed, in which the servant-guardian presum-
ably slept.73 A large and beautiful bowl dec-
orated with a pelican made from nacre and
with a goblet is particularly remarkable, and
belongs to the category of objects that could
also be displayed in a Kunstkammer. The list
included twelve gilded plates decorated with
various scenes and small gilded bowls for
fruit, of which there were forty-eight accord-
ing to the list. The set of gilded goblets with
lids, which were often further adorned through
72 lukášová – smolová 2018, pp. 95–193, with
a transcription of the inventory.
73 lukášová – smolová 2018, p. 53.
33 | Christoph Stimmel, Cup with ostrich egg, gilded
silver, end of 16th century, Telč Castle, photo: Viktor
Mašát.
chasing, was complemented by a goblet of
the same kind with the Lord of Hradec’s coat
of arms and other valuables. They included a
goblet with a large or doppelt straußei (a dou-
ble ostrich egg) set in gilded silver, and prob-
ably also a goblet called a Nautilus, with a
large nacreous shell of the Nautilus pompilius,
described in the list as “gross perlmutterv” (a
large pearl mussel). The name of a different
container, “gallea”, refers to the appearance
of a ship, a galley, which is characteristic of
such shaped goblets or directly imitates a
ship. Another artefact was listed in the in-
ventory as “schöner silber affen" (a beautiful
silver monkey).74
74 lukášová – smolová 2018, pp. 55–58.
| 108 |
34 | Eucharius Riher of Wrocław, Cup called Nautilus,
shell, gilded alloy, before 1585, Telč Castle, photo:
Viktor Mašát.
Such figurines made from precious met-
als served as decorations, and at the same
time could sometimes be used as small con-
tainers from which it was possible to drink.
Regardless of their material value, such
tableware and pieces of cutlery were consid-
ered collector’s items that were particularly
remarkable because of the artisanal skill lav-
ished on them.
Such objects were usually made of ex-
pensive materials, notably coral, agate, ser-
pentine, ivory, amber, glass, or even ostrich
eggs and the shells of molluscs, and thus it
was possible to include them in the naturalia
and artificialia typology of artworks typically
stored in Kunstkammern.
 Tableware, plates, cups, goblets, and cut-
lery were all objects of artistic endeavours,
and were accorded special status as a means
of social distinction. After all, it was at the ta-
ble that the stringently observed social hier-
archy on which court society rested came
into its own, as shown in the banquet ceremo-
ny.75 When, on 26 July 1600, Mr Marshall (the
French ambassador) accompanied by Pierre
Bergeron, was invited to dine with the apos-
tolic nuncio and the Venetian and Florentine
ambassadors at the house of the Spanish am-
bassador, Don Guillén de San Clemente (prob-
ably the Tucherovský House in Kanovnická
Street in Hradčany),76 Bergeron remarked in
particular that “in line with the customs of this
country, there was a large cupboard with four
levels of shelves, all filled with containers (cups,
goblets, glasses) made from gilded silver”.77 The
day after, when Mr Marshall went to Traut-
son’s palace to dine, Bergeron referred that
the dinner lasted over four hours and had
nine courses. He remarked in particular that
the “very finely decorated crystal glasses were
the most beautiful I have ever seen, each worth
a hundred ducats”.78
75 spenlé 2010, pp. 30–55.
76 fučíková 1989, p. 57, note 75.
77 fučíková 1989, p. 57.
78 fučíková 1989, p. 57.
| 109 |
By the mid-sixteenth century, two typolog-
ically different collection spaces had emerged
in palace and castle architecture: the first
was the fortified treasury, usually a vaulted
ground floor room used to store valuables, to
which only the lord had access, while the sec-
ond was the Kunstkammer, which became ac-
cessible to a growing circle of visitors.
In terms of exhibits, the treasury con-
tained silver objects, valuables and money, but
also objects made of precious material, coral,
cups made from coconuts and ostrich eggs,
and rock crystal vessels. Many of these ob-
jects also belonged to the Kunstkammer, but
the way they were exhibited differed consid-
erably from the treasury. Whilst the treas-
ury was a safe storeroom with no attempt
to organise the storage of the objects, the
Kunstkammer, as a collection of encyclopae-
dic characters, was a microcosmic replica of
the macrocosmic world, where objects were
usually presented according to their specific
relationship to the Four Elements, the plan-
ets, and the Universe in general.
| Alice Fornasiero |
IV | Kunstkammer
A new type of collection took root in Europe
in the second half of the 16th century. It was
called the Kunstkammer, or the cabinet of cu-
riosities. It reflected the change in the intel-
lectual realm, the new overseas discoveries,
the developments in natural sciences and
the perception of artworks, the rediscovery
of the authors of classical antiquity, and the
decrease in the influence of Church para-
digms. The bloom of modern collecting was
related to the humanistic emphasis on the
individual and a lust for study and knowledge
of the world. The newly compiled collec-
tions focused on gathering everything that
was known to mankind and they were com-
posed on the basis of the idea that everything
that can be seen or otherwise perceived by
our senses is a microcosmic reflection of the
macrocosm. Humanity was viewed as part of
the divine creation. Therefore, the universe
did not comprise only objects of natural or-
igin, but also those created by the human
hand.1
The Kunstkammer evolved from studio
(or studiolo) collections in the second half of
the 16th century. Artworks, which had origi-
nally served as mere study utensils in the old
studioli, gradually became the centrepieces
of these rooms. The rising number of the ob-
jects and their increasing differentiation led
to the need to adapt the space to the needs of
the collection. During the course of the 16th
century, collections, originally housed in stu-
1 balsiger 1970, p. 540.
< 35 | Cabinet of curiosities, engraving from Ferrante Imperato, Dell‘Historia Naturale, Naples 1599.
| 111 |
dioli formed of a single, relatively small room,
progressively spread into more rooms locat-
ed next to each other. For instance, the col-
lection of the Augsburg-based banker Ray-
mund Fugger (1489–1535) was situated in two
rooms on the first floor of his house. The de-
scription of these premises comes from 1531,
from the pen of Beatus Renatus. He labelled
the first room as the secretarium and the oth-
er as the coenaculum. Fugger’s studiolo was
not merely a private study any more, but al-
ready a social space too. The artworks that
were housed inside it were primarily aimed at
the self-presentation of their owner. Through
its multifarious composition, Fugger’s collec-
tion already resembled a Kunstkammer. It in-
cluded sculptures, both contemporary and
from classical antiquity, paintings by Lucas
Cranach and Italian masters, and various rare
objects and natural materials.
Nonetheless, it needs to be said that
there exist certain differences between a stu-
diolo and a Kunstkammer. Studioli, originally
designed as spaces for education and med-
itation, used to house mainly books, while
artworks served as complements to read-
ing. On the contrary, artworks (along with
various natural-material rarities and objets
d’art) were the cornerstone of the furnishing
of Kunstkammer, while books could not usu-
ally be found in these rooms at all, with some
honourable exemptions. 2 Libraries were sep-
arated from other collections in the 16th cen-
2 von busch 1973, pp. 78–79.
tury and placed in special rooms, often in im-
mediate proximity to the Kunstkammer.
As far as the spatial arrangement is con-
cerned, Kunstkammern were usually situated
in similar spaces to studioli, i.e. predominant-
ly in one or more consecutive rooms. How-
ever, the new thing about the Kunstkammer
was that their organisation in terms of the
content was not random any more, but al-
ready subject to a certain system. A typical
Kunstkammer was intended as a theatrum
sapientiae, a museum of the existing human
knowledge of the world, a microcosm reflect-
ing the look of the macrocosm. The objects
deposited inside it were classified into the
following basic categories: artificialia – man-
made objects, naturalia – natural materials,
and scientifica – scientific instruments aiding
the exploration and description of the world.
Nevertheless, studioli, as private studies in-
tended for meditation and contemplation,
did not cease to exist with the birth of the
Kunstkammer. These were usually more or
less public and served as representative
spaces, as in Munich. Even some of the spac-
es that formerly housed a typical studiolo col-
lection started to be used as social spaces,
presenting a part of the art collection for
the purpose of boosting the family’s pres-
tige. 3 However, especially noblemen with
a humanistic education who owned Kun-
stkammern with universal collections not
aimed solely at the representation of their
court continued to feel the need for a pri-
vate study located in a quiet part of their res-
idence, close to their private rooms. These in-
cluded, for instance, Augustus, the Elector of
Saxony, whose private study adjoined what
was called the “hintere große gemach” that
housed various instruments from Augustus’
3 For instance, the Fugger family in Augsburg.
| 112 |
collection and included a library, 4 or France-
sco I de’ Medici, who had a private studiolo in
the Palazzo Vecchio in Florence.
From the end of the 15th and through
the 16th century, Central Europe saw the
formation of collections composed mainly
of precious objets d’art (usually jewellery),
artworks, and objects imported from exot-
ic countries. They were called Kunstkammer
in inventories or other archival documents.
For example, the inventory of Ferdinand’s art
collection contains the phrase “hat Heyper-
gern in der Kunsstkammer (had Heyperger in
the Kunstkammer)”.5 The same term was used
by the Nuremberg-based Imhoff family when
describing their collection.6 We could trans-
late it as “chambers with art”, spaces where
artworks and precious objects were stored.
Therefore, they were in fact a kind of treasury
or large jewel case, sheltering certain works
without any particular system. This does
not correspond with the concept of the Kun-
stkammer in the sense of a theatrum mundi,
a museum of the knowledge of humankind
up till then. One of the earliest Central Eu-
ropean collections of this type, according to
the general consensus, was the Berlin Kun-
stkammer. The first mentions of objects made
from precious materials, belonging to the
Hohenzollern family and kept in the Silber-
kammer (silver treasury), come from the end
of the 15th century. What were called Silber-
kammer were a kind of institutional precur-
sor of the Kunstkammer. It is not entirely clear
whether these items from the Berlin collec-
tion were viewed as artworks or collected just
4 syndram 2012, p. 26.
5 See Chapter I of this book.
6 Its core lay in the collection of coins dating back
to classical antiquity and the marble busts of twelve
emperors from classical antiquity in the possession
of Conrad Imhoff. See von busch 1973, pp. 99 and 106.
 because of the precious material they were
made from. The exact composition of the
collection at that time – whether it included
frequently used personal jewels and/or cut-
lery, or precious objects without any practi-
cal use – is not known either.7 It is generally
assumed that the founder of the Kunstkam-
mer at the Berlin/Cölln Chateau was the Elec-
tor of Brandenburg, Joachim II (1505–1571).8
There is no specific information as to the date
of its foundation, but the first written record
about it comes from the beginning of the 17th
century. The collection initiated by Joachim II,
mainly comprising sculptures and coins from
classical antiquity, was expanded by his son
Johann Georg (1525–1598) and grandson Joa-
chim Friedrich (1546–1608).9 The latter saw
the first inventory of the Berlin collection
compiled in 1599.10 Unfortunately, this inven-
tory has not survived to this day. On 20 July
1603, after the demise of Joachim’s wife Cath-
erine, the electors’ art collection was revised
and a new inventory was written. On 23 pages,
it listed the objects that had belonged to the
deceased, as well as their location within the
“Kunst Cammer”.11 The various jewels, objects
made from gold and silver, gems of all kinds,
objects made from ivory and amber, objets
d’art made from nacre, alabaster, crystal, and
glass, and cutlery and other dining utensils
were stored on shelves and displayed on ta-
bles in a vaulted room with one entrance and
one barred window.12 Adjoining the cabinet
was a garderobe (Garderobenkammer) and
the Weibzeugkammer (chamber for feminine
objects). Next, there is an inventory from 8
7 von reichl 1930, p. 227.
8 von ledebur 1831, p. 5.
9 schipke 2015, p. 27.
10 ortwin rave 1994, p. 182.
11 von ledebur 1831, p. 7.
12 ortwin rave 1994, p. 182.
| 113 |
and 9 November 1605 called Inventarium in
der Kunstkammer im Gewölbe, with an adden-
dun called Die Weibzeugkammer im Gewölbe
vor der Kunstkammer. Both parts were termed
using the word Kunstkammer.13 Around 1900
items are listed on sixty pages. They usually
include the artificialia (man-made objects)
and are grouped according to their location.
The birth of the Kunstkammern of the
modern era was significantly influenced and
aided by Samuel von Quiccheberg’s manu-
script Inscriptiones vel tituli theatri amplissimi…
published in 1565. It is considered the first mu-
seological treatise ever written. In his work,
Quiccheberg presented a manual for compil-
ing an ideal encyclopaedic collection covering
all aspects of existing human knowledge. The
author defined the Kunstkammer as a cham-
ber with works of art and drew a distinction
between it and the literal cabinet of curiosi-
ties (Wunderkammer), which he viewed as an
archive of notable natural materials, in the
sense of a natural scientific cabinet. His un-
derstanding of works of art included artworks,
human inventions, and technically innova-
tive instruments and devices.14 As opposed
to the Wunderkammer, where the items were
often deposited in a random manner, the Kun-
stkammer represented a systematically com-
piled collection. Each individual item had its
own place and was an integral part of the
whole, which should illustrate the contem-
porary knowledge of the world.
The manuscript is divided into several
chapters. In the first part, the author present-
ed a concise list of objects that should be col-
lected and grouped them into five main class-
es, which are further divided into ten or eleven
categories, called inscriptiones. Each class was
given a Roman numeral, while the inscrip-
13 von ledebur 1831, p. 7.
14 syndram 2012, p. 18.
36 | Samuel Quiccheberg, Title sheet of Inscriptiones vel tituli theatri amplissimi […], Monarchii: Adamus Berg
1565.

| 114 |
tiones were classified using Arabic numerals.
The first class and its ten categories cover the
representation of holy history, the genealogy
and portraits of the founder of the collection,
maps, descriptions of European cities, ephem-
eral artworks related to celebrations and tri-
umphs, architectural models, and models of
various instruments and devices. The second
class comprises man-made objects, such as
sculptures, jewels, coins, medals, goblets,
and the units of measuring and weighing. The
third class relates to naturalia, natural mate-
rials, such as plants, animals, minerals, and
raw materials. The fourth class comprises
scientifica, i.e. various implements, musical
instruments, weapons, clothing, medical in-
struments, workshop tools, and equipment
for games and entertainment. The fifth class
refers to oil paintings by the most prominent
painters, drawings, prints, portraits of signifi-
cant men, tapestries, and coats of arms. Quic-
cheberg’s goal was to use the categories to
create a model of the world that would corre-
spond with the ideals of Christianity and cover
all creation, both natural and human.
Quiccheberg’s treatise must have been
based in part on more general contempo-
rary ideas on how to organise an art col-
lection, since the Dresden Kunstkammer,
founded in 1560 by Augustus, the Elector of
Saxony,15 was already a systematically com-
piled universal collection16 covering all the
categories presented by Quiccheberg. In his
treatise, he cites as an example some con-
temporary collections, among which is the
Dresden collection.
15 syndram 2012, p. 15.
16 Before the establishment of the Dresden
Kunstkammer, there existed a Silberkammer
belonging to Maurice, the Elector of Saxony. Its
inventory is dated 1543–1546. It included silverware,
silver goblets, jasper goblets, and rock crystal goblets.
See syndram 2012.
| 115 |
The Dresden Kunstkammer was original-
ly situated in five rooms in the central avant-
corps of the west wing of the residential cha-
teau. Its core was located in a small room,
isolated from the public and family life, for-
merly serving as the elector’s private study,
where Augustus used to dedicate himself to
the study of geography and astronomy.17 The
basis of the collection was formed by various
tools and instruments, such as writing im-
plements, astronomical measuring devices,
tools for gardening, surgical instruments, etc.
Many of them used to be used by the elector
himself. Paintings were hung in all rooms, in
accordance with Quiccheberg’s recommen-
dation. More detailed information about the
design of the cabinet can be obtained from
the inventory compiled by the first adminis-
trator of the collection, David Uslaub, in 1587,
a year after Augustus’ death, on the basis of
a commission by the new Elector, Christian I.
It listed 9759 items. They were arranged ac-
cording to the personal needs of the Elector
Augustus.18 What were called “kunst stuben”
were located in the attic of the west wing of
the residence. The Kunstkammer was con-
nected with the Grünes Gewölbe, located
on the ground floor, through a narrow spiral
staircase. Most of the rooms that housed the
Kunstkammer had a wooden ceiling and were
furbished with wall panelling. This kind of
decoration is reminiscent of the inlaid walls
of Italian studioli, especially in Gubbio and
Urbino. The Kunstkammer also included a
specialised library comprising 288 volumes
of mathematical, astronomical, geographi-
cal, and technical manuscripts.19 The Dres-
den Kunstkammer was designed as a univer-
sal collection, but was intended mainly for the
17 syndram 2012, p. 16.
18 syndram 2012, p. 25.
19 heres 2005–2006, pp. 562–563.
needs and interests of its owner, the Elector
Augustus, whose private studiolo was in fact
part of the greater Kunstkammer.
After the Dresden cabinet, another Kun-
stkammer was founded in Munich which was
also praised by Quiccheberg. The founder
was Duke Albert V of Bavaria. The cabinet
was located in a separate four-wing building,
erected between 1563 and 1567 between
what were called the Alter Hof and Neuveste,
on the first floor above the stables. From its
foundation, the Kunstkammer was intended
as a universal collection open to a selected
public from the ranks of the nobility, emis-
saries, artists, and scholars. More than 6000
items20 were displayed in the four wings, the
longest of which (on the northern side) had
a length of 35 metres and was illuminated
through 23 windows. Inside the wings and
along the walls with windows, there were
tables carrying the displayed collection
items. Other items were also deposited in
cupboards (Kredenzen). The walls were cov-
ered with animal trophies, reliefs, and paint-
ings, especially portraits of emperors and em-
presses. Large-format busts could be found
standing on the floor along the windows and
smaller sculptures from classical antiquity,
as well as of more recent provenance, were
placed on ledges that ran all around the walls.
Stuffed crocodiles and turtles hung from the
ceiling. A part of the Kunstkammer was struc-
turally separated from the rest, securing a
space for objects made from gold and silver
and semiprecious stones, which were placed
in cupboards.21 All four wings of the building
had the character of a gallery, a walk-through
20 This number is based on the inventory compiled
in 1598 by Johann Baptist Fickler. See seelig 1987, p. 78.
As of today, about 300 items can be identified from
this inventory by Fickler. See knauss 2009, p. 147.
21 macgregor 1994, p. 66.
| 116 |
corridor. Unlike in the case of the Dresden
Kunstkammer, there were no problems to be
overcome in terms of the space available.
Samuel Quiccheberg, who was active at
the Munich court from 1559, was closely in-
volved in the classification and arrangement
of the collection, which is why the Munich
Kunstkammer was one of the first Renais-
sance examples of a universal encyclopae-
dic museum organised in line with Quicche-
berg’s theoretical ideas. Even the form of the
building corresponded with his idea of an am-
phitheatre with an internal courtyard, whose
four sides are directed to the four celestial
spheres.22
From the ideological point of view, the
Kunstkammer represented a reflection of the
entire universum. Several collections fulfilling
this idea originated in the second half of the
16th century, but they differed from one an-
other from the formal standpoint. It was pos-
sible to realise the idea of materialising this
microcosm in several different ways, of which
two stand out and were used in the second
half of the 16th century. The first way was to
establish a public, representative space, while
the second way rested in having a private or
semi-private environment. A good example
of the former was the Munich Kunstkammer,
founded as a representative encyclopaedic
collection open to the public. Another cabi-
net worth mentioning was the Kunstkammer
of Rudolf II at Prague Castle, which could be
visited only by selected visitors.
| Eliška Zlatohlávková |
22 kuwakino 2013.
The Kunstkammer
of Rudolf II
Rudolf’s Kunstkammer included four succes-
sively arranged rooms, called Kunstkammer
and erstes, zweites und drittes Gewölb, or Vor-
dere Kunstkammer in the contemporary in-
ventories.23 The first three rooms described
as Gewölb were vaulted and neighboured
with the last room, termed simply Kun-
stkammer in the original sources. This last
room had a flat ceiling and was located be-
hind the Mathematical Tower, approximate-
ly where the wing met the north wing. The
first three rooms were about 60 m long and
5.5 m wide. The main Kunstkammer was 33 m
long.24 Access was enabled through the spiral
staircase located in the Mathematical Tow-
er, which directly paraphrased the staircase
designed by Ottaviano Mascarino (built be-
tween 1583 and 1584) for the Quirinal Palace
of Pope Gregory XIII.25
We can get an idea about the interior ar-
rangement of the individual items on the ba-
sis of an inventory compiled between 1607
and 161126 by the miniaturist and antiquar-
ius Daniel Fröschl (1573–1613), to whom the
imperial collections were entrusted. The in-
ventory lists only those objects that were
23 bukovinská 1997, p. 199. More literature on
Rudolf’s Kunstkammer: bukovinská 2009, pp. 165–
177; bukovinská 2007, pp. 143–167; kaufmann
1978/1979, pp. 22–28.
24 bukovinská 1997, p. 200.
25 polleross 2015, p. 258.
26 Shortly after the end of the Second World War,
the director of the art collections of the Counts of
Liechtenstein, Gustav Wilhelm, discovered in these
collections an inventory of an unknown collection,
but recognised in it a list of the Rudolfine Kunstkam-
mer. In academic literature, the inventory was pub-
lished by Rotraud Bauer and Herbert Haupt. See
bauer – haupt 1976, pp. 11–191.
| 117 |
present in the Kunstkammer proper, i.e. in
one of the aforementioned four rooms used
to store the imperial collections. 27 The in-
dividual items are listed in a catalogue-like
manner. They are classified into groups and
sections according to their material and sub-
ject matter. The naturalia are described first,
then the artificialia, and lastly the scientifica.
The first group was the most numerous and
was further subdivided into four subgroups:
1) precious stones, semi-precious stones,
handsteins, and objets d’art made from such
materials; 2) fossils; 3) items of botanical
origin, i.e. various kinds of wood, fruits, nuts,
and objets d’art made from such materials;
4) items of zoological origin: a) stuffed and
otherwise preserved animal bodies; b) the
skeletons of various mammals; c) the horns
of various kinds of animals; d) the teeth and
tusks of diverse animals; e) different kinds of
shells; f) various types of birds’ eggs, such as
ostrich or emu eggs; g) snakeskins and tur-
tle shells. Next, the artificialia were subdi-
vided into eight subgroups: 1) objects of an
ethnographic character, i.e. items from far-
away countries and continents, such as tex-
tiles, weapons, metal objects, etc.; 2) various
kinds of weapons, predominantly of Turkish
origin; 3) objets d’art made from organic nat-
ural materials, such as ivory carvings, drink-
ing horns, and goblets and cups made from
nuts or ostrich eggs; 4) objets d’art made
from inorganic natural materials, such as
goblets and cups made from rock crystal
and semi-precious stones or items made by
goldsmiths; 5) smaller sculptures, especial-
ly made from bronze, wood, stone, and wax;
6) small objects with artistic value, such as
coins, medals, cameos, and carvings; 7) dif-
ferent types of smaller furniture, cabinets,
and chests of drawers; 8) copper engravings,
27 kaufmann 1978, p. 119.
drawings, and printing blocks. The last group,
the scientifica, included diverse measuring
instruments used for scientific observation.
The group was further subdivided into: a) in-
struments used for measuring distance; b)
instruments used for measuring time (differ-
ent kinds of clocks); c) astronomical devices;
d) terrestrial globes; e) scientific literature
from various fields. 28
Rudolf’s inventory29 is different in many
ways from other contemporary registers,
most of which were compiled as inheritance
lists. Its completion took several years, over
the course of which the collection kept grow-
ing. The design of the inventory reflected this
fact. In the upper part of the lists, there is the
name of the particular group and below it fol-
lows a list of the corresponding objects. At
the end of each group, space was left, some-
times even several folios, so that any newly
acquired items could be added to the group.
The folios that make up the manuscript are
numbered continuously, including the blank
folios. This is why the objects were not re-
corded according to their location but rath-
er their material taxonomy. Part of the inven-
tory is a detailed index that gives the names
of the individual groups and matches them
with the corresponding folio number for bet-
ter orientation.30
Some of the items are supplied with a
note saying Ihrer Majestät (His Majesty). The-
se include, for instance, item no. 97: 7 und ein
kleiner zän von einem hippopotamo. Ihr. May:
haben ein halb oder mehr abgeschnitten (and
a small tooth of a hippopotamus. His Majes-
ty has a half or more carved), or no. 108: 7 ti-
28 bauer – haupt 1976, pp. XVI – XIX.
29 The name of this inventory from 1607–1611 was
introduced by Helmut Trnek. See trnek 2001,
pp. 220–231.
30 bukovinská 2009, p. 167.
| 118 |
ger und leopartenklawen. Haben Ir. Mt. auch 2
davon genommen (7 tiger and leopard claws.
His Majesty took also two of them). Rudolf
II ascribed magical power to these objects.
Nonetheless, this cannot be viewed through
a present-day prism as esotericism, but rath-
er as a complement to the natural-scientific
knowledge in the quest to understand all the
secrets and mysteries of nature.31
The items on folios 52 and 53 are record-
ed in Spanish. Here, Fröschl wrote down the
following note: in die kunstcamer empfangen
von der ertzherzogin Alberta A0 1609 (received
into the Kunstkammer from Archduchess Al-
berta). Archduchess Alberta refers to Isabel-
la Clara Eugenia, the wife of Rudolf’s brother,
Archduke Albert VII.32 These folios provide a
list of the items in Clara Eugenia’s collection
that were handed over to Rudolf’s cabinet of
curiosities in 1609.
It is interesting that some of the items
are recorded in more groups. This is not a mis-
take but, on the contrary, evidence of a very
systematic approach to the inventory. For in-
stance, three pieces of rhubarb (“rabarbara”)
are listed in the section of gifts brought from
Persia, in the group of foreign plants, and third,
it is stated which chest the specimens are de-
posited in, with a note saying that they were
put there by the emperor himself.33 A kettle
carved from a nut and imported from the Sey-
chelles is inventoried in a similar manner. It is
31 bauer – haupt 1976, p. XXI.
32 bauer – haupt 1976, p. XXIII.
33 The placement of the individual items is men-
tioned in Fröschl’s inventory only in those cases
where items from different categories or different
countries of origin were deposited together, such as
when pieces of Indian gold and silver cutlery were put
in the same place as similar items of European prove-
nance. The specific location was also recorded with
regard to the items that had been moved to a differ-
ent place; see fučíková 2017a, p. 50.
 a
←c
d
37 | Location reconstruction of Rudolf’s Kunstkammer, drawing: Jindřich Vaněk, database © IPR Prague.
included among the ethnographic objects, as
well as in a group termed Silberne, auch ver-
gulte beckhen, auch giesskandteln. These items
are usually sketched on the edges of the fo-
lios, such as a vase carved from topaz found
on folio 210, so as to avoid confusion.34 In re-
lation to a number of works, Fröschl also lists
their author or donor, the year of their origin,
or the date when the item was added to the
collection.35
This way of recording the acquired items
confirms that the inventory was not a mere
list of displayed works, but mainly a set of in-
structions as to how to organise the various
kinds of objects. A well-thought-out system
can be sensed in the register. Unlike Quic-
cheberg’s Inscriptiones, it ranks the most vo-
luminous category of naturalia first, before
the category of artificialia, thus ensuring a
smooth and gradual transition in the sys-
tematic sorting of the objects. The artificial-
34 bukovinská 2009, p. 171.
35 bauer – haupt 1976, p. XXIV.
| 119 |
a | Kunstkammer
b | Three rooms of
Vordere Kunstkammer
c | Mathematical Tower
d | White Tower
ia category is further divided into subgroups
according to the material; the organic and in-
organic classes. Therefore, objets d’art made
from inorganic materials, such as Giovanni
Castrucci’s comessa di pietre dure, create an
“illusory” transition between the creations
of nature and man-made products.36 Apart
from the three main categories, the items
were also sorted according to the countries
of their origin. In the inventory, this division
corresponds to the horizontal structuring of
the Earth. Therefore, the Kunstkammer was
a true reflection of the world, a microcosm
mirroring the macrocosm.
There remains no doubt about the fact
that Daniel Fröschl was the actual recorder of
the inventory. However, the question remains
as to who the inventor of this very sophisti-
cated and progressive approach to classi-
fying and segmenting the cabinet of curios-
ities was. The inventory takes into account
the theoretical requirements and a scientific
36 bukovinská 2009, pp. 170–171.
system of classification. The suggested sys-
tem for sorting the acquired items must have
been reflected in the actual acquisition pol-
icy, i.e. the pieces procured after 1607 must
have been collected according to the system
according to which the cabinet of curiosities
was ordered. However, Rudolf also acquired a
number of objects and artworks as gifts from
emissaries or different guests. Therefore, the
question of whether the items that did not
correspond with the clearly defined concept
of the Kunstkammer were not placed in a dif-
ferent location presents itself, since what is
called Rudolf’s inventory records only those
objects that were situated in the main Kun-
stkammer, not those in the remaining three
rooms of what was called the Vordere Kunst-
kammer.
There must have been an even older list
of items compiled before Rudolf’s invento-
ry, as two records in Rudolf’s inventory were
linked to “altes Inventar” (old inventory).37
The discovery of Rudolf’s inventory
meant a major shift in the professional re-
search on Rudolfine collections. The Kun-
stkammer was by no means a mere cabinet of
curiosities,38 but a systematically construct-
ed collection based on encyclopaedic princi-
ples and composed of various objects from
nature, human creation, and the knowledge
that existed to date. It was not just a static
exposition in the style of a theatrum mundi,
but was a vivid organism and a fascinating
source of knowledge and inspiration for other
court painters. The precious materials from
the collection were used for the production
of art objects created in the Rudolfine work-
shops, which once again found their place
in the Kunstkammer. 39 Even the particular
37 bukovinská 2009, p. 168.
38 schlosser 1908, p. 78.
39 fučíková 1987, p. 52.
| 120 |
objets d’art made from, for instance, ostrich
eggs, turtle shells, and different kinds of nuts
were primarily understood as scientific ob-
jects, as evidenced by their Latin names cited
in the inventory entries along with references
to the relevant literature. Court physicians
and natural scientists could also use them for
their scientific studies. Inanimate specimens
of fauna and flora were supplemented by live
animals in a menagerie and an aviary, as well
as those freely bred in the Stag Moat and live
plants grown in the botanical garden. 40
The more precise internal arrangement
of the Kunstkammer and Vordere Kammer can
be reconstructed using the inventories from
the years 1619 and 1621. Huge cabinets were
laid out in the rooms, containing the items
in the collection grouped according to their
category. There were twenty of these cabi-
nets in the Kunstkammer proper and sev-
enteen more of them stood in the adjacent
rooms, known as the Vordere Kammer. These
twenty cabinets were probably made for the
Kunstkammer, while tables and chests were
brought here from the summer rooms where
the collection was originally located. They
were marked with numbers and letters: the
first letter A, the last letter B, and the cabi-
nets between them were numbered from 1
to 18. The cabinets in the Vordere Kunstkam-
mer could only stand near a full wall, since
these spaces were curved; inside they were
divided into from two to six shelves. In oth-
er cabinets still items are stored in smaller
boxes. 41 The cabinets were usually used to
display smaller items, while the larger ob-
jects, especially globes, clocks, automatic
machines, chests, mirrors, musical instru-
ments, and stones with figural decoration,
were typically displayed freely or on a long
40 findlen 1997, p. 214.
41 bukovinská 1997, p. 202.
 green table described in the inventories as
“lange grüne tafel” placed in the middle of the
main Kunstkammer, as well as on other small-
er tables. The latter were mainly used for var-
ious automatic machines, but also for objets
d’art and precious stones. 42 The possibility is
not excluded that the green table is depicted
on a folio with the narwhal horn considered
the corner of the mythical unicorn of what
was called the Museum of Emperor Rudolf II,
with illustrations of zoological items from
the emperor’s collections. Beneath the win-
dows were tables and chests on which other
objects were laid. The position of smaller ta-
bles along the large green table is described
in the inventory from the year 1621: “Truhen
und schreibtische, so an der erden am bemelter
grünen tafel nacheinander stehen”. Other ta-
bles stood under the windows and on them
were built cabinets and chests, as well as
sculptures. Similar furniture was also to be
found in the Vordere Kunstkammer. 43 Some
books from Rudolf’s library were also stored
in the Kunstkammer. It is assumed that the
library was located in a separate room. 44
The cabinets marked with the numbers 1, 3,
and 5 contained some rare prints and man-
uscripts, 45 e.g. Ptolemy’s Geographia or the
illuminated edition Theatrum orbis terrarum
(1570) by Abraham Ortelius. 46 A total of 141
small paintings of various motifs on wood,
stone, and copper were recorded in the cabi-
nets marked with the numbers 7 and 8.
42 macgregor 1994, p. 73.
43 bukovinská 1997, pp. 203–204.
44 In the inventory from 1607–1611, there is a
recommendation by the imperial librarian to
brighten the library: “utque tandem vere imperatoris
vocari et cum quavis alterius regis aut principis
bibliotheca comparari possit” See zimmermann 1888,
p. LIII, reg. no. 4663.
45 fučíková 1987, p. 50.
46 findlen 1997, p. 211.
| 121 |
Rudolf’s Kunstkammer was very close
to the collections in Ambras and Munich. In
Munich, objects that were mostly grouped
by material affinity were placed on large rec-
tangular tables in the middle of the halls and
on smaller tables under the windows in the
Kunstkammer. When the objects were being
placed, the visual effect was also emphasised,
as the collection was also accessible to vis-
itors from high social ranks. 47 The Ambras
Kunstkammer was arranged according to a
fixed order, which also took into account the
aesthetic aspect of the items in the collec-
tion. The objects were divided into groups ac-
cording to their material affinity, regardless
of age and provenance, and exhibited in 18
high cabinets reaching to the ceiling. A suit-
able background colour in the cabinets was
chosen for each group to make the exhibits
stand out well. Blue was chosen for gold and
green for silver. The objects were protected
against dust by canvas curtains. The Munich
and Ambras collections were supposed to be
representative, as visitors were counted. On
the contrary, in Rudolf’s Kunstkammer many
items were hidden in decorative containers
and stored in cabinets with or without doors,
and more time was needed to view them.
The transverse wing at the Prague Cas-
tle combined two types of collection areas;
the Kunstkammer and a walk-through gal-
lery. A similar layout appeared in Vienna in
the second half of the 1580s, when Rudolf
had a longitudinal three-storey building with
three corridors with a length of 46 m and an
inner width of 3.6 m built next to the exist-
ing building housing the Kunstkammer. There
was a gallery on the third floor and the two
corridors below it were directly connected
with the floors on which the upper and low-
er Kunstkammern were located. The interior
47 seelig 2017, pp. 76–89.
of the gallery on the third floor was sectioned
by deep niches. Although the exact purpose
of this room is unknown today, it is possible
to assume that it was intended for the dis-
playing of sculptures. 48
| Eliška Zlatohlávková |
The Kunstkammer of
Peter Wok of Rosenberg
The son of Jost III of Rosenberg and Anna of
Rogendorf, Peter Wok of Rosenberg, took
over the care of the house of Rosenberg in
1592 after the death of his older brother Wil-
liam of Rosenberg. He had been oriented to-
wards the imperial court in Vienna since his
youth, which he spent in the environment
of the court of the Austrian Archduke Max-
imilian of Habsburg. His occasional stays in
Germanic countries culminated in the ear-
ly 1560s in his nomination as Maximilian’s
chamberlain. 49
His contacts with the Habsburg court un-
doubtedly played an important role in shap-
ing his cultural interests and in the creation of
spaces for housing his collection, comprising
a library, a picture gallery, and a Kunstkam-
mer. Peter Wok also met the well-known col-
lector and art patron Johanns Jakob Fugger,
and he probably visited him during his trips
to Augsburg, when he could have been shown
his collection.50
The Grand Tour that Peter Wok undertook
to Western Europe between 1562 and 1563
may also have influenced his interests in bib-
48 karner 2014, pp. 208–209.
49 pánek 1996, p. 150.
50 pánek 1996, p. 150.
| 122 |
liophilic, collecting, and patronage activity.
During December 1562 he travelled through
Germany, where he spent four days in Cologne,
and on December 28 he arrived in Aachen,
from where he continued to Maastricht. He
spent the last day of the year in Liège. At the
beginning of January 1563 he continued fur-
ther in the territory of the Dutch provinces. On
this occasion he met with William of Orange
and was received by other important Dutch
leaders, Lamoraal Egmont and Charles de
Berlaymont.51 Later he visited England for two
weeks, and there he met many members of roy-
alty, including the English Queen Elizabeth I.52
He returned to Český Krumlov in April 1563.
While in the Netherlands, as was cus-
tomary among young noblemen during a
Grand Tour, Peter Wok must have purchased
paintings and books, but all that has been
preserved is specific information on the pur-
chase of a set of graphic sheets from Ant-
werp.53 Wok’s diary is dominated by records of
the visits he made to aristocratic settlements,
testifying to the impression that they made
on the young nobleman.54 It is probably no
coincidence that shortly after returning to his
native land, Wok started to build his own col-
lection of books and artworks. Probably influ-
enced by the proximity of Emperor Rudolf II,
Wok also began to gather together a group
of artists who would work predominantly for
him. One of them was the Třeboň-based gold-
smith Jan, who made silver tableware. Wok
paid Anton Schweinberger, one of the most
prominent imperial goldsmiths, to teach the
Krumlov-based goldsmith Baltazar Werner.
The painter Bartoloměj Beránek painted por-
51 pánek 1993, pp. 16–17.
52 fučíková 2011b, pp. 338–341.
53 pánek 1996, p. 123; pánek 1993, p. 18.
54 pánek 1993, p. 12; fučíková 2011b, p. 339;
pánek 2010, pp. 63–66.
traits, writing desk decorations, coats of arms
on drums and trumpets, and various maps
for Wok. He also trained Wok’s court painter
Tomáš Třebechovský for several years. Tře-
bechovský was mostly engaged in painting in-
terior decorations, such as the halls, shelves,
and ceiling in the library of Třeboň Chateau.
He also painted portraits and procured art-
works for Wok in Linz. 55
There is no evidence in the archives that
Wok purchased paintings from Rudolf’s court
painters, although he was certainly in con-
tact with them. It is documented that he
bought a print from Bartholomeus Sprang-
er, which was probably quite sizable, judg-
ing by the purchase price.56 He also became
godfather to the son of Hans von Aachen
in 1610.57 It is possible that he had copies of
Aachen’s paintings made by one of his paint-
ers. The Rosenbergs’ records mention other
important Rudolfine court artists such as
the glass cutter Caspar Lehmann and the
gemstone cutter Cosimo Castrucci.58 Peter
Wok developed an extraordinary passion
for glyptics. Not only did he buy the works
of the famous cutter Ottavio Miseroni, who
worked in the imperial court, but from 1592
he had his own gemstone expert, Hans Hein-
rich Rabenhaupt, who bought rare raw mate-
rials for him.59 The Rudolfine goldsmith and
engraver Hertzich van Bein set gems in silver
tableware for Peter Wok.60 These precious
objects were made in a workshop which was
established on the banks of the River Vltava
in Český Krumlov. William of Rosenberg also
55 fučíková 2011b, p. 340.
56 mareš 1896–1897, p. 740.
57 mareš 1896–1897, p. 92; fusenig 2010, pp. 10–11.
58 mareš 1896–1897, pp. 351–354; fučíková 2011b,
p. 340.
59 březan 1985, pp. 338–341.
60 bukovinská 2003, pp. 42–44.
| 123 |
bought various measuring instruments from
Erasmus Habermel, the famous manufactur-
er of astronomical and measuring devices.61
Apart from the record of the activities of
artists and craftsmen in the service of Peter
Wok, not much is known of the existence of
a specific space for his collection before he
settled in the chateau of Třeboň. An impor-
tant stage in the transformation of the Rosen-
berg collection was the transfer of the court
in 1604 to Třeboň, where a new construction
was especially designed to house his collec-
tion.62 The new building had some analogies
with Rudolf’s arrangements of the spaces de-
signed to house his vast collections at Prague
Castle, with the installation of a library, a
gallery for paintings, and a Kunstkammer as
separate and apparently independent spaces,
but under the same roof.
The simple building, the construction of
which was commissioned by Peter Wok from
the Italian architect Domenico Cometa,63 con-
sisted of a ground floor which housed flats for
the Rosenbergs’ clerks and officers (including
Václav Březan) and a first floor where the li-
brary and the picture gallery were situated.64
The surface area of the library was 320 m2, and
it was made up of two large halls with dimen-
sions of 20.4 × 8.1 m and 25.9 × 7.2 m.65
After the completion of the construction
works, the furnishings were installed and the
demanding decoration of the interior was car-
ried out by Třebechovský. He not only painted
the ceilings, but he also decorated the shelves
with small roses, jugs, and buttons that were
61 fučíková 2011a, pp. 614–615; březan 1985,
pp. 338–341.
62 březan 1880, p. 218; salaba 1944, pp. 9–12.
63 krčálová 1978, pp. 34–55.
64 březan 1880, p. 218; mareš 1896–1897, p. 710.
65 On the library of Peter Wok see veselá 2005;
dudáček 1985, pp. 43–45.
 rendered in gold and silver. The unifying el-
ement of the interior was the colour green,
used on the shelves, tables, and the entrance
door.66 This colour was perhaps selected in
order to create a harmonious whole in combi-
nation with the physical appearance and col-
our of most of the Rosenberg family’s books.67
The halls were also furnished with four long
tables.
Unlike the library, the exact position of
the Kunstkammer is unknown; however, it
was situated in the building complex. Like the
Rudolfine Kunstkammer, with which that of
the Rosenbergs shared some similarities, it
could have occupied the ground floor, thus
standing under the gallery, as was the case
at Prague Castle.
The Rosenbergs’ Kunstkammer existed
as an organism in its own right, functioning
in parallel with the other spaces such as the
gallery, the treasury, and the armoury. Ap-
parently, the Kunstkammer was not even an
integral part of the library. At the same time,
it was not part of the representative spaces,
nor of the private ones. It is highly probable
that it was not accessible to the public. It is
surprising that Václav Březan does not men-
tion it anywhere, corroborating the hypothe-
sis that the Kunstkammer was a private space,
for the enjoyment of Peter Wok alone.
The content of the Rosenbergs’ Kunstkam-
mer is known thanks to the inventory which
was compiled after the death of Peter Wok of
Rosenberg (1611) and most probably after the
sudden death of the last of the Rosenberg heirs
– Peter of Švamberk – in November 1620.68
The inventory describes more than 185 indi-
vidual items in the collection. Despite the fact
that this number is not comparable with the
66 salaba 1944, pp. 9–12.
67 veselá 2005, p. 82.
68 stejskal 2001, pp. 66–85.
| 124 |
extent and volume of the imperial Kunstkam-
mer, from the point of view of its function and
content it resembled what was called Vordere
Kunstkammer of Rudolf II.69 The inventory
first lists the scientific instruments, followed
by artificial curiosities and natural materials,
reflecting the content of the mannerist cab-
inet of curiosities comprehending scientifica
artificialia and naturalia.
The category of scientifica includes an ex-
traordinarily numerous and high-quality col-
lection of compasses. In 21 cases, a compass
was the main item in the collection (on several
occasions it was combined with a calendar or
a ruler), and at least nine other navigation de-
vices served as a complement to various other
measuring instruments and gauges (mathe-
matical instruments, a triangle, a star globe,
a meteorological instrument, a clock, etc.).
Six compasses were made from gilded silver,
two of them purely from silver, and some of
them from brass. The various round, four-sid-
ed, big and smaller folding compasses, or the
compasses decorated with Švamberk swans
and the Ursini coat of arms, usually described
individually, were apparently dominated by a
beautiful compass made from ivory and dec-
orated with gold and silver.70
The number of astrological and mathe-
matical devices amounts to almost a hundred,
which, compared to the 120 geometric and
mathematical instruments of the imperial
cabinet of curiosities, makes the Rosenbergs’
Kunstkammer a very special case.71
Apart from the already-mentioned items,
the high-quality profile of the section devot-
ed to scientific instruments also included
clocks with automatic mechanisms, among
them one with the figure of Bacchus, a star
69 stejskal 2001, p. 68.
70 stejskal 2001, pp. 68–69.
71 švejda 2011, p. 617.
globe, celestial spheres, various models,
and more or less useless toys, for instance
a “windmill” resembling Wok’s indicator of
wind direction dating back to the Bechyně
period.72 Some of the most interesting and
precious items were two telescopes which
were reportedly not owned even by Rudolf II,
who was forced to borrow them for the pur-
pose of observing, as in the case of the great
theoretician Johannes Kepler in August and
September 1610, when he was able to use a
telescope for the first time.73
Apart from items relating to dining, such
as cutlery for the princely table, tableware,
dishes, cups, and goblets, and several items
from the military sphere, the category of ar-
tificialia also contains artefacts of a religious
character (a rosary made of beads), luxurious
items used as interior furnishing (boards, a
writing desk, coats of arms), and artworks.
Among them was a set of eight wax sculp-
tures with various themes (William of Rosen-
berg with the Order of the Golden Fleece, a
woman, a Turkish khan (?), etc.), a depiction of
Paracelsus on gilded copper, and two paint-
ings (on canvas?) with an unspecified female
theme. There were also two architectural
models; one of these, a model of the Český
Krumlov Chateau, was made from ivory and
stored in a kind of black wardrobe.74
The inventory records, attesting to a very
limited representation of naturalia, are in
sharp contrast to, and contradiction of, the
numerous mentions contained in the ac-
counts from Wok’s times. The purchases, gifts,
payments for the processing of various rocks,
and the purposeful accumulation of a collec-
tion of local and foreign flora and fauna75 were
72 stejskal 2001, p. 69.
73 stejskal 2001, p. 69.
74 stejskal 2001, p. 70
75 konečný 1997, pp. 37–42.
| 125 |
such an integral and common part of the bi-
annual administrative work of the chamber
scribes that we can say that the collection
was almost completely dispersed within just
a few years following Wok’s death.76
The inventory provides very little oppor-
tunity for any quantitative listing. Among
the items belonging to the natural realm, it
is probably possible to interpret the entry
“der Todt in einer 2 Almern Blau geferbt umb
gulden Straimen I Stk.” as a skeleton.77 The
presence of a skeleton is not surprising, giv-
en Wok’s known motto memento mori and his
profound interest in the natural sciences.78 In
addition, Dr. Jessenius was a regular guest at
Třeboň and it is provable that autopsies took
place there; what is more, this famous phy-
sician even dedicated his treatise on bones
(De ossibus tractatum) to Rosenberg in 1601.79
The way in which the individual objects
were displayed in the Rosenbergs’ Kunstkam-
mer also seemed to be modelled on the ar-
rangement of Rudolf’s Kunstkammer. There
were large wardrobes with compartments di-
vided into several smaller spaces, large and
small chests, and cases – the futral. Accord-
ing to the inventory, about ten closets were
located in the space of the Rosenberg (and
later Švamberk) Kunstkammer. The main col-
ours, with the exception of a blue wardrobe
with golden stripes, were black and white. The
colour white also prevailed on four caissons,
and eleven cases were also painted black and
white.80 The fact that the objects were kept in
wardrobes, and sometimes even in their cases,
suggests that the Kunstkammer could hardly
have served a semi-public function and there-
76 stejskal 2001, p. 71.
77 stejskal 2001, p. 71.
78 pánek 1996, pp. 300–305.
79 stejskal 2001, p. 71.
80 stejskal 2001, p. 75.
fore not have fulfilled any representative func- court ceremonies. But all this has to wait a
tion. It was therefore rather an instrument of few more months – the renewed state order
knowledge at the service of Peter Wok, who until May, and Ferdinand III (1608–1657) and
acquired knowledge and ennobled his own in- his stepmother Eleonora Gonzaga (1598–
tellect through its content. 1655) for their coronations until November.
Peter Wok’s Kunstkammer should not Nevertheless, in the early evening of this day,
be considered a representative space, but the bells of all Prague’s churches are ringing.
instead it is an analogy of the universal “mu- Karl I of Liechtenstein (1569–1627), the gov-
seum” with evident elements of an individual ernor of the Kingdom of Bohemia and one of
approach, including also a collection of ob- the richest and most influential aristocrats in
jects with a personal symbolic value. the country, has died. This nobleman was an
absolutely key figure for the future expansion
| Alice Fornasiero | of the Liechtenstein family. It was he who ob-
tained the princely title, and he is thus the de
facto founder of the Princely Family of Liech-
tenstein.82 Even before the extensive territo-
rial gains in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown
at the end of the 16th and the beginning of the
Carolus aquirens. Karl I 17th century, the Liechtensteins were by no
means a completely foreign nobility, unfamil-
of Liechtenstein and his iar with the conditions in the kingdom. They
acquired estates in Moravia as early as in 1251,
spaces for collections when King Přemysl Otakar II (1233–1278) do-
nated the village of Mikulov (Nikolsburg) to
The date is 12 February 1627. It is a time Heinrich I of Liechtenstein (1216–1265), and
when Prague is alive with the preparations even Heinrich’s son Heinrich II (about 1260–
for the visit of the Emperor’s court for what 1314) fought in 1278 in the fateful Battle on
is called the double coronation, a time when the Marchfeld alongside Přemysl Otakar II
the proclamation of the Renewed State Order against Rudolf I of Habsburg (1218–1291). Al-
of the Hereditary Kingdom of Bohemia is being though in 1560 the Liechtensteins definitive-
prepared, 81 and finally a time when the capi- ly lost Mikulov to the Kereczeny family and
tal of the Kingdom of Bohemia is once again later to the Dietrichsteins, they continued to
anticipating, after a long time, the almost hold Moravian estates in the vicinity of Val-
forgotten splendour of great festivities and tice (Feldsberg) in Lower Austria, especially

81 Verneuerte Landesordnung des Erbkönigreichs

Böhaimb or in Czech Obnovené zřízení zemské. In
original: Der Röm. Kai. auch zu Hung. und Böhaimb [et]c.
Königl. Maj. Ferdinandi deß Andern [et]c. Vernewerte
Landes-Ordnung Deroselben Erb. Königreichs Böhaimb,
Wien, Gregor Gelbhaar 1627 and Obnowené Práwo a
Zřjzenj Zemské Dědjčného Králowstwj Cžeského. Prague,
Jan Šuman, 1627. For a current study see rentzow
1998; bergerhausen 2001, pp. 327–351.
82 For further details on the personality of Karl I of
Liechtenstein see wurzbach 1866, pp. 129–130;
falke 1877, pp. 125–242; krones 1883, pp. 614–618;
büchel 1925, pp. 76–81; stloukal 1912, pp. 21–37,
153–169, 389–434; haupt 1983; press 1988, pp. 15–86;
stögmann 2007, pp. 295–303; stögmann 2009,
pp. 13–18; schweinberger 2016; stögmann 2017,
pp. 61–94.

| 126 |
38 | Jan van de Velde (II), Karl I of Liechtenstein, 1622–27, engraving on paper, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.

| 127 |
Lednice (Eisgrub).83 Therefore, as was the case
in older historiography, no one can accuse the
Liechtensteins – and Karl I in particular – of ig-
norance of Czech conditions, which could have
been reflected in the events leading to the Bat-
tle of White Mountain. Neither can the Liech-
tensteins be accused of any disrespect for the
institution of the King of Bohemia, since Karl
and his brothers Maximilian (1578–1645) and
Gundakar (1580–1658) were always faithful to
the emperor and Karl was always one of the
highest-ranking officials in the kingdom. In key
events of his functions, he helped to consoli-
date imperial power and, figuratively speaking,
Habsburg absolutism in the kingdom. On the
other hand, he also spoke Czech and studied
with Czech nobles at the Academy of the Czech
Brethren in Ivančice (Eibenschütz), Moravia.
He was also well versed in the structure of the
Moravian estate community, and in the years
1604–1607 he chaired the assemblies in the
office of the Moravian provincial governor. In
any case, it was not only loyalty to the em-
peror that raised this venerable but relatively
average aristocratic family among the most
important financiers and political players of
the Bohemian Kingdom and thus the whole
of Central Europe. It was also a well-devised
marriage policy, through which the two Liech-
tenstein brothers expanded their estates to
the north of their ancestral Lower Austria.
In 1590 Karl married Anna Maria of Boskov-
ice and Černá hora (1575–1625), and in 1597
Maximilian married Anna Maria’s sister Kath-
arina (died 1637). Through the marriage of
the only heirs of Jan Šembera of Boskovice
(approx. 1543–1597), the extensive Moravian
83 For a detailed study on the estates and rights of
the Liechtenstein family in Bohemia and Moravia see
merki 2013, pp. 9–167; for Karl’s time see chapters 9.
1560 bis 1606: Zurück nach Mähren on pp. 68–80 and 10.
Das 17. Jahrhundert: Der grosse Sprung nach vorn, on
pp. 80–102; vařeka 2020.
| 128 |
property of the Lords of Boskovice was be-
queathed to the Liechtensteins.84 And it was
not only these estates that passed through
marriages and the subsequent extinction of
the lineage of the Boskovic family into the
hands of the Liechtensteins. The Liechten-
steins also gained a cultural heritage repre-
sented by the library and collections, espe-
cially from the time of Ladislav of Boskovice
(1455–1520) and Jan Šembera of Boskovice. It
was therefore the Liechtensteins who, at the
turn of the 16th and 17th centuries, inherited
the property and legacy of a traditional, influ-
ential, and culturally very well-situated family.
They were in a similar situation to the Slavata
family with the Lords of Hradec or the Lob-
kowicz family with the Pernsteins or partly the
Rosenbergs (through the last wife of William
of Rosenberg (1535–1592), Polyxena of Pern-
stein (1566–1642).85 Coincidentally (or not?),
both the Slavatas and the Lobkowicz family
played a similar role in Czech history to the
Liechtensteins. In the events that preceded
and followed the Battle of White Mountain,
they were faithful allies of the emperor and
supporters of the Catholic faith.
Tomáš Knoz named five basic precondi-
tions for a successful career of an aristocratic
individual in Central European society at the
time of the White Mountain upheavals. He ap-
plied them to the most important personali-
ties of the time – Karl I of Liechtenstein, Car-
dinal Franz of Dietrichstein (1570–1636), and
General Albrecht of Waldstein (1583–1634).
These were: ancestral continuity; a property
84 For a relevant study see oberhammer 1990,
pp. 182–203.
85 For further details, as well as relevant literature,
see the chapter Genealogical Cycles, Heraldic Cycles,
viri illustri, Portrait Galleries in this book on the
development of a specific phenomenon from the
Middle Ages to the end of the 16th century in the
Lands of the Bohemian Crown.
background; connection with the state envi-
ronment of the country; confessional affilia-
tion, and, last but not least, a relation to the
monarch and the house of the sovereign.86
Knoz even considered these five categories
more important than upbringing or education,
for example. He also considered one of the ba-
sic preconditions for the success of the White
Mountain generation of Liechtensteins (even
compared to the Dietrichsteins or Waldsteins)
to be ancient origin and ancestral continuity
in the community of the Moravian aristocracy.
In his opinion it was primarily a legal variable
which was a prerequisite for specific inclusion
in a hierarchical society and access to provin-
cial and important court offices.87 The ancient
affiliation of the family to the Moravian nobil-
ity was also mentioned by some original liter-
ary sources, such as Zrcadlo slavného Markrab-
ství moravského (Mirror of the Famous Moravian
Margraviate) by Bartolomew Paprocki of Hlo-
holy (Bartosz Paprocki) (ca. 1540/43–1614),
published in Olomouc in 1593.88 Yet another
question that occupied the minds of primari-
ly Czech historians for many decades was the
question of confession, more precisely the re-
lation of Karl, Maximilian, and Gundakar to
the Protestant faith, and their subsequent
conversion to the Catholic faith.89 However,
their conversion goes hand in hand with the
first question of loyalty to the Habsburgs, and
the Liechtenstein brothers were no unique ex-
ception in the estate community of the king-
86 For a more detailed study of the topic see knoz
2013, pp. 119–246.
87 knoz 2013, p. 122.
88 paprocký z hlohol 1593, fol. 143r–144v; for
a modern reprint see paprocký z hlohol 1993.
89 For an erudite and humorous study on the rela-
tions of the Czech historians to their own history
viewed from the perspective of the time, see rak 1994;
for a study on the image of Liechtensteins in Czech
history textbooks see gracová 2012, pp. 183–194.
| 129 |
dom. Many of the high nobility were Protes-
tants in the first half of the 16th century, and
as the Habsburgs began to assert themselves
increasingly in the kingdom’s politics, they
converted to Catholicism – or at least part of
the family did. And yet – similarly to Emperor
Maximilian II (1527–1576) – they did not have
to be (and were not) zealous or even fanatical
followers of the Catholic faith. It was large-
ly a political decision.90 Thomas Winkelbau-
er distinguished several types and motives
for conversions, and also applied them to
the Liechtenstein brothers. The most funda-
mental decision should be a serious conver-
sion – for an internal (spiritual) reason. The
most widespread was a conversion for exter-
nal reasons – described and explained by the
preserved (archival) sources. Other reasons
for conversion could be based on long-term
consideration or, on the contrary, a sudden de-
cision. Winkelbauer described both Karl and
Maximilian as pragmatic converts for external
reasons, while Gundakar converted for inter-
nal reasons – out of conviction.91
Karl I of Liechtenstein was born on July 30,
1569, probably in Valtice Castle, as the oldest
son of Hartmann II, Baron of Liechtenstein
(1544–1585), and Anna Maria zu Ortenburg
(1547–1601). Karl’s father was a staunch sup-
porter of the Augsburg Confession, and even
served as one of the leaders of the Protestant
Estates of Lower Austria.92 Under the reign
90 For interesting answers on a number of
relevant topics see winkelbauer 1999, pp. 431–452;
winkelbauer 2000, pp. 476–540; knoz 2001a,
pp. 301–315; mader 2007, pp. 403–440.
91 winkelbauer 1999.
92 For a general view on the history of
Protestantism in Central Europe see louthan –
murdock 2015 (here see also the chapter on
Protestantism in Austria: astrid von schlachta,
The Austrian Lands, pp. 68–91); for a history of Austrian
Protestantism see mecenseffy 1956.
of Hartmann II, the financial situation of the
House of Liechtenstein had improved signifi-
cantly. He became a creditor of Emperor Ru-
dolf II, and was skilled enough to profit from
this position. As early as in 1575, he bought
back the Lednice estate, where he died pre-
maturely ten years later. Hartmann’s broth-
er Georg Erasmus (1547–1591) became the
head of the family and guardian of five de-
pendent descendants (in addition to Hart-
mann’s three already-mentioned sons, there
were his daughters Katharina (1572–1643) and
Judith (1575–1621)). He was a soldier, general,
and loyal follower of Archduke Maximilian III
(1558–1618), and thanks to his services to the
Habsburgs he enjoyed a good reputation at
the court, which, together with the success-
ful engagement of another uncle, Heinrich
IX (1554–1585), at the court of the emperor’s
brother Matthias (1557–1619), significantly
helped to start the court career of their young
nephew Karl. Earlier, Karl had received a very
good education at the Academy of the Czech
Brethren in Ivančice (Eibenschütz). His class-
mate and friend, even after Karl’s conversion
in 1599, was the distinguished Moravian aris-
tocrat, politician, and writer of the Protestant
faith Karl the Elder of Zierotin (1564–1636).93
From the summer of 1585, Karl was enrolled
at the University of Basel and even later, again
with Karl the Elder of Zierotin, also at the Uni-
versity of Geneva.94 According to Zierotin’s di-
ary, the young Liechtenstein visited France in
1588, and while Karl the Elder continued on to
England, Karl I returned to Vienna.95
Karl’s official career was started by a
renewed conflict with the Turks, what was
called the Long Turkish or Thirteen Years’
93 On the figure of Karl the Elder of Žerotín see
knoz 2008.
94 möhl 1977, p. 125.
95 haupt 1983, p. 12.
| 130 |
War, which began in 1593. The 24-year-old
aristocrat was appointed district marshal
of Hradiště. At the same year he was men-
tioned as Archduke Matthias’s (1557–1619)
butler. Two years later, his political career be-
gan with an engagement in the office of the
Moravian Landrecht, where he became a juror
of the Moravian Provincial Court in 1596 and
supreme judge in 1599. Until his conversion,
he was one of the leaders of the Protestant
estates in Moravia. When Johann Septimius
(1558–1595), the last brother of Hartmann
II. died, Karl became the head of the family
and inherited all the Liechtenstein estates,
which he divided in 1598 as follows: Karl re-
ceived the heart of the dominion of Valtice
and Herrnbaumgarten, Maximilian received
Rabensburg and Hohenau in Lower Austria,
and Gundakar received Wilfersdorf and Rin-
gelsdorf.96 Lednice, as the brothers’ maternal
residence, and also the Viennese palace re-
mained indivisible. Karl repeatedly lent mon-
ey to the emperor, gaining state offices and
enormous power. He converted to Catholi-
cism in 1599, and very soon began to amass
even more lucrative offices. In 1600 he re-
ceived the title of imperial court master and
confidential counsel – and we are still at the
very beginning of Karl’s career and his terri-
torial and financial gains.97 However, his suc-
cesses in the field of politics are not the top-
ic of this chapter, although these are closely
related. Therefore, let us briefly summarise.
Although Karl held one of the highest posi-
tions at Rudolf II’s imperial court, during the
power struggle among the Habsburg broth-
ers he sided with Matthias, who granted Karl
a hereditary princely title in 1608 as a token
of his gratitude. The situation of what was
96 haupt 1983, p. 13.
97 schwarz 1943, p. 282; haupt 1983, p. 15; maťa
2004, p. 178.
called the Bruderzwist was very complicat-
ed, and we cannot view Karl as a defector or
traitor to the kingdom’s interests – rather the
opposite.98 In 1614 Karl acquired the Duchy
of Opava (Troppau). He fought on the side of
the Habsburgs in the Battle of White Moun-
tain, and from his office he presided over the
capture and punishment of the leaders of
the Bohemian uprising (1618–1620) on the
Old Town Square on 21 June 1621.99 In 1622
he was appointed to the positions of governor
and vice-regent of the Bohemian Kingdom,
and gained the Duchy of Krnov (Jägerndorf)
from the confiscated property as his reward,
and was also the first member of the Liech-
tenstein family to acquire the Order of the
Golden Fleece.
The vast majority of the older histori-
ography dealt with Karl I of Liechtenstein
as an important and capable (sometimes of
everything) politician with an important role
in one of the most crucial moments of Czech
history. However, there are few studies on
Karl’s relationship to the visual arts.100 The
exceptions are the monographic works of
Herbert Haupt on the trio of princes of the
17th century – Karl I, Karl Eusebius (1611–
1684), and Johann Adam I Andreas (1657–
1712).101 This work too, focused on the spac-
es in which Karl I kept his collections, would
98 For further details see Chapter II.
Gütererwerbungen, mährische Landespolitik und
“Bruderzwist im Hause Habsburg“ (1595 bis 1614) in
stögmann 2009, pp. 67–71.
99 For a study on the Old Town Square executions
and the role of Karl I von Liechtenstein see
winkelbauer 2012, pp. 51–71.
100 For an overview of the Liechtensteins and the
arts see wilhelm 1977, pp. 9–179, esp. 18–34;
polleross 1993, pp. 174–185; kräftner 2013, pp.
263–274; haupt 2014, pp. 13–30, on Karl I pp. 16–18;
see also other studies in this book.
101 haupt 1983; haupt 1998; haupt 2012; haupt
2007.
| 131 |
not have been possible without drawing upon
and quoting from Haupt’s work.
On the previous pages we have por-
trayed Karl as a capable politician, financi-
er, and founder of the princely family – his
moniker from the time, Karl the Acquirer
(Carolus aquirens), fits well with this descrip-
tion. Below we will focus more on a different
aspect of his personality, namely Karl’s “ex-
traordinary passion for artworks”, mentioned
by none other than Emperor Ferdinand II
(1578–1637) in a letter dealing with the set-
tlement of financial matters sent to Gunda-
kar of Liechtenstein and dated 5 December
1627.102 We have another letter to Karl from
the Emperor (Rudolf in this case) from the
opposite end of his career. In a letter from
1 September 1597 Rudolf wrote to Karl that
he had heard that: “[…] you should be provided
with excellent rare pieces of art and paintings
[…]”, and for this reason he sent him Count
Schlick, in whom Karl was to place his full
trust and comply with the wishes of the em-
peror.103 Emperor Rudolf’s wishes were more
than clear, and correspondingly Karl replied
on 23 November that “[…] in accordance with
the will of His Majesty, [Karl] will arrange that
everything from the paintings and other items
102 “[…] auß unnserer kunstcamer und zimern etliche
gemäldte wie auch auß unserer tapezier unnsers
königlichen schloß alhir zu Prag, etliche stuckh tapezerey,
zweifelsohne zu disem endte zu sich begert, damit er, alß
welcher ein sondern lust zu künstlichen sachen gehabt,
ermeldte gemäldte nachmahlen, auch nach unsern
tapezereyen gleichmeßige werckhen lassen kundte.”, cit.
according to haupt 1983, 2: Quellenband, p. 290, item
no. 752; see also haupt 1985, pp. 14–18.
103 “[…] dass du mit vortrefflichen seltsamen
Kunststücken und Gemälden versehen sein sollest und
sende daher den Grafen Schlick an ihn, dem er vollen
Glauben schenken und den Wünschen des Kaisers
willfahren sollte.” cit. according to zimmermann 1888,
p. XLIV, reg. no. 4621.
will be shown to Count Šlik […].”104 At the end
of the letter, Karl adds his wish: “[…] that none
of these objects be provided to him for a fee, but
only for the joy of the Emperor, that he accepts
this and continues to maintain his imperial fa-
vour.”105
Armoury (Rüst und Sattelkammer)
We have the first preserved inventories of
Karl’s estates from the last years of the 16th
century, i.e. from the first years of his reign
over the family. From 27 February 1596 there
is an inventory of 25 pieces of silverware from
Lednice Castle, which were sent to the im-
perial goldsmith Magnus Kornblum106 to be
melted down. Another inventory from Led-
nice concerns the equipment of the castle ar-
moury (rüstcammer zue Eysgrueb) and is dat-
ed 17 August 1596.107 While silverware was a
rather practical part of aristocratic house-
holds, although it was stored in silver cham-
bers (Silberkammern) because of its value, the
equipment of the Lednice armoury was luxu-
rious, and some of the items should certainly
be considered collectibles.
The most famous and certainly the most
imitated space of this kind (in today’s sense of
a prototype) – at least by the Central European
aristocracy – was what was called the Helden-
104 “Nachher zu gehorsamigster Vollziehung eur
Römisch kais. maj. allergnädigsten befehlig, was von
Gemälden und anderen Sachen verhanden, wird aller
Herr Graff Schlick gezeigt”, cit. according to
zimmermann 1888, p. XLV, reg. no. 4627.
105 “[…] dies Alles nicht dem Wert der Sache nach
sondern in kaiserlichen Gnaden anzunehmen und ihm
auch fernerhin die Kaiserliche Gewogenheit zu erhalten.”,
cit. according to zimmermann 1888, p. XLV, reg. no. 4627.
106 For Magnus Cornblum see list 1986, pp. 291–306.
107 haupt 1983, 2: Quellenband, pp. 129–132, items
nos. 1, 2.
| 132 |
rüstkammer (armoury of heroes), which was
established by Archduke Ferdinand II of Ty-
rol (1529–1595) at Ambras Castle in Innsbruck
in the mid-1570s.108 The early modern aristo-
crats, of whom Karl of Liechtenstein was no
exception (rather the opposite),109 showed a
great interest in historiography and genealo-
gy. In the second half of the 16th century they
began to create extensive portrait cycles. The
most interesting and most relevant ones for
our topic were the cycles of famous people
– viri illustri. This phenomenon is described
in detail in the relevant chapter of this book,
with references to a wealth of literature.110
It just so happened that viri illustri in various
forms and various contents penetrated into
a range of collecting spaces. In our case, Fer-
dinand collected not only portraits of famous
personalities, especially military leaders (of
which he had several dozen) for his armoury,
but also their actual combat equipment, i.e.
armour, swords, harnesses, saddles, etc. He
actually created a semi-private space for the
presentation of his hobby and his intellectual
capacity.111 This space was intended to con-
tinue to carry his legacy in the sense of the
position of a noble and educated individual
with regard to the whole world and his own
role in it, described in the foreword of the cat-
alogue of the armoury collection (mentioned
below) – Foreword to the kind reader (Vorrede
an den guethertzigen Leser) of the Armamen-
tarium heroicum: “But in order to bequeath his
timeless legacy to future generations, for many
108 For further details see scheicher 1990, pp. 69–
79; kuster 2017a, pp. 33–35; kuster 2017b, pp. 82–87.
109 Karl’s passion for genealogy is described in
wilhelm 1947–1950, pp. 5–13; haupt 1983, pp. 45–48.
110 See subchapter Genealogical cycles, heraldic
cycles, viri illustri, portrait galleries in this book.
111 For a study on the collectors’ spaces (with all
their overlaps) at Ambras Castle see scheicher 2017,
pp. 29–38.
years, sparing neither expense nor effort, he
gathered weapons and armour worn from the
past to the present day by famous war heroes,
emperors, kings, princes, counts, lords, and no-
bles who were warlords themselves in wars, or
at least well-known commanders, in the fight
against the enemy. He also sought incessantly
and with great diligence from distant and near-
by regions and quarters real portraits of these
war heroes and their true depictions. He paid
no regard to their noble family and origin, or to
their religious affiliation, but endeavoured only
to bring them into the company of heroes who
marched in military expeditions, regardless of
the reasons for which they were called or led,
how they gained their reputation or gave high
orders. The most outstanding archduke, how-
ever, was not satisfied with having said weap-
ons hung and stored in the armoury of the rul-
ing residence of Ambras for the pleasure of his
own eyes and those of his loved ones, but so that
any others too could similarly enjoy the jewels
with their own eyes, his ruling grace ordered
that those famous war heroes and rulers who
had been drawn into battle, whose weapons
and armour are in said armoury, were to be
made present in copperplate engravings, and
that their most important deeds, as well as the
acts of war of each of them, were to be described
and printed next to them in a brief explanation,
making them accessible to all.”112
All these relations and deep contempla-
tion of them were a typical concept for the
space of collecting. If we attempt to trace a
catalyst that perhaps led Ferdinand to this
kind of collecting, we can find it in a letter
in which the Count and well-known military
leader of the Imperial and Spanish armies
Peter Ernst I von Mansfeld-Vorderort (1517–
1604) asked for the archduke’s portrait for the
purpose of exhibiting it in the war armoury,
112 schrenck von notzing 1603, p. [15].
| 133 |
along with persons worthy of eternal memory
and Your [archduke’s] glory.113 The archduke’s
“military museum” even had its own catalogue,
which described what, or more precisely who,
was exhibited – the Archduke’s armamentar-
ium heroicum. The catalogue contains 125 en-
gravings by Domenicus Custos (1560–1612)
based on drawings by Giovanni Battista Fon-
tana (1524–1587), with texts by the archduke’s
secretary Jacob Schrenck of Notzing (1539–
1612). The catalogue (quite possibly the first
collection catalogue in the world) was pub-
lished in Latin (1601) and German (1603).114
Outstanding military achievements became
a decisive criterion for the selection of the
heroes – this was regardless of nationality,
religion, or even the relations of the heroes
to the Habsburgs. It was only their military
skills that, through the Archduke’s collection,
placed them among the most prominent men
of arms of their time.115 The Archduke’s con-
cept is well documented by a letter in which
Ferdinand instructed Schrenck on how to buy:
“you should […] keep a close eye on the persons
from whom you receive armour, so that at the
same time [with the armour] you bring […]the
history of its origin and know what ranks they
[the owners] had and what campaigns […] they
took part in […]”.116 After Ferdinand’s death in
1595, the collection was taken care of by the
113 Innsbruck, Tiroler Landesarchiv, Kunstsachen I,
1479. Count Mansfeld to Archduke Ferdinand II, 23
November 1566: “[…] furtrefflicher Ewiger Memorien
wirdingen Personen […] zu eren und gedechtnus Irer lob.”,
cit. according to kuster 2017a, p. 48.
114 schrenckhio à nozingen 1601; German edition
schrenck von notzing 1603.
115 On the phenomenon of imitatio heroica see
posselt-kuhli 2015, pp. 44–56; von den hoff –
schreurs-morét –posselt-kuhli et al. 2019,
pp. 79–95.
116 Innsbruck, Tiroler Landesarchiv, Kunstsachen I,
1503, fol. 2r – 2v, 1. 12. 1580; cit. according to kuster
2017a, p. 49.
39 | Domenicus Custos after Giovanni Battista Fontana, Jan Žižka of Trocnov, engraving and book typesetting
from Jakob Schrenck of Notzing, Der Aller Durchleuchtigisten und Großmächtigen Kayser […], Daniel Baur:
Innsbruck [1603].

Emperors Rudolf II and Matthias, who expand-
ed it with several more pieces. It is interest-
ing to observe how the spaces for Ferdinand’s
collection of militaria were gradually created.
Thomas Kuster traced and documented them
with archival sources as follows. The collec-
tion was first stored in the old armoury and
saddle chamber (Rüst und Sattelkammer) of
Innsbruck Castle. As documented by the in-
ventories from 1581, 1583, 1593, and 1594, the
collection gradually moved from the castle ar-
moury to Ambras, where it was most proba-
bly stored separately in three armouries.117 At
the latest in 1589, a new armoury was built
117 kuster 2017a, pp. 49–50.
which was able to house Ferdinand’s entire
collection.118 The wing of the building reserved
for the new armoury was demolished in 1881
and the exhibits were incorporated into oth-
er spaces at Ambras (mostly placed back in
older armouries) or taken to the Kunsthis-
torisches Museum in Vienna. We can only re-
construct the appearance of the armoury ac-
cording to models and floor plans.119 The only
118 For further information on the development of
the construction see scheicher 1986, pp. 509–623,
esp. pp. 590–591.
119 Models exhibited today at Ambras Castle from
the years 1839 (inv. no. PA 223), 1860 (PA 1490) and a
plan from 1858 (collection of plans, inv. no. C 273); cit.
according to kuster 2017a, p. 50.

| 134 |
exhibition space had an area of approximately
210 square metres, and was situated on the
first floor. It was accessible by descending the
stairs from the third armoury, which was in
another part of the castle.120 On the ground
floor there was probably an apartment and
a workshop (today we would probably call
these spaces a conservator’s workshop). The
exhibits were sorted according to Ferdinand’s
design. A hierarchy according to social status
can be recognised only in the case of the sec-
tion dedicated to emperors and kings, after
which it is no longer apparent.121 The method
of exposure corresponded to the customs of
the time, which were used in a similar way in
rooms such as art chambers (Kunstkammern).
Exhibition cabinets and showcases were used,
but also mannequins, wooden support struc-
tures for helmets, shields, swords, etc. All of
this was framed by the portrait gallery men-
tioned at the beginning – the viri illustri.
We cannot expect the armoury of Karl I
of Liechtenstein to be similarly sophisticat-
ed in concept as Ferdinand’s, all the more so
because at the time when Karl’s armoury was
constituted (most probably a short time be-
fore the first documented inventory was com-
piled in 1596), Karl did not yet have access to
Jacob Schrenck of Notzing’s aforementioned
catalogue, which was published in 1601. It is
interesting to observe how Karl’s armoury, or
rather armouries, differed in concept depend-
ing on their location and the required degree
of representation. As he gained more impor-
tant posts in the kingdom’s administration, he
also received more valuable gifts and needed
to present himself through more valuable ar-
tefacts, in this case weapons, ceremonial ar-
mour, saddles, horse harnesses, etc. In the in-
120 For further details see luchner 1958, ill. 42;
kuster 2017a, p. 50.
121 kuster 2017a, p. 50.
| 135 |
ventory from the Lednice Chateau from 1596
we find a large number of objects which, al-
though intended for Karl and his close circle,
are – with a few exceptions – still objects of rel-
atively common use and cannot be described
as collectibles. In contrast, in the inventory
from 1605 from Valtice Chateau (already af-
ter the publication of Schrenck’s book), an in-
creasing number of purely collector’s pieces
appear in the inventory.
The fortress in Lednice was a traditional
seat of the Moravian branch of the Liechten-
steins. However, under the burden of debts
they had to sell it in 1571. Only four years
later, Hartmann II, another family member
from the nearby Valtice branch, the father
of Karl I, purchased the village back for the
Liechtensteins.122 It was also Hartmann II
who launched the construction of the luxu-
rious Renaissance chateau/villa or Lusthaus
in Lednice. Karl I probably spent a substan-
tial part of his childhood here, and it can
therefore be assumed that he had a positive
attitude towards the small chateau. He be-
gan its further reconstruction – already as a
prince – in 1613, using the services of the im-
perial architect Giovanni Maria Filippi (about
1560 – after 1630). Other smaller and larger
reconstructions and new constructions of the
Lednice Chateau complex were carried out
over the next two hundred years, with the re-
sult that at the beginning of the second half of
the 1840s the old chateau was partly demol-
ished and partly rebuilt into its current form
in the spirit of English Gothic.
The first inventory of the Lednice Cha-
teau armoury is from 17 August 1596. It is
called Inventari aller unnd yeder rüßtungen
122 For further details on the history of the
construction of the Lednice (Eisgrub) Chateau see
svoboda 2004, pp. 175–191; körner 2005, pp. 85–136;
zatloukal 2012; konečný 2018.
wöhrn, püxen auch anderm gezeug zur reütte-
rey gehörig, so den 17 Augusti ao. 96 von neuem,
in der rüstcammer zue Eyßgrueb, geschrieben
unnd auß bevelch des herrn g. herrn Carl von
Liechtenstain durch Jonaßen Hüemer liech-
tenstainerischem raittmaister, dem Scipion de
Landia irer g. stallmaister eingeantwortt wor-
den inmassen hernach volgt:.123 The list item-
ises a total of 107 articles, but some items
are grouped as a single article. We can esti-
mate that in 1596 Karl’s armoury contained
approximately 500 items of various kinds
in four groups: armour and its components
and accessories; firearms; melee (cutting and
stabbing) weapons, and finally saddles and
harnesses with accessories. We can expect
that also in the space itself the objects were
grouped in a similar way as they are recorded
in the inventory – in cabinets or display cases,
with valuable pieces perhaps on mannequins.
In the first group, of armour and accessories,
there are a few more than 90 items (some
items are listed in pairs). The list calculates a
total of 31 complete and incomplete suits of
armour (rüstung) and two complete cuirass-
es (khüreß). The accessories also include the
arm straps of Karl’s father Hartmann (vom
herrn Hartman seeligen). Fourteen suits of
armour are marked as old (gar altte) and we
can only speculate as to whether they were
merely awaiting their fate or were grouped
together for the purpose of collecting. If we
pursue this line of thought further, in the
mid-1590s the Lednice armoury could have
served as a temporary collection point, and
the provisionally grouped items as a kind
of proto-collection for Karl. This may have
been awaiting the addition of further pieces
to create an interesting and better-organised
collection. At the same time, the chateau in
123 Based on a transcription from haupt 1983 2:
Quellenband, pp. 129–132, item no. 2.
| 136 |
Lednice was not the main family residence,
where we should expect any large (partly
utilitarian) armoury; it would rather be (and
was) in Valtice. Anyway, let us try to examine
further arguments concerning the inventory.
The second group is firearms (Röhr). The
list calculates a total of just over 150 items, of
which 118 are firearms of various types. The
fact that it was a private armoury and not an
arsenal for a personal guard or soldiers is evi-
dent from the relatively low number of inven-
toried objects, and especially their relatively
exclusive character. Among the firearms we
can find some inlaid with silver (mit silbern
platten), painted (verpaint), old objects (gar
altt glatt rohr), or a small hunting gun, which
originally belonged to, or was a gift from,
Karl’s aforementioned father-in-law Jan Šem-
bera of Boskovice (ain clain pürsch rohr, vom
herrn Schembro). It is important to mention
that Jan Šembera was still alive at the time
when the armoury was inventoried. He died
less than a year later, on 30 April 1597.
The third and least numerous group is of
melee (cutting and stabbing) weapons. The
list enumerates 40 items, among which again
are more luxurious or old pieces – swords in-
laid with silver (schwertter […] mit silbern plat-
ten), old swords (allte schwertter), a decorated
knife (ain hauswehr mit einem durchbroche-
nen kreitz), or also what was at that time a
rather ceremonial two-handed sword (paid-
enhannder). The fourth and last group is of
saddles and harnesses with accessories. It
numbers more than 230 items, of which 25
are saddles with accessories and seven com-
plete sets of harness for carriages and sleighs.
Even here we recognise objects for everyday
use, but also luxury or old items.
This brief look at the inventory of Karl’s
armoury at the Lednice Chateau provides us
with only few arguments that it was a semi-pri-
vate collector’s space, which served its master
as a means of at least partial representation
through collecting. Unfortunately, we do not
even have records of how the Lednice armoury
continued to develop. The second inventory
calculates the objects in Valtice Chateau.
Valtice became the main seat of the Liech-
tenstein family in the second half of the 16th
century, when Karl’s father Hartmann II took
over the seniority from his uncle Christopher IV
(died 1585). It was Hartmann II’s father, Georg
Hartmann (1513–1562), who began to trans-
form the Valtice seat from a mediaeval castle
into a more modern Renaissance chateau.124
Northwest of the existing castle was built a
rather intimate two-storey and four-winged
building with a regular courtyard. Karl’s father
most probably united the façades and built
the stables in the early 1580s.125 As evidenced
by the accounts of the princely office, the main
reconstruction of the Valtice Chateau began
in 1612, perhaps according to the project of
the aforementioned imperial architect Gio-
vanni Maria Filippi, who is documented as an
author of the Lednice Chateau. In addition to
the architect from the Italian Trentino region,
we can find the names of a number of other
Italian artists and craftsmen in the archival
materials,126 in particular two builders, Mar-
co de Marco and Giovanni Battista Carlone
(died 1645). Next to them we find the names
of painters, plasterers, upholsters (tapezierer),
polishers, stonemasons, and masons, Antonio
Petschatzer, Johan Baptista Ramada, Nicolo
124 For further details on the history of the
construction of the Valtice (Feldsberg) Chateau see
wilhelm 1944 (the book is very difficult to access; one
copy is in the Hausarchiv Liechtenstein in Vienna,
inventory no. H1806); plaček 1996, pp. 103–123;
zatloukal 2012; měřínský – plaček 2001, pp. 133–
154; kroupa 2001, pp. 155–192; konečný 2019.
125 konečný 2019, p. 27.
126 For further details on the topic see haupt 1983 1:
Textband, pp. 41–44; valeš – konečný 2011, pp. 50–73.
| 137 |
Allio, Julio Cesare Santino, Octavio Morini, Pie-
tro Dorisi, or Francesco Somatz. The construc-
tion probably progressed relatively quickly, as
already in the autumn of 1612 payments are
recorded for the services of an upholster (ta-
peziern), and in the spring of 1613 the first pay-
ments are recorded for stuccos and painting
works in the interior.127 As the accounts indi-
cate, the reconstruction took place under the
supervision of the builder Carlone throughout
the entire life of Karl I and perhaps even after
his death. Although the features of the Re-
naissance or Mannerist reconstruction were
very soon obscured by the Baroque recon-
struction of Karl’s son, the architect-theorist
Karl Eusebius, we can gain a spatial idea of the
residence. It was most probably a four-winged,
three-storey building within the scope of to-
day’s main chateau building. It was connected
to the older Renaissance parts in the direction
towards the city.
The carriage house, armoury, and saddle
chamber were located somewhere in the im-
mediate vicinity of the chateau. Valtice was
the main family residence, and the location
most probably and quite understandably had
a far greater number of luxurious items than
the Lednice armoury. In addition, the second
inventory was compiled at a time when Karl
already held high offices, and representation
of the highest level was demanded from him.
The purpose of the Valtice armoury is clearer
to us than that of the one in Lednice. It was
used – at least partially – as a representative
space for a gradually built collection, which,
however, never lost its utilitarian function
(practical military and hunting), which was
rather ceremonial or extraordinary.128
127 haupt 1983 2: Quellenband, pp. 176–200.
128 For further literature on the topic see prchal
2008, pp. 141–148; prchal 2011, pp. 53–62; klatte
2017, pp. 87–116.
 The second inventory was compiled on 7
January 1605 and is referred to as the Inventa-
rium der rüestcamer und stallzeügs, so beschrie-
ben den 7 Januari anno 1605 durch herrn Wenzl
Katharyn hofmaistern und Michael Perschmidt.
Inventarium und verzaichnus aller in der rüest-
cammer vorhandtener rüestungen, wehren, und
aderer stalnotturfft gehörigen sachen.129 The
list enumerates a total of about 331 or 367
items (if we count pairs as two). Five groups
– sabres and knives (Säbel und wehrn); pistols
and rifles (An pistoln und röhrn); horse har-
nesses with accessories (An roßzeug, deck-
en, sattel und allerlei geschiern); stirrups, bits,
and halters (Stegraiffen, stangen und mundt-
stuckh), and carriages (Wägen) were probably
divided between three rooms – the armoury,
saddle chamber, and carriage house. It can be
assumed that the rooms were interconnect-
ed and that some objects were exhibited (not
hidden in cabinets and chests), especially in
the first two rooms. In comparison with the
Lednice armoury, the one in Valtice was more
modest in quantity, but much more luxurious
in quality.
The inventory of the first two groups enu-
merates a total of 65 items, of which only
nine are cold weapons and the rest are fire-
arms. The sabres are inlaid with silver and
gilded; the same applies to maces (pussigän)
and stabbing weapons (stöcher). A luxury
item is a sabre studded with 52 turquoises
(zweiundfunfzig türgges versezt), and an in-
teresting object from a collector’s point of
view is the Tartar bow with 25 arrows with
quivers with silver buckles (ain tatterischen
pogen mit 25 pflüzpfeillen, die daschen mit sil-
bern spangln). The situation is similar in the
section of pistols and rifles. The list records
a total of 56 items, of which the most luxu-
129 Based on a transcription from haupt 1983 2:
Quellenband, pp. 144–147, item no. 88.
| 138 |
rious are two pistols of His Grace (Karl) dec-
orated with mother-of-pearl and holsters
(zwo pistoln vor iht g.[nade] mit perlenmut-
ter mit ihren hulfftern). The rest of the fire-
arms were apparently used for ceremonial
purposes. There are seven German rifles in-
laid with silver with the coats of arms of the
Liechtensteins in holsters (siben teutsche
röhr mit silbern platten und liechtenstainis-
chen wappen und ihren hulfftern), and eight
rifles for personal guards (acht leibschützen
röhr).
The most numerous are the artefacts of
the saddle chamber. The inventory enumer-
ates 206 or 214 (if we count pairs as two) pieces
for ceremonial use, valuable gifts, or spoils of
battles. It includes horse harnesses (roßzeug),
saddle blankets (decken), saddles (sattel), and
other accessories (allerlei geschiern). From the
collector’s point of view, the objects of Turk-
ish provenance (türggische) stand out above
the others – saddle blankets made of velvet,
interwoven with gold and silver (samett mit
silber und goldt durchwürckht), and a harness
decorated with gold and silver, studded with
48 small and large turquoises, 19 red stones,
and 14 green stones (ein türggisch roßzeug
von allerlei gefarbter seiden gewürckht mit sil-
ber beschlagen und verguldt, und mit acht und
vierzig türgges klain und groß versezt mit neun-
zehen rotten stein und mit vierzehen grien stain
versezt und ain genüetten püss silbern und ver-
guldt). In addition to this battle trophy, appar-
ently donated to Karl, the list also mentions a
luxurious Hungarian harness decorated with
gold and silver and studded with 337 small
turquoises (ein ungerisch roßzeug von allerlei
gefarbter seiden gewürckht, mit silber beschla-
gen und verguldt, darauf sein dreihundert siben
und dreissig klaine türggesstain versetzt, und
ein genüetten püss silbern und verguldt) – ap-
parently equipment for the count’s horse. In
addition to other equipment – accessories for
40 | Halberd of Prince Karl I of Liechtenstein, 41 | Halberd of Prince Karl Eusebius of Liechtenstein,
ca. 1620–23, steel, wood, textile, The Metropolitan 1632, steel, wood, textile, The Metropolitan Museum
Museum of Art, New York. of Art, New York.

| 139 |
ceremonial carriages, etc. – the list also item-
ises Karl’s personal armour, but unfortunate-
ly with no detailed description (ihr g.[naden]
leibrüstung, sambt aller zuegehör). It includes
an entry of items that were most probably
stored in a special room, or more probably in
a special cabinet or chest – stirrups (stegraiff-
en), halters (stangen), and bits (mundstuckh).
A total of 52 or 80 items (if we count pairs as
two) of rather common use are listed, some of
which are gilded (verguldten). The last items
on the list, certainly located in a separate
room, are eight carriages (Wägen), with dif-
ferent purposes and different levels of luxury
equipment. The carriage house was already
mainly a utility space, and we presume that
unlike the carriages themselves (harnessed),
it did not serve for representative purposes.
There is a small count’s carriage mentioned
with gilded halters, lined with damask inside
(ein kleins waglen mit verguldten stangen per
ihr g.[nade], inwendig der himmel mit schwar-
zen damaschkt gefüettert) and a similar car-
riage for the countess (ein wagen durchauss
mit velet gefüettert fur ihr g. [nade] die fraw).
Here, however, more than anywhere else, we
can assume that the most luxurious carriage
was not stored in Valtice, but in Prague, where
there were incomparably more opportunities
for representation at the imperial court. On
the other hand, by coincidence of historical
and other circumstances, at the time when
the second inventory was drawn up, Karl was
temporarily removed from the office of su-
preme court master and appointed Moravi-
an provincial governor. He proved himself in
defending Moravia against the Transylvani-
an Prince Stephan Bocskai (1557–1606) and
in the following political negotiations with
him. It is therefore possible to assume that
he resided on the family estates in Moravia
around the middle of the first decade of the
17th century.
| 140 |
Karl’s armoury cannot be compared to
that of Ferdinand II of Tyrol. Ferdinand had a
clear intention and a clear concept, and the
final form was the result of collecting more
than anything else. There were no objects for
everyday use in it, and in addition to its repre-
sentative function, it also had a broad intel-
lectual dimension. In Lednice or Valtice there
are objects of various levels of luxury, as a re-
sult of which it can be assumed that they were
also collector’s items, next to objects for cer-
emonial or everyday use. No unifying concept
can be traced, and probably one was not even
needed. We can no longer find any invento-
ry of the armoury-like space in the archival
materials, even if we move a generation fur-
ther to Karl’s son, Karl Eusebius of Liechten-
stein.130 Although this cannot be stated with-
out reservations, the role of the armoury as a
collector’s space was very soon replaced by
the guardaroba, in which luxury and collec-
tor’s weapons, armour, and even harnesses
can be found from the first inventories.
Guardaroba
We can try to reconstruct the appearance of
the Liechtensteins’ guardaroba under Karl I
on the basis of a study of archival materials.
From these we can also gain a picture of what
the guardaroba actually was and how it was
conceived. Unlike the armoury, it fulfilled a
similar function and probably also occupied
the same place in archival materials and in-
ventories throughout the 17th century, al-
though over time (from Karl I through Karl
Eusebius to Johann Adam I Andreas) its im-
portance slowly faded in favour of other col-
lecting or exhibition spaces. It is not a com-
plete coincidence that the first inventory of
130 Based on a transcription from haupt 1998.
the (already princely) guardaroba in Valtice ap-
pears in 1613, at a time when the reconstruc-
tion works on the chateau were already under
way, and when a search for new concepts of
exterior and interior spaces can be assumed.
The supposed Italian architect of the recon-
struction, Giovanni Maria Filippi, knew Karl I
from Prague, and certainly knew the compo-
sition of his collections. He was certainly also
very familiar with the concept of the guardaro-
ba from his native Italy, within this context es-
pecially the Medici guardaroba at the Palazzo
Vecchio in Florence.131 The Rudolfinian collec-
tions in Prague and the amazing collections
and concepts of the spaces at Ambras Castle
of Ferdinand II of Tyrol, who was mentioned
here several times, also undoubtedly had a
significant influence on the concept.132 The
guardaroba is sometimes referred to as the
intermediate stage between the studiolo and
the Kunstkammer, i.e. the intermediate stage
between a private and public or semi-private
space. In other studies, it is identified with the
Kunstkammer, and together with it considered
a connecting link between the studiolo and
the gallery. Most researchers agree that the
guardaroba, like the Kunstkammer or Wunder-
kammer, evolved from a studiolo.133
Since enough space is devoted to Kunst-
kammern in this book, we should take now a
closer look at the Medici guardaroba in Flor-
131 For further details on the Medici Guardaroba
see conti 1893; caccari 1997; rosen 2009, pp. 285–
308; pierguidi 2010, pp. 151–166; zucchi 2011,
pp. 1–22; freddolini 2014, pp. 1–25; rosen 2015.
132 For further details on the topic with literature
see the relevant chapters of this book.
133 For introductory studies of the issues of
museum etymology and the conception of private
and public spaces, see findlen 1989, pp. 59–78;
preyer 1998, pp. 357–374; ruvoldt 2006, pp. 640–
657; hohti 2010, pp. 372–385; impey – macgregor
2017.
| 141 |
ence. Let us point out in advance that the com-
parison with Karl’s guardaroba will lead to a
similar conclusion as in the case of the com-
parison of armouries – that Karl’s lacks a uni-
fying concept, emphasising the highly intel-
lectual essence of this space with everything
related to it; the concept of macrocosm in the
microcosm. However, every story starts at the
beginning. During the 15th and especially the
16th century, the strictly private space of the
studiolo developed not only in size but also in
concept – it became a semi-private space that
was able and willing to receive the visits of
scholars and/or ambassadors. Galileo Gali-
lei (1564–1642) described the path from the
studiolo to the guardaroba or gallery in a text
in which he defined himself with the poetry
of Ludovico Ariosto (1474–1533) and against
Torquato Tasso (1544–1595)134: “[Reading Tas-
so’s Gerusaleme Liberata] seems to me similar
to entering the study of some strange little man
with a taste for curios who has entertained him-
self by filling it with things that have something
strange about them, because of age or rarity or
for some other reason, but are, however, noth-
ing but bric-a-brac: a petrified crayfish, a dried-
up chameleon, a fly and a spider embedded in a
piece of amber; some of those little clay figures
which are said to be found in the ancient tombs
of Egypt; and, in the realm of painting, some
sketches by Baccio Bandinelli or Parmigiani-
no, and similar other little things. But by com-
parison, when I enter into the Orlando Furioso,
I behold a guardaroba, a tribune, a regal gallery
[una guardaroba, una tribuna, una galleria re-
gia], adorned with a hundred antique statues
by the most celebrated sculptors, with infinite
complete histories, and the best by the most il-
lustrious painters, with a great number of vases,
crystal, agate, lapis lazuli, and other delights,
134 For further details see panofsky 1956, pp. 3–15;
colapietra 1956, pp. 557–569; reeves 2015, pp. 7–22.
and lastly filled with rare, precious, marvellous
things, all excellent.”135 Galileo described bet-
ter than anyone else the transformation that
the concept of collecting and everything rele-
vant to it underwent in the second half of the
16th century and during the first decades of
the following century. From a more or less
private obsession and passion, it gradually
opened up to wider social groups; initially to
rare visitors, guests, and connoisseurs, very
soon also to merchants with the related com-
mercialisation of art collecting, and in a few
more decades to ordinary visitors and art lov-
ers as a part of a planned cultural education
of society.
The term guardaroba was first used by
Cosimo I de’ Medici (1519–1574) and his of-
ficers in the first inventory of his collection in
1538. It was a space in the Palazzo Medici on
Via Larga which housed purchased objects,
artistic commissions, and gifts.136 Before we
begin to describe the concept and enumer-
ate the works of art, it is necessary to point
out that it would be wrong to think that the
guardaroba should contain only objects of
extraordinary artistic or similar value. Even
in the Medici guardaroba we find objects for
everyday use such as buttons, hunting traps,
masks, etc. The general (and primary) pur-
pose of a guardaroba was summed up well
by Valentina Zucchi: “The Guardaroba was
the center of production, storage and distri-
bution of all the goods of the household and,
therefore, it assumed an essential role in the
life of the court, its location, its nature and its
substance became accurate indicators for so-
cial conditions, elements of taste, political de-
135 Galileo’s text used in this context by rosen
2015, p. 91 (translation by Mark Rosen from adapted
text by panofsky 1956, pp. 9–10. Original text in
galilei 1793, Canto primo, stanza XLVI., pp. 33–34.
136 allegri – cecchi 1980, p. 292.
| 142 |
cisions and business relations.”137 Such words,
if we jump a little ahead, also apply perfectly
to the guardaroba of Karl I of Liechtenstein
in Valtice.
The Medici family moved to the palazzo di
piazza (later and now Palazzo Vecchio) in 1540,
and the first relevant guardaroba inventory
dates from 1553.138 We can assume from the
list that there were fourteen spaces (rooms
and cabinets) on the second floor of the pal-
ace, which at that time formed the guardaro-
ba and related spaces.139 Of the related spaces,
these were: new apartments (appartamen-
to nuovo) that consisted of the audience hall
(ricetto); the great hall (sala), where a large
stuffed crocodile hung from the ceiling, and
four rooms (prima camera, camera seconda,
camera terza, camera quarta) used for the ac-
commodation of visitors to the guardaroba.
The collecting/storage space itself consist-
ed of the armoury (stanza dell’Arme), where
various cold arms and firearms and items of
armour were kept; the terrace (terazzo nuo-
vo di Guardaroba), where various chairs (seg-
giole) but also tapestry cloths (panni d’araz-
zo) or old clothes on figures (pannacci vechi a
figure) were kept; the cabinet (stanzino sopra
l’Udienza del Bandinelli), where other tapes-
try cloths were stored; the small terrace (ter-
azzino sopra il ricetto delle stanze nuove della
Guardaroba), which contained paintings, stat-
ues (quadro, ritratto, tele, statua, figurina), or
other antique pieces (maschere antiche, sepul-
cro di marmo antico), and finally La Guard-
137 zucchi 2011, p. 3.
138 Inventario della Guardaroba et delle robbe che
sono per el Palazzo di S. Ecc. za Ill. ma inventariate
per M. Giuliano del Tovaglia, M. Giovanni Ricci e
Mariotto Cecchi questo dì XXV d’ottobre 1553.
Archivio di Stato di Firenze (ASF), Guardaroba
medicea (GM), 28; conti 1893.
139 For further details on the layout of the rooms
on the second floor of the palace see rosen 2009.
aroba, which in prima stanza di Guardaroba;
Stanzino in sul palco; Stanza dov’ erano prima
l’Arme and Guardaroba secreta housed pre-
cious paintings by Donatello, Titian, Bronz-
ino, or Michelangelo, a decorated bronze ta-
ble (una tavola di bronzo con più figure a piedi et
a cavallo antichi di basso rilievo), busts (teste)
and other statues, dozens of precious weap-
ons of different kinds, stocks of expensive
fabrics, crystals and pearls, natural curiosi-
ties, precious furniture, porcelain, silverware,
and maps.
The inventory from 1553 reflects the ap-
pearance of the Medici guardaroba before
Duke Cosimo decided to reorganise part of
his collection and to re-furnish and rebuild
some of the rooms for the occasion. The ar-
rangement of the items in the inventory is
very similar to the inventories of the Liech-
tenstein guardaroba – the objects are stored
or displayed together by types, and although
it was by no means random, no system can
be traced to reflect any deeper contemporary
philosophical or otherwise spiritual thinking
about the world order – and it was precise-
ly this that Duke Cosimo wanted to change.
He commissioned his court artist and archi-
tect, who was none other than Giorgio Vasa-
ri (1511–1574), to create a new programme.
Vasari published a description of his partially
already implemented plans in 1568 as a part
of his Le vite and the entry of P. Ignazio Danti
(1536–1586), who, among others, painted the
terrestrial globe and 30 maps for the guarda-
roba. Vasari briefly described what they cre-
ated together in the following words: “This
fanciful invention came from Duke Cosimo, who
wished to put together once and for all these
things both of heaven and of earth, absolutely
exact and without errors, so that it might be pos-
sible to see and measure them separately and
all together, according to the pleasure of those
who delight in this most beautiful profession
| 143 |
and study it […].”140 The biggest change was
the construction and furnishing of the new
room, referred to variously in the younger
inventories as the salla nuovo dell’oriolo; sala
principale di guardaroba, seconda stanza della
guardaroba, sala degli Argenti, or finally Sala
delle Carte Geografiche, “map room” in transla-
tion.141 Vasari reveals the original appearance
of the room: “His Excellency, under the direc-
tion of Vasari, has built a new hall of some size
expressly as an addition to the guardaroba, on
the second floor of the apartments in the Ducal
Palace; and this he has furnished all around with
presses seven braccia high, with rich carvings of
walnut-wood, in order to deposit in them the
most important, precious, and beautiful things
that he possesses. Over the doors of those presses,
within their ornaments, Fra Ignazio has distrib-
uted fifty-seven pictures about two braccia high
and wide in proportion, in which are painted in
oils on the wood with the greatest diligence, after
the manner of miniatures, the Tables of Ptolemy,
all measured with perfect accuracy and correct-
ed after the most recent authorities, with exact
charts of navigation and their scales for meas-
uring and degrees, done with supreme diligence;
and with these are all the names, both ancient
and modern. His distribution of these pictures is
on this wise. At the principal entrance of the hall,
on the transverse surfaces of the thickness of the
presses, in four pictures, are four half-spheres in
perspective; in the two below is the Universe of
the Earth, and in the two above is the Universe of
the Heavens, with its signs and celestial figures.
Then as one enters, on the right hand, there is all
Europe in fourteen tables and pictures, one after
another, as far as the centre of the wall that is at
the head, opposite to the principal door; in which
centre is placed the clock with the wheels and
140 vasari 2010, pp. 29–30, Project Gutenberg,
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33203.
141 zucchi 2011, p. 1.
42 | Giorgio Vasari and P. Ignazio Danti, La Sala delle carte geografiche in the Medici guardaroba at the Palazzo
Vecchio, 1563–ca. 1586, Florence.

with the spheres of the planets that every day
go through their motions, which is that clock, so
famous and renowned, made by the Florentine
Lorenzo della Volpaia. Above these tables is Af-
rica in eleven tables, as far as the said clock; and
then, beyond that clock, Asia in the lower range,
which continues likewise in fourteen tables as
far as the principal door. Above these tables of
Asia, in fourteen other tables, there follow the
West Indies, beginning like the others from the
clock, and continuing as far as the same prin-
cipal door; and thus there are in all fifty-seven
tables. In the base at the foot, in an equal num-
ber of pictures running right round, which will
be exactly in line with those tables, are to be all
the plants and all the animals copied from na-
ture, according to the kinds that those countries
produce. Over the cornice of the presses, which is
the crown of the whole, there are to be some pro-
jections separating the pictures, and upon these
are to be placed such of the antique heads in mar-
ble as are in existence of the Emperors and Princ-
es who have possessed those lands; and on the
plain walls up to the cornice of the ceiling, which
is all of carved wood and painted in twelve great
pictures, each with four celestial signs, making
in all forty-eight, and little less than lifesize, with
their stars—there are beneath, as I have said, on
those walls, three hundred portraits from life of
distinguished persons for the last five hundred
years or more, painted in pictures in oils (and
a note will be made of them in the table of por-

| 144 |
 traits, in order not to make too long a story here
with their names), all of one size, and with one
and the same ornament of carved walnut-wood
– a very rare effect. In the two compartments in
the centre of the ceiling, each four braccia wide,
where there are the celestial signs, which open
with ease without revealing the secret of the hid-
ing-place, in a part after the manner of a heav-
en, will be accommodated two large globes, each
three braccia and a half in height.”142 The room
was a perfect representation of the concept
of the macrocosm in microcosm. The earth,
the universe, the continents, a planetary clock
– everything completed with the relevant ar-
tefacts displayed in cabinets and framed by
a human presence: busts of rulers and por-
traits of famous people (viri illustri). This was
one of the first curatorial projects of muse-
um exposition in human history, comparable
in its complexity perhaps only with the com-
plicated and sophisticated programmes of
selected private chapels of the high and late
Middle Ages of the most eminent European
rulers – but these were strictly spiritual and
strictly private.143 Over the next decades, the
Medici guardaroba grew in size, but its qual-
ity began to wane as Cosimo’s successors,
Dukes Francesco (1541–1587) and Ferdinan-
do (1549–1609), turned their attention to the
collections in the Uffizi Gallery. The guardaro-
ba at the Palazzo Vecchio gradually became a
disorganised repository of random objects.144
What we should not forget to mention is
the position of the guardaroba in the hierar-
chy of palace/chateau spaces in terms of se-
curity and setting rules of access. It is reada-
142 vasari 2010, p. 29.
143 For further details on the topic with relevant
literature see the subchapters Genealogical Cycles,
Heraldic Cycles, viri illustri, Portrait Galleries and
chapter II | Studiolo in this book.
144 rosen 2015, p. 85.
| 145 |
ble from the position of responsible officials
– again similar (considering local and fami-
ly differences) in the case of the Medici and
Liechtensteins. A privileged position was oc-
cupied by the master of the guardaroba, who
was personally responsible for issuing and
receiving objects for everyday use, securing
the premises, recording additions, processing
loans, write-offs of gifts, and other related op-
erations, including inventories. This position
was a high office with substantial material
responsibility for enormously valuable pos-
sessions.145 In the case of Karl I, Thomas Fel-
derer (Holderer) was the first to hold this po-
sition, first mentioned in 1604/1605 with the
professional specification ihr g. guardarobba
and again in 1610 (quardaroba) and 1611 (quar-
taroba).146 After Holderer the post was held by
Hans Koller (quardaroba, quardarobba, quar-
tarob), who is mentioned several times, first
in 1613 and last in 1621.147 From 1626 he was
followed by Hans Thürnwaldt, mentioned as
fürstliche Garderobers with a salary of 100 gul-
dens a year.148 Thürnwaldt’s name disappears
from the inventories upon the death of Karl I
in 1627 and the accession of the young Karl Eu-
sebius to the princely throne. In addition, the
preserved inventories of the guardaroba from
the reign of Karl Eusebius are relatively late –
from 1658, 1678, and 1684 – and are related to
the compilation of an inventory of collections
and objects after leaving a responsible posi-
tion – that of the guardaroba master.149
145 For further details on the topic see zucchi 2011,
pp. 4–6.
146 haupt 1983, 2: Quellenband, pp. 139, 165, 175,
items nos. 72, 138, 196.
147 haupt 1893, 2: Quellenband, pp. 178, 200, 202,
204, 239, 241, 242, 243, 248, items nos. 226, 261, 280,
301, 387, 408, 414, 417, 421, 423, 432, 435.
148 haupt 1893, 2: Quellenband, p. 283, item no. 716.
149 haupt 1998, pp. 357–390, 400–448, 449–492,
items nos. 1788, 1790, 1791.
 Since all three surviving inventories of
Karl I’s guardaroba have been described in
detail by Herbert Haupt,150 let us just sum-
marise and try to view them from a different
perspective. The first inventory is entitled In-
ventarium und beschreibung aller ihrer fürst
g.[uardaroba] cammer noturfft klaidern und
anderen so beschriben und auf das neü über-
sehen den 1 Januari ao. 1610 durch herrn Wenzl
Katherin, ihr fürst g. hoffmaistern.151 The note
on folio 2 mentions the name of the guard-
aroba master Thomas Holderer, who took over
the items (cammersachen und klaider […] den
Thoma Holderer eingeandtwordt und übergeben
worden), and the location actum Eyßgrub ut su-
pra. We can recognise from different archival
materials that Wenzel Katharin von Kathar
was the court master of Karl I at least in the
years 1605–1613. His first signature is on two
inventories from January 1605 – of the silver
chamber and also the aforementioned Valtice
armoury. The last signature appears on the
second guardaroba inventory from May 1613.
Compared to the more recent inventories, the
one from 1610 is much shorter and calculates
far fewer items, which were much more easily
assembled. These are in fact just clothes and
accessories such as belts, spurs, cuirasses, ra-
piers, etc. Out of 18 inventory groups, only five
deal with non-textile objects. The list shows a
space which, rather than a space for a collec-
tion or storing valuable things of various uses,
was a private locker room of Karl I. Therefore,
it is probably not surprising if we link the first
list with the Lednice Chateau and the next
two with the Valtice Chateau after the first
construction modifications in 1612.
The second inventory is entitled the In-
ventarium aller ihrer fürstlich gnaden sachen,
so denn 24 Mai durch herrn Wenzl Katharyn
150 haupt 1983, 1: Textband, pp. 77–85.
151 haupt 1983, 2: Quellenband, p. 164, item no. 138.
| 146 |
von Kathar oberhaubtman, unnd Michaeln
Perschmidt zahlmaister, in nahmen ihrer fürst-
lich gnaden ao. 1613 aufs newe übersehn unnd
dem Hannß Kholler quardaroba eingeantwort-
tet unnd übergeben worden. The fact that the
list concerns the Valtice Chateau is evidenced
by the number of registered items, indicating
the preparation for various eventualities of
the furnishing of the chateau rooms, which
can be assumed only in the main family resi-
dence. It is also evidenced by an item of var-
ious luxury fabrics purchased by the treas-
urer Michal Perschmidt and handed over to
the guardaroba (Michl Perschmidt zahlmeister
hatt erkhaufft und in die quardaroba überant-
wortt). These were very probably issued for in-
terior decoration works, products of princely
craftsmen, or similar purposes.
The inventory is divided into 42 interrelat-
ed groups and subgroups. The first is a group
of objects intended for the chapel or church
(Die capellen sachen), with subgroups of vest-
ments (Erstlichen meß gewandter); albs, altar
cloths, and surplices (Die almen, altar tüecher
unnd chor rökh); liturgical silver (Silber so in
die cappellen gehörig); objects of the “travel
chapel” (Die raiß cappellen) and miscellane-
ous other liturgical items (Von agnus dei, pat-
ternostern und andern geistlichen sachen). A
total of 97 relevant items were most prob-
ably dispersed in several locations in the
church or chapel (in der khirchen) and private
chambers (in ihr f.[ürstliche] g.[naden] zim-
mer). It is difficult to judge the consistency
of the entries. Apparently, the items intend-
ed for the private enjoyment of the princely
family were, at least in their absence, safely
stored in the guardaroba premises. On the
other hand, the liturgical operation at the
chateau continued even during the recon-
struction works or in the absence of the lord
of the manor. It can therefore be assumed
that some of the inventoried items were
 placed outside the guardaroba. However,
when the family was present, the situation
was entirely different. The chateau cham-
bers, the chapel, and other spaces were cer-
tainly furnished with luxury items from the
guardaroba. The rate depended on the time
of year, the nobility and the number of pos-
sible visitors, or the importance of celebra-
tions and festivities. The guardaroba master
had to take care of everything, and he was
also responsible for all the objects. He would
have risked his position and his honour if he
did not have the luxury items under lock and
key when not needed. The situation in Valtice
was even more complicated, because in the
years when the guardaroba was inventoried,
extensive reconstruction works were carried
out at the chateau. The space therefore had
to be equipped with objects that would be in
the chambers during the normal operation of
the chateau. However, we will come to this
issue shortly.
In addition to various kinds of luxurious
liturgical textiles, embroidered with gold
and silver, subgroups of liturgical silver or the
“travel chapel” are especially interesting for
art historians and historians. There are items
such as a silver crucifix with a cross made of
ebony, which has a striking clock inserted
into its foot (Item ein crucifix von silber, das
creutz von ebenholtz, und in dem fueß so auch
von ebenholtz ein uht, welche in 48 stunden
auf einmal abgehet), or another silver cruci-
fix with a cross and leg made of polished wal-
nut wood inlaid with silver, which was a gift
from the Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinando
I de’Medici, or his son Cosimo II (1590–1621)
(Mehr ein crucifix von silber, das creutz und fueß
von gebalierten nußbaumen holtz, und mit sil-
ber eingelegt, welches der hertzog von Florentz
ihr f. g. verehrt). Another valuable gift is listed
in the Miscellaneous subgroup – an alabaster
panel altar with an English greeting on one
| 147 |
side and an ebony inlaid picture of the Virgin
Mary with Child on the other. This was a gift
from Cardinal and Bishop of Olomouc Franz
of Dietrichstein (Mehr ein täffele oder altärl
von indianischen alabaster, auf welchem der
englisch grueß, unndt auf der andern seitten
Maria mit dem kindlein in die wigen gemahlt,
und mit ebenholtz eingefast, so herr cardinal
ihrer fürst. gnaden verehrt).
It does not make sense to list all the in-
ventory groups by name. Most of them re-
cord various luxurious necessities of every-
day life such as chairs and armchairs (sesseln),
carpets (töbicht), pillows (pölster), mattresses
(modraczen), buttons (knopff), fabrics (lein-
wath), and other objects, some of which could
have been located directly in the guardaroba
premises, while others may have been in the
chateau rooms. Of the items that can be as-
sumed to have been collector’s items, or at
least in part, there are groups of jewellery
(klainodten), tapestries (tappeczerey), table car-
pets (Tisch töbicht), paintings (gemähl), luxury
drinking glassware (Christallene geschnittene
trinckhgeschier), porcelain (Porzulanae), and
gold and silver objects (Goldt und silberstukh).
The last four groups, starting with the paint-
ings, are even inventoried in a row. Although
we cannot be absolutely certain as to whether
Wenzl Katharin and Hans Koller inventoried
successive guardaroba rooms or merely as-
signed art objects to each other, we can con-
ceive two scenarios. The first one is that the list
records objects placed in different chambers
of the chateau; that it does not understand
the guardaroba as a secure space, but as the
whole chateau household. The reference to
guardaroba would then be fulfilled only con-
ceptually. However, I believe that if we wanted
to develop this idea, we would also find clear
references in the inventory to the locations
where the items were placed. With the excep-
tion of the above-mentioned (in der khirchen;
in ihr f. g.), we do not find any other mentions
of this kind in the list. As a result, I believe that
we should continue to work with the second
option, namely, with the idea of a single secure
space, which, however, could have consisted of
several chambers and which guarded all the
valuables within its walls in the first half of the
second decade of the 17th century. I shall at-
tempt to validate this theory below.
We cannot conceptually compare the
Valtice guardaroba with the more wide-
spread Kunstkammer. We have no intellec-
tual clues to connect the individual groups
and subgroups of the inventories. The inven-
tories do not even explicitly mention guard-
aroba in their terms, but all the princely items
(aller ihrer fürstlich gnaden sachen). The fact
that these very probably encompass almost
all the valuable objects that were kept in the
chateau at this time is evident from the large
number of the items. At least at this time the
guardaroba was more of a depository than a
collector’s/exhibition space.
If we were, entirely legitimately, con-
sidering the possibility that the items were
stored temporarily in a secure space, we
would certainly do so with reference to the
ongoing reconstruction of the chateau, which
was taking place in 1613 and quite probably
still in 1615. The chateau was certainly being
furnished with interiors for many years af-
ter the completion of construction works on
the main building. Karl was in no hurry. He
mainly stayed in Prague, and in 1615 the items
could be kept in the depository, from which
they were gradually released for the decora-
tion of the newly furnished halls, chambers,
and salons. We can assume that after the
completion of works on the chateau interi-
ors, the guardaroba was most probably re-
duced in terms of the number of stored items.
Valuable artefacts that at that time did not
find a permanent place in other interiors, or
| 148 |
the most valuable works of art, which were
placed in the chambers only in the presence
of the princely family, were kept here. Unfor-
tunately, we do not have any later direct evi-
dence for this claim from Karl’s time. Howev-
er, we can look at three relevant sources. To
confirm the above hypotheses, we can study
the list of paintings, drawings, and prints,
which in 1613 and 1615 were to be among aller
ihrer fürstlich gnaden sachen. We can also con-
sult later inventories, including one from 1623
which describes items (jewellery and clothes)
issued from the guardaroba for various pur-
poses, and another three which are from the
time when Karl’s son lived in the chateau. Let
us start from the end, with the inventories of
Karl Eusebius’s guardaroba.152
The first inventory was compiled on 14
October 1658 in Valtice, and bears the term
guardaroba in its name. The second is 20
years later, from 9 May 1678, and also men-
tions the guardaroba in the name. The third
list is from 5 February 1684, and again men-
tions the guardaroba. The composition of Karl
Eusebius’s guardaroba was similar to his fa-
ther’s. In addition to items necessary for the
chateau’s operation, art and collectibles are
registered in it. However, while in the inven-
tory from 1658 the paintings do not form an
item of their own and do not appear in the in-
ventory, in 1678 they are registered in a num-
ber of several dozen, in a group together with
books, crucifixes, and other objects (Allerley
bielder, biecher, crucifix undt andere under-
schidliche sachen), and in 1684 they already
number about 170 pieces recorded under the
item of various paintings, statues, and altars
(Unterschiedtliche bielder undt statuen auch
altärl). If we look closely at both items, we
discover that it is not a list of all the chateau
152 haupt 1998, pp. 357–390, 400–448, 449–492,
items nos. 1788, 1790, 1791.
43 | Valtice Chateau.
paintings or statues, but most probably only
those from the guardaroba. These are unique
– there are, for example, a number of small
paintings/portraits painted on copper (auf
kupfer gemahlen), a number of ivory reliefs
(von helffeinbein), paintings with their own
case (in futteral), or 21 different landscapes,
registered in a table drawer (befünden sich in
einen schwartz gebazten schreib tiesch). The
vast majority of the subjects are either land-
scapes (landschaftll) or portraits (conterfey),
and most of the items from the 1678 inven-
tory can also be found in the 1684 invento-
ry. This means that they were quite proba-
bly part of an identical space. What was this
space? Pursuing this line a little further, we
can assume that Liechtenstein’s guardaro-
ba, as with the Italian examples, included a
private or semi-private study or saloon for
selected company. This place was furnished
with graphic sheets that the company could
| 149 |
view, paintings and rare ivory reliefs, carvings
and statues for visitors to admire, collector’s
pieces of portraits of distinguished person-
ages whom visitors could recognise, books
they could study, and other items necessary
for the appropriate representation or intel-
lectual reflection. In 1684, another inventory,
or rather, only the sum of the paintings, was
also compiled.153 It calculates a total of 218
paintings (gemählde) that hung over the door
and on the walls of the chateau at that time
(ober denen thüren an der wandt). The imag-
es from the guardaroba are not mentioned
in this sum.
The existence of the guardaroba as a sep-
arate and secure space of the Valtice Cha-
teau consisting of several different rooms/
sections is also evidenced by a preserved list
of objects, mostly jewellery and expensive
153 haupt 1998, pp. 493–494, item no. 1792.
clothes, which were issued from the guar-
daroba in the years 1620–1623.154 This list is
also a very interesting testimony to the func-
tion of the guardaroba and the social life of
the early modern period. The inventory is
referred to as Verzeichnus der kleynodien so
auß der quardarobba sein genomben worden
von 1620. bis des 1623. jahrs and Item waß von
kleidern auß der guardaroba genommen wor-
den, vonn 1620. bis 1622. Most of the jewels
and diamonds were issued to the goldsmith
Jobst von Brussel (died 1635) to make a du-
cal hat and insignia.155 Some of the items
were handed over directly to Prince Karl (zu
ihr. furst gn. handen), to various nobles (Herrn
Wentzel Kintzky, Herr Berckho, Herrn Max von
Walnstein), sent as gifts to the Duke of Sax-
ony (Hertzog von Sachsen), issued to princely
officials (dem hoffmeister, Rittmester Rasch),
or moved within the chateau from the guard-
aroba to the silver chamber (in die silber cam-
er). The inventory demonstrates well that
Karl used his guardaroba as a kind of treasury,
and certainly also, at least in part, to fulfil his
political and other goals.
The last interesting source for the study
of Karl’s guardaroba and especially its func-
tion is the list of paintings, drawings, and
prints which are recorded in the first two in-
ventories from 1613 and 1615 under identical
items listed as big and small paintings (von
gemähl groß und klein).156 The inventory from
1613 mentions about 667 articles, of which
only about 120 are paintings, while the rest
are works on paper. The inventory from 1615
mentions about 702 articles, of which only
about 150 are paintings; the rest are works
on paper. Upon backtracking a little in the
text and contemplating why so many paint-
154 haupt 1983, 2: Quellenband, p. 243, item no. 431.
155 wilhelm 1960.
156 haupt 1983, 2: Quellenband, pp. 186–189, 220–223.
| 150 |
ings and graphics are inventoried as part of
a guardaroba, we can rethink three theo-
ries. The first is that the inventory lists only
what was actually stored in the guardaroba,
while the rest of the paintings were exhibit-
ed in other chambers and salons. The second
theory is that this is an inventory of the en-
tire chateau household, independent of the
guarded guardaroba space. The third theory
is that at the time of the reconstruction of the
chateau, everything valuable was stored in
the guardaroba, including all the paintings
and prints. After the completion of the works,
these were transferred to other rooms within
the chateau. We can dismiss the first theo-
ry upon examining the number and themat-
ic composition of the list of paintings. The
number of paintings that would be kept in
the guardaroba depository during the normal
operation of the chateau is simply too high.
At the same time, there are several portrait
cycles in the inventory, which normally used
to be parts of the representative spaces and
could hardly have been owned by Karl only
for him to keep them hidden from visitors in
the guardaroba. We can also most probably
refute the second theory with the aforemen-
tioned reference to the illogical and clearly
unusual classification of inventory items
without reference to the different relevant
spaces (outside the guardaroba) where they
were stored or exhibited. The simplest and
most probable explanation is therefore – and
again – the third theory. Everything valuable
was placed in the guardaroba during the re-
construction works on the chateau, and valu-
ables were issued outside only in exceptional
circumstances.
In contrast with the already-mentioned
inventories from the time of Karl Eusebius, it
is not even possible to identify through the
inventories a space that could have served as
Karl I’s private study within the guardaroba.
The space was not semi-public, as in the case
of the Medici guardaroba, but rather a strict-
ly guarded private space. The explanation is
simple and has already been mentioned in
the text. Karl was bound by his official du-
ties in Prague, and during the second and
third decades of the 17th century he prob-
ably stayed in the Valtice Chateau only oc-
casionally.
Conclusion – the others
The origin of the term guardaroba is from the
Italian word guardia – to secure: this was its
first purpose, to guard and to secure valu-
able property. During the 16th century, it
gradually became customary to inventory
the property carefully, sort and research its
furnishings, and soon to present it to special
visitors. Very soon, older spaces such as stu-
dioli (study rooms), armouries, and treasuries
became parts of the guardaroba. Even more
precisely, the most valuable objects from
these spaces were intentionally moved to
the guardaroba. In terms of ideas and content,
the guardaroba began to approach the con-
cept of the Kunstkammer in the second half
of the 16th century. Although it continued to
fulfil its security function, it also became an
exhibition and collecting space with a num-
ber of relevant overlaps of a secular as well
as spiritual character.157
In the case of Karl I, we are able, with the
help of archival materials, to identify several
spaces in which Karl stored the art objects he
acquired during various periods. At the begin-
ning of this chapter I presented the furnish-
ings of two armouries – spaces where both
157 In this context see mattox 2006, pp. 658–673;
ajmar-wollheim – denis 2006; ajmar-wollheim
– denis 2007; payne 2009, pp. 367–386.
| 151 |
objects used in ceremonies and objects of a
collector’s nature were stored. The most lux-
urious objects from this type of space were
later incorporated into the guardaroba. The
only evidence from which we can estimate
how the Liechtenstein guardaroba developed
in the first half of the 17th century is a list of
objects issued from the princely Kunstkam-
mer (khunst camer) on 10 December 1620 to
Captain Ditlhoff Wollenweken and Mr. von
Puchaimb. The list of eight items includes
three brass and gold measuring instruments
(instrument von messing und übergoldt zum
landt abmessen, ein triangell, ein lineall), one
water scale (wasser wag), a black velvet sad-
dle (schwarz sameten sadell), and three lux-
ury board games (prettspiel mit ausgelegten
holz, schachspill, narrenspill von helffenpein).158
We can try to identify at least two of these
objects as items from the 1615 guardaroba
inventory. Item ein wasser wag could be Item
ein instrument zum wassermessen, mit mes-
sing beschlagen and an Item ein pretspill mit
ausgelegten holz could be Item von ebenholz
ein prettspiel und mit helffenbein angelegt. If
we allow our imagination a little more free
rein, a rather logical explanation offers itself,
namely that as soon as the reconstruction
works in Valtice were at least partially com-
pleted, the space of Karl’s guardaroba was
thematically and spatially divided, with the
Kunstkammer becoming part of it. However,
we would need more evidence to fully sup-
port this claim. There are no other mentions
of the Kunstkammer in the preserved and pro-
cessed archival materials from the reign of
Prince Karl I, and likewise from the reign of
Karl’s son Karl Eusebius.159
158 haupt 1983, 2: Quellenband, pp. 219, 243, items
nos. 333/292, 300; 424/4, 6.
159 I draw upon the indexes of both Herbert
Haupt’s books, often cited earlier in the text.
 In addition to the guardaroba, there was
another space in the Valtice Chateau where
valuables were stored. In this case it most-
ly contained items of a different nature than
collectibles. This was the Silberkammer or
silver chamber, a space used in Central Eu-
rope from the beginning of the 16th centu-
ry to store valuables for everyday or special
needs. In the administration of Karl I, pro-
jected into the preserved archival materials,
we have a few testimonies about the early
Liechtenstein Silberkammer. Herbert Haupt
described in detail the objects and the forma-
tion of the chamber, including the preserved
inventories.160 Although the preserved inven-
tories are from 1605, 1607, and 1608, i.e. be-
fore the supposed constitution of the guar-
daroba in Valtice, it cannot be assumed that
the Silberkammer later became a part of the
guardaroba. Silver objects for everyday use,
especially for feasting, simply do not appear
in it. In the inventories from the time of Karl
Eusebius, the Silberkammer then appears in-
dependently.161 With a little simplification, we
can say that utility silver was kept in the Sil-
berkammer under the supervision of the ad-
ministrator of the chamber (silber camerling)
– according to the testimony of the inventory
from 1608 the later custodian of the guard-
aroba, Hans Thürnwaldt. Liturgical and ar-
tistic silver was then kept in the guardaroba.
In addition to the common inventories,
there is a spatially unidentifiable testimony
in the form of the inventory of music books,
recorded on 1 January 1608 at the chateau
160 haupt 1983, 1: Textband, pp. 49–53; haupt 1983,
2: Quellenband, pp. 141–144, 150–154, 154–158, items
nos. 87, 131, 132.
161 Inventories of the Valtice silberkammer from
1633, 1678; see haupt 1998, pp. 334–352, 390–400,
items nos. 1785, 1789.
| 152 |
in Prostějov.162 Whatever his reasons – most
likely practical ones – Karl I gathered a large
number of songbooks, masses, madrigals,
motets, and other forms of music, including
instruments, in the spaces of the Prostějov
Chateau.163 Quite an interesting fact is that
the inventory records individual works ac-
cording to the authors (Thomae Pecci Sene-
sis, Ferdinando di Lasso, Benedicto Pallavicini,
Christiano Erbachi, Matheo Asulae, and many
more), which testifies to at least a basically
instructed official – according to the record
already known to us as Wenzel Katharin von
Kathar.
Karl I of Liechtenstein most probably
used art primarily to represent his person
and authorities, as did his contemporaries.
He was a politician who opened the door
to fame to one of the most important aris-
tocratic families in Europe. He was also an
aristocrat who followed modern trends and
adapted the composition of his court and
the principles of its functioning accordingly.
Apparently, we cannot compare art collect-
ing and the passion for art of Karl I and Karl
Eusebius. From today’s perspective, they
would be viewed in a completely different
way without each other. With a little simpli-
fication, we can say that Karl I secured the
family with estates and titles and Karl Euse-
bius acquired amazing collections. It was the
father and son who started the glory of the
family in various fields of human activity. Al-
though Karl Eusebius is generally considered
to be the founder of the Liechtenstein Col-
lections, just a cursory glance at the collec-
tions of Karl I’s guardaroba will convince us
that he chose the best and the highest-quali-
162 haupt 1983, 2: Quellenband, pp. 158–163, item
no. 133.
163 For further details on music at the court of
Karl I of Liechtenstein see maňas 2014, pp. 149–160.
ty pieces of art, whether they were paintings,
tapestries, crystal vessels, jewellery, or lux-
ury weapons. In this respect, he benefited
from his high position at the imperial court
and also his connection with the artists who
resided there. The Liechtenstein guardaro-
ba was a living organism of its kind. In some
respects, it copied the structure of the Ru-
dolfinian collections, but its main mission
was broader than that of an ideologically
comparable Kunstkammer. The guardaroba
declared not only the history of society and
culture, but also the position and mindset of
the owner. It was a space balancing between
a private place guarding treasures, both of a
tangible (treasury) and an intangible or in-
tellectual nature (private study rooms), and
a semi-private place revealing and present-
ing the position and intellectual potential of
the owner.

| Miroslav Kindl |

| 153 |
V | Antiquarium
Besides the Kunstkammer, Vordere Kunstkam-
mer, and the picture gallery located on the
floor above them in the tract perpendicular
to Rudolf’s apartment in the southern part of
the castle, collection areas were also set up in
the northern part of Prague Castle. Two spa-
cious halls, the Spanish Hall (the present-day
Rudolf Gallery) and the New Hall (the pres-
ent-day Spanish Hall), were established on
the emperor’s instructions at the beginning
of the 17th century on the floor above the im-
perial stables, which had been built between
1602 and 1606. Their design was authored by
the architect Giovanni Maria Filippi.1 The for-
1 krčálová 1975, p. 510. Filippi, originally from
Dasindo in northern Italy, worked for the emperor
from 1602. He might have been recommended to the
emperor by his father, who had possibly already been
in his service in toga et in armis. However, Filippi mig-
ht also have been recommended by the Tridentine
bishop Ludovico Madruzzo, who had close friendly
and occupational ties to Rudolf II. Before his arrival in
Prague, he worked in Rome from 1596. All of his later
designs show signs of the apparent influence of Ro-
man architecture. Ludovico Madruzzo, on the land
belonging to whose manor Filippi was born, had
moved to Rome prior to 1595. Therefore, it cannot be
ruled out that the young architect studied in Rome
under the prelate’s patronage. The first document
recording Filippi’s activities in Prague comes from
1604 and is related to the reconstruction of Prague
Castle. See marsilli 1993, p. 603. Filippi was in the
emperor’s good graces. Rudolf himself was the godfa-
ther to his third son, baptised on 5 May 1607 in St.
Vitus’ Cathedral. Several years later, on 22 January
1610, the architect was ennobled by the emperor. See
marsilli 1993, p. 604.
< 44 | Dirck Volckertsz. Coornhert, Sculpture courtyard in the Casa Sassi in Rome, 1553, engraving/etching,
Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.
| 155 |
mer was used as a pinacotheca and the latter
(the New Hall) was designed as an antiquar-
ium; a place for the displaying of sculptures
from classical antiquity or inspired by and im-
itating classical antiquity, as well as contem-
porary sculptures.
The collecting of sculptures from classi-
cal antiquity originated in Rome at the end of
the 15th century.2 Small statuettes were ac-
cumulated in the studioli of Roman human-
ists, noblemen, and clergymen, while oth-
er, more suitable methods of display were
sought in relation to larger, free-standing
sculptures. One of the earliest ways had the
form of what were called Italian Renaissance
gardens, founded next to city palaces and vil-
las. They contained free-standing statues on
plinths.3 This is how Emperor Maximilian II
designed his newly-founded gardens. The sec-
ond most frequently used place for presenting
sculptures from classical antiquity was vari-
ous enclosed courtyards, often supplemented
with a garden, which had niches carved out
in the perimeter walls. Free-standing sculp-
tures were placed inside them. The most fa-
mous example was Bramante’s Cortile delle
statue,4 a courtyard that came into existence
between the papal palace and the Belvedere
in the Vatican as a result of structural modifi-
2 gesche 1971, p. 23.
3 gesche 1971, p. 7.
4 See for instance winner –andreas –
pietrangeli 1998.
cations made after 1503. Bramante connect-
ed both buildings using two two-storey cor-
ridors, thus forming a courtyard on the level
of the palace. The lower floor of the corridors
opened into the courtyard through arcades.
Niches for the statues that had originally been
placed in the Pope’s private apartment were
carved out in the external walls of the loggia
on the upper floor.5 The Cortile delle statue was
the first museum-type structure of its time, as
it housed an exposition whose purpose was
to present high-quality artworks to its visitors.
The original design of the courtyard from the
time of Pope Julius II is only known from its
description. Four niches were established in
the chamfered corners of the courtyard. The
sculptural group called Laocoön and His Sons,
which had been discovered very recently, was
placed in one of them.6 A similar way of ar-
ranging sculptures was used in the garden log-
gia of the Villa Madama, designed by Raphael
for Pope Leo X,7 and in the enclosed courtyard
of the garden of the Palazzo Valle-Capranica,
designed by the architect Lorenzetto in 1525.8
The first true Renaissance museum was a
building with a ground plan of a Greek cross
in the garden of the Roman Palazzo Cesi. The
design of this unpreserved antiquarium was
described in detail by Ulisse Aldrovandi.9 The
sculptures kept inside were placed on sepa-
rate plinths, some of them even on rotating
5 frommel 2011, pp. 91–93. Julius II was a great
collector of sculptures from classical antiquity. As a
cardinal, he already owned a garden filled with these
artworks near the Roman church of San Pietro in
Vincoli. See gesche 1971, p. 19.
6 gesche 1971, p. 19.
7 gesche 1971, p. 21.
8 gesche 1971, pp. 25–26. The appearance of the
unpreserved courtyard with sculptures was recorded
in the form of drawings by Maarten van Heemskerck
and Francisco de Holanda.
9 gesche 1971, pp. 26–27.
| 156 |
pedestals so that it would be possible to ob-
serve them from all sides.
The courtyards and gardens of Renais-
sance palaces often contained fountains with
recumbent Venuses or nymphs, accompanied
by sculptures of the Muses, resembling the
original nymphaeums from the times of classi-
cal antiquity; caves with a spring or a fountain
consecrated to the nymphs, the goddesses of
springs. One of the corner niches of the Cortile
delle statue in the Vatican originally housed a
well with a sculpture of a sleeping Ariadne. Ac-
cording to archival documents, it was already
there in 1512.10 The Renaissance viewed the
Muses and nymphs as identical beings. The
Renaissance nymphaeums contained larger
quantities of sculptures, which is why they
were more often referred to as museums.
In Germany, an internal courtyard with
a garden and sculptures from classical an-
tiquity could be found in the house of Ray-
mund Fugger (1489–1535) in Kleesattlergasse
in Augsburg.11 The tradition was also followed
by Johann Jakob Fugger. A fountain remind-
ing us of a spring of the nymphs was paint-
ed on the wall of one of the studiolo rooms. A
fountain with a sculpture of a goddess in the
style of classical antiquity according to a de-
sign by Friedrich Sustris12 was supposed to be
10 gesche 1971, p. 34.
11 wölfle 2009, p. 121.
12 Sustris’ design of the allegorical figure decora-
ting the fountain was inspired by Florentine art, spe-
cifically the sculpture called Ceres (or alternatively
The Allegory of the Earth) by Bartolomeo Ammannati,
made between 1553 and 1563 for a wall-mounted
well in the Sala Grande of the Palazzo Vecchio. Sustris
acquainted himself with the sculpture when he wor-
ked for the House of Medici. The Fugger house was
damaged during the Second World War and it is
therefore not entirely clear whether the fountain was
made according to Sustris’ design, or whether his
design remained but a sketch. The sketch is currently
stored in Stuttgart. See wölfle 2009, pp. 112–113.
45 | Hendrick van Cleve, Cortille del Belvedere, 1585, engraving on paper, Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.
installed on a wall in the internal courtyard
of the house. Sustris came across the motif
while working for the Medici family. He was
inspired by the animal grotto designed by the
architect Niccolò Tribolo in the Medici fami-
ly’s garden next to a villa in Castello. The mo-
tif of a goddess surrounded by animals was
very popular in the 16th century and was of-
ten used in Italy, as well as northern Europe.13
A sarcophagus from the time of classical an-
tiquity, decorated with reliefs depicting the
Amazons, could also be found in the same
courtyard. The wall-mounted fountain and
the ancient object bear witness to the fact
that the courtyard of the Fugger house in
Augsburg was conceived in a similar way to
the sculpture-rich courtyards of Italian pal-
13 wölfle 2009, p. 114.
| 157 |
aces. The iconography of the well leads us to
the thought that the decoration and furnish-
ing of Hans Fugger’s house followed a certain
general iconographic programme. A nude fig-
ure with water gushing from its breasts per-
sonified fertile nature in the contemporary
iconography. What is more, Sustris’ design
features animals in the background, which
further supports this theory. From the politi-
cal point of view, the motif is meant to point to
a blooming prosperity; a visualisation of the
success of the family business. The nymphs,
from whose bodies water or milk gushes,
symbolise artistic inspiration or knowledge.
This interpretation corresponds with the
decorative programme of the spaces intend-
ed for the collection and supplements it.14
14 wölfle 2009, p. 116.
46 | Friedrich Sustris, Project for the wall decoration of a courtyard with a fountain, 1568–1573, drawing, pencil,
pen in black, washed in grey, whitened, photo: © Staatsgalerie Stuttgart, Graphische Sammlung.

In the large hall, the nine Muses and Apollo
are depicted in the spandrels of the vaulting.
From the iconographic point of view, they are
interconnected with the small wall-mounted
fountain in the courtyard resembling a nym-
phaeum. In the small hall, the four seasons
and the twelve signs of the zodiac are depict-
ed. The figure of Abundantia, a personification
of wealth, is painted in the central medallion
on the ceiling. The coat of arms of the Fug-
ger family – a Turkish woman with a tiara
and lilies – is also present. The iconographic
programme of the collection spaces can be
described as a dialectic between natura and
ars, which was typical in the 16th century. The
items in the collection stored in the rooms
were also in line with this concept. They in-
cluded books, artworks, curiosities, natural
materials, and objets d’art. This iconograph-
ic programme, building on the contrast be-
tween the creativity of nature and man-made
products, governed the design of the court-
yards with the fountain, too.15
According to some theories,16 a nymphae-
um was also established in the imperial grotto
in the Prague district of Bubeneč. The earliest
written record about the grotto comes from
1594, when its rough construction was finished.
It was entered through a short vestibule lined
with two niches in segmental aediculae. Inside,
three niches were carved out in the walls. An
15 wölfle 2009, p. 117.
16 Krčálová 1972. According to Krčálová the
grotto might have housed “a small temple whose
underground location suggests that a connection with
alchemistic or astronomical activities cannot be ruled
out; the same holds for the potential presence of a
nymphaeum, museum, or odeon.”

| 158 |
unspecified water work was supposedly in-
stalled in the centre of the space. The original
sources refer to it as a Brunnen, Wasserwerk,
and Wasserkunst (dwelling, waterworks, and
water art).17 The place was illuminated through
a circular opening in the ceiling. The Grotta dei
Tartari in the Palazzo Farnese in Caprarola and
the Grotta di Mosé in the courtyard of the Pala-
zzo Pitti in Florence had a similar design.18 The
design of the Prague grotto is usually attribut-
ed to Giovanni Gargiolli, who knew the grotto
in the Palazzo Pitti.19
There are several Central European an-
tiquariums from the 16th century. In relation
to the Bohemian environment, the ones in
Munich and at Ambras Castle are the most
relevant, serving as possible sources of inspi-
ration and models. The ideological father of
both of them was the Mantuan antiquarius
Jacopo Strada.
The founder of the antiquarium in Munich,
the first structure of its kind north of the Alps,
was Duke Albert V. In 1563, he had a new space
for a Kunstkammer built within the ducal res-
idence, above the stables. According to the
original plan, it should have included a collec-
tion of sculptures.20 However, four years later
the duke started to consider constructing a
separate building designated exclusively for
the collection of sculptures.21 There were sev-
eral possible reasons for this decision. In 1566,
the duke purchased the collection of antiqui-
ties of Johann Jakob Fugger and, five years lat-
17 dobalová 2009a, p. 189.
18 dobalová 2009a, p. 199.
19 dobalová 2009a, p 201.
20 The architect of the building with the stables
and the cabinet of curiosities, nowadays called Alte
Münze, was Wilhelm Egkl. See jansen 2019, p. 385,
fig. 8.1.
21 frosien-leinz 1980, p. 311.
| 159 |
er, also Fugger’s library.22 Therefore, the Kun-
stkammer might not have sufficed to contain
the newly acquired objects and books.23 The
design of the building intended for the col-
lection of sculptures and the library was en-
trusted to Jacopo Strada, who was at the time
the imperial antiquarius and administrator of
the Fuggers’ collections.24 The first example
of combining a library with a collection should
have been the project devised by Lorenzo il
Magnifico. Nonetheless, it never materialised,
as a result of the expulsion of the Medici fam-
ily from Florence. After their return to power
in 1524, the construction of the Laurentian
Library was commenced, with space for a li-
brary on the first floor. A similar arrangement
of a collection was applied in Fontainebleau,
where the library of Francis I, king of France
(1494–1547), was connected with a gallery.25
Strada was an experienced antiquarian,
adept at the issue of looking after art collec-
tions. Furthermore, he was very widely trav-
22 frosien-leinz 1980, p. 310.
23 Apart from the Fugger collection, the duke also
purchased the collection of the Venetian magnate
Andrea Loredan, with the help of Jacopo Strada. See
jansen 2019, p. 384.
24 Strada’s role as the author of the first design of
the new building is evidenced by a letter sent by Hans
Jacob Fugger to the Venetian art agent
Niccolò Stopio: “His Excellency (= Duke Albert) has
decided to build a room (‘stanza’) for his antiquities, and
so he wants its layout to follow the plans and ideas of
Strada, if he at least deigns to come here.” Cited
according to jansen 2019, p. 385. The original text
was cited according to von busch 1973, pp. 123 and
343, n. 99: “S(ua) Ecc(ellenza) e deliberata di fabricare
una stanza per le statue antiquaglie, et circa lordine vuol
ussare il disegno et parere del Strada, se però si vorra
degnare di venire in qua.” The duke himself sent his
instructions to Strada in a letter on 20 October.
There is no doubt the letter refers to the construction
of a separate, free-standing building. See jansen
2019, p. 386.
25 von busch 1973, p. 154.
elled and well acquainted with the existing
collection spaces, such as the recently estab-
lished antiquarium in the Palazzo Grimani in
Venice or the Loggia dei Marmi (nowadays
called the Galleria dei Mesi) in the Mantuan
ducal palace, designed by Giulio Romano for a
collection of sculptures from classical antiq-
uity. In 1568, Strada received a sketch of the
ground plan and in March 1569 he sent Fug-
ger several design drawings. They concerned
the ground plan redrawn by Strada.26 It is ap-
parent from this that the ground floor was in-
tended as one great exhibition hall. It was to
be entered through a vestibule from which
the main staircase was designed to lead to the
first floor, where the library was supposed to
be located. Two small rooms, each fitted with
a fireplace, were also accessible from the ves-
tibule. A smaller service staircase was located
in the second room. This part was probably
intended as the rooms of the antiquarius en-
trusted with administering the collection, as
a latrine is indicated under the smaller stair-
case. The room pattern is mirrored at the oth-
er end of the building. There, Strada drew two
small cabinets accessible from the main hall,
labelling them stanze delle due? (sic!)teste in
the notes accompanying the plan, from which
we can deduce that they might have been
designated for smaller marble busts or the
duke’s collection of coins. These spaces were
also to be heated using a stove, so they were
perhaps designed to serve as a study for the
duke and his guests.27 The next drawing is a
sketch of the interior design of the main hall
on the ground floor. 28 The hastily executed
pen drawing shows three wall bays under the
26 Nowadays kept in the Bayerisches Staatsarchiv,
Plansammlung 7939.
27 jansen 2019, pp. 405–406.
28 Bayerische Staatsbibliothek München, Cod.
Icon. 198c, no. 1, ff. 2av/2br.
| 160 |
lunette vaulting, in front of which busts and
statues are placed, standing on pillars and
plinths. The vault is supported by columns
standing next to the walls. Smaller rectan-
gular windows are indicated in the lunettes,
ensuring good illumination of the interior. 29
The last design by Strada concerns the exteri-
or of the antiquarium.30 The drawing shows an
alternative solution to the illumination of the
interior, as compared to the sketch relating
to the interior. Once again it depicts the three
wall bays in the style of a blind arcade whose
pilasters are constituted of rustic-style brick-
work. On the very left, only the blind arcade is
designed. In the central part and on the right,
the blind arcade is penetrated by square win-
dows. There also exists a design of the anti-
quarium by an anonymous draughtsman of
German or possibly Dutch origin. It is kept in
the Bavarian State Archives31 and depicts a
two-storey building of extraordinary dimen-
sions with a high hipped roof resembling the
roof of the Antwerp City Hall. A table in the
tympanum bears the year 1568, identifying
the date of the creation of the design. The
façade on the ground floor evokes some of
Michelangelo’s patterns and is composed of
rustic-style blocks. They might have been in-
tended as sgraffiti. Furthermore, the façade
is regularly segmented using semi-columns
with Ionic capitals. Rectangular windows
with segmental supraportes are drawn on
the upper floor. Under them, there are small
oblong windows ensuring the illumination
of the hall on the ground floor. This solution
29 jansen 2019, p. 410.
30 Bayerisches Staatsarchiv, Plansammlung
7931/9584.
31 This plan was first published by Otto Hartig.
See hartig 1917. In the 1950s, Erich Hubala built on
Hartig’s article. He believed the author of this design
was Jacopo Strada.
corresponds to Strada’s interior design fea- The Venetian scuole, the headquarters of var-
turing the small windows in the lunettes. ious confraternities, were designed in a simi-
This way of illuminating rooms with sculp- lar manner.32
tures was recommended by Sebastiano Ser- In the end, the building (completed in
lio in his texts. A view of the interior is de- 1571) was constructed according to the plans
picted on the right-hand side of the drawing. of the Augsburg-based builder Simon Zwit-
The hall was supposed to be vaulted on the zel. There is a sketch depicting a cross-sec-
ground floor. The lunette sectors rest on wide tion through the two-storey building by Zwit-
pillars of the longitudinal walls and a num- zel that has been preserved to this day.33 His
ber of free-standing Tuscan-order columns design was based on the original concept au-
with plinths. Sculptures were planned to be
placed on pedestals or pillars, as indicated 32 hubala 1958/1959, p. 132 and frosien-leinz
by the sketched busts of Roman emperors 1980, pp. 313–314.
and the statues of St. Sebastian. A hall with 33 Bayerische Hauptstaatsarchiv, Plansammlung,
a flat ceiling is suggested on the upper floor. no. 7940. The sketch was first published by Gabriele
Dischinger in 1988. See dischinger 1988, pp. 81–86.

47 | Munich Residence, Antiquarium, view from the former entrance, © Bayerische Schlösserverwaltung
Schwenk, München.

| 161 |
thored by Strada, but it simplified it and ad-
justed it to the local conditions and financial
possibilities. Therefore, although the anti-
quarium was eventually constructed accord-
ing to Zwitzel’s design, Strada’s role as the au-
thor of the overall concept of the building, the
first of its kind north of the Alps, and advisor in
relation to the collection installation remains
indisputable and crucial.
Duke Albert V died in 1579 and was suc-
ceeded by his son William V. At the beginning
of his reign, he focused his attention on the
construction of St. Michael’s Church. The first
time the antiquarium was mentioned in con-
temporary documents was in the mid-1580s
in the form of a note that twelve sculptures
were determined to be taken from the anti-
quarium for the decoration of the façade of
a recently completed Jesuit church of St. Mi-
chael. The set comprised the sculptures of six
emperors from classical antiquity and their
counterparts from the modern era. These
twelve sculptures were originally meant to
be displayed in the antiquarium, signalling
an ideological shift in the interior decoration.
This assertion seems to be further supported
by the existence of numerous design drawings
relating to the arrangement of the sculptures.
The new programme was supposed to be a cel-
ebration of the House of Wittelsbach and the
sculptures of classical and contemporary em-
perors symbolised the genealogy of the du-
cal family. The walls of the hall started to be
freshly painted in 1584. Friedrich Sustris and
his workshop adorned the ceiling with views
of Bavarian towns, castles, and chateaux,
showing the power of the Wittelsbachs. Ge-
ographical motifs featuring the territory gov-
erned by a certain family can also be found
in French galleries and Italian loggias. They
include Pinturicchio’s frescoes in the loggia of
the upper belvedere of Pope Innocent VII from
1487, the decoration of the Galerie des Cerfs of
| 162 |
Duke Antoine of Lorraine in the ducal palace
in Nancy from the beginning of the 16th cen-
tury, as recorded in literature, or the Galleria
delle carte geografiche in the Vatican (1580–
1582). The walls were also decorated with gro-
tesques. Embellishing the spaces intended for
the exhibition of artworks using these decora-
tive elements was recommended by Armenini
in his treatise called De‘veri precetti della pit-
tura. Furthermore, the three basic theologi-
cal virtues (Fides, Spes, and Caritas) and the
four cardinal virtues (Prudentia, Temperantia,
Iustitia, and Fortitudo) were painted here. This
usual canon was additionally complement-
ed with Constatia, Veritas, Castitas, Clementia,
Patientia, Abstinentia, Oboedentia, and Fame.
This decoration referred to an ideal sovereign
who submits to the faith and the Church. Wil-
liam V was one of the most pronounced ad-
vocates of the Counter-Reformation in the
whole of Europe. Therefore, the decoration
as a whole presents the Dukes of Bavaria as
the ideal, devout Christian princes. It is prob-
able that sculptures were finally placed in the
antiquarium only after the completion of the
painting works.34
The original design of the Munich anti-
quarium does not share many characteris-
tics with the New Hall in Prague. From the
ideological and formal point of view, the an-
tiquarium became more similar to the Prague
structure around 1600, when it was modified
to become a great representative hall under
the reign of Albert’s successors. However, the
original design of the antiquarium has a lot in
common with the Imperial Hall of the Bučov-
ice Chateau. The reason for this is that the
concept of both structures was authored by
Jacopo Strada.
| Eliška Zlatohlávková |
34 frosien-leinz 1980, p. 317.

The New Hall at
Prague Castle
Another Central European antiquarium was
established at the beginning of the 17th cen-
tury in Prague. Among other things, the Ru-
dolfine collections also included sculptures.
They were supposed to be displayed in the
New Hall (the present-day Spanish Hall),
built by Rudolf II on the floor above the sta-
bles that had been constructed between 1602
and 1606 according to the plans by the Italian
architect Giovanni Maria Filippi.
According to the original plan, hanging
gardens were supposed to be founded above
the Spanish stables.35 This is documented in
the rich correspondence exchanged between
the Prague and the Mantuan courts in 1603.
Rudolf asked for a drawing of the hanging gar-
den in the Ducal Palace in Mantua so that he
could use it for the design of his own gardens
in Prague. One year later, on 23 March 1604,
a contract for the construction of a giardino
pensile with water elements was concluded
with Giovanni Maria Filippi.36 However, short-
ly afterwards the idea was rejected and it was
decided that a large hall of sculptures should
be constructed above the stables instead. The
possible explanation for this radical shift rests six of them arrived, the remaining free plac-
in the donation made by Duke Charles Emma-
nuel I of Savoy, who pledged to send Rudolf
twelve sculptures of ancient Roman emperors.
The emperor was informed about the possibil-
ity of acquiring these twelve sculptures from
classical antiquity by his court painter Hans
von Aachen, who had visited the Savoyard
court in Turin. The consignment from Turin
reached Prague in June 1604. However, to Ru- 37
35 vilímková – kašička 1977, p. 389.
36 dobalová 2009a, p. 164.
| 163 |
dolf’s great disappointment, it contained only
six sculptures. Nevertheless, the construction
of the hall was already under way. The un-
pleasant situation was eventually resolved by
the court sculptor Adriaen de Vries, who creat-
ed new, free-standing sculptures that substi-
tuted for the originally planned sculptures of
Roman emperors in the hall.37 The New Hall
was constructed between 1602 and 1606 un-
der the supervision of the court architect Gio-
vanni Maria Filippi. The rough structure was
completed in 1605 and the interior decoration
was executed during the course of the follow-
ing year. The artists who participated in it in-
cluded the stonemason Antonio Brocco, the
stuccoer Giovanni Battista Soviano, and the
sculptors Giovanni Battista Quadri and An-
driaen de Vries.38 Pilasters were placed along
the perimeter of all the walls, supporting an
entablature. Windows were inserted into the
northern wall and niches were established in
the southern wall, housing the statues that
were additionally framed with half-columns
standing in the fore.39 Elevated stands were
(or were supposed to be) installed in the east-
ern part of the hall. A similar structure could
be found in the lower hall of the antiquarium
in Munich.40 As already mentioned, the nich-
es were originally designated for the twelve
sculptures from the Duke of Savoy. As only
es were filled by sculptures with motifs from
the mythology of classical antiquity, made by
Andriaen de Vries; Mars and a Wolf, Faun, Ve-
nus and Amor, Hercules, Aurora, Meleager and
a Dog, Apollo, Bacchante and a Goat, River God
with a Jug and the Horn of Plenty, and Victorio
uličný 2017b, p. 851.
38 vilímková – kašička 1977, p. 389.
39 krčálová 1975, p. 512.
40 In the design of the antiquarium that was in
place around the year 1600.
48 | The New Hall during the celebration of the birth of the son of the King Friedrich V in the year 1620,
Muzeum hl. města Prahy.

with a Child, Eagle, and Wreath.41 Between
1607 and 1611, the sculptural decoration of the
hall was supplemented by Giovanni Battista
Quadri and his twelve portraits of emperors
from classical antiquity made from metal and
then painted.42 No contemporary documents
were preserved with regard to the design of
the ceiling. A panelled ceiling was created
in the neighbouring Spanish Hall by Bernard
Erhardt and Old Town joiners between 1596
41 uličný 2017b, p. 851.
42 uličný 2017b, p. 853.
and 1597.43 However, the emperor hired the
painter Paul Vredeman de Vries during the
course of the execution of the work. The pan-
43 krčálová 1975, p. 509. “Die böhmische Kammer
befiehlt dem Kaiserrichter der Altstadt Prag Johann
Plateys von Plattenstein, die Aeltesten des
Tischlerhandwerks vor sich rufen zu lassen und ihnen
aufzutragen, dem Hoftischler Meister Bernart so viele
Meister und Gesellen zur Verfügung zu stellen, als dieser
zur baldigen Fertigstellung der Vertäflung der Decke im
Saale (w palaczu) über den neuen Stallungen
benöthingen würde.” Köpl 1891, p. LXXXIII, reg. no.
8298.

| 164 |
elled ceiling was removed immediately after its
completion and replaced with Vries’s illusive
painting, which remained there until the Di-
entzenhofer reconstruction that took place in
1748–1750.44 It is probable that the panelled
ceiling was transferred to the New Hall, which
was of the same length as the Spanish Hall but
was twice as wide. Erhardt died in 1599 and
could therefore not create the second half of
the ceiling in the New Hall.45 He might have
drawn inspiration from the carved ceilings of
the Sankt Georgsaal in what was called the
Neuveste of the Munich residence, or from
the ceilings found in the palaces at Dachau
and Kirchheim, or alternatively the ceiling of
the Spanish Hall at Ambras Castle.46
The original decoration of the hall has not
been preserved to this day. The oldest depic-
tion of the hall, partially enabling the recon-
struction of its appearance during the reign of
Rudolf II, is most probably the engraving from
1620, showing the christening party of the son
of Frederick V of the Palatinate. The next doc-
ument we can lean on is the set of baroque
plans of the castle complex drawn up before
the radical reconstruction implemented dur-
ing the reign of Maria Theresa. Unfortunately,
the engraving has only an illustrative charac-
ter and does not depict the exact appearance
of the interior of the New Hall. For instance,
the decorative stucco works or the sculp-
tures in the niches are completely omitted.
On the other hand, the baroque plans47 only
44 vilímková – kašička 1977, p. 389.
45 muchka 2009a, p. 144. There are no
contemporary records relating to the design of the
ceiling of the New Hall. However, Vilímková
and Kašička presume it was decorated with illusive
paintings, just like the Spanish Hall. See vilímková
– kašička 1977, p. 389.
46 muchka 2009a, p. 145.
47 The Archive of Prague Castle, The Collection of
Plans no. 115/100.
| 165 |
capture four columns supporting the ceiling
in the middle of the hall. The engraving shows
five of them. The latter number is in line with
the wording of the contract concluded with
the marbler David Hagenmüller in 1698, task-
ing him with covering five columns inside the
hall with artificial stone.48 Thus, the original
design of the New Hall was similar to the Vi-
ennese Tanzhaus, whose flat ceiling was also
supported by columns, as evidenced, for in-
stance, by a woodcut from 1560.49 Although it
was intended to serve as an antiquarium, the
New Hall was not inspired by the Munich an-
tiquarium. It is more similar to the main hall,
the Zendersaal, of the Fugger palace in Kirch-
heim an der Mindel. Its interior decoration
combined terracotta elements with monu-
mental sculptures placed in niches.50
| Eliška Zlatohlávková |
Bučovice
Towards the end of his life, Jacopo Strada
maintained close contacts with the Bohemian
and Moravian nobility. For instance, he offered
his art collection to William of Rosenberg
for sale, 51 but also enjoyed a long-standing
friendship with the Moravian nobleman Jan
48 Cited according to krčálová 1975, p. 522, note
80: “Kund und zu wissen, dass heunt zu endgesetzten
dato zwischen der königl. Böhm. Kammer an Ein- dann
dem David Haggenmüller Kunstmarbelier andertheils
folgender Kontrakt geschlossen worden, nämlich und
fürs erste. Wird jetzt gemelter Marbilirer nicht allein die
in den königl. Prager Schloss auf den sogenannten
spanischen Saal vorhandene grosse fünf Säulen sammt
denen Pedalien und Kapitalien wie auch dreissig Lisenen
[...].” baum 1882, p. 36.
49 muchka 2009a, pp. 143–154, p. 144, fig. 1.
50 muchka 2009a, p. 144.
51 lietzmann 1997, p. 384.
Šembera Černohorský of Boskovice, whom
he befriended in Vienna.52 Strada spent sev-
eral months at the Bučovice Chateau in the
years 1583 and 1584. At the time, decoration
works were under way in five rooms on the
ground floor of the west wing, most proba-
bly according to Strada’s design. There are no
direct proofs to support this assertion, but
there are several facts that point to Strada
as the author of the decorative concept. He
might even have taken part in devising the
overall architectural design of the chateau,
since it shares several features with the Neu-
gebäude, where Strada’s involvement is indis-
putable.53 The interior decoration of the five
ground floor rooms is very similar to the Neu-
gebäude’s interior decoration, too. Further-
more, the layout of the ceiling in the Imperial
Room is based on the decoration of the ceil-
ings in the Camera degli Imperatori or Camera
di Attilio Regolo in the Palazzo Te in Mantua,
Strada’s birthplace.54 Moreover, the decora-
tion of the Imperial Room is strikingly similar
to the decoration of the interior of the col-
lection spaces in the Fugger house in Augs-
burg; and we know that Jacopo Strada was
involved in devising the programme thereof.
The greater Muse Room housed Fugger’s art
collections and also served as a study. The
lesser Zodiac Room was designed as a buon
retiro, a place for resting and meditating.55
Both rooms were decorated between 1569
and 1573 by Italian artists headed by Fried-
rich Sustris. The first description of these ex-
52 lietzmann 1987, p. 134.
53 In the 1570s, Strada sent Šembera plans for the
construction of the Bučovice Chateau and then visi-
ted him personally in Moravia in 1583. See lietzmann
1997, p. 393.
54 jansen 2019, p. 525.
55 The inventory from 1635 describes both rooms
as a bibliotheca. See von busch 1973, pp. 94–95.
| 166 |
hibition spaces comes from 1595, from the
pen of Hans Georg Ernstinger.56 Another de-
scription was recorded by Duke August von
Braunschweig und Lüneburg during his visit
to the house.57
This type of decoration was an entirely
new thing in Germany. The rich paintings
in the form of grotesques and allegorical
56 “Herrn Marx Fuggers behausung auf dem
weinmarckht mit kupfer bedeckht und rünnen von
kupfernen trachen angemalt, ain schönes gebey von vil
schöner zimmer saal und gemächer. darunter ain schöns
gewölb auf dem untersten boden und hof, von
künstlichen gemälwerckh und bildern der heidnischen
römischen kayser geziert; in dem kliernen gwölb, so an
dem voringen, ist ain tisch von märml mit mancherlay
edlen stainen als malchit, amatist, agstain, berlmutter
und dergleichen schön eingelegt. Mehr haben wir auch
da gesehen im hoff unter ainem gang ain alte begrebnus,
welche aus der insel Cypern gehen Augspury gefüert
worden, das soll ainer königen der amazionischen
weiber gewest sein, welche wider die männer gekriegt,
wie dann etliche solcher amazones zu roβ mit den
männern streittent, am grabstein herumb eingehauten
zu sehen [...].” wölfle 2009, p. 123.
57 “Den 17 octob., Dienstag, weyter gesehen deβ Marci
Fuggerβ sein schloβ. darinen ein groβer Saall, von schönen
gemeldten vnd perspektiven. Im nebengemach ein hundt
von leim (= Lehm, Terrakotta) gar künstlich gemachet. Ein
anderer schöner gewelbter Saall, darinne die 12 Ethnici
Impp. (= imperatores) a Julio Caesare angefangen zu
besehen, welches des Sommer külle, deβ winters aber
warm ist. Im nebengemach Effigies Urbis Romae,
Ciceronis et aliorum. Ein tisch mit edelgestein eingelegtt.
Andere schöne perspektiven: alβ ein fueβ, so ein alter
überschlagen hatt, welcher einem alles nachfolgett: ein
gantz bildt, so oben in der mitte gemahlett, welches einem
allenthalben nachsiehett. Grosse Stucke im hoffe, welche
die Fugger zur Zeitt deβ aufruhrs gebrauchen vnd vor die
Thore stellen lassen. Einen Indianischen geyβ oder Ziege.
Ein altt heidnisch Epitaphium daranne Amazones wie βie
mit den Männern streyten. Zu Ros vnd fueβ, gehawen,
welches die Fugger auβ Cypern bis Napoli bringen lassen
vnd von dannen nach Augspurgk. eβ soll 2000 Jahre allt
sein. Weyter eine Kammer, die güldene genandt, besehen,
darinnen viell bildnuβ vnd oben daβ tabulat von messing
gar starck überguldett, darinne schöne sachen von Silber,
Wachβ und Stepwerck gezeigett werden. Harnisch auf 25
Man, so sie auch zur Zeit des aufruhrs gebrauchen.”
wölfle 2009, p. 124.
49 | Bučovice Chateau, The Imperial room, '80s of the 16th century, photo: Veronika K. Wanková.
motifs were complemented by stucco dec-
orations and terracotta busts.58 The Palaz-
zo Vecchio in Florence might have served as
a source of inspiration, especially the halls
decorated by Giorgio Vasari: the Sala di Co-
simo Vecchio, Sala di Lorenzo il Magnifico, and
Sala di Cosimo I. The parallels with Florence
are most apparent in the greater Muse Room,
whose walls are segmented into a zone with
a plinth, painted marble decoration, and the
part with the grotesques above it. The indi-
vidual severies are decorated with stucco
58 wölfle 2009, pp. 107–108. The Fugger house
was heavily damaged during the Second World War.
The reconstruction took place between 1996 and
2012, using photographs from the beginning of the
20th century.
| 167 |
applications. 59 The nine Muses and Apollo
are depicted in the spandrels of the vaulting
of the greater room, while the busts of em-
perors from classical antiquity are exhibited
in the lunettes. The adjacent Zodiac Room
is also decorated with predominantly gro-
tesque motifs. The four seasons are paint-
ed in the ceiling medallions that surround
the central scene with the personification of
Abundance (Abundantia). The twelve signs of
the zodiac are depicted in the spherical trian-
gles of the lunette vaulting. The walls of this
lesser room are segmented into several parts,
too. Illusive views of bucolic landscapes with
59 wölfle 2009, p. 111. This hypothesis was first
put forward by Dorothea Diemer. She based it on the
fact that F. Sustris had previously worked for the
Medici family.
the ruins of temples from classical antiquity
are depicted above the illusive marble plinth
with gemstones.60 What was called the Scrit-
toio del Terazzo in the Florentine Palazzo Vec-
chio (intended as a study) was decorated in a
similar manner. It was located in a pavilion on
the palace terrace. The illusive landscapes
on the walls and the grotesque motifs on the
vaulted ceiling were performed by Vasari’s
student Tommaso del Verrocchio.
Of all the rooms of the Bučovice Chateau,
the Imperial Room, with the dimensions of
7.95 × 6.95 m, has the richest decoration, com-
prising wall paintings, stuccos, reliefs, panel
60 von hagen – pursche – wendler 2013, p. 62
and wölfle 2009, pp. 108–109.
50 | Bučovice Chateau, Charles V on horseback vanquishing a Turk, '80s of the 16th century, photo: Veronika K.
Wanková.
| 168 |
paintings, grotesques,61 and sculptures.62 The
room acquired its name after the four busts of
emperors from classical antiquity (Antonius
Pius, Augustus, Marcus Aurelius, and Nero)
placed under the windows. This designation
is very old, as it first appeared in an inven-
tory from 1637, compiled after the death of
Šembera’s daughter Kateřina of Boskovice.63
The similarity between the rooms in the
Fugger house and the rooms in the Bučovice
Chateau, especially the Imperial Hall, is not
merely formal. There is also a resemblance in
61 Giovanni Battista Armenini recommended
grotesques as a suitable way of decorating a studiolo
in his treatise De‘ veri precetti della pittura, as they
bring joy during the periods of rest while studying.
62 wanková 2015, p. 58.
63 wanková 2015, p. 64.
terms of their purpose, as the Bučovice rooms
were most probably intended as Jan Šembera’s
studiolo. No direct archival documents attest-
ing to the fact that the rooms housed an art
collection have been preserved, but there are
a number of pieces of indirect evidence sup-
porting this hypothesis.64 The busts of emper-
ors from classical antiquity belonged among
the basic furnishings of studioli right from their
beginnings, not only in Italy, but also in Central
Europe. Busts present in a studiolo were first
mentioned in a letter by Bartolomeo Serragli
sent from Rome to Giovanni di Cosimo on 12
November 1453.65 The busts were also an in-
tegral part of the studioli found in the German
humanistic environment. For instance, they
were recorded in the inventory of the Augs-
burg collection of Conrad Peutinger as “20
allte runde kayserköpff”.66 Bronze or marble
heads were often displayed on the consoles
under the ceiling as part of the overall decora-
tion of the room, resembling the portrait-style
decoration of libraries in classical antiquity
that were known to humanists thanks to the
writings of Pliny the Elder.67 Besides the busts
of emperors from classical antiquity, the Im-
perial Hall in Bučovice also housed a sculptur-
al group showing the Emperor Charles V on
horseback, vanquishing a Turk. The Habsburg
is presented as a victor over pagans, serving as
a model for other Christian monarchs.68 This
64 Jansen too terms the Bučovice halls studioli.
See jansen 2009, p. 247.
65 liebenwein 1977, pp. 73–74.
66 von busch 1973, p. 65.
67 von busch 1973, p. 65. In the times of classical
antiquity, this mainly concerned the portraits of the
authors whose texts were kept in the libraries.
68 wanková 2015, p. 66. The sculpture is inspired
by the no. 5 print by Maarten van Heemskerck, called
Charles V Liberates Vienna from the Turks, in his series
showing the “Victories of Charles V”. See wanková
2015, p. 68.
| 169 |
group is located in the right lunette above the
fireplace. In the remaining lunettes, there are
scenes from ancient mythology, namely the
Abduction of Europa, Mars, and Diana. The de-
piction of Charles V can be understood as an
example of a portrayal within what are called
viri illustri, which can be encountered even in
the oldest studioli in Florence (such as that
of Niccolò de’ Niccoli) or in Urbino. After all,
this kind of decoration was recommended
by Alberti and Decembrio, with reference to
examples from classical antiquity. Portray-
ing heroes or emperors from classical antiq-
uity was not only meant to remind us of their
great deeds, but also their virtues, which were
supposed to be followed by the owners of the
studiolo.69 In his biographies called The Twelve
Caesars, Suetonius mentioned that Caesar
himself collected precious stones, artworks,
and old books, and Augustus used to furnish
his palaces with sculptures and paintings.70
| Eliška Zlatohlávková |
Ambras
Archduke Ferdinand II of Further Austria had
a representative space for sculptures from
classical antiquity and ones that resembled
those from antiquity built at his Ambras Cas-
tle. It was part of a larger collection complex
located in the lower part of the castle, togeth-
er with a library and a small Rüstkammer.71
The concept of connecting a collection of
sculptures with a library was taken over from
69 von busch 1973, p. 83.
70 liebenwein 1977, p. 79.
71 kuster 2011, p. 36.
Munich. In fact, the Ambras antiquarium is a
variation on, and a simplification of, the orig-
inal design elaborated for Munich.72 The an-
tiquarium at Ambras was discovered as late
as in 1954.73 It was located in what was called
the Kornschütte, a corner building adjacent to
the building housing the Kunstkammer. The
room, with a flat ceiling and the dimensions
of 13 × 5 m, directly adjoined the library, both
spaces being separated only by an entrance
arch. It was illuminated through four win-
72 von busch 1973, pp. 105–106. Ferdinand surely
acquainted himself with the Munich collections and
the new designs for the antiquarium during his stay in
Munich in 1568 in relation to the marriage of his
nephew Wilhelm V to Renata of Larraine. See kuster
2011, p. 36.
73 von sauter 1971.
dows facing the exterior arcades and there
were 85 variously-sized niches carved out in
its walls for the display of sculptures.74 Ac-
cording to old inventories of the collection,
only sculptures made from marble or bronze
could be found here, usually heads and busts.
An inventory from the 18th century also re-
corded the presence of modern sculptures,
the cycle of the Habsburg genealogy.75 The
present-day appearance of the antiquarium
dates back to the 18th century; what it looked
like under Archduke Ferdinand II remains un-
known. The earliest description of the interi-
or comes from 1628, from the pen of Philipp
Hainhofer: “vil antichische stainerne brust-
74 von busch 1973, p. 103.
75 von busch 1973, p. 103.

51 | Ambras Castle, engraving from Matthaeus Merian, Topographia provinciarum Austriacarum, Austriae,
Styriae, Carinthiae, Carniolae Tyrolis, Franckfurt am Mayn: Merian: Cholin 1679.

| 170 |
 bilder in löchern (a lot of marble busts from
antiquity in the wall niches)”. He was the first
to point to the niches in the walls. His testi-
mony is confirmed by a report written by Mar-
tin Zeiler, who visited the castle in 1632 and
described a lot of books in the library, togeth-
er with paintings and statues in the niches:
“Auss der Kunstkamer kompt man in die Biblio-
thec, in welcher eine mächtige anzall Bücher, in
allerhand Facultäten und Spraachen. Und sein
hierinn auch Gemälde, und under andern die
Historie von Ahasver, von allerley Nationen gar
gross. Hin und wider viel Antichische steinerne
Brustpilder in löchern.” Another report regard-
ing the interior antiquarium is from 1729, by
Johann Georg Keyssler, and speaking about
20 portraits of the ancient Emperors and fa-
mous men made of metal and marble: “... 20
metallen Brustbilder von alten Kaisern und be-
rühmten Leuthen, nebst vielen aus Marmor, wo-
runter einige griechische sind, welche sich un-
gemein durch ihre gelbliche Farbe von andern
unterscheidet”.76
76 kuster 2011, p. 37.
| 171 |
The Ambras antiquarium also had a re-
lation to collections. Together with the li-
brary and the collection of weapons, it con-
stituted one large united collection, which
was undoubtedly based on the concept of
Italian studioli. The ties to Italy were further
underlined by the marriage policy practised
by the Habsburgs. The year 1549 saw the
wedding of Ferdinand’s sister and the Duke
of Mantua. Ferdinand accompanied his sis-
ter on the way to Mantua and therefore had
the opportunity to acquaint himself with the
collections of the Gonzaga family. The Am-
bras antiquarium adopted the Italian motif
of the niches, although their multiplication
is still a reference to the mediaeval way of
segmenting a space.
| Eliška Zlatohlávková |
VI | The Gallery
The gallery appears in continuity with the
studiolo as a mental space that reflects the
transformations of the higher echelons of
the society of the sixteenth century. The af-
firmation of the gallery as an architectural
space represents a passage from humanis-
tic introspection, typically embodied by the
studiolo, towards an attitude dominated by
exhibition and the demonstration of the so-
cial status of the lord.1
The term “gallery” is associated with an
elongated and narrow room, and may orig-
inate from the Italian word galleria, a term
used in Rome since the tenth century to ad-
dress a vestibule of the church according to
the biblical name Galilea – galenée, galilée –
vestibule. The term “gallery” could also be
connected to the ancient French galer (gal-
ler, gualler), which means to enjoy, to dance. 2
At least initially, the gallery had a recre-
ational purpose and fulfilled the function of a
connecting corridor between private spaces
such as the chapel, the oratory, sometimes
the studiolo, or between representative halls
and living quarters. The elongated shape of
1 On the gallery in general see in particular:
scamozzi 1615, vol. III, pp. 328–29; prinz 1970 and the
Italian edition prinz 2006; See also the reviews of
prinz 1970 by hoffmann 1971, pp. 102–112 and by
büttner, 1972, pp. 75–80; coope 1984, pp. 446–455;
coope 1986, pp. 43–84; guillaume 1994, pp. 32–42;
settis 1983, vol. I, pp. 309–17; strunck – kieven 2010.
2 Nevertheless, the etymology of the term is not
entirely clear; cf: hoffmann, 1971, p. 103; nencioni
1983, pp. 17–48; settis 1983, pp. 309–317.
< 52 | Frans van der Steen after Nicolaus van Hoy, View of part of Archduke Leopold Wilhelm of Austria‘s
Gallery, illustration from: David Teniers (II), Theatrum Pictorium, Brussels: Henricum Aertssens 1660.
| 173 |
the space and the presence of ample win-
dows on one or both sides justified the func-
tion of passage, while the relation with the
outside contributed to the refreshment of
the mind. 3
Wolfram Prinz has claimed that the
architectural typology of the gallery is of
French origin. 4 The initial relatively small di-
mensions of the space progressively extend-
ed themselves (from the 36 metres of the
gallery at the Château du Plessis Bourré to
the 150 metres of the Galerie d’Ulysse in Fon-
tainebleau), denoting progressively increas-
ing ambitions for magnificence.5
The birth of the gallery in France seems
to echo the classical model, recalling the
function of the ambulacrum by adapting it
to celebratory needs.
The recreational function of the first
French galleries is confirmed by the presence
of hunting trophies, hence the denomination
of “Galerie des cerfs” and “des chevreuils” for
the castles of Blois and Gaillon and the Du-
cal Palace of Nancy. This function was soon
joined by that of aggrandisement of the lord
through elaborate celebratory decoration
3 prinz 2006, p. X.
4 For an alternative opinion see hoffmann 1971,
pp. 102–112. Hoffmann mentions the gallery in the
Capodiferro Spada Palace in Rome as an example for
the gallery of the French King Francis I at
Fontainebleau.
5 For the representative function of the gallery
see in particular: rossholm lagerlöf 2013.
with mythological and allegorical motifs,
as in the gallery of Francis I in Fontaineb-
leau, or in the representation of historical
episodes aimed at glorifying the deeds of the
sovereign.
In 1528, Francis I of France had made the
decision to build a gallery at the Château de
Fontainebleau, whose construction was com-
pleted in 1540. The gallery connected the roy-
al apartments in the Cour Ovale with the Trin-
ity Church in the Cour du Cheval Blanc. It was
64 metres long and 6 metres wide, with eight
large windows on each side. The walls are cov-
ered with boiserie, above which can be found
the famous stuccos and frescoes by Rosso
Fiorentino with scenes from the Iliad, the Od-
yssey, the Stories of Alexander the Great, Ovid’s
Metamorphoses, and Apuleius’ Cupid and Psy-
che. In some scenes Francis I himself appears.
The entire cycle refers to the virtues of the
kingdom and symbolizes the salient moments
of the biography of Francis I. Shortly after it
was completed, the gallery welcomed copies
of works from antiquity executed in bronze
by Primaticcio placed on pedestals, which,
however, were not originally conceived for
the gallery. 6
At the time of its introduction in France,
the gallery was not immediately connected
to a collecting function, which is rather to be
ascribed to the influence of Italian culture.
The gallery transformed itself into an exhibi-
tion space thanks to the juxtaposition of the
French architectural form and the growing in-
terest in collecting and antique artefacts in
sixteenth-century Italy.7
6 prinz 2006, pp. 17–18; On the Château de
Fontainebleau see dan 1990.2 On the gallery and its
decoration see barocchi 1950; See also nos. 16–17 of
Revue de l’Art (1972), dedicated to the gallery of
Francis I at the Château de Fontainebleau; zarner
1975, pp. 31–34; falciani 2014, pp. 101–108.
7 prinz 2006, pp. 17–26.
| 174 |
In one of the first known Italian examples,
in the Capodiferro Spada Palace in Rome,
the gallery is placed on the first floor of the
building above arches and it is only illuminat-
ed by three windows facing the courtyard.
The gallery leads on one side to the private
apartments of Cardinal Girolamo Capodif-
erro (1502–1559), and on the other, through
a corridor, to the Great Hall with the other
reception rooms. It is 13 metres long and 2.5
metres wide and it must have been finished
before the death of the Cardinal in 1559. The
gallery was, however, more intimate than
representative, but it was defined as a “galar-
ia” in the project of Ottavio Mascarino. 8 The
decoration of the gallery, with rich stucco fig-
urations and stucco frames that enclose the
mythological frescoes, recalls the gallery of
Francis I in Fontainebleau, which the Cardinal
knew, having been apostolic nuncio in France
for years. In front of the windows there are
round niches for busts.9
Around 1580, the gallery of the Ruccel-
lai-Ruspoli Palace in Rome and the gallery
of the Villa Medici al Pincio (also probably
dating from 1580) were built following the
French model, but enriched by the exhibi-
tion of antiquities. The gallery of the Ruccel-
lai-Ruspoli Palace, belonging to a family of
Florentine bankers, was located on the piano
nobile; it measured 28 metres in length and
7.5 metres in width. The frescoes on the vault
were made by Jacopo Zucchi and depicted
ancient mythology, while twelve busts of Ro-
man emperors were housed in twelve oval
niches.10 It was evidently Orazio Ruccellai,
who in 1564 went to the court of Caterina
8 On the project of Ottavio Mascarino see
wasserman 1966.
9 On the gallery in the Capodiferro Spada Palace
see wasserman 1961, pp. 58–63; prinz 2006, pp. 18–20.
10 pillsbury 1974, pp. 20–22.
de’ Medici in France, where he spent about
20 years, who brought the influence of the
French gallery.11
Ferdinando I de’ Medici (1549–1609)’s
gallery at the Villa Medici in Rome measures
60 metres in length and is the only Italian ex-
ample located on the ground floor. It was a
gallery for antiquities, initially consisting of
the collection of Cardinal Ricci. It was contin-
uously enriched until the acquisition of the
Della Valle-Capranica collection.12 With 27
statues and 22 marble busts, it was compara-
ble to the gallery set up in the Uffizi corridor,
which, initially designed by Vasari as a log-
gia, was transformed into a gallery furnished
with portraits and ancient statues.
The Sabbioneta gallery commissioned
by Vespasiano Gonzaga (1531–1591) extends
for 96 metres and is 6.20 metres wide. Be-
gun around 1583, and initially decorated with
frescoes depicting famous leaders, it was lat-
er set up as a Galerie des Cerfs, according to
the French model, with the most beautiful
hunting trophies coming from Prague. This
equipment was later replaced with another
decoration, which still exists today, including
medallions, putti, floral vases, Gonzaga im-
prese, and allegorical figures of virtues and
the liberal arts enriched with busts, archae-
ological finds, and rarities.13
| Alice Fornasiero |
11 On the gallery of the Ruccellai-Ruspoli Palace
see saxl 1992, pp. 172–211; prinz 2006, pp. 24–25.
12 hochmann 1999, pp. 278–281; prinz 2006,
pp. 52–53.
13 On the Sabbioneta gallery see in particular:
dondi 1587; lenzi 1971; prinz 2006, pp. 54–55;
michelotti 1989, pp. 61–82; tauber 2018, pp. 37–69.
| 175 |
Painted loggias,
representative halls,
and the beginning
of the gallery in
the Czech Lands
In the correspondence between the arches
of the lower portico and the openings of the
upper floor of an aristocratic dwelling, Prinz
identified a fundamental characteristic for the
definition of the first galleries.14 This was the
case of the aforementioned the Château du
Plessis Bourré, where Jean Bourré (1424–1506)
had the gallery built over nine arches in order
to connect the corps de logis to the chapel.15
While building the gallery in Ancy le Franc,
Sebastiano Serlio writes: “sopra la loggia d’en-
trata sarà una saletta, che in Francia si dice gal-
leria, per spasseggiare (above the loggia of the
entrance there will be a saletta, which in France
is called a gallery for strolling)”.16 Serlio’s quo-
tation also underlies the mutual connection
between the loggia and the gallery.
One of the first Italian galleries, in the Pala-
zzo Farnese in Rome, faces the garden and ris-
es above the loggia on the ground floor. The
gallery was established with ten niches con-
taining statues, above which there were six
round niches for busts. According to the in-
ventory from 1697, there were also twenty to
thirty busts and statues on pedestals.17 Evi-
14 prinz 2006, p. 5.
15 prinz 2006, pp. 34–35.
16 serlio 1619, VII, p. 42; prinz 2006, p. 6.
17 On the Galleria Farnese see lotz 1981,
pp. 225–241; vitzhum 1963, pp. 445–446; ginzburg
2008; cajano – settimi 2015, with references to older
literature.
53 | View of the Loggia of the Casa dei Cavalieri di Rodi at the Forum of Augustus in Rome, second half of the
15th century, photo: Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali.

| 176 |
dently, this setting took its inspiration from
the antiquarian courtyards of Rome, like that
of the Della Valle-Capranica Palace, estab-
lished by Cardinal Andrea della Valle.18
Guglielmo Gonzaga (1538–1587) had the
Loggia dei Mesi transformed into a gallery in
the Ducal Palace in Mantua. In letters relat-
ing to twelve busts of Roman emperors, a gal-
lery under construction is mentioned in 1572,
which can only be identified as the Galleria
dei Mesi, whose twelve circular niches were
intended to host the busts. The loggia had al-
ready existed since Guglielmo’s wedding in
1561, and the transformation into a gallery by
closing its openings once again denotes the
close bond that existed between the loggia
and the gallery.19
For Italian culture, the association be-
tween the architectural form of the gallery
and the exhibition of objets d’art – in particu-
lar antiques – must have been immediate, fa-
voured by a tradition that dates back to an-
cient Rome. The chapters dedicated to Art in
Naturalis Historia by Pliny the Elder are full
of references to important works of art that
were found in the porticos of ancient Rome.20
The decoration of the ancient Roman porti-
cos was also based on celebratory pictorial
programmes. In the ninth book of De re aedi-
ficatoria Leon Battista Alberti mentions the
porticus of Antonio Caracalla, with the depic-
tion of the famous imprese of his father.21 Ac-
cording to Alberti, in the ancient atrium – the
typical portico structure of the domus roma-
na – portraits and busts of ancestors, ancient
emperors, or viri illustri were the main orna-
ment in order to lend prestige to the owner in
18 prinz 2006, pp. 22–23.
19 cottafavi 1939, p. 15; cottafavi – giannantoni
1934; morselli 2002, with references to older literature.
20 pliny the elder 2014, XXXV, pp. 59, 126, 132, 144.
21 alberti 1912, IX, 4, p. 485; büttner 1972, p. 79.
| 177 |
terms of glorification and moral exemplum.22
Because of the characteristics of the Roman
porticus, at the beginning of their introduc-
tion in Italy, the French galleries were often
associated with loggias, an architectural el-
ement used largely in Italian villas and palac-
es. In a letter dating from 1509 from Jacopo
Probo d’Atri to Isabella d’Este regarding the
description of the castle of Gaillon of Cardi-
nal Georges d’Amboise, he wrote: “una gala-
ria sive loggia che va dalla cappella alla sala (a
gallery like a loggia, going from the chapel to
the hall)”.23
Similarly to the gallery, the loggia is a
semi-open space, connected with the exter-
nal environment through arcades overlook-
ing a garden or an inner courtyard. The intro-
duction of loggias in architecture reveals the
necessity of creating a relationship between
the private dimension of the dwelling and its
outward visibility, denoting a precise celebra-
tory intent.
The representation of viri illustri in Italian
loggias was widespread in Tuscany and Um-
bria from the first half of the fifteenth centu-
ry, as testified to by the examples of the Casa
Baglioni in Perugia, Palazzo Trinci in Foligno,
or Palazzo Pubblico in Pistoia.24 This type of
decoration spread to the Roman environ-
ment, at least after the 1470s, as shown by
the loggia at the Casa dei Cavalieri di Rodi in
the Forum of Augustus in Rome. The building
was extended during the pontificate of Paul II
(1464–1471) and decorated with medallions
with profile portraits all’antica of Roman em-
22 alberti 1912, IX, 4, p. 485; prinz 2006, pp. XII–XV.
23 Quoted from weiss 1953, p. 7.
24 On the fresco paintings of the Palazzo Baglioni
see santi 1970, pp. 51–54. On the fresco of the
Palazzo Trinci in Foligno see salmi 1919, pp. 139–180.
On the viri illustri in general see donato 1985,
pp. 97–154; prinz 2006, pp. XIV–XV.
perors located above the prospected archi-
tecture with vegetal elements. 25 The use of
loggias with portraits of emperors or viri il-
lustri recalls the decorations of ancient Ro-
man porticos, thus underlying the common
thread between the ancient portico, loggia,
and gallery.
Loggias were not unknown in the Lands
of the Bohemian Crown. On the contrary, their
introduction from Italian prototypes is one of
the most important architectural features of
the Renaissance renovation of castles and
residences belonging to the Bohemian and
Moravian nobility.26 The new Italianate de-
sign initiated a series of castles with arcade
courtyards, such as the castles of Pardubi-
ce, Litomyšl, Opočno, Jindřichův Hradec, Telč,
Bučovice, and many others throughout the
Czech Lands.27 A special type of loggia in the
form of a connecting corridor can also be men-
tioned in a series of constructions in Prague.
The first building in Prague to be provided with
inner courtyard loggias seems to have been
the Rosenberg Palace, built in 1542.28 It was
followed by the Lobkowicz Palace (today the
25 On the fresco paintings of the Casa dei Cavalieri
di Rodi see danesi squarzina 1989, pp. 102–142;
prinz 2006, pp. XIV–XV.
26 On the Italian influences on the architecture of
the Lands of the Bohemian Crown, in particular
concerning the introduction of loggias, see
kaufmann 1995; hubala 1985, pp. 114–167; chotěbor
1991, pp. 101–113; knoz 2001b, pp. 46–58; knoz 1992,
pp. 240–263; krčálová 1989b, pp. 6–69; kroupa
1998, pp. 64–69; kroupa 2004, pp. 7–22; kubeš 2008,
pp. 79–90; kudělka 1958, pp. 88–98; macek 1992,
pp. 1–16; muchka 1976, pp. 137–142, 152–159, 191, 192;
muchka 2001; muchka 2009b; vlček 1999.
27 See the previous footnote.
28 uličný 2014, pp. 46–47. On the Rosenberg
Palace see in particular: kubíček 1953/1954, pp. 308–
318; krčálová 1989a, pp. 70–71; krčálová 1970,
pp. 469–485.
| 178 |
Schwarzenberg Palace)29 and by the Pernstein
Palace (today the Lobkowicz Palace), com-
pleted around 1577. The latter palace also had
a loggia inserted in its southern façade which
offered a view of the entire Prague agglomer-
ation.30 Loggias could be used for leisure pur-
poses, but taking into consideration the cli-
matic conditions of the Czech Lands, rather
than providing the opportunity to take a stroll
and enjoy the view outside, since their origins,
like the Italian loggias, they appear to have
had more of a representative function.31
Similarly to the Italian prototypes, the
use of decorative programmes, busts, or me-
dallions with portraits of rulers or ancient Ro-
man emperors is also to be found in Germany,
Austria, and the Czech Lands. The palace-like
complex of the Fugger family in Augsburg in-
cluded three interior courts. Among them, the
Damenhof (Ladies’ Court) had arcades em-
bellished with frescoes devoted to the heroic
deeds of Maximilian I, thereby emphasising
the Fugger family’s loyalty to the emperor.32
Terracotta tondi with all’antica profile por-
traits of rulers are to be found in the arcade
courtyard of Schallaburg Castle.33 From Cal-
aminus’ descriptions of the castle it is known
that a comprehensive Habsburg programme
was housed in the lower part of the garden’s
double porticus, with paintings of emperors
and kings from the House of Habsburg de-
picted with their trophaea.34 Freidegg Castle
was the principal seat of Reichard Strein von
Schwarzenau, a young and cultured servant
29 vilímková 1995, pp. 395–410.
30 uličný 2014, pp. 46–47.
31 uličný 2014, pp. 46–47.
32 häberlein 2012, p. 150.
33 skrabanek 2008, pp. 108–109, with references
to older literature.
34 hinterdorfer 1990, pp. 5–8. Calaminus calls
the trophaea “Austr(iae) insignia”.
54 | Detail of the wall painting of the garden loggia, second half of the 16th century, Telč Castle, photo: Lucie
Herbricková.
of Maximilian ii, who had published a small
treatise in Geneva on the genealogies of an-
cient Roman gentes. He was also interested in
the history of the Late Roman Empire, and his
interest in Roman civilisation was expressed
in the acquisition of antiques such as inscrip-
tions and sculpture.35 Reichard Strein von
Schwarzenau (1538–1600) was the patron of
Schwarzenau Castle (1583?–1592), close to
the Czech border, which also shows profile
portraits in the arcade and in the passage. It
35 jansen 2019, pp. 534–542. Reichard Strein von
Schwarzenau had almost completely reconstructed
Freidegg Castle between 1575 and 1594. His func-
tions at the Imperial court included various offices,
such as the supervision of the Imperial library. In 1571
he published a treatise on the genealogies of ancient
Roman gentes, printed by Paulus Manutius in Venice;
see hinterdorfer 1995, p. 139.
| 179 |
is likely that he suggested the use of profile
portraits in the castle of Uherčice in Moravia,
restructured by Reichard’s brother Hanusch
Wolfhart (1534–1614).36 Like in Freidegg Cas-
tle, probably in Uherčice Castle too the niches
of the loggia were decorated with a celebra-
tive programme of the house of Austria with
paintings or busts of emperors.37 A similar
decoration based on an imperial decorative
programme is to be found in the courtyard
loggias in the Hofburg in Bressanone and in
Rosenburg Castle and Windhaag Castle in
Austria. An iconographic programme based
on a series of imperial portraits constituted
36 jansen 2019, pp. 538–540. On the comparison
between Schallaburg, Freidegg, and Uherčice
Castles see skrabanek 2008.
37 skrabanek 2008, pp. 110–111.
the decoration of the wall paintings of the
garden loggia in the castle of Telč.38 Similar-
ly to Freidegg Castle, the decoration in Telč,
only partially preserved, showed imprese of
the Habsburg rulers from the graphic cycle
Imagines gentis Austriacae by Francesco Ter-
zio.39 From the surviving inscriptions, it can
be assumed that busts of the Habsburg rul-
ers were to be found in the niches.40 A similar
sculptural decoration is not to be excluded in
the niches of the large arcade in the castle of
Jindřichův Hradec, where large niches facing
the courtyard appear empty today, although
they might have been intended to host sculp-
tures.41
The loggia represented a conjunction be-
tween the private and public dimensions of
the lord. In addition to its high representative
value, it also had the function of a place for es-
capism and regeneration through its connec-
tion to the function of strolling, which recalls
the original function of the first galleries. The
Scrittoio del Terrazzo of the Palazzo Vecchio in
Florence and the pavilion of the Villa Medici
in Rome are decorated with naturalistic per-
spective pergolas.42 Both were open spaces
with the function of exhibiting a few ancient
objects. The loggia of Cupid and Psyche at the
Villa Farnesina was decorated as an open por-
tico and hosted antiques. Already in 1523 it
was defined as a “galleria”.43
38 krčálová 1989a, pp. 67–71; skrabanek 2008,
pp. 110–111; skrabanek 2008–2009, pp. 134–155;
konečný 2003b, pp. 95–104.
39 The first edition was published in the year 1558,
the second in 1569. konečný 2003b, pp. 95–104.
40 konečný 2003b, pp. 95–104; krčálová 1989a,
pp. 67–71.
41 krčálová 1989a, pp. 57–64.
42 On the Scrittoio del Terrazzo see lensi 1929,
p. 254; on the pavilion in the garden of the Villa
Medici see ceri via 2003, p. 307.
43 frommel 1973, pp. 78–79.
| 180 |
The connection between the gallery and
the loggia is evident not only from an archi-
tectural point of view, but also for the type
of decoration. The mural decorations of the
galleries often reproduce illusionistic loggias,
sometimes open towards a naturalistic land-
scape. Leon Battista Alberti himself writes
that “nel rivestimento delle pareti nessuna figu-
razione pittorica sarà più gradevole ed ammira-
ta di quella che rappresenta colonnati di pietra
(In the covering of the walls no pictorial repre-
sentation will be more pleasant and admired
than the one that represents colonnades)”. 44 In
the Renaissance, the discovery of ancient Ro-
man paintings and the expansion of the use of
perspective led to the creation of decorative
wall paintings that reinterpreted the fres-
coes of ancient Roman houses. The second
style, known as Architectural, was particu-
larly inspiring for Renaissance wall decora-
tions. It is characterised by illusive windows
and covered walkways, lined with columns
that looked onto imaginary scenes framed
by painted columns sometimes decorated
with festoons, as shown in the Villa di Livia in
Rome, where a colonnade with fruit festoons
decorates the right-hand wall. 45 The use of il-
lusionistic painted colonnades can be found
in the decorations of Renaissance halls in It-
aly such as the Biblioteca Greca in the Vatican
Palace (ca. 1447–1455), the Sala del Mappa-
mondo in the Palazzo Venezia (1466–1467), or
the Sala delle Prospettive at the Villa Farnesi-
na (1518–1519). 46
The wall decoration of the rooms and
halls on the first floor in Pardubice Castle,
44 alberti 1912, 1, IX, c. IV, p. 802.
45 On the fresco paintings in the Villa di Livia in
Rome see blunt 1959, pp. 309–326, prinz 2006, p. XIII.
46 On the use of illusionistic decorations in the
Renaissance in Italy see in particular: yuen 1972;
mussa 1969, pp. 41–88; prinz 2006, pp. XIII–XIV.
carried out at the behest of Vojtěch of Pern-
stein (1490–1534) at the beginning of the
1530s, belongs to a similar decorative context
and represents an extraordinary early appli-
cation of Renaissance decorative motifs in
the Lands of the Bohemian Crown. 47
The renovations of the castle had al-
ready been started by his father, William of
Pernstein (1438–1521). Renaissance orna-
mentation of Venetian and south German
origin had already appeared in the vault, in
the hall of the ground floor in the south-east
wing in the oriel windows of Vojtěch’s Hall.
The ornamental decoration is based on ten-
drils combined and accompanied by heraldic
decoration.48 During the period of his rule in
Pardubice between 1521 and 1534, Vojtěch
of Pernstein realized the renovation of the
castle in order to achieve parity with the
newly-built residences in southern Germa-
ny, Austria, Saxony, and Silesia. This work was
completed after his death by his brother Jan.
The owner’s initial interest focused on the
halls on the first floor of the south wing. The
wall painting was based on the use of trompe
l’oeil, a system of illusive architecture creat-
ed by columns and pillars, ediculas and win-
dow niches, constructed with a knowledge
of perspective. The idea of trompe l’oeil was
reinforced by evocative landscape views in-
serted in figurative scenes placed among the
architectural construction (Samson and De-
lilah in Vojtěch’s Hall and Law and Grace in
the adjacent Mázhaus). 49 The origins of this
work can be traced back to Venetian and
Ferrarese painting, in the works of Andrea
Mantegna, Carlo Crivelli, Vittore Carpaccio,
Cosimo Tura, and Francesco del Cossa. An im-
portant role in transforming these northern
47 On Pardubice Castle see in particular: hrubý 2003.
48 hrubý 2003, pp. 42–46.
49 hrubý 2003, pp. 40–51.
| 181 |
Italian impulses was played by artists influ-
enced by it who were active in Augsburg, such
as Hans Burgkmair the Elder, Hans Holbein
the Younger, Lucas Cranach the Elder, and Al-
brecht Altdorfer.50 The illusive perspectively
constructed architecture came to dominate
the façades and walls of halls, becoming a
new phenomenon of the Italian Renaissance
on the territory of Central Europe.51 In Voj-
těch’s Hall the decoration was a very early
reflection of the new trends in comparison
with the rest of Bohemia, influenced by the
northern Italian Renaissance that appeared
in the interiors and exteriors of castles and
town palaces in the 1510s and 1520s in south-
ern Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. The
wall paintings in Pardubice Castle bear simi-
larities to the decoration of the already-men-
tiond Issogne Castle in the Aosta Valley, the
Knight’s Hall of Goldegg Castle in Pongau,
near Salzburg, and with the mural decoration
with views of landscape and hunting scenes
in the Knight’s Hall of Friedberg Castle in the
Tyrol.52 Jarmila Krčálová has indicated that
the author of the illusory paintings in Pardu-
bice was probably familiar with the work of
Hans Burgkmair the Elder and Hans Holbein
the Younger. In addition to the decoration of
façades and interiors in Lucerne and Basel
from the end of the second and beginning
of the third decade of the 16th century, nu-
merous parallels can be found in the types of
columns, heads, arches with cassette motifs,
hanging laurel festoons, edicts, and a quanti-
ty of illusory architecture that Holbein real-
ised in the same period. The Pardubice paint-
ers could have included Adam Travný from
Hradec Králové53 and Vojtěch of Pernstein
50 hrubý 2003, pp. 48–54.
51 hrubý 2003, p. 53.
52 krčálová 1989b, p. 66.
53 hrubý 2003, pp. 171–172.
55 | View of the interior of Vojtěch’s Hall, 1530s, Pardubice Castle.
could possibly have acquainted himself with
the new style of painted interior decoration
on German territory, in particular through
his contacts with the Fugger family in Augs-
burg, who played an important role in spread-
ing the early Renaissance in Central Europe.54
However, painting and graphic art may also
have acted as a source of inspiration.
In a minor form, the same principle can
be found in Prostějov Castle, owned by Voj-
těch’s brother, Jan IV of Pernstein (1487–1548),
where the preserved decoration shows red
marble columns combined with a band of
decorative elements and tondi with portraits
– probably Pernstein’s ancestors – that are
reminiscent of ancient Roman medallions.55
54 hrubý 2003, pp. 48–91; krčálová 1989b, p. 66.
55 hrubý 2003, pp. 84–91.
| 182 |
Still in Pardubice Castle, the called Pern-
stein corridor, also dating from the beginning
of the 1530s, has features of a corridor-like gal-
lery. It is located on the first floor and is illumi-
nated by five late Gothic windows which open
on the western wall. Its function was typical
of the first French galleries, as a corridor con-
necting private and representative spaces.
However, it was not conceived as an exhibi-
tion space, but as a locus amoenus. The wood-
en trelliswork with pseudo-vegetal decorative
elements depicted on the wall between the
windows is reminiscent of the decorative mo-
tifs of the first French galleries like the Galerie
de la reine in the Hôtel Saint-Pol. According to
a preserved fragment of the mural painting,
the eastern wall of the corridor was divided
into three belts: a red-brown plinth with trac-
ery on the ground, motifs of angels or putti in
the middle, and a painted tracery under the
ceiling. On the whole, the decoration of the
eastern wall gave the impression of a terrace
that opened towards the outside.56
Nevertheless, no gallery – with the archi-
tectural and decorative features described –
appears in the Lands of the Bohemian Crown
before 1600. Bohemian and Moravian noble-
men travelled on diplomatic missions and
grand tours in the countries where the gal-
lery had been widespread since a long time
previously. Even without going beyond the
borders of their homeland, they had foreign
architects and informants who kept them up-
dated on new fashions in the fields of archi-
tecture and patronage. Reproductions, plans,
prints, drawings, and written descriptions of
major residences elsewhere in Europe circu-
lated abundantly. However, the gallery did
not seem to generate any particular inter-
est in the Bohemian and Moravian aristoc-
racy. Despite the efforts of the aristocracy
to adapt their estates in conformity with the
contemporary standards of comfort and et-
iquette, the introduction of a new architec-
tural space with such particular character-
istics as the gallery may have encountered
an obstacle in the mediaeval foundations
of the castles they inherited. A different sit-
uation applied in the case of new building
projects. William of Rosenberg had a palace
built in Hradčany, whose magnificence is tes-
tified to by the words of Jacopo Strada, who,
in a letter dated 18 December 1573, praised
Rosenberg for “that outstanding palace that,
contracting two other large buildings into one,
you had constructed on the castle of Prague
itself”.57 The Rosenberg Palace was repeat-
56 On the window of the southern window the year
1564 is written in red numbering. hrubý 2003, pp. 50,
83–84, 91.
57 jansen 2019, pp. 521–523.
| 183 |
edly used for accommodating members of
the royal family and prominent guests, and
the most important events took place in the
palace, which was preferred to Prague Cas-
tle. Probably the largest of them was the
coronation of Maximilian II in 1562. At that
time, the Rosenberg Palace was connected
to the Old Royal Palace via a wooden cov-
ered corridor. This connecting corridor was
dismantled after the end of each event and
restored on similar occasions.58 The Palace
had four wings opening into an inner court-
yard by a column arcade. In 1573, William of
Rosenberg bought the neighbouring houses,
which were partially demolished to create a
large garden. This was surrounded on both
its long sides by narrow wings, with a column
arcade on the ground floor and a corridor
gallery upstairs with windows opening out
on both sides. 59 Considering their location
above colonnaded arcades and their narrow
and elongated shape, the two long corridors
on the first floor recall the original function of
the galleries as long covered corridors where
one could take a stroll indoors and enjoy the
view of the city and into the garden. However,
it is not known how these two long galleries
were decorated and whether a collection was
housed there. According to the 1588 invento-
ry, countless tapestries were present in the
palace. There were green and red samite and
deep-red-dyed tapestries, yellow, red, green,
and “skin-coloured and dark red” damask tap-
estries, and gilded and woven tapestries.60
The delay in the spread of the gallery to
the Lands of the Bohemian Crown could also
be related to the presence of representative
58 svoboda – strnadová – vávrová et al. 1992,
pp. 10–19.
59 kubíček 1953/1954, pp. 308–318; krčálová
1989a, 70–71; krčálová 1970, pp. 469–485.
60 krčálová 1970, pp. 469–485.
56 | Johann Heinrich Dienebier, Longitudinal section of the Rosenberg Palace at Prague Castle, ink drawing on
paper, Prague 1738, Archiv Pražského hradu.
halls, a traditional architectural component
with celebratory purposes which already ful-
filled the functions then perpetuated and en-
hanced by the gallery. The gallery could be
a simple communication corridor, a place for
strolling, or a place for displaying collections,
but it could also become a mere representa-
tive space, a place reserved for court ceremo-
nies, or could simultaneously fulfil more than
one of these functions. Very similar func-
tions were already performed by the halls.
Thus, in Central Europe throughout the six-
teenth century, the similarities in the archi-
tectural features and functions between the
gallery and the hall blurred the border be-
| 184 |
tween them.61 The Spanish Hall at Ambras
Castle fulfilled the purpose of a represen-
tative space with a decorative programme
based on the glorification of the owner, and
with its dimensions (10 m wide, 43 m long,
and 5 m high) it had the proportions of a gal-
lery. Nevertheless, it was never referred to
as such.62 The same applied to the Spanish
Hall at Prague Castle, which shared similar
dimensions.
In the Czech Lands since the late Middle
Ages, the hall (Saal, Palác) had been a social
centre of aristocratic settlements. Halls
61 On the gallery in Germany see götz 1980,
pp. 273–295.
62 fidler 1989, pp. 157–173.
could be up to twenty metres in length and
be extended by one or two floors in height.
They occupied the first floor of the castle and
were mostly accessible from the ground floor
by a staircase.63 Among them, one can men-
tion the halls in the castles of Blatná, Švihov,
Zvíkov, and Žirovnice. The wall decoration
depicted various scenes from contemporary
aristocratic life, such as hunting scenes, tour-
naments, or banquets. Often heraldic motifs
emphasised the genealogy of the owner. 64
Their decoration suggests that these were
mostly socially representative halls. Along
with the growth of Renaissance courts, the
63 kubeš 2005b, pp. 31–59.
64 kubeš 2005b, pp. 31–32.
| 185 |
dimensions of the representative halls also
increased, to a size of up to thirty metres long
and around ten metres in width. Unlike the
dining hall, the hall did not fulfil everyday
tasks. It was mostly designated for organ-
ising social events and celebrations such as
baptisms, weddings, or funerals, but also for
important dining and political acts on the
occasion of hosting prominent guests. It be-
came a venue for festive events that counted
on the presence of a larger audience and was
often intended for dancing. This is evidenced
by the fact that the hall was often not heat-
ed and there was very little furniture. Some-
times the presence of an elevated gallery
for musicians, as in the Golden Hall in Telč
Castle, or a music niche with mural painting
depicting a landscape and playing nymphs,
as in the Knights’ Hall of Rosenberg Castle,
testifies to the function of a dancing hall.65
The wall decoration could be based on dec-
orative programmes, whose main aim was
to legitimise the recently acquired social
status of the family, to glorify an individual
or the whole genus and its significant acts
(Hall of Ancestors), or to celebrate the rul-
ing Habsburg family and their history, prop-
erties, and merit (Imperial Hall).66
As in many French and Italian galleries of
the period, paintings, in particular portraits,
constituted the decoration of the main rep-
resentative halls in palaces and castles be-
longing to the Bohemian and Moravian no-
bility. Portraits of ancestors, personages of
ruling and aristocratic families, and famous
men, viri illustri, documented the highly
prized ancient family descent, legitimised
claims to inherited domains or various priv-
ileges, and served as exampla.67 Vratislav of
Pernstein (1530–1582), High Chancellor of the
Bohemian Kingdom, created a large and im-
pressive collection of statues, paintings and
other works of art that were also exhibited
at the Litomyšl Chateau.68 Vratislav of Pern-
stein was a favourite of Emperor Maximilian II
and had travelled to Spain (1548), Rome (1551),
and England (1555).69 His orientation towards
Spain resulted in his marriage to a Spanish
noblewoman, Maria Manrigue de Lara y Men-
doza, in 1555. The interiors of Litomyšl Cha-
teau were described in an inventory written
after the death of his widow in 1608. The
inventory lists the furnishings of the upper
65 kubeš 2005b, pp. 32–54.
66 kubeš 2005b, pp. 32–54.
67 kubíková 2016a, pp. 32–36.
68 On Litomyšl Chateau see konečný et al. 2014;
kroupa 2017.
69 vorel 2012, pp. 271–272.
| 186 |
rooms and library, where, in addition to cab-
inets containing 1506 Czech, Italian, Spanish,
Latin, and German books, among documents
and objets d’art, paintings, in particular por-
traits, were also listed.70
In the inventory of the Český Krumlov
Chateau dating from the year 1600,71 large
portraits of William of Rosenberg, Peter Wok,
and a princess, whose name is not mentioned,
were placed in the room referred to as the
“komora”.72 The largest representative space,
the Mázhaus, was decorated with fifteen por-
traits of different princes of the Holy Roman
Empire. Above the old fraucimor there was a
large room embellished with nine portraits
of Roman emperors.73
A vast collection of paintings was owned
by Paul Sixtus III Trautson (1548–1621), and
was exhibited in a large hall in his palace in
Hradčany (no. 186) in the neighbourhood of
the Lobkowicz Palace.74 The hall was adorned
with tapestries, paintings of various subjects,
and portraits, among them portraits of al-
most all of the House of Austria. In a letter
dated 8 July 1596 sent to Vincenzo Gonza-
ga, Trautson personally asked him to pro-
vide him with two paintings of various sub-
jects and sizes and some portraits “di buona
mano”. Trautson wrote that he had already
ordered the construction of a hall decorat-
ed with tapestries, paintings, and portraits
70 More on the inventory on pp. 206–207 in this
book.
71 gross 1930, pp. 16–26; ourodová-hronková
2011, pp. 574–588. Other inventories from the years
1600–1605 are preserved in SOA Třeboň, pracoviště
Český Krumlov, Velkostatek Český Krumlov, zn. I 7 I 2,
fol. 288–317, 377, 598–522.
72 bravermanová – brichtová – bukovinská
2017, p. 12; stejskal 2001, pp. 66–85.
73 bravermanová – brichtová – bukovinská
2017, pp. 12–13.
74 fučíková 1989, p. 53.
which he obtained thanks to the generosity
of the emperor and the archdukes: “Io ho fato
fabricare una sala assai bella, la quale vorrei
ornata tuta in loco di tapezerie, di belli quadri
et ritratti; la maestà de l’imperatore mi ha fato
gratia di tre belli quadri, et li arciduchi fratelli
ancor ognuno. Hora desidererei se vostra alteza
mi puotesse far gratia di uno ancor dui quadri,
ma di qualche buona mano, siano di che forma
o grandeza si voglia, et sia la historia quello di
voglia, o mundana over eclesiastica, pur che
sia qualche buona mano;[ ...] io ho quasi tut-
ti li ritratti di quella casa de Austria, et tuti li
principi et prinicipesse imparentate con questa
casa [...](I had a very beautiful hall built, which
I would like to decorate with tapestries, beauti-
ful paintings, and portraits. His Majesty the Em-
peror gave me three beautiful paintings, and his
brothers the Archdukes one each. Now I desire
from His Highness another of his paintings, of
good quality, in the scape and dimension he
desires, historical or what he wants, worldly or
ecclesiastical, but of a good quality; […] I have
almost all the portraits of the members of the
House of Austria and the princes and princesses
related to this house […])”.75
The inventory of Jindřichův Hradec Cas-
tle compiled by Adam II of Hradec’s wife,
Katherine of Hradec, in 1604, recorded por-
traits in the “sále nad sklepem (hall above the
cellar)”.76 The hall housed fifty-eight beauti-
ful paintings of Bohemian kings and princes
from His Highness, the current Holy Roman
Emperor Rudolf, to Libuše. In the inventory
Katherine of Hradec lists sixty-three oth-
er large paintings featuring the portraits of
emperors, kings, archdukes, and princes, as
well as deceased lords and persons, thir-
75 ASMn AG, b. 471, f. IV 2, cc. 509–510 (C).
76 novák 1917, pp. 17–20; krčálová 1989a, pp. 55–
56; lukášová 2015, p. 84; lukášová – smolová 2018,
pp. 70–73.
| 187 |
ty-five medium-sized portraits of subjects of
various origin and times, including deceased
personages, and fifty-two large and small
other paintings.77 Because of the number of
paintings and their dimensions according to
the preserved originals, the hall they deco-
rated must have been the largest space of
the castle, which is the great hall in the Span-
ish Wing, in the 1638 inventory compiled by
Alžběta Pragerová referred to as “Královský
Palác (the Royal Hall)”.78
These spaces were representative halls,
but in their dimensions and furnishings they
had a great deal in common with the galleries
spread across Western Europe. However, it
was only after Emperor Rudolf II’s impressive
renovation carried out at Prague Castle that
the gallery as an architectural form and as a
place for exhibitions of selected pieces of a
collection became established in the Lands
of the Bohemian Crown.
From the early days of his settlement at
Prague Castle, the emperor had set up a gal-
lery, a long and narrow space with windows
overlooking the courtyard where he had
housed his collection. With the construc-
tion of the long, corridor-like gallery espe-
cially built for exhibiting paintings on the
second floor of the Gangbau, and the com-
pletion of the decoration of the Spanish Hall
(which served both as a traditional hall and
as a gallery given the presence of paintings),
Bohemia finally also had its galleries. Soon
77 This gallery of Czech rulers was acquired by
Jáchym or Adam II of Hradec. It was inspired by the
famous cycle of monarchs made for Prague Castle in
the Jagellonian period in the early 16th century. It was
destroyed by a fire in 1541, but copies based on the
originals were commissioned by Jan Zajíc from
Hasenburk and Budyně. novák 1917, pp. 17–20;
lukášová 2015, p. 94; lukášová – smolová 2018,
pp. 70–75.
78 lukášová – smolová 2018, pp. 70–75, 83–93.
57 | View of the remains of the wall decoration with naturalistic elements of the private corridor, around 1605,
Třeboň Chateau.

afterwards, Peter Wok of Rosenberg, emu-
lating Rudolf II, ordered the construction of
a building in the Třeboň Chateau especially
created to house a gallery which, like that
of Rudolf II, was to be located on the second
floor. Peter Wok had planned to bring togeth-
er a library and a gallery within a single build-
ing connected to the castle. Following the
model of the emperor, the aforementioned
Kunstkammer was probably also located in
the same building.79 According to Václav
Březan, “in the year before 1605 the Lord of
Třeboň (Peter Wok) bought two houses, […] he
had them knocked down and ordered the build-
ing of a new house on this land […] in the centre
two vaulted cellars, and above them he erect-
ed six residences, that is, dwellings with halls
or Mázhaus, with above on the two sides two
spacious and safe halls for the library and the
79 stejskal 2001, pp. 72–75.

| 188 |
third, a narrow passageway, for various figures
and paintings. That same year the entire work
was finished by the builders. The ceilings were
commissioned to the carpenter Ulrich, whose
carpenters worked on placing beams under the
trusses”.80 Březan’s quotation is fundamental
in order to affirm that an authentic gallery
existed in the Třeboň Chateau. It was a nar-
row passageway space used for the exhibi-
tion of paintings only.
In the Třeboň Chateau Peter Wok had an-
other gallery of a more private character. This
second gallery is a narrow passage, opening
up on one side by a series of windows, which
connected the Lord’s room to that of his wife,
and whose fragments of wall decoration re-
veal an interesting naturalistic decoration.
The fresco mural painting represents paint-
ed wooden trelliswork covered with climb-
ing plants, mostly vines. Among the picto-
rial figures, some butterflies and a dog are
still recognisable. In the centre of the wall,
two figures sit next to a fountain in which a
sculptural group of Hercules and the Mino-
taur stands out above an amphora. This deco-
ration is reminiscent of the use of trelliswork,
recalling those vegetal tunnels and pergolas
frequently used in the mural paintings of Ital-
ian loggias and early galleries.
| Alice Fornasiero |
81 For the recent literature see konečný 2005;
znojemská rotunda 2004; krzemieńska – třeštík
– merhautová 2000; reitinger 2019, pp. 498–513.
80 březan 1880, p. 218.
| 189 |
Genealogical cycles,
heraldic cycles, viri
illustri, portrait galleries
One of the first genealogical cycles in Cen-
tral Europe was painted on the inner walls of
the Rotunda of Saint Catherine in Znojmo in
1134 for the occasion of the marriage of the
Bohemian Prince from the Přemyslid fami-
ly Konrád II († after 1161) to Princess Mary of
Serbia († after 1189). 81 The paintings are di-
vided into four strips, wherein the Přemyslid
genealogical cycle is painted in al secco in the
main nave and apse in the third and fourth
strip. It depicts mythical and historical ances-
tors, as well as the ruling Přemyslid princes
and dukes. The paintings celebrate the ruling
family and, in the context of the time of its
creation, they also determine their position
in the spiritual world. It is therefore not strik-
ing that the cycle is accompanied by figures
of apostles, the blessing Christ on the throne
with symbols of the four evangelists, the Vir-
gin Mary, Saint John the Baptist, and the Mar-
ian cycle.82 The place is sacred and we must
perceive the whole and its significance in this
context – the space, or, contextually, the Cos-
mos is hierarchically divided into horizontal
scenes with a clear and descriptive narrative.
It is framed by the holy space of a solid stone
church that should last forever.
Although we have little direct evidence,
we can estimate that during the 13th century
the tradition of genealogical cycles in Cen-
tral Europe penetrated from the sacred into
82 For a detailed iconographical analysis of the
paintings see konečný 2005, pp. 123–384.
the secular environment. 83 Evidence of this
is provided by fragments of paintings with
figures of Kings from the demolished house
no. 102 in the Old Town of Prague dated to
the second quarter of the 13th century.84 On
the other hand, the tradition of genealogical
cycles, painted in the sacred space, was very
probably strong, as we can see from the ex-
amples of the unpreserved cycle of Prague
bishops from the private chapel of a very
interesting personality, Jan IV of Dražice, 85
or the fragmentarily preserved paintings
of a rustic character in the small church in
Zahrádky that are thought to depict male and
female members of the Přemyslid dynasty
from about 1340. 86 We also vaguely know
that there was a genealogical cycle at Vyšeh-
rad Castle, most probably related to the coro-
nation ceremonies of Bohemian kings.87
More monumental and clearly distin-
guished in the sense of secular and sacred
are two ambitious cycles, painted in the sec-
ond half of the 1350s for Emperor Charles IV
83 For more on the function of genealogical cycles
in the Middle Ages see bláhová 1998, pp. 11–47;
holladay 2019.
84 Kept today in the National Museum in Prague.
For more see mašín 1954, pp. 52–55; krása 1982,
pp. 34–35; stejskal 1983, p. 342.
85 For more on Jan IV of Dražice and his European
connections see the chapter by Eliška Zlatohlávková
on studioli in this book; otherwise, see hledíková
1991; for information on the genealogical cycle see
neuwirth 1896, p. 368, with the quote “Capellam
pulcherrimis picturis depingi procuravit, in qua
ymagines omnium episcoporum Pragesium secundum
ordinem sunt situate.” For the phenomenon of the
mediaeval genealogical cycles, with basic
information on the Bohemian examples during the
era of Charles IV, see holladay 2019, pp. 82–98.
86 The paintings were discovered in 1976; for more
see hejna – benešovská – plátková 1981, pp. 399–
417, esp. pp. 411–415.
87 holladay 2019, p. 87; stejskal 1978, p. 540;
stejskal 1998, p. 38.
| 190 |
(1316–1378) and his newly built Castle Karl-
štejn, not far away from the Bohemian capi-
tal city Prague.88 The first cycle was painted
for the Emperor’s Hall on the second floor of
the palace. The hall was a social space where
audiences took place and visitors were able
to see the emperor and his family during offi-
cial banquets. How the rulers used to present
their genealogical cycles is described in the
report of a chronicler and diplomat in the ser-
vice of the Dukes of Brabant, Edmund de Dy-
nter (1375–1449). According to his testimony,
he visited Wenceslas IV (1361–1419) (the son of
Charles IV) at the castle. The king presented
the cycle to him and next to the presentation
of the Trojan rulers as Luxembourg’s ances-
tors he also clearly proved that there was a
connection between the Luxembourg family
and the Dukes of Brabant.89 What was called
the Luxembourg Genealogy at Karlštejn Cas-
tle has not been preserved to this day and we
know of its pictorial form from two 16th-cen-
tury codices – the so-called Viennese Codex
dated to 1571 and the Prague Codex, also
known as the Codex Heidelbergensis, from
1574–75.90
Although the Luxembourg genealogy
was an extensive cycle that looked for its
oldest ancestor in the person of the mythi-
cal Noah, it was not an exceptional achieve-
ment in the context of 14th-century sover-
88 For the relevant Karlštejn paintings see
neuwirth 1897; friedl 1956, pp. 20–31; dvořáková
1964, pp. 53–56; dvořáková – menclová 1965, pp.
65–77; schmidt 1969, p. 190; stejskal 1978, pp. 535–
562; homolka 1998, pp. 45–105; stejskal 1998;
stejskal 2003, pp. 343–350; hlaváčková 2006,
pp. 9–18; všetečková 2011, pp. 109–110.
89 ram – wauquelin 1854, pp. 432–433; neuwirth
1897, pp. 9–11.
90 Stammbaum Kaiser Karls IV., Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek, sign. Cod. 8330 HAN MAG; Codex
Heidelbergensis, Archiv Národní galerie v Praze, inv.
no. AA 2015.
 eign representation. This is different in the
case of the second cycle, preserved at the
highest point (both in height and ideology)
of Karlštejn Castle. The Chapel of the Holy
Cross in the Castle Tower was consecrated
in 1365 and, unlike the Emperor’s Hall, it was
a strictly private space. It was also perhaps
the holiest site of Charles’s kingdom/empire,
where the imperial insignia were kept. It was
also a space very close to Charles IV, where
the emperor kept his collections.91 From the
magnificent decoration of the chapel the cy-
cle of 129 (originally 130) wooden board paint-
ings of male and female saints and prophets
painted by the court painter Master Theo-
doric (before 1328 – before March 8, 1381) is
important for our context. The overall very
high quality and sophisticated iconograph-
ic programme of the decoration are usually
compared to the works of Giotto di Bondone
and Theodoric’s brushwork is often referred
to as benefiting from him.92 In any case, there
is one substantial difference from the other
most famous and decorated sacred spaces of
the time and it has already been mentioned
– the Holy Cross Chapel was a strictly private
space and Charles IV was most probably ac-
tive in the elaboration of its concept.93 Above
all, it had to be a place for his spiritual medita-
tion. A place where he wanted to be – among
other things – surrounded by the objects of
his passion for collecting – the relics of saints,
which, in addition to reliquaries, were also
placed in the frames of selected paintings
of the cycle. Maybe it would not be too pre-
sumptuous if we were to use a parallel to the
strictly private space – studiolo – of Federico
91 I choose from a very rich literature: fajt 2006,
pp. 62–73 (here references to older literature);
relevant to the topic then saliger 2003, pp. 103–113.
92 fajt 1998, pp. 218–277.
93 fajt 1998, pp. 218–277.
| 191 |
da Montefeltro (1422–1482) in Urbino, dec-
orated after 1473 with viri illustri – a cycle of
28 wooden boards painted in oil by Justus van
Gent (ca. 1430 – after 1480). These paintings
are portraits of great philosophers, famous
poets, and physicians of both the Greek and
Roman churches.94 Although Urbino’s studi-
olo is a secular space and the Chapel of the
Holy Cross a sacred one, both spaces played a
similar role and their philosophical-spiritual
backgrounds were very similar.95
It is worth mentioning briefly two more
relevant projects of Emperor Charles IV. The
first one – as well as Karlštejn’s genealogical
cycle – has not been preserved to this day.
We know that there was another genealogi-
cal cycle painted on the walls of the Throne
Hall of the Old Royal Palace at Prague Cas-
tle.96 The Hall was situated on the first floor
of the Palace and was about 30 metres long
and 16 metres wide.97 On the walls and in the
window niches of this hall hung an extensive
cycle of emperors painted on wooden boards
and supplemented by decorative painting
and identification inscriptions on the walls.
The cycle was most probably already dam-
aged or destroyed as early as the 15th century
as a result of two fires and related modifica-
tions to the building.98 However, there is a list
of emperors in the manuscript written down
by the Třeboň Augustinian priest Oldřich Kříž
of Telč (1405/6–1504), today preserved in the
94 For more on this topic see the chapter The
beginnings of studioli in Bohemia. For the Urbino
studiolo see kirkbride 2008; marchi 2015.
95 For more on this topic see fajt 2009, pp. 250–288.
96 uličný 2018a, pp. 466–471.
97 The approximate dimensions of the hall, which
does not exist today, were determined by Petr Uličný.
See uličný 2018a, p. 468.
98 líbal 2000, pp. 61–74, esp. p. 73.
State Regional Archives in Třeboň.99 The em-
perors’ cycle was most probably conceived
from the same source as the list in the man-
uscript and thanks to that Petr Uličný esti-
mates the number of wooden boards in the
cycle at 103 or 104, presented in two rows on
top of each other, starting with Julius Caesar
(100 BC–44 BC) and ending with Henry VII
(1278/79–1313).100 Although we assume that
the paintings were of high artistic quality and
were connected with the paintings of the cy-
cle of male and female saints and prophets
from the Holy Cross Chapel at Karlštejn, their
main task was different – it was to represent.
They were a visual part of a space where all
the components, including the other deco-
rations, furniture, and even clothes and the
strict hierarchical division of the architecture
or rituals of court behaviour, co-created and
underlined the importance of the office of
its lord.
After the cycle was removed and the
space was rebuilt into its current form of the
Vladislav Hall at the end of the 15th century,
there was another genealogical cycle paint-
ed in the Old Royal Palace. In this case it was
dedicated to Bohemian rulers and situated in
the Smaller Throne Hall.101 Unfortunately, this
cycle was also destroyed by fire, in 1541. Fortu-
nately, we have its related legends and appear-
ance captured again in three manuscripts.102
The first manuscript is dated before 1526, the
99 SOkA Třeboň, sbírka rukopisů, A 7, fol. 1r–6r.
100 uličný 2018a, p. 470.
101 uličný 2018a, pp. 471–475.
102 Chronica ducum, regum et imperatorum regni
Bohemiae in arce Pragensi depicti, Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek, sign. Cod. 7304 HAN MAG;
Bohemorum ducum atque regum nomina ac gesta in
aula regia Pragae descripta, Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek, sign. Cod. 8491 HAN MAG; Icones
ducum regumque Bohemiae, Österreichische
Nationalbibliothek, sign. Cod. 8043 HAN MAG.
| 192 |
second 1534, and the third after the fire in 1541.
It is in the third one that we can find not only
the transcriptions of the legends but also pic-
torial testimonies of the paintings. This man-
uscript was donated to Ferdinand I (1503–
1564) by Jan Zajíc of Házmburk (1486–1553)
in the hope that the king would restore the
paintings; however, it did not happen.103 The
Smaller Throne Hall was situated in the west-
ern residential wing of the palace – just be-
fore one entered the king’s private chambers.
Petr Uličný estimates that this happened as
a result of the need for a representative mul-
tifunctional hall at the time of the construc-
tion of the large Vladislav Hall, i.e. for about
ten years. After that time, however, the hall
found its place in the structure of the palace
and therefore it was not necessary to change
or rearrange it.104 We can say that one of the
private spaces of the palace became public
and the genealogical cycle was an integral
part of that making public. In this context, it
may be interesting to look back at the cycle
of male and female saints and prophets from
the Holy Cross Chapel at Karlštejn and try to
connect it again with the viri illustri cycles in
15th-century Italy. What they have in common
is the strict privatisation of space in the case
of the chapel and studioli, a place where one
keeps one’s collections, a place where one
spends time on meditation or a space where
one awaits a connection with the universe – a
spiritual retreat. The principles are so close
that we can think about mediaeval private
chapels as a kind of predecessor of studioli.105
103 uličný 2018a, p. 472 (with more literature on
the topic under footnote 55). For the topic of the
genealogical cycles of Ferdinand I see fučíková 2003,
pp. 107–122; fučíková 2015, pp. 135–141; fučíková
2017b, pp. 47–53; fučíková 2017c, pp. 38–42.
104 uličný 2018a, p. 471.
105 See liebenwein 1977, p. 52; also in this book the
subchapter The beginnings of studioli in Bohemia, p. 41.
58 | Portrait busts in the triforium of St. Vitus' Cathedral, '70s and '80s of the 14th century, 1917–1941, Prague.
If we stay for a while again with Charles IV
and look into the Cathedral of St. Vitus, Wenc-
eslas, and Adalbert at Prague Castle, we find
a unique portrait gallery of benefactors and
architects connected with the construction
of the cathedral, in this case in a space that
cannot be identified as either private or public
– in the cathedral’s triforium. This unique exam-
ple of 21 portrait busts, 20 made in sandstone,
one in marlite limestone, accompanied by ex-
planatory inscriptions from different time lay-
ers, attracts the attention of art historians not
only because of the high artistic quality (some
of the busts have portrait features), but also
because of the overall concept.106 The trifori-
106 homolka 1978, pp. 564–575; schwarz 1997,
pp. 123–153; schwarz 2005, pp. 47–68; bartlová 2009,
pp. 81–100.
| 193 |
um was not open to the public and definite-
ly was not used for any kind of private activ-
ities. Before the completion of the cathedral
in 1873–1929, it was even more difficult to ad-
mire the busts than today as it was only acces-
sible via an openwork staircase attached to the
great southern tower.107 It was a world to itself,
which, however, was to be at least partially ob-
servable from the lower level of the cathedral’s
choir and the architect had to deal with it.108
In addition to this, between every inscription
and bust, there was an iron implement for light,
which was to illuminate the space, as proved
by a restoration survey.109 The overall signifi-
107 bartlová 2009, p. 81.
108 On the visibility of the busts see crossley 2009,
pp. 64–80.
109 bartlová 2009, p. 91.
cance of the installation of a portrait gallery
high above one of the most sacred spaces in
the kingdom has been the subject of many
interpretations. Jaromír Homolka offered an
ingenious system of vertical and horizontal
iconography, in which busts played a very im-
portant role as a depiction of the Luxembourg
presence.110 More sober interpretations seek
the meaning of the cycle primarily in the desire
to commemorate.111 However, what is unique
from this point of view is that the visitor should
not only recall the ruling dynasty but more
rather all the individuals that were somehow
connected with the construction – the cathe-
dral benefactors, in the figurative sense of the
term “the pillars of the church”. We can find
relevant, older, and in terms of meaning, clear-
er examples in the twelve life-size so-called
Stiftenfiguren of the western choir from the
middle of the 13th century, with similar unique
attention to portrait detail, or the anonymous
male and female heads on the outer buttress-
es of the parish church in Sebeș (nowadays in
Romania).112 In terms of space, although the
triforium was separate and difficult to access,
the cycle was to be visually accessible from the
choir, or even slightly protruding from it (to-
gether with altars, tombs, and others) by un-
derlining it with light – the most sacred illumi-
nated objects and places created a common
spiritual space. It was a self-contained layer of
a difficult structure of iconographic relations
within the mediaeval cathedral.
Let us now jump some 160 years ahead
and one paragraph back in our text and let us
linger a while in the times after the big fire of
Prague Castle in 1541, when the last-described
110 homolka 1978, pp. 568–570.
111 Developed by M. Bartlová with references to
older literature; see bartlová 2009.
112 For the term “the pillars of the church”, as well
as the comparisons, see bartlová 2009, p. 91.
| 194 |
genealogical cycle of 47 Bohemian rulers was
destroyed, depicted on paper, and offered by
Jan Zajíc of Hasenburg to King Ferdinand I
for renewal.113 However, the king did not hear
Zajíc’s pleas, or rather he heard them only in
part. Dogged by a constant lack of funding, he
refused the design of the extensive painting
of the Vladislav Hall in which a genealogical
cycle of 40 Bohemian rulers should be de-
picted. The proposal, with design drawings,
from the sculptor and architect Paolo della
Stella (1500–1552) was sent to King Ferdinand
through his son and the governor of Bohemia,
Ferdinand II of Tyrol (1529–1595). Although
the young archduke praised the design as a
beautiful decoration for the castle, the paint-
ing was not realised in the end.114 Although
Ferdinand wanted and needed to portray the
Habsburgs as the new successors to the Bo-
hemian royal throne, he decided to do that
in a much more moderate and also cheaper
form, at the time when the façade of the north
wing of the palace began to be repaired, only
in 1558. About 17 figures were to be painted
in al secco on the outer wall of the Old House
(Stará sněmovna). We cannot say who decided
on this contract, as Archduke Ferdinand did
not hide his embarrassment and even wrote
to his father whether it would not be better to
whitewash the paintings over completely to
unify the façade of the Vladislav Hall with the
façade of the Old House.115 The plan for the
painting of the façade was soon abandoned
and a few years later the paintings found their
113 For Ferdinand’s reconstruction of Prague
Castle see uličný 2017a, pp. 377–395.
114 “Und meines erachtens wurde es dem ganzen
shlosz ain shene zier”; see kreyczi 1887, p. L, reg. no.
4145, cited according to uličný 2018a, p. 475, note 76
(with more information on the topic).
115 von schönherr 1890, p. CXCIII, reg. no. 7463,
cited according to uličný 2018a, p. 478, note 94 (with
more information on the topic).
59 | Fragment of the cycle on the façade of the Old House, 1561, Prague Castle.
way into the interior with the construction of
the new palace. They were soon whitewashed
over and were discovered in 1920 and 1924.
By getting the genealogical cycle out of
the interior it would become (albeit in this
case only for a short time) an even more sig-
nificant subject of publicisation. Or not? At
the end of his article, which has been quoted
several times here, Petr Uličný ponders the
question of for whom the cycle was actually
intended. The paintings were painted on the
façade of the palace courtyard, which was
not used for ceremonial purposes and would
not normally be passed by visitors. The cycle
was not easy to see and read for visitors from
other parts of Prague Castle either. The only
place from which the paintings could be well
observed was the emperor’s private chambers
| 195 |
in the opposite wing of the palace.116 There
should follow a question: did Ferdinand pri-
vatise the paintings or even the concept? We
know that according to the original idea of the
architect Bonifaz Wohlmut (1510–1579), sent
to the Emperor on June 1559, the cycle should
be painted in the interior of the Old House and
not on its outer wall.117 There were only two
116 uličný 2018a, p. 480.
117 “Es mochten auch nachmallen ihr Romisch kais.
maj. etc. zwischen das gehauen stainwerch allenthalben
schone alte historien machen und mallen lasen sambt den
Behamschen kinnigen neben an den vier seiten herumb,
wie dan ihr Romisch kais. maj. etc. dieselben verordnet
und ich sie zwischen das gewelb und fenster neües
moddells ordentlichen ausgethilt.”, see kreyczi 1887, p.
LXXI, reg. no. 4283, cited according to uličný 2018a, p.
477, note 93 (with more information on the topic).
 authorities that could change Wohlmut’s idea
– Archduke Ferdinand II or Emperor Ferdinand
I – and it points much more to the emperor’s
decision.
However, in his reconstruction of the Old
House Wohlmut counted on decoration. The
genealogical cycle of Bohemian rulers, to-
gether with their histories, was the most ap-
propriate solution. After finally vaulting the
chamber in 1563 he suggested to Ferdinand I
a new painting plan, which was presented to
the emperor in a letter from Archduke Ferdi-
nand from November 2, 1563.118 The emperor
agreed and works finally began. Unfortunate-
ly, even in this case, the Bohemian rulers were
not to be depicted by Habsburgs, or more pre-
cisely the cycle finished, as a result of the em-
peror’s death in 1564 and the lack of interest
and funds of his son Maximilian II (1527–1576).
Not even Maximilian’s successor and son, Em-
peror Rudolf II (1552–1612), who chose Prague
Castle as his seat, renewed the cycle of Bohe-
mian rulers.
In any case, it was not genealogical cycles
that went out of fashion. On the contrary, it
118 “Nachdem mir aber vom zehenten tag vershinnes
monats octobris ein bevelch von eur kais. maj. etc.
zuekhumben, daraus ich sovill vernumben, das eur kais.
maj. etc. in die landrechtstueben derselben vorfaren, die
khunig zw Behaimb, maalen auch sonst das gewelb in
der hoch und dann die wand mit shönen gemahlen
zieren zu lassen bedacht und mir derhalben genedigist
auferlegen, ein modeil von der landrechtsuieben eur kais.
maj. etc. zubershickhen, so hab ich ernennten maaler
von Maylanndt die seitenmeüer auch die zwo meüer wie
man eingeht und wie cur maj. etc. gegenubersiezen, wie
hoch und brait jede ist, deszgleichen wie hoch die pögen
am gewelb, auch wie weit die veldung zwishen den
schwipögen lang und brait sein, und sonst alles vleissig
abmessen lassen, wie dann eur kais. maj. etc. er der
maaler sollich modell selbst underthänigist presentiern
auch sonst in ainem und andern guetten mündlichen
ausfüerlichen bericht gehorsamist thuen wirdet.”; see
kreyczi 1887, p. XCII, reg. no. 4362, cited according to
uličný 2018a, p. 481, note 108 (with more information
on the topic).
| 196 |
was in the 16th century that they spread from
the highest circles of European rulers into the
aristocracy. It was the Czech crown that be-
gan to lose the lustre of the time of Charles
IV. The Habsburgs no longer felt any need
for costly public representation as a contin-
uation of this tradition. Although Charles IV
was an emperor and he himself must have
felt that he was a follower of the Přemyslid
tradition, as his mother Elizabeth of Bohemia
(1292–1330) was a member of the family, he
commissioned a Přemyslid genealogical cy-
cle for the staircase of Karlštejn Castle and
not Prague Castle. Vladislav II of Hungary
(1456–1516), who commissioned the cycle of
Bohemian rulers, was not Emperor and the
Bohemian crown was very precious for him.
For the Habsburgs it was different. During the
16th century, they began to consolidate their
position as emperors of the Holy Roman Em-
pire. Quite understandably, therefore, they
began to focus on representing their most
valuable title – the imperial one.119 Howev-
er, the role of the Habsburgs in this case was
substituted by the members of Bohemian
aristocracy. Cycles of Bohemian rulers are
documented in the public spaces of their set-
tlements in the last quarter of the 16th cen-
tury at Dobrovice Castle, Pecka Castle, and
Jindřichův Hradec (Neuhaus).120
We have already touched briefly above
on the spreading of the genealogical cycles
into the environment of the court aristocracy.
It was during the 16th century that portraits,
arranged in cycles of different identities,
quantities, and quality became one of the
first proofs of aristocratic collecting. Howev-
er, they were understood almost exclusively
in the context of the representation of the
owner and his family. A similar concept had
119 zimmer 2010, 2010, pp. 7–47.
120 preiss 1957, pp. 65–78.
already reached Central Europe at least two
hundred years earlier with heraldic cycles.121
Although it might seem that the theme of
this book – the development of spaces for
collections in Central Europe – is not relat-
ed to the development of heraldic cycles, the
opposite is true. Similarly to relevant figur-
al wall or fresco paintings, the cycles were
an integral part of architecture and in most
cases decorated a space – public or private –
which later became a space for collections.
The heraldic cycles can therefore be under-
stood as direct precursors or alternatives to
genealogical cycles or even, a little later, por-
trait galleries. One of the oldest in Central Eu-
rope was painted to accompany the legend
of St. George at the castle in Jindřichův Hra-
dec. It was made in 1338 for a public space –
the Knight’s Hall of one of the most powerful
aristocratic families of the Bohemian King-
dom – the Neuhaus family (of Hradec).122 The
already-mentioned Emperor Charles IV also
used his sculptors and painters in the 1350s
to carve and paint a cycle of coats of arms at
Lauf an der Pegnitz Castle near Nuremberg.
112 coats of arms were discovered in 1934
and, in addition to the coats of arms of the
Lands of the Bohemian Crown, they depict
the coats of arms of Czech towns and aris-
tocratic families in a public space – another
Knight’s Hall, today called the Coat of Arms
Hall.123 There are other examples of mediae-
val heraldic cycles in the Lands of the Bohe-
mian Crown – Cheb, Písek, Tovačov, Buchlov,
Prague, and others. However, the cycles from
121 For heraldic cycles of the late Middle Ages in
general see paravicini 1998, pp. 327–389; for a
multidisciplinary excursion of Bohemian examples
see hlaváček 1984, pp. 27–28; Winkelbauer - Knoz
2002, pp. 129–177; bůžek 2017, pp. 37–57; knoz 2017,
pp. 23–36.
122 nový 1971, pp. 179–197.
123 růžek 1988, pp. 37–311.
| 197 |
Blatná Castle stand out, especially the one
painted in the Green Chamber124 – a strictly
private room of Jaroslav Lev of Rosental (ca.
1425–1486), an educated member of the high-
est Bohemian nobility, who led a delegation
of the Bohemian King Georg of Kunštát and
Poděbrady (1420–1471) to Western Europe in
1467.125 17 coats of arms of related families,
painted along with another rich wall deco-
ration about 1480, co-create the intimate
atmosphere of the chamber, which can be
described as one of the first (next to the pre-
sumed ones in Prague Castle, the Prague
Bishop’s Palace, and Hrádek u Kunratic) stu-
dioli in Central Europe.126
Without the heraldic cycles actually
coming to an end during the 16th century,
they were increasingly replaced by a much
more modern and representative, but also
time-consuming and costly alternative – fig-
urative genealogical cycles or portrait galler-
ies. Most of these were formed by paintings
on wood or later canvas and their great ad-
vantage was that they could easily be replen-
ished, relocated, or even rearranged. Modern
art history science has increased its interest
in early modern portrait galleries and also in
multidisciplinary cooperation about their cli-
ents, the social circumstances of orders, rep-
resentation, provenance studies, etc. Portrait
galleries filled both public and private spac-
es and took several forms – genealogical cy-
cles of rulers, cycles of aristocratic families,
cycles of important men – viri illustri – and
specific forms of group portraits over time
conceived into cycles. The beginnings of the
124 kočandrle 1969, pp. 17–23; kuthan 2010,
p. 295; vrbová 2017, pp. 57–61; on the issue of the
Green Chambers in Bohemia see dientsbier 2019.
125 vaněček – kejř 1964; boubín 2015.
126 For more on this topic see subchapter The
Green Chambers in this book.
formation of the first galleries of portraits in
Central Europe or in the lands of the Bohe-
mian Crown have been elaborated by a num-
ber of authors.127 Ingrid Halászová even of-
fered and dated the phases of the spread of
the aristocratic portrait to Central Europe.128
Portrait series appear in the noble houses in
Austria and Bohemia from 1520s and 1530s;
the oldest portrait of Hungarian noblemen
comes from the 1540s and was imported
from Italy. Halászová calls the first phase
The Emergence of protogalleries and dates
it to approximately between the 1530s and
1560s, in the Kingdom of Hungary until the
1580s. In this phase the portrait represented
a higher standard – it was used mostly by trav-
elled and educated aristocrats, who became
acquainted with this modern phenomenon
during their travels or a visit to the Habsburg
court. The phase is also characterised by only
a small number of portraits in a cycle, very of-
ten made on the occasion of the promotion of
a person or family, as the portrait had to bear
the marks of this act. Therefore, such por-
traits were to be seen by visitors. They were
intended for the public spaces of palaces –
Great Halls or stairs which led to the piano
nobile. Halászová calls the second phase The
Phase of Gallery Building and dates it to be-
tween 1533 (in the Kingdom of Hungary from
1580) to 1620/30 and within this phase she
distinguishes three others. The first, dated
approximately 1555–1580, is characterised by
the adaptation of the Spanish culture and its
portrait style. The second is dated 1580–1610
and the portrait style changed direction to
127 heinz 1963, pp. 99–224; heinz – schütz 1976;
polleross 1995, pp. 382–409; galavics 1998;
polleross 2010, pp. 67–90; štibraná 2012, pp. 24–
37; štibraná 2013; petnekim 1989, pp. 47–56; buzási
2014, pp. 23–104; halászová 2016; kubíková 2016a.
128 halászová 2016, pp. 13–37.
| 198 |
the artists of the court of Rudolf II, and finally,
the third began in the first decades of the 17th
century and came to an end around 1630. It
was a heyday of portrait galleries in which the
Spanish influences mixed up with Rudolfine
mannerism and the coming baroque. Portrait
galleries were a modern (and partly obligato-
ry) addition to a residence. Aristocratic col-
lecting slowly began to become the duty of
a court nobleman. The offer of artists of var-
ious qualities and prices also appeared with
the popularity of portrait series, and nobles
of lower rank began to purchase cycles as
well. At the same time, capable aristocrats
were gaining power, privileges, titles, and fi-
nances for their services (or financial loans)
to the emperor or king that were incompara-
ble with the past. In their representation they
did not hesitate to spend huge sums. One ex-
ample for all is the rise of the Liechtenstein
family, caused by the skills and finances of
Karl I of Liechtenstein (1569–1627). Dozens of
portraits are recorded in his inventories in the
second decade of the 17th century.129
It also happened at the end of the 16th
century, when portrait cycles in Central Eu-
rope slowly began to become part of private
spaces. Both viri illustri and genealogical cy-
cles began to form the decoration of private
studioli or semi-private Kunstkammern and
guardarobas. Although it is already beyond the
scope of this chapter, let us briefly continue
with Halászová in the last stage of the phase
of the building of portrait galleries. She dates
it to approximately 1620–1640. The situation
in Central Europe, and especially Bohemia,
completely changed after the Battle of White
Mountain in 1620. Some of the traditional no-
ble families were forced to leave the kingdom
129 For more on his personality, as well as his
collecting activities, see the subchapter Carolus aquirens.
Karl I of Liechtenstein and his spaces for collections.
and some new ones came. The newcomers
needed to confirm their fresh titles and the
estates they had acquired and they wanted
to do it quickly. Although the Thirty Years’
War inevitably drained away a considerable
amount of money, the new aristocratic elite
did not spare money for their representation.
The third phase is called The Phase of Flowering
Time and is dated 1625/30–ca. 1690. The estate
holdings in Central Europe slowly stabilised
and, especially after the Peace of Westphalia
in 1648 and the Nuremberg Peace Congress
in 1650, a golden age of aristocratic portraits
arrived. With changes in the concept of col-
lecting, the commercialisation of art and the
development of related markets and dealers,
some of the portraits are already considered
to be art objects functioning as collectibles.130
Halászová calls the very last phase The
Phase of the Conventional Appearance of the
noble painting cycles and dates it to after 1690.
Portrait painting changed its social context
during the 18th century and became wide-
spread among the aristocracy and the well-to-
do bourgeoisie. Portrait cycles became a com-
mon part of private as well as public spaces.
Let us now move from the general classi-
fication to examples and evaluate the aristo-
cratic portrait cycles that began to appear in
the lands of the Bohemian crown during the
16th century. The oldest examples of the cre-
ation of an aristocratic portrait gallery can be
found in the Hradec and Rosenberg families.
It is during the phase called by Halászová The
Emergence of Protogalleries. These two very
influential and rich Bohemian families have
always attracted the attention of historians
130 On the commercialisation of art during the 17th
century, with a focus on Central Europe, see
duverger 1972, pp. 157–181; wild 1993, pp. 60–67;
slavíček 2004, pp. 491–538; de marchi – van
miegroet 2006.
| 199 |
and art historians and the beginnings of their
arts collecting are no exception, even in the
present research.131 The oldest example of a
single aristocratic portrait in Bohemia comes
from 1506 and depicts the royal councillor Alb-
recht II Libštejnský of Kolovraty (1463–1510);132
the first small cycle or portrait gallery comes
from 1529 and was painted for the chancellor
of the Kingdom of Bohemia, Adam I of Hradec
(1494–1531) by Ferdinand I’s court artist Jakob
Seisenegger (1505–1567).133 Three paintings on
wooden boards have survived to the present
day – a portrait of Adam of Hradec, his wife
Anna von Rosental (Rožmitál) (1500–1563),
and their sons Joachim (1526–1565) and Zach-
arias (1527/1528–1589). We can assume that
Adam did not employ the court painter for only
three portraits, but he wanted his entire family
portrayed. An archival record from 1692 tells
us about a portrait of two young ladies from
Hradec, painted on wood 2 1/2 ells in size and
at the same time about a portrait of two young
boys from Hradec, painted on wood 2 1/2 ells
in size, which is the surviving portrait of Joa-
chim and Zacharias. It means that the cycle
very probably consisted of only living mem-
bers of the Hradec family and there was a total
of five portraits. We expect that the portraits
of the girls were two in number. The double
portrait mentioned in the inventory should be
a portrait of Mandelina (1519–1580) and Elis-
abeth (1525–1585) and another of their older
sister Ursula (1518–before 1580).134 From the
point of view of space, it may be striking that
131 For the most relevant and recent information
on the topic see kubíková 2016a, pp. 72–153.
kubíková 2016c, pp. 41–74.
132 Today in the collection of Heinz Kisters in
Kreuzlingen, Switzerland. For more see buchner
1953, p. 162; kubíková 2016c, p. 45.
133 For the most recent interpretation see löcher
2012, pp. 104–109.
134 salaba 1896/1897, pp. 714–715.
the paintings were not exhibited together. At heraldic cycles were still enough for the
least in the inventory of 1692, they were even presentation of the broad family. In the fol-
in different residences – Adam and Anna in lowing years, male members of the Hradec
Telč, Joachim and Zacharias in Nová Bystřice, family were portrayed several times, but al-
and Mandelina and Elisabeth in Červená Lho- ways only individually or with a female coun-
ta or Kardašova Řečice. Most probably, how-
ever, it does not correspond to the original
state or intention. We can assume that all six
paintings were painted for the newly adapt-
ed castle in Jindřichův Hradec and because
of exclusivity and the parents’ firm postures,
they were most probably exhibited in a public
space of the castle – most probably the Ball-
room.135 Some researchers even assume that
the paintings formed a quadriptych, with the
male portraits being attached to the wall and
the portraits of the women forming movable
wings.136 However, if we focus on the back-
ground of the portraits, we distinguish a con-
tinuous pair of cornices that pass through all
three preserved paintings, as well as orange
and blue tiles. These architectural elements
can help us to determine the position of the
portraits in the cycle – the boys were at the
left edge, Adam and Anna were placed in the
centre, perhaps followed by Ursula and the
double portrait of the girls was at the right
edge. Although the portrait of the boys is
lower than the parental one (149 × 102 cm vs.
195 × 104 cm), it corresponds proportionally
60 | Jacob Seisenegger, Joachim and Zacharias of
and the cornices, as well as tiles, follow each Hradec, 1529, oil on panel, Červená Lhota Chateau.
other (see the proportionally correct images
60, 61, and 62). terpart.137 They were added next to the old-
Apparently, in the first half of the 16th er ones and the galleries slowly grew in size.
century, the nobles did not yet create large Another – in this case extensive – cycle was
galleries in which they portrayed the dead commissioned by Adam II of Hradec (1549–
members of their family; perhaps they did 1596) for the castle in Jindřichův Hradec in
not have enough capable artists or finances the last quarter of the 16th century. The cycle
and perhaps not even the will to do so. The initially contained 55 paintings of Bohemian
rulers – dukes and kings – and was originally
exhibited in the most public spaces of the cas-
135 kubíková 2016c, p. 51.
136 dülberg 1990, p. 87, cat. no. 108; löcher 2012,
p. 107. 137 For more see kubíková 2016c.

| 200 |
61 | Jacob Seisenegger, Adam I of Hradec, 1529, oil on
panel, Telč Chateau.
tle, at first in the Great Hall of the old Gothic
palace, then in the Spanish wing, and after
1638 in the Golden Hall – the palace’s ball-
room, where 31 paintings hung in two rows,
with the rest in the Dining Room.138 With the
extinction of the male line of the Hradec fam-
ily in 1604 and their heirs, the Slavata family,
in 1691, the property, as well as the cycle, was
138 novák 1901, p. 81; jirásko 1994, p. 39; kubíková
2016c, p. 56.
| 201 |
62 | Jacob Seisenegger, Anna von Rosental, 1529, oil
on panel, Telč Chateau.
divided among different heirs in 1693. Cop-
ies were painted and from the original cycle
only 13 paintings have been preserved to this
day.139 If we perform a balance on the basis of
inventories from the year of the extinction
of the Hradec family, i.e. from 1604, we get
139 Seven portraits are in the Sternberg collection
at Častolovice Castle and six at Česká Olešná Castle,
nowadays on loan to Jindřichův Hradec Castle; see
salaba 1896/1897, p. 718; kubíková 2016c, p. 56.
the following numbers of collected portraits:
there were 58 portraits of the above-men-
tioned cycle of Bohemian rulers, another 98
portraits of rulers and noble personalities –
the members of Hradec family and others –
and yet another 52 paintings.140
In addition to the Hradec family, there
were also the Rosenbergs, who controlled
the court offices, managed huge estates,
employed excellent artists, and also need-
ed exceptionally high-quality representation.
According to ancestral mythology, both fam-
ilies came from the same base – the family
of the Vítkovci, which split at the end of the
12th century. According to the actual evi-
dence, the two families worked very closely
together and relied on a common marriage
strategy. During the 16th century, the Rosen-
bergs were, next to the Hradec family, per-
haps the most important patrons of the arts
in the kingdom.141 The most important male
member of the family during the 16th centu-
ry was William of Rosenberg (1532–1592). His
name is also associated with the establish-
ment of a family portrait gallery, starting in
1552, although still with the limited number
of two paintings of two brothers – William
and Peter Wok (1539–1611) – but rapidly ex-
panding after that date.142 Only two years
later, three other members of the Rosenberg
family were portrayed – the sisters Elisabeth
– as described on various pages of this book –
140 Verzeichnis von Bildern, die auf dem Schloss
Neuhaus im Jahre 1604 bei der Vermögensaufteilung
zwischen Katharina von Neuhaus, geb. Gräfin von
Montfort und ihrer Tochter Lucie Otýlie Slavata von
Neuhaus bleiben sollen, inventory kept in the State
District Archive of Jindřichův Hradec, Slavata Family
Archive, VIII, Fb/20; published by novák 1901, p. 82.
141 For a comprehensive history of the family with
a multidisciplinary view see gaži – pánek – pavelec
2011.
142 For a dedicated study on the paintings in the
residences of the last members of the Rosenberg
family see kubíková 2011, pp. 436–445.
| 202 |
(1532–1576), Bohunka (1636–1557), and Eva
(1537–1591). In the first half of the 1650s, the
painter, now named Master of the Lords of
Rosenberg, painted the complete young gen-
eration of the family. William was 20 years
old at the time of the portraiture, Peter Wok
was 13 years old, Elisabeth 22 years old, Bo-
hunka 18 years old, and Eva 17 years old.
When we take a closer look at the paintings,
we recognise that their compositions corre-
spond to modern imperial portraits and that
they were with certainty conceived to form
a cycle,143 all this with the appeal or celebra-
tion of the stabilisation of family relations in
a protracted and complicated conflict with
the princes of Planau.144 We can expect that
the portraits of the Rosenberg siblings were
exhibited in a public space of the castle in
Český Krumlov, most probably in the Main
Hall. During the following years of William’s
rule, the portraits of the Rosenberg family,
as well as their relatives, increased exponen-
tially and William himself, as a member of
the kingdom’s foremost aristocratic family,
was portrayed several times by court art-
ists such as Jakob Seisenegger and later by
a still unidentified painter of the Rudolfin-
ian court.145 After William’s death in 1592,
his already-mentioned brother Peter Wok
became the reigning prince. He was famous
as a lover and collector of various types of
art, curiosities, and, first of all, a bibliophile
but also as the last male member of the fam-
143 For a detailed stylistic analysis and comparision
see kubíková 2016a, pp. 117–122; kubíková 2016c,
pp. 64–67.
144 For more on the topic and life of William of
Rosenberg see pánek 2011.
145 For further portraits see kubíková 2016a,
pp. 127–153; kubíková 2016c, pp. 68–74.
 63 64 65
66 67

63 | Master of the Lords of

Rosenberg, William of Rosenberg,
1552, oil on canvas, Lobkowicz
Collections, Lobkowicz Palace,
Prague Castle.
64 | Master of the Lords
of Rosenberg, Peter Wok
of Rosenberg, 1552, oil on
canvas, Lobkowicz Collections,
Nelahozeves Chateau.
65 | Master of the Lords of
Rosenberg, Elisabeth of Rosenberg,
1554, oil on canvas, Lobkowicz
Collections, Nelahozeves Chateau.
66 | Master of the Lords of
Rosenberg, Bohunka of Rosenberg,
1554, oil on canvas, Lobkowicz
Collections, Nelahozeves Chateau.
67 | Master of the Lords of
Rosenberg, Eva of Rosenberg,
1552, oil on canvas, Lobkowicz
Collections, Lobkowicz Palace,
Prague Castle.

| 203 |
 ily.146 After Peter’s death in 1611, the family
died by the sword. Extensive portrait galler-
ies, installed on various estates – especial-
ly Český Krumlov (the main residence of the
family, sold by Peter Wok to Emperor Rudolf
in 1602) and Třeboň (Peter Wok’s residence)
– became part of the heirs’ galleries. The leg-
acy of this important family thus lived on
in the public spaces of ballrooms and other
main rooms and soon the galleries of Central
European castles and chateaux.147
Some of the above-mentioned paint-
ings, including the oldest ones – portraits of
William of Rosenberg, Peter Wok of Rosen-
berg, and their sisters Elisabeth, Bohunka,
and Eva, survived in the collections of the
Lobkowicz family palace in Prague or Nela-
hozeves Castle. When William of Rosenberg
died in 1592, part of his property (including
portraits) was inherited by his widow Po-
lyxena of Pernstein (1566–1642). She ac-
quired the castle and manor of Roudnice nad
Labem in hereditary possession and part of
the portraits had already been transport-
ed there before William’s death.148 When
in 1603 Polyxena married Zdeněk Vojtěch
Popel of Lobkowicz (1568–1628), her – for-
merly Rosenberg – property became part of
the Lobkowicz estates and collections. And
when the Pernstein family died out in 1646,
all their estates passed to the descendants
of Polyxena. The Lobkowicz family thus be-
came one of the most prominent and richest
families in the kingdom through the double
inheritance and political dexterity. To some
extent they were also (together with the
146 For more on Peter Wok see pánek 2010; for
Peter’s collection pp. 162–165; for the library of Peter
Wok see veselá 2005; veselá 2011, pp. 236–243.
147 On the topic of the Rosenbergs’ legacy for the
17th century see maťa 2011, pp. 544–551.
148 štěpánek 2016, pp. 78–79.
| 204 |
Slavata family) bearers and custodians of the
heritage of the most important pre-White
Mountain families – the Lords of Hradec and
the Rosenbergs and Pernsteins. The third of
these was also a traditional Bohemian fam-
ily and during the 16th century one of the
most important members of the aristocrat-
ic community of the Lands of the Bohemian
Crown. They owned huge estates in Bohemia
and Moravia and held leading royal offices.
Polyxena was the daughter of Vratislav von
Pernstein (1530–1582) and the Spanish no-
blewoman Maria Manrique de Lara y Men-
doza (about 1538–1608). The names of both
are also associated with the beginnings of
the Pernstein portrait gallery, which are sim-
ilar to the beginnings of the Rosenberg cycle
– of course with specific features stemming
from the Spanish origin of Polyxena’s moth-
er and the strong Spanish orientation of the
last Pernsteins. The oldest paintings of the
Pernstein cycle were painted in 1550 and are
considered to be two portraits identified as
Vratislav’s sister Maria (1524–1566) and her
husband, Prince Wenceslas III Adam, Duke
of Cieszyn (1524–1579). The female portrait
was painted by Jakob Seisenegger in 1550
and the male one by an unknown painter at
a similar time. To the 1550s, which can be
considered to be the decade of the founding
of the Pernstein portrait gallery, is also dat-
ed a painting of a member of the Pernstein
family, who was earlier identified as Vratislav
– again by Jakob Seisenegger. Today, however,
art historians incline more to his brother Ja-
roslav, mainly because of the missing depic-
tion of the Order of the Golden Fleece, which
Vratislav acquired in 1555.149 A verified por-
trait of Vratislav is dated to the 1570s, this
time with the Order’s badge hanging around
149 For a detailed study see kubíková 2016a,
pp. 165–172.
 68 69
70
68 | Jacob Seisenegger, Maria of Pernstein, 1552, oil
on canvas, Lobkowicz Collections, Lobkowicz Palace,
Prague Castle.
69 | Jacob Seisenegger, Jaroslav of Pernstein, 1558, oil
on canvas, Lobkowicz Palace, Prague Castle.
70 | Joris van der Straeten, Maria Manrique de Lara
y Mendoza with her daughter Polyxena, 1571–1574,
Lobkowicz Palace, Prague Castle.

| 205 |
 his neck. The painting was painted by an un-
known Netherlandish painter. A double por-
trait of Maria Manrique with a child (her son
Jan (1561–1597)) from the early 1560s also
belongs to the early stages of the formation
of the Pernsteins’ portrait gallery. A number
of details are painted which refer to Marian
iconography. It can therefore be referred to
as an identifying sacral portrait.150 The com-
positionally embarrassing placement of the
characters and their view outside the shal-
low space encourages the hypothesis that
the portrait had its counterpart in the form of
a portrait of the lord of the house – Vratislav
– which, however, has not been preserved.
Both the paintings definitely formed a more
compositionally balanced whole.151 We can
only speculate as to what space this family
portrait was intended for, as it is not primar-
ily a representative portrait. The counter-
part portrait would help us and especially
the look which Vratislav would give to Ma-
ria and Jan. However, if we take a closer look
at the dimensions of the first paintings in
the gallery, we will discover that the miss-
ing portrait of Vratislav was most probably
not only the counterpart for Maria and Jan
but also to the already presented painting of
his brother Jaroslav by Seisenegger.152 In this
case we could expect that the Vratislav from
the missing painting would be looking at the
viewer, his wife and son on his left looking at
him, and his brother on his right also looking
at the viewer. Then we can expect that the
closest Pernstein family would be exposed
in a public or semi-private space.
150 For more on this topic see polleross 1988,
pp. 139–143.
151 For a detailed study see kubíková 2016a,
pp. 172–175.
152 Jaroslav’s portrait is 106 × 84 cm; the portrait of
Maria with Jan 108.5 × 82 cm.
| 206 |
The portrait collection of the Pernsteins
perhaps grew even faster than those of the
two families that have already been intro-
duced. Over a few years, other portraits of
Vratislav, young Jan, and even Maria with
young Polyxena were painted, most of which
are still a part of the Lobkowicz collections.
Next to the close family line, however, the
Pernstein portrait gallery, or rather galler-
ies, was much richer, especially thematical-
ly. There was a cycle of Habsburgs, another
of Spanish ambassadors, yet another of rela-
tives of Spanish origin, and of course, the viri il-
lustri who were popular at that time.153 We can
get an idea of how important portrait paint-
ings and their formation into cycles or galler-
ies were for the leading aristocratic families
of Central Europe in the 16th century from
three preserved inventories of the Pernstein
collections from the beginning of the 17th
century.154 The oldest one is an inventory of
Litomyšl Chateau from 1608. It calculates
191 portraits, most of them in the library and
two adjacent rooms on the second floor. We
can assign the library as a semi-private space.
There were 88 portraits generally identified
as 53 of the same size, painted in oil on canvas,
a cycle of 14 smaller portraits on wood, anoth-
er cycle of 14 and three portraits on wood, and
finally four portraits on canvas. We can expect
that there were cycles, at least the 53 paint-
ings of the same size and two separate sets of
153 For reproductions and a detailed description
see štěpánek 2016; kubíková 2016a, pp. 178–224.
154 Nelahozeves Castle, Lobkovicové roudničtí
– rodinný archiv (LRRA) (The Family Archive of the
Lobkowicz Family from Roudnice), first inventory:
sign. P. 14/30 – for interpretation see wirth 1913, pp.
123–125; second inventory: G 17/93, fol. 185–188 – for
interpretation see díaz 2001, pp. 99–117; kubíková
2016a, pp. 172–175.; third inventory: G 17/93, fol. 158–
159 – for interpretation see díaz 2001, pp. 99–117;
kubíková 2016a, pp. 172–175.
14 (counterparts?) on wood. In the chamber
behind the library there was a total of 66 por-
traits – of which two were oil portraits on can-
vas, then another 38 larger and smaller por-
traits hanging by the ceiling and 23 hanging
by the floor and finally three half-figure por-
traits over the fireplace. In addition, there are
also documented paintings of Adam and Eve
by Dürer and a large painting of the biblical
Lot. In the second chamber 12 oil portraits of
Roman Emperors hung by the ceiling, anoth-
er 18 unidentified oil small and large portraits,
another four are unidentified, two equestri-
an portraits of young men and finally a por-
trait of the Lord of Rosenberg. Next to it were
three “Phantasies”, four Evangelists, a figure
on canvas, Hercules on wood, Adam and Eve
in an alabaster frame, another figure on cop-
per, three hand-drawn maps on parchment, a
ancestral table of the Lords of Šelnberk in wa-
tercolour, a coloured/printed ancestral table
of the Polish princes on parchment, an ances-
tral table of the Princes of Brandenburg in oil
on canvas, a watercolour painting on canvas
of a donkey with a bell, another four figures in
oil on canvas, seven prints of maps, and three
boards written on parchment in frames. Next
to these pieces of art there were also 12 pairs
of deer antlers below the ceiling and another
12 heads of deer and roe deer in the row be-
low and three heads with legs. According to
the decoration of the two chambers we can
estimate that these were public or at least
semi-private. Both rooms are close to the
concept of galleries. The paintings, prints, or
drawings on the walls are not just a decora-
tion or representation, as was the case de-
cades before in the cases of Knight’s Halls,
Main Halls, ballrooms, etc. These are parts
of a space where the collection and its quality
or overall concept play a crucial role in creat-
ing the atmosphere. It is the space in which
the collections are to be kept.
| 207 |
A little later, most probably in 1626 – be-
tween Ferdinand III’s Hungarian coronation
on December 8, 1625 and his Bohemian cor-
onation on November 27, 1626 – the second
inventory was written, probably by Polyxena
alone.155 In addition to a clearly defined close
relationship of the recorder (Polyxena) with
those portrayed (records such as mi suegro,
mi madre, mi padre, mi hermana francisca, yo
y francisca como ninfas mi marido, mi marido
de rosamberg muerto, mi marido de rosamberg
vivo), the list presents 91 portraits. We cannot
be sure to which palace or chateau the list is
related (similarly to the case of the third in-
ventory, which will soon be introduced). They
could have been written for Litomyšl, but
also for the chateau in Roudnice or the fam-
ily palace in Prague. From Polyxena’s list we
can only read thematic groups, but without
the hall or place being specified. The most nu-
merous part consisted of portraits of mem-
bers of a relatively wide family, followed by
cycles of Habsburg Emperors, but also select-
ed Bohemian rulers, French kings and queens,
Dukes of Tuscany, Spanish ambassadors, and
other politicians of the kingdom.156
The third inventory is written in Czech,
is more descriptive, and was most proba-
bly written by one of Polyxena’s servants. It
mentions 85 portraits, which are divided into
three groups. On the basis of the numbering
of the listed items, Kubíková assumes that
it records cycles in three rooms.157 It largely
calculates the items presented in the first or
second inventory – the wide family, emperors,
monarchs, ambassadors. But it is the only
one which also mentions portraits of famous
personalities, the viri illustri. The ideological
155 For more arguments on the topic see kubíková
2016a, p. 159.
156 kubíková 2016a, p. 159.
157 kubíková 2016a, p. 158.
and social background of collecting por-
traits of important personalities is present-
ed by Alice Fornasiero in this book.158 The fa-
mous base for all the collectors was Paolo
Giovio’s (1483–1552) cycle of 484 portraits
of literary figures, statesmen, and rulers in
a special building, called the Museo, on the
shore of Lake Como. The knowledge of Giov-
io’s cycle spread through writings published
in many editions in different cities and often
illustrated by woodcuts.159 Cosimo I de’Medi-
ci (1519–1574), Ferdinand of Tyrol, and oth-
er collectors, including the Pernsteins and
other aristocrats in Central Europe (who
will soon be introduced), created their col-
lections according to him.160 For the Central
European environment the viri illustri gallery
which Ferdinand II of Tyrol established in his
castle at Ambras in 1578 was important. In
the form of what was called a panel gallery,
made of painted wooden boards of uniform
size mounted in wall tiles, he had a cycle of
painted portraits of secular and ecclesiasti-
cal personalities, military leaders, humanists,
artists, discoverers, and even royal mistress-
es and mythical pagan rulers.161 However,
these viri illustri portraits formed only part
of the archduke’s extensive collection of por-
traits. Ferdinand purposefully built the col-
158 See the subchapter Painted loggias,
representative halls, and the beginning of the gallery
in the Czech Lands in this book.
159 The first editions are: giovio 1546; giovio 1549;
giovio 1554; for a current English translation see
gouwens 2013.
160 giovio 1935; rovelli 1928; gianoncelli 1977;
pavoni 1985, pp. 109–116; price zimmermann 1996; for
the wider context of viri illustri see mommsen 1952, pp.
95–116; joost-gaugier 1982, pp. 97–115; pelc 2002; for
the Central European context see štibraná 2012.
161 porträtsammlung 1892; ladner 1932, p. 13;
kenner 1894, pp. 147–260; XVII, 1896, pp. 101–274;
XVIII, 1897, pp. 135–261; XIX, 1898, pp. 6–146; schütz
2002, pp. 19–23.
| 208 |
lection – we know about at least 950 paint-
ings with a uniform size of about 13.5 × 10 cm.
We can even track some of the acquisitions
to get a picture of how the first collections
were formed. In 1578 Archduke Ferdinand
turned in a letter to Elector August of Sax-
ony (1526–1586) for portraits of all the dukes
from the Saxon house.162 The portrait should
not be greater in size than a piece of paper en-
closed in the letter. In the same year August
requested an estimate from Lucas Cranach
the Younger (1515–1586) for painting the cy-
cle. In February 1579 August sent 60 Thal-
er to Cranach for 44 portraits of dukes and
promised to send templates for the portraits.
In August 1579 the duke agreed to lend por-
traits from the Knaufturm in Torgau to Cra-
nach. In October 1579 August sent Ferdinand
part of the cycle and finally in July 1580 Fer-
dinand sent a letter of thanks to August for
the last 50 portraits he received. However,
there was not only one portrait gallery at
Ambras Castle and, of course, not one sin-
gle space for storing collections. In addition
to the well-known and obvious ones, such as
especially the Kunstkammer, there was also
an armoury – Heldenrüstkammer, in which
the archduke gathered collections of mili-
taria and decorated these spaces with por-
traits of famous military leaders, which also
included enemies of the empire – the Turk-
ish sultans or heretics such as the Bohemian
military leader of the Hussite revolution Jan
Žižka (1360–1424) or contemporary person-
alities – the Bohemian Protestant nobleman
Karl the Elder of Zierotin (1564–1636).163 This
type of space, used for the preservation of
collections, was also taken over and devel-
162 schütz 1972, pp. 35–36; schade 1974, pp. 451–452.
163 For more see scheicher 1990, pp. 69–79;
kuster 2017a, pp. 33–35; kuster 2017b, pp. 82–87;
kubíková 2020, pp. 9–18.
oped by aristocrats such as Karl I of Liechten-
stein (1569–1627), as discussed in a separate
chapter of this book.164
Viri illustri were most probably quite avail-
able (depending on quality and quantity) and
certainly provided a widespread possibility of
aristocratic presentation of a rather private
(though not exclusively so) character. Less
wealthy members of the aristocracy took
advantage of the incomparably lower prices
of multiplication techniques – graphic sheets
according to what at that time were already
traditional templates. The denomination did
not matter, and nor did the financial resourc-
es matter so much – viri illustri were one of the
first collectible collections with a possibility
of gradual replenishment and soon began to
spread among the bourgeoisie.165 Quite pos-
sibly the formulae that we know from the way
in which contemporary collectors assemble
their collections could be applied to this phe-
nomenon – they could be the subject of gifts
or exchanges. Also, along with the way in
which viri illustri made their way from the pri-
vate (studiolo) or semi-private (library, Kunst-
kammer, or guardaroba) space to a public one
(main halls, ballrooms, etc.) an intellectuali-
sation of the public space took place – along
with paintings and sculptures of historical
themes or ancient mythology.
A unique testimony to one such collection
was left to us by the French envoy to Emperor
Rudolf II, Jacques Esprinchard (1573–1604). In
1597 he visited the house of Paul Sixtus III von
Trautson (ca. 1548–1621), the supreme court
marshal. He described in his diary what he
164 See the subchapter Carolus aquirens. Karl I of
Liechtenstein and his spaces for collections in this
book.
165 For information on the collections of the
bourgeoisie in Rudolfine Prague see winter 1895;
pešek 1988, pp. 161–170, 244–248; pešek 1991,
pp. 369–383; pešek 2013, pp. 77–85.
| 209 |
saw: “Mrs. Trautson was dining with us at a ta-
ble set in a Great Hall, the walls of which were
covered with more than four hundred portraits
of all the great men of this century.”166 Viri il-
lustri, however, were not popular only with
the Catholic nobility. Many of the educated
aristocracy of the Czech kingdom were Prot-
estants in the 16th century. An extensive col-
lection of portraits of famous personalities
was owned by the already briefly mentioned
Karl the Elder of Zierotin. His fate well illus-
trates the fates of a large part of the elites of
the Bohemian and Moravian Protestant no-
bility (those whose lives were not shortened
at the execution site of the Old Town Square
in Prague in 1621) and his correspondence il-
lustrates the development and principles of
early modern collecting – not too far from
the current trends.167 In a letter from 3 July
1600 he asked his agent Marcantonio Lom-
bardo if he could find portraits and copies of
paintings of Charlemagne (742–814) and the
kings and his descendants and next to these
portraits of the military commander Gas-
ton de Foix (1489–1512), the Lord of Aubigny
who lived in the times of Louis XII (1462–1515)
– probably the military commander Bernard
Stewart, 4th Lord of Aubigny (ca. 1452–1508);
the writer and diplomat Philippe de Com-
mines, Lord of Argentan (1447–1511); Lord de
Chaumont – maybe the military commander
Charles d’Ambroise (1473–1511); Robert del-
la Marque, with the nickname Devil – may-
be the legendary figure Robertus Diabolus;
Lord de Tremoille the Elder; Lord de Lautre of
the de Foix family; Lord de l’Escut, his broth-
er; Duke Claude de Guise (1496–1550) – the
166 fučíková 1989, p. 57 (translation by Miroslav
Kindl); for general information on Esprinchard see
chatenay 1957.
167 The letters are published in dvorský 1904;
hrubý 1937.
 grandfather of the one who was murdered in
Blois; Marshal de Montluc (Blaise de Lasser-
an-Massencôme, seigneur de Montluc (1502–
1577); Lord dell’Orge, who killed King Henry
– Gabriel de Lorges, 1st Earl of Montgomery
(1530–1574); and finally Lord della Roue, the
Elder. From among the clergy and scholars he
sought portraits of Saint Bernard (1090/91–
1153); Berengar, the Dean of Angers – Beren-
gar of Tours (999–1088), who questioned the
value of the Eucharist at the Lateran Coun-
cil; Gerson – probably Jean Charlier de Ger-
son (1363–1429); Cardinal Rohan; Cardinal du
Prat – probably Antoine du Prat (1463–1535);
the Lord dell Hospitall, the chancellor; Anne
du Bourg (1521–1559); Lord du Plessis; Julius
Caesar; and Joseph dell’Escale.168 The list sug-
gests that Karl the Elder of Zierotin built a cy-
cle of important people purposefully and, of
course, on the basis of his preferences arising
from his social status (an educated aristocrat
employed in high court positions), religion
(Protestant), or experience and knowledge
(as a military leader, politician, and writer). Zi-
erotin’s collecting passion did not cool down
even after 1629, when he was forced to leave
Moravia for Wrocław for political and confes-
sional reasons.169
A unique alternative to viri illustri, which
combined heraldic cycles with depictions of
important (in this case locally or personal-
ly) people, was the decoration of the public
space of Třeboň Chateau – the Courtly Cham-
ber, which was commissioned by Peter Wok
of Rosenberg and painted by the court paint-
er Tomáš Třebochovský (1580–1639) in 1604.
Among other things it shows 32 coats of arms,
mainly of Rosenberg’s subjects and courtiers,
among them, for example, Rosenberg’s archi-
168 dvorský 1904, p. 148 (translation Miroslav
Kindl).
169 knoz 2008, pp. 267–281; hrubý 1937, p. 303.
| 210 |
tect and builder Dominico Benedetto Comet-
ta von Eckthurn († about 1620) and a doctor
and naturalist active at Peter Wok’s court as
personal physician and court mathematician,
Herman Bulder of Bulderus, and others.170
We can certainly state that in the last
quarter of the 16th century, portrait cycles
of various orientations became part of aris-
tocratic and selected bourgeois households.
They were used in private, semi-private, and
public spaces. They could be an expression
of the antiquity of the family, the intellectual
potential of the owner, or the modernity and
up-to-dateness of the family. They played an
important role in the forming of galleries of
paintings and also the intellectualisation of
the public space. The development did not
stop during the 17th century; on the contrary,
it accelerated under the economic principles
of the art market. Picture galleries became a
common part of residences and not only aris-
tocratic ones. Also, a public opinion on art, or
taste, started to form during the first decades
of the 17th century. A testimony was set down
by the English traveller and writer John Eve-
lyn (1620–1706), who visited the Republic of
the Seven United Provinces of the Nether-
lands in 1640: “As for the art off Painting and
the affection off the people to Pictures, I thincke
none other goe beeyond them, there having bin
in this Country Many excellent Men in thatt Fac-
ulty, some att Presentt, as Rimbrantt, etts., All in
generall striving to adorne their houses, especial-
ly the outer or street roome, with costly peeces.
Butchers and bakers not much inferiour in their
shoppes, which are Fairely sett Forth, yea many
tymes blacksmithes, Coblers, etts., will have
some picture or other by their Forge and in their
stalle. Such is the generall Notion, enclination
and delight that these Countrie Native[s] have to
170 mareš 1896/1897, pp. 649–650; hrdlička 1991,
pp. 5–67; hrdlička 1992, pp. 5–37.
71 | Courtly chamber of the Třeboň Chateau, 1604, Třeboň.
Paintings. Allsoe their other Furniture and Orna-
mentts off their dwellings very Costly and Curious,
Full of pleasure and home contentment, as Ritche
Cupboards, Cabinetts, etts., Imagery, porcelaine,
Costly Fine cages with birds, etts; all these com-
monly in any house off indifferent quality.”171 Also,
during the second half of the 16th century, the
spaces in the residences began to be equipped
with works of art in a planned and systematic
way, and portrait cycles also had their system
in this respect. In private spaces such as bed-
rooms and others often hung (but not exclu-
171 Quoted from carnac temple 1925, pp. 70–71;
for more information on the topic in general, see
loughman – montias 2000; blondé – de laet 2006,
pp. 69–86.
| 211 |
sively) group family portraits and/or portraits
of the close family of a rather smaller size. In
the study (studiolo) the master of the house
could have a viri illustri cycle as well as genea-
logical cycle of different focus (emperors, rul-
ers, family) of also rather smaller size. In ladies’
private rooms hung portraits of the family, as
well as individual ladies from the family or im-
portant ladies from history. In semi-private
spaces such as libraries, armouries, or galler-
ies hung all the above-mentioned cycles, of-
ten in large numbers and sizes. Public or social
spaces used to be equipped with portraits of
the extended family, viri illustri, and broad cy-
cles of emperors and Christian and sometimes
even pagan rulers. The living family most often
occupied a central position in the composition
of portraits on the walls in the most import-
ant spaces. All this could be complemented
by portraits of curious or disabled people.172
One such portrait was also painted for Peter
Wok of Rosenberg. He sent a painter to a cer-
tain man, whom he informed in the previous
letter from 1602: “I have a message that there
is a monstrous and dissimilar child born recently
in one village on your ground, whom I would like
to see. I am sending my painter to you, and ask-
ing you to arrange that the baby will be shown
to the painter for a portrait.”173 Such paintings,
drawings, or prints in series were used for dec-
oration of private spaces and often they did
not have to be exposed at all. They could be
hidden behind a curtain or inside a piece of fur-
niture. They were shown intentionally to visi-
tors for different reasons and were supposed
to arouse different emotions in them.
Portrait galleries (whether with an inten-
tion of displaying the face realistically or not)
were, and still are, an integral part of the fine
arts. However, since the 19th century, painting,
drawings, or prints have slowly been replaced
by photography. What remains, however, is a
space that they co-create – private, semi-pri-
vate, or public, with all their specifics. While
we exhibit old portraits in galleries without
the context of the space for which they were
created and often without a sequence in a cy-
cle, we also create new cycles with new top-
ics of a different message. The portrait cycles
are a means of communication for us too, and,
as in the past, they are also one of the means
of reconciling or condemning reality.174 The
172 For more on the topic see cambell 1990, pp.
145–147; ghadessi fleming 2007; rousová 2009, p. 12;
kubíková 2016a, pp. 36–37.
173 mareš 1896/1897, pp. 637–660, p. 647.
174 For different perspectives on the topic see
peleggi 2013, pp. 83–95; parry-giles – kaufer 2012,
pp. 199–234; kim 2016, pp. 133–158; caragol – moss
– powell 2020.
| 212 |
portraits and the whole cycles were and are
celebrated, but they are also burned or oth-
erwise intentionally destroyed; together with
the portrait, the doomed thing that the per-
son represented is also to leave. In addition
to various types of art depicting history, it is
precisely the portrait (again in various designs
and media) which has a documentary overlap
and provides, in addition to artistic experience,
an important testimony to its time. And cy-
cles are testimonies to the time in sequence
– times long past and preserved (in galleries,
museums, or listed buildings, or on the walls
of private households), recent and celebrated
times (in public institutions, offices, and pub-
lic outdoor spaces and on walls and desks),
recent and damned times (deep in deposito-
ries, in the soil or dumps) and the times of the
near future (slowly and gradually creating and
making space in public spaces). Even digital
space is slowly becoming a place for portrai-
ture and its cycles of various themes, which is
not surprising, given everything that has be-
fallen this phenomenon in the hundreds of
years of its existence in real space.175
| Miroslav Kindl |
Galleries at
Prague Castle
Galleries in the form of an elongated room, of-
ten located over an arcaded portico, were an
important part of rulers’ residences from at
least the beginning of the sixteenth century.
175 There is a rich literature on the topic: see for
example: cornell 2015, pp. 34–41; hinkson 2016;
burstow 2017, pp. 73–92.
 In Margaret of Austria’s (1480– 1530) res-
idence in Mechelen, whose main parts on the
south and west sides were erected between
1509 and 1519, the library on the first floor
of the south wing, with independent access
from the staircase, served the purpose of a
gallery. It did not serve as a festive space, but
rather as a semi-public walkway. The deco-
ration included dynastic portraits, battle
scenes, exotic artefacts, and an engraving
of Charles V’s coronation procession in Bo-
logna.176
The example that was later followed by
further Habsburgs was probably set by Mary
of Hungary (1505–1558), the Governor of the
Habsburg Netherlands. In her residence in
Brussels, built between 1533 and 1537, there
was a long gallery erected on fifteen arches,
directly adjacent to her bedchamber. It usu-
ally served as a hall for holding celebrations
and festivities. It was not a place for exhib-
iting artworks, even though its walls were
probably covered with tapestries.177 Another
gallery could be found in Mary’s second res-
idence in Binche. It was 51 metres long and
4.7 metres wide, and was placed on an arcade
running along the main apartment. On top
of it there was a terrace with a lookout. Un-
like the one in Brussels, the Binche gallery
was decorated with frescoes by Michiel Cox-
cie. There are clear indications that the pa-
tron intended to confer another more pres-
tigious role upon this corridor, where a series
of full-length bronze statues of the Emperor
and his relatives ordered from Leone Leoni
from 1549 was to be displayed, thus resem-
bling an Antiquarium.178
176 burstow 2017, pp. 79–81. On the figure of
Margaret of Austria and her patronage activity see
also haag 2018.
177 de jonge 2010, p. 79.
178 de jonge 2010, pp. 80–81.
| 213 |
Rudolf II probably acquainted himself
with gallery-type spaces at the Spanish court
of Philip II, where he and his brother Ernest
spent eight years during their youth.179
In 1548–1550, Philip II visited the Low
Countries, where galleries, already com-
monly in use there, made a deep impression
on him.180 Philip II introduced galleries of the
Netherlandish type, starting from the hunt-
ing castle of Valsaín near Segovia.181 In 1563,
he had the open corridor on the first floor of
the Alcázar of Madrid modified into a closed
gallery. In the Galería del Cierzo, he ordered
the portraits of the members of the royal
family and other significant personalities, as
well as paintings with battle scenes. Another
gallery, named Dorada, had a more private
character since it was part of a sequence of
private rooms preceding the Torre Dorada II
(where Philip II had his personal studiolo). It
mainly served the purpose of a Spaziersaal
or recreation room offering a view into the
garden. A similar function was assumed by
a third gallery, the construction of which did
not start until 1585. It was built above an open
arcade and ended with a terrace.182 Other gal-
leries were established in the hunting lodge
of El Pardo and the royal apartment in El Es-
corial.183
Nonetheless, the model for Prague was
the 46-m-long and 3.6-m-wide gallery wing
constructed by Rudolf in Vienna.184 Rudolf’s
new structure expanded the aforemen-
179 On Rudolf’s years spent in Spain see in particular:
mayer-löwenschwert 1927; eamon 2016, pp. 129–138.
180 chueca goitia 1986, pp. 29–42; de jonge 1998,
pp. 347–369.
181 de jonge 2010, pp. 82–83.
182 gerard 1984, pp. 86–88; barbeito 1992,
pp. 63–68.
183 de jonge 2010, pp. 83–84.
184 polleross 2015, p. 257.
tioned Kunsthaus (Kunstkammergebäude)
erected in 1558 by Ferdinand I. The model
for the Viennese Kunsthaus was the afore-
mentioned five-axis gallery of Mary of Hun-
gary in Brussels, built in 1547–1549 for the
sculptures by Leone Leoni.185
Maximilian II’s constructions, in particu-
lar the Neugebäude, also influenced Rudolf’s
building projects. After the death of his fa-
ther, Rudolf took over the conclusion of the
building and decoration of the suburban
residence.186 The central wing of the Neuge-
bäude featured a narrow, extremely elongat-
ed building, measuring approximately 183
metres in length and from 11 to 14 metres
in width. The centre consisted of a pavilion
connected by huge arcades to two polygonal
pavilions at either end.187 These arcades or
loggias consisted of nine arches carried on
paired Doric columns. Visitors usually called
these loggias by the French term galerie.188
On the ground floor, below the central pavil-
ion and the loggias, there were two vaulted
halls, which served as monumental stables

185 polleross 2015, p. 257. 187 lietzmann 1987, pp. 137–153.

186 lietzmann 1987, pp. 137–153. 188 lippmann 2006/2007, p. 152, notes 99, 100.

72 | Matthäus Merian, Eijgentliche Delineatio des Schönen Lusthauses genannt das Neugebäu, view from the
north, 1649, engraving from Topographia Provinciarum Austriacarum, Austriae, Styriae, Carinthiae, Carniolae,
Tyrolis, […], Frankfurt a.M. 1679, photo: Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf.

| 214 |
and were very similar to the Spanish stables
erected by Rudolf II at Prague Castle.189
Open loggias were later applied in the
complex of the Imperial Mill, which Rudolf II
had rebuilt to accommodate gemstone work-
shops. The construction, supervised by Ulrico
Aostalli, was concluded around 1594.190 The
building was constituted by a long covered
corridor with colonnade arcades, which con-
nected a small hall on the western side, built in
close proximity to the mill, with a grotto on the
eastern side. The corridor was on the first floor,
or more precisely at the elevated ground level,
with arcades opening to the north to the land-
scape of the River Vltava.191 References to an-
cient architecture are traceable in the façade
of the Imperial Mill, which shows similarities
to the façade facing the sea of the Palace of Di-
ocletian in Split, already proposed as a model
for the Neugebäude.192 The Palace of Diocle-
tian was a huge square complex, surrounded
by high crenellated walls interspersed with
towers, but opened on one side to views of the
Adriatic by means of a long porticus or arcades
over a high closed socle zone overlooking the
sea.193 Another reference to ancient architec-
ture is the grotto of the Imperial Mill, whose
original function remains unknown. Scholars’
opinions differ, but it seems clear that the ar-
chitecture of this space makes reference to an-
cient architecture. The first to note this was
Ivan P. Muchka, who first noticed the simi-
larity of the grotto to the Roman calidarium.
189 lippmann 2006/2007, pp. 143–168; krčálová
1983, pp. 1029–1051; polleross 1998, p. 107.
190 muchka 2008, pp. 91–95; krčálová 1975, p. 501;
krčálová 1972, pp. 1–25.
191 muchka 2008, pp. 91–95; dobalová 2009b,
pp. 53–69.
192 jansen 2019, pp. 467–478; lippmann
2006/2007, pp. 154–161.
193 jansen 2019, p. 475.
| 215 |
Nevertheless, it is rather the Nymphaeum, the
ancient Greek and Roman sanctuary conse-
crated to water nymphs, that the grotto at the
Imperial Mill resembled in both its structure
and function.194 The Nymphaeum original-
ly denoted a natural grotto with springs and
streams, traditionally considered the habitat
of nymphs, and later referred to a building
filled with plants and flowers, sculpture, foun-
tains, and paintings.195 The grotto in the Impe-
rial Mill has lateral niches that must have been
created to host statues and, as can be assumed
from the eighteenth-century plan, a circular
fountain or basin originally occupied its cen-
tre. The grotto with its statues and the foun-
tain corresponded to the typical locus amoenus,
similar to the Nymphea of ancient Rome.
In addition to the importance of the Bur-
gundian-Habsburg tradition of building rep-
resentative galleries as an essential compo-
nent of a ruler’s residence, the involvement of
Florentine architects in the buildings’ designs
also played an important role in the remodel-
ling of Prague Castle under Rudolf II.
Relations between the emperor and the
court of the Medici family had always been
close, both on the diplomatic and on the ar-
tistic front. At the imperial court a Medici am-
bassador always kept Grand Duke Francesco
I de’ Medici informed about events in Prague.
The relationship between the two sovereigns
was guaranteed first by the marriage between
Francesco I de’ Medici and Rudolf’s aunt, Jo-
anna of Austria, and a wedding between the
daughter of Francesco I, Maria de’ Medici, and
Emperor Rudolf II had even been envisaged. In
the artistic field, the transfer between the im-
perial court and the court of the Medici family
mainly concerned Rudolf’s requests for works
194 dobalová 2009b, pp. 53–69; see also chapter V
of this book.
195 kipfer 2000, p. 398.
73 | Plan of the Imperial Mill with the Grotto in Bubeneč, 1730, Archiv Pražského hradu.

74 | Charles-Louis Clérisseau after Paolo Santini, Diocletian's Palace in Split, engraving from Robert Adam, Ruins Of
The Palace Of The Emperor Diocletian At Spalatro In Dalmatia, London 1764. © photo: Royal Academy of Arts, London.

| 216 |
of art, paintings, and sculptures, but also art-
ists and architects, as well as techniques and
materials. On the occasion of developing a
project for the major renovation of Prague
Castle, Rudolf turned to architects active at
the Medici court, and also to the advice of
Francesco I de’ Medici.196 Just a few years be-
fore, Francesco I had directed grandiose proj-
ects at his court, which included the decora-
tion of his personal studiolo and the building of
the galleries at the Uffizi and the Tribuna, built
especially to host the vast Medici collections.
The first Medici architect to be involved in
Prague Castle projects was Antonio Lupicini,
who arrived in Prague in November 1578 and
was in charge of designing the palace in which
the emperor would live. Nothing was done
from that year until 1583, when different de-
signs for the imperial palace were discussed,
among them Lupicini’s, which, however, was
rejected. According to the Medici emissary, in
1583 Rudolf II was still asking Francesco I for
help on the projects of Prague Castle.197 This
help came in the form of two architects sent
from Florence, Giovanni Gargiolli and Anto-
nio Valenti, whose presence was recorded
in Prague in 1586.198 Gargiolli was then sent
back to Italy with several special models of
the building of Prague Castle to be consulted
with other leading architects, who turned out
to be Bernardo Buontalenti under the super-
vision of Francesco I de’ Medici in person. It
is difficult to understand how much Gargiolli,
who remained in Prague until 1594, managed
to build at Prague Castle.199 The influence of
196 krčálová 1983, pp. 1029–1051; carrai 2003,
pp. 370–384; uličný 2017a, pp. 386–390.
197 uličný 2017a, pp. 386–387.
198 uličný 2017a, pp. 389–390; carrai 2003,
pp. 370–384.
199 krčálová 1983, pp. 1029–1051; carrai 2003,
pp. 370–384; uličný 2017a, pp. 386–390.
| 217 |
the Florentine model, also through the medi-
ation of Gargiolli, was materialised in the con-
struction of the representative halls in the
northern wing and of the long corridor gal-
lery for paintings on the second floor of the
Gangbau, where references to the arrange-
ments of the Uffizi gallery by Buontalenti
can be seen. In Prague Castle, the long cor-
ridor gallery was located in front of smaller
rooms belonging to older buildings, which re-
calls Buontalenti’s adaptations of the Medici
collections in the Uffizi gallery.200 In addition,
similarly to the Uffizi, where the famous Tri-
buna is inserted into the parcours of the corri-
dor gallery from where it has access, Rudolf’s
White Tower was located along the corridor
gallery which runs along the second floor of
the Gangbau.
Even if the ambitious renovation project
at Prague Castle took at least a decade to be
completed, it is very likely that the idea was
already defined in the mind of the emperor
and his architects and counsellors, as demon-
strated by the purchase of land and houses
in that area after 1590.201 From 1611, Rudolf II
even planned to continue the construction of
the western part of the Castle and to join the
town hall of the Archbishop’s Palace and per-
haps even part of Hradčany Square.202 The in-
tended connection of the Archbishop’s Palace
suggests that the wing of the Spanish Hall was
actually only part of Rudolf’s plans to build
an imperial residence. The emperor probably
had in mind the model of the Escorial built
by Philip II, which was completed in 1581.203
When Rudolf started the improvements to
the complex of Prague Castle, he addressed
200 krčálová 1983, p. 1036; carrai 2003, p. 12.
201 vilímková – kašička 1977, pp. 129–139;
krčálová 1975, pp. 504–507; krčálová 1983, p. 1029.
202 vilímková – kašička 1976, p. 388.
203 díaz 1998, pp. 11–15.
his requests not only to the Medici court, but was integrated into the newly constructed
also to the Spanish court. In 1588 Rudolf II structure. Formerly, the room adjacent to the
asked his ambassador Hans Khevenhüller for White Tower housed the collection of weap-
plans and drawings of the palaces and villas ons (Rüstkammer) of Archduke Ferdinand II at
of Philip II, specifically mentioning Aranjuez the time when he resided at Prague Castle as
and the Escorial.204 Khevenhüller sent the the governor of the Kingdom of Bohemia.209
emperor drawings of Valsaín, La Aceca, and In the Gangbau new spaces for the Kun-
Aranjuez. 205 In 1589 or 1590, Rudolf II receivedstkammer were established on the first floor.
the Sumario y breve declaración de los diseńos y Two corridors separated in the middle by the
estampas de la Fábrica de San Lorencio el Real Bishop’s Tower (later called the Mathematical
del Escurial, a book of twelve drawings by Juan Tower), connecting the south and north wings
de Herrera, printed by Pedro Perret, in which of the castle, were built on the second floor
the concept of the Escorial is explained.206 above the Kunstkammer. Their construction
The new constructions realised according was entrusted to Orazio Fontana. They were
to the wishes of Rudolf II were therefore the briefly described in 1601 by the Prague brick-
result of a multitude of influences – especially layers who were tasked with assessing the
Italian and Spanish – which led to the erection works that had been executed: “Předně a nej-
of the representative part of Prague Castle. prve: dva paláce, které se začínají u bílé věže nad
maštalemi, spatříní jsau, a jaké dílo se nachází,
zdí, klenutí, dláždění, schody, šneky, vokna, dve-
The Corridor Gallery ře, sazení[…] (First and foremost; two halls can
in the Gangbau be seen, starting by the White Tower above the
stables, the walls, the vaults, the paving, the stair-
In 1590, the construction began of a transverse case, the spiral stairs, the windows, the doors,
wing at Prague Castle under the supervision the fitting […])”.210 Another description of the
of Ulrico Aostalli.207 In contemporary sourc- transverse wing dates from 1620. It identi-
es it was referred to as the Gangbau, and it fied three vaulted rooms on the ground floor,
connected the wing containing the emperor’s two of them serving the king and queen’s Sat-
living quarters with the stables in the north- telkammer (saddle room), the third room be-
ern part of the castle already built by Aostalli ing the upholsterer’s workshop. The first floor
in 1576, where the Spanish Hall and the New was where the Kunstkammer was located, and
Hall were later to be erected.208 The axis of the second floor was in the form of a corridor
this wing was determined by the original Ro- running through the entire length of the wing,
manesque wall, which was adjoined by the decorated with countless beautiful paintings.
old decanal houses on one side. The original There was then an attic above the corridor. Fur-
White Tower with Romanesque foundations thermore, the description records the White
Tower and a passageway through it, leading to
the courtyard, and two vaulted rooms on the
204 Letter dated 4 February 1588 of Rudolf II to
ground floor, used by the Building Authority.211
Khevenhüller: voltelini 1892, reg. no. 9547, p. CLX.
205 voltelini 1892, reg. no. 9547, p. CLX.
206 díaz 1998, pp. 13–14. 209 uličný 2018b, pp. 25–46.
207 krčálová 1975, p. 504. 210 Cited according to krčálová 1975, p. 506.
208 uličný 2017a, p. 384. 211 krčálová 1975, p. 506.

| 218 |
75 | Giuseppe Ruggeri, Plan of the Uffizi Gallery, 1742, Florence, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Pal. 3. B. 1. 5, c. 9r.
It is not clear if the architect Giovanni Gar-
giolli had a role in the definition of the Gangbau,
or if the plan given by Hans Vredeman de Vries
to the emperor in August 1598 was related to
this wing. The today lost plan was accompanied
by a letter in which Vredeman stated that, fol-
lowing the emperor’s order, he had designed
seven fountains and a plan for the construction
of two “Gebau” for Prague Castle.212 According
to Karel van Mander, “Vries also designed for His
Majesty various fountains and chambers in which
he could arrange and display his paintings, and
so he could go everywhere in his palace through
enclosed areas without being seen”.213 In the
212 krčálová 1983, pp. 1035–1036.
213 Cited according to uličný 2015b, p. 57, note 33;
van mander 1618, fol. 267r; floerke 1906, pp. 112–114;
miedema 1994, p. 326.
| 219 |
end, the master-builder Orazio Fontana was
in charge of building the central wing, prob-
ably partially relating to the previous plan of
Vredeman and Gargiolli.214
An arrangement that had already been
used in the Vienna Hofburg was chosen for the
construction of the Gangbau. In Vienna, the
wing built by Rudolf II in 1583–1585 featured a
building about 46 metres long and 3.6 metres
wide, which, similarly to Prague Castle, also in-
cluded a Kunstkammer and a gallery above it.215
The Gangbau was divided into two parts
by the Mathematical Tower, which was built
in 1602–1603 and represented the key ele-
ment of the central wing. The entrance to
214 krčálová 1975, pp. 504–507; vilímková –
kašička 1977, p. 134.
215 karner 2014, pp. 209–213.
76 | Giuseppe Mattei, The Mathematical Tower at Prague Castle, drawing, 1636, Národní archiv, Prague.
the Mathematical Tower was marked by a
portal, and its interior housed an oval stair-
case with niches on the sides. The shape of
the staircase took inspiration from Roman
models, in particular the oval staircase built
by Ottaviano Mascarino for Gregory XIII in
the Quirinal Palace (1572–1585) and the oval
staircase that Vignola built for Alessandro
Farnese in the Palazzo Farnese in Capra-
rola. 216 The staircase at Prague Castle also
made reference to the Bramante staircase
of the Belvedere Palace built for Julius II in
the Vatican, both in form and function. Like
the papal staircase, the imperial staircase
served Rudolf II as a representative connec-
tion within the building, and to provide visi-
tors with access to the collections without
them walking through the emperor’s private
apartments. 217
216 brunner 1998, pp. 25–26.
217 brunner 1998, p. 28, uličný 2017b, pp. 881–887.
| 220 |
The upper part of the Mathematical Tow-
er rose above the central wing, surpassing its
height in the form of a belvedere. On the fourth
floor, in the room to which the belvedere
climbed, Bartoloměj Beránek painted vedu-
tas of mountains and castles which included
Český Krumlov and Kratochvíle.218 The top of
the tower ended in a terrace, which served for
astronomical observation. These character-
istics recall the Tower of Winds, another proj-
ect by Ottaviano Mascarino for Gregory XIII
in the Belvedere dated 1578–1580. Like the
Mathematical Tower, the Tower of Winds had
an astronomical function, and its interior was
decorated with fresco paintings with biblical
episodes and vedutas.219
218 uličný 2017b, p. 882. The Belvedere in the
Mathematical Tower was demolished during the
Theresian renovations.
219 The fresco paintings were realised in 1580–1582
by the brothers Paul and Matthijs Bril, with biblical
 On its second floor, the Gangbau was
divided into a first gallery or Vorderer Gang,
which lay to one side of the emperor’s living
quarters, from which there was an entrance.
This part is also described as the Langer Gang
(Long Corridor) in some inventories.220 It was
approximately five metres high, and according
to the inventories it accommodated paintings
hung in three rows. A narrow passage in the
Mathematical Tower, in which there were also
pictures, connected the Long Corridor with a
second, where paintings were also hung in
three rows.221 Already in 1605 paintings con-
stituted the main decoration of the corridors,
as confirmed by a letter sent by the Savoyard
envoy, informing the Duke of Savoy that the
paintings of the Fruit Seller and the Fish Seller
by Vincenzo Campi, which he had donated to
the emperor, were exhibited on the two heads
of the gallery.222
As can be deduced from the dispatches of
the ambassadors, the corridor gallery served
not only as a communicating space between
the representative halls and private apart-
ments, but it was also used as a place for re-
ception and conversation and one to which
ambassadors were admitted to visit the col-
lection.223
episodes from the Old and New Testaments and with
real and fantastic landscapes. courtright 2003,
pp. 70–83.
220 For example, in the list of paintings sold to
Daniel de Brierß see zimmermann 1905, p. LI;
fučíková 1987, p. 49.
221 fučíková 1987, p. 49; fučíková 1997, pp. 29–30;
zimmermann 1905, pp. XXXVIII–XLII.
222 ASMo, Cancelleria, Carteggio ambasciatori,
Germania b. 69, letter dated 4 February 1605.
223 promis 1877, pp. 583, 611.
| 221 |
The Spanish Hall
Although the Spanish Hall is to all intents
and purposes a representative hall, because
of its decoration and dimensions, it can also
be considered a gallery. In 1596 the construc-
tion of the Spanish Hall was ordered above
the stables, which had been completed un-
der the direction of Ulrico Aostalli in 1594 in
the northern wing of Prague Castle.224 The
hall measured 47.2 × 10.3 metres and was il-
luminated by a row of eleven half-rounded
windows opening to the north. In 1597, the
court carpenter Bernard Erhardt worked on
the coffered ceiling. In the same year, Ru-
dolf II decided that the coffered ceiling had
to be removed and replaced by an illusionis-
tic painting by Paul Vredeman de Vries.225 In-
stead of the traditional wooden panelling and
tapestry decoration, which was more com-
mon in Northern and Central Europe, Rudolf
II choose to decorate the hall with an illusion-
istic painting, as was the fashion in many Ital-
ian and Spanish galleries of that time.226 Ac-
cording to Karel van Mander, the ceiling of the
Spanish Hall was decorated with grotesques,
foreshortened pillars, and a central opening
completely painted in perspective. 227 After
the baroque and Theresian renovations car-
ried out at Prague Castle, Vredeman’s paint-
ing was lost, 228 but the engraving by Paul’s
father, Hans Vredeman, in Perspective, id est,
Celeberrima ars inspicientis aut transpicien-
tis oculorum aciei in pariete, tabula aut tela
depicta, in qua demonstrantur quaedam tam
224 vilímková – kašička 1976, p. 389.
225 krčálová 1975, p. 511; uličný 2015b, p. 49.
226 polleross 1998, p. 57, note 59.
227 krčálová 1975, p. 511; uličný 2015b, p. 49.
228 See the reconstrucions of the Spanish Hall in
vilímková, kašička 1976, pp. 385–391; uličný 2015b,
pp. 48–63.
77 | Henrik Hondius after Hans Vredeman de Vries, A cupola, Perspective, id est, Celeberrima ars inspicientis […] ,
Lugduni Batavorum 1604, photo: Getty Research Institute.
antiqua, quam nova aedificia, templorum, sive
aedium, aularum… can be referred to as a pos-
sible model for the central architecture. Here
foreshortened columns create the illusion of
a circular opening in two storeys, culminating
in a cupola. The grotesques depicted by Paul
Vredeman in the Spanish Hall might have
been taken from the abundant repertoire of
Hans Vredeman, in particular from the suite
of sixteen plates of grotesque designs en-
titled Grottesco in diversche manieren (Ant-
werp, 1565–71). The tapestry for the travelling
throne in the form of a baldachin, produced
around the year 1561 on the basis of Hans’s de-
sign with the help of the painter Michiel Cox-
cie, can be regarded as a possible model for
Paul’s painting in the Spanish Hall. The tapes-
try depicts a vault decorated with grotesques,
| 222 |
in the centre of which a circular opening of a
columnar architecture is represented in two
storeys, culminating in a cupola.229
The choice of grotesques as decorative el-
ements for a representative space was quite
new for the Bohemian milieu at the time of
Rudolf II. On the contrary, it was not a novelty
in Italy, where grotesques on the model of the
decorations of the Domus aurea were used for
the first time in 1516 by Raphael in the deco-
ration of the walls and the barrel vault of the
Loggetta of Cardinal Bibbiena in the Palazzo
Apostolico. Grotesques often decorated Ital-
ian loggias and galleries such as the Loggia dei
Marmi (Galleria dei Mesi) in the Ducal Palace
in Mantua, where grotesques are displayed
229 uličný 2015b, p. 50.
both on the walls and in the barrel vault, as
well as in the Uffizi Gallery, whose ceiling, dat-
ing from 1581, is decorated with mythologi-
cal representations and grotesques.230 At the
Spanish court, the great figures of the Geno-
ese artistic scene of the mid-sixteenth centu-
ry, Giovannni Battista Castello (Bergamasco)
and Luca Cambiaso, called upon by Philip II
to take part in his ambitious decorative pro-
grammes, played a fundamental role in the
introduction of grotesques as a decorative el-
ement, which was still regarded as typically
Italian at that time. Grotesques were used in
the decorations of the royal residences of the
Alcázar in Madrid, the Royal Palace of El Pardo,
Valsain, and the Escorial.231 During the eight
years of their education, when Archdukes Ru-
dolf and Ernest lived at the court of Philip II
in Spain (1564–1571), the king was embarking
on his most important architectural projects:
the partial reconstruction and enlargement
of the Alcázar of Madrid under the direction
of Jaun Bautista de Toledo, the new palace of
Aranjuez and its extensive gardens, the con-
struction of which was starting at that very
moment, and the Escorial, also in its first years
of construction.232 In Madrid, the archdukes
stayed at the palace of El Pardo, which had just
been reconstructed.233 Beyond any doubt, the
Spanish sojourns influenced Rudolf’s later ar-
chitectural commissions.234 Even though Phil-
ip’s buildings were only in their beginnings, in
the later years Rudolf kept himself informed
on the progress of their construction through
his ambassador Hans Khevenhüller. In a letter
addressed to Rudolf II in 1587, Khevenhüller
230 conticelli 2013, pp. 29–48.
231 boccardo – colomer – di fabio 2004, pp. 69–
84, 113–128; checa 1994, pp. 142–147.
232 bouza álvarez 1994, pp. 37–72.
233 díaz 1998, pp. 11–14.
234 díaz 1998, pp. 11–14; díaz 2001, pp. 35–60.
| 223 |
speaks of the painting gallery of Philip II, re-
ferring to it as the Galeria.235 In the following
years of his ambassadorship in Spain, Kheven-
hüller sent the emperor plans and drawings of
the palaces and villas of Philip II.
The palace of Aranjuez was constituted,
among other chambers, by a gallery or salon
open to the garden of the king through seven
windows placed to the south, communicating
to the east with the Camara del Rey nuestro Se-
nor and to the west with the Quarto del despa-
cho (studiolo).236 Because of its setting and di-
mensions, it constituted the only space where
ceremonies, both representative and festive,
could take place. However, it is not known how
this hall was decorated in the time of Philip II.
Presumably it was used seasonally and dec-
orated with tapestries, furniture, and paint-
ings only when the king was in residence. The
Alcázar in Madrid was articulated into a se-
ries of halls and galleries, abundantly illumi-
nated by windows, which had representative
and ceremonial purposes and where Philip II
could exhibit his vast collections.237 Similarly
to the Spanish Hall in Prague, the Galeria del
Poniente, also referred to as the Galleria Dora-
da, in the Alcázar in Madrid was decorated by
Becerra and his pupils, and according to the
description of Carducho the Liberal Arts were
depicted in the vault, with various grotesques
on the walls.238 The Spanish Hall239 at Prague
Castle might have been referred as "Spanish”
235 rudolf 1995, p. 203.
236 sancho 1996, pp. 107–124; sancho 2003.
237 checa 1994, p. 32.
238 checa 1994, p. 143; bottineau-fuchs 1956,
pp. 166–167.
239 “Spanish” in a document dated 1620: “der
Spanische grosse Sahl”. krčálová 1975, p. 509. The
Spanish Hall took also the name of “the glory” and
the “German hall” and later it was referred to as
“Rudolf’s gallery”, a name still in use today. vilímková
– kašička 1976, p. 390.
precisely because of its prototypes.240 Nev-
ertheless, the attribute of “Spanish” could
also refer to the origin of the precious hors-
es, whose stables were located under the hall.
The Prague example is not an isolated case
where precious horses and collections of art-
works were united in a unique representative
building. The general scheme of locating sta-
bles under representative halls is reminiscent
of the Alcázar of Toledo, built under Charles
V around 1537, and the Neugebäude, where
the two vaulted halls on the ground floor be-
low the central pavilion and the loggias, archi-
tecturally very similar to those in Prague, also
served as monumental stables.241
240 Petr Fidler argues that the term “Spanish” was
preferred to the term “French”, even though the ty-
pology of the space was rather French, because of a
political language regulation reflecting the Habsburg
hostility to any French cultural influence. There are a
few other examples of halls named “Spanish”, the
most famous undoubtedly being the Spanish Hall in
Ambras Castle, which has very similar dimensions to
the Spanish Hall in Prague (43 m long, 10 m wide, and
5 m high), and is decorated with grotesque ornaments
and a coffered ceiling. On the Ambras Spanish Hall
see ilg 1882; scheicher 1975, pp. 39–94. In Náchod
Castle, what is called the Spanish Hall was built in
1651–1652, and Fabián Václav Harovník and Giovanni
Vanetti decorated the ceiling with frescoes. In 1745,
the castle was damaged and subsequently renovated.
The Spanish Hall was also newly decorated. The Span-
ish Hall of the Vienna Hofburg was on the top floor of
the Leopoldinian Tract, most probably in its eastern
part. Neither the plan layout of the hall nor its wall
decoration has survived. All these Spanish Halls have
similar features, and consist of a high and elongated
room illuminated by a row of windows opening on one
side. What is generally a common feature in halls
named “Spanish” is the row of ox-eye windows. This
may be linked to Spanish architecture and in particu-
lar to the Alhambra Palace of Emperor Charles V
in Granada, which also has an elongated hall with ox-
eye windows. Nevertheless, this is not the case for the
Spanish Hall at Prague Castle. fidler 1989, pp. 157–
173; polleross 1998, pp. 106–107.
241 lietzmann 1987, pp. 43–47; lippmann 2006/2007,
pp. 143–168. Stables beneath representative halls are
| 224 |
The first mention of the furnishing of the
gallery dates from 24 December 1601, when
Manzuolo relates that the roof over the hall
collapsed, damaging several paintings.242 Ac-
cording to the inventory of 1621, only paintings
from the Rudolfine collections were exhibited
in the Spanish Hall. They were displayed on
the walls in three rows – on the ground, on a
bench, and on the cornice – and they also hung
in the space between the windows. In accor-
dance with the furnishing of the majority of
representative halls and galleries, a series of
portraits of Roman emperors was exhibited
in the Spanish Hall. The 1619, 1621, and 1648
inventories list twenty-four paintings, twelve
emperors and twelve empresses, displayed
on the floor between the windows: “Auf der
erden und an der mauer bei den fenstern: Die
zwölf haidnische kaiser sambt ihren weibern.
Item biss die zwelf haidnischen kaiser mit deren
kaiserin, jedes absonderlich konterfeht.”243 The
portraits were copies based on Titian’s cycle of
the emperors, painted between 1536 and 1540
for Duke Federico II Gonzaga, located in the
wall panels in the upper part of the Gabinet-
to or Camerino dei Cesari in the Appartamento
di Troia in the Ducal Palace in Mantua.244 The
portraits of the Empresses by Teodoro Ghisi
were completed in 1586 and 1587 for the Duke
Guglielmo Gonzaga, and were exhibited in the
Camera delle Imperatrici in the same palace.245
The Spanish Hall was open to important
visitors and ambassadors, who were shown
Rudolf’s collection before leaving the impe-
also to be found in the Alcázar in Madrid, in the
Stallburg in Vienna, and in the Münzhof in Munich.
polleross 1998, p. 107.
242 venturi 1885, p. 9.
243 zimmermann 1905, p. XLVII.
244 The twelfth Emperor, Domitian, was added by
Bernardino Campi in 1561.
245 zimmer 2010, pp. 7–47.
rial court as a sign of his benevolence, as re-
ferred to in one of the letters of the Savoyard
emissary Manfredi di Luserna: “avendo proc-
urator vedere le gallerie et sala dove sono le pit-
ture cosa che sogliono li ambasciatori ricevere
quando pensano partissi da qusta Corte (having
seen the galleries and the hall where the paint-
ings are, something that the ambassadors are
used to receiving once they think of leaving this
court)”.246 Manfredi was shown both the Span-
ish Hall and the gallery: “Al primo febbraio 1605
l’Ansconac pittore venne da parte di S. M. A dirmi
che il giorno seguente mi trovassi al salone a ore
10 e Ľ che voleva io vedessi la sala, e la Galleria
dove sono le pitture (On 1 February 1605, the
painter Hans von Aachen came on behalf of the
emperor to tell me that on the following day I was
to be in the hall at 10 a.m. and that he wanted
me to see the hall, the gallery where the paint-
ings are)”.247 Within these circumstances, the
hall and the gallery shared the same function.
Conclusion
As seen before, Peter Wok of Rosenberg, with
the construction of a corridor-like gallery for
paintings in the Třeboň Chateau, could per-
haps be considered one of the very first noble-
men to have emulated the example of Rudolf II.
Others would follow who would integrate the
gallery, an architectural form already widely
established in other cultural areas of Western
Europe, into their dwellings. Albrecht Wen-
zel Eusebius of Waldstein (1583–1634) was ex-
tremely receptive to the Italian models, and in
establishing his palace in Prague, following on
from the legacy of Rudolf II, he ensured that
the Audience Hall was connected with the
246 promis 1877, p. 611.
247 promis 1877, p. 583.
| 225 |
private apartment through a gallery, called
the Mythological Corridor.248 The first room
of the private apartment, which Waldstein en-
tered from the gallery, was his studiolo, behind
which his bedroom was situated. According to
the Earl of Arundel, who visited the palace in
1636, the corridor gallery was “adorned by pic-
tures, with paintings on the walls depicting sto-
ries of Hercules, and on the ceiling various tales
from Ovid”.249 The setting-up of the Waldstein
gallery was very reminiscent of the gallery in
the Capodiferro Spada Palace in Rome, one of
the first galleries in Italy, also characterised by
the combination of stuccos and paintings.250
Following the Battle of White Mountain,
the majority of the Bohemian and Moravian
cultured noblemen would strive to have richly
decorated galleries, aware of the representa-
tive function they had acquired.251 This is the
beginning of a new season of art collecting in
the Lands of the Bohemian Crown.252 Thus
this is not the end of the chapter, but rather,
on the contrary, a starting point of the devel-
opment of the gallery in becoming the picture
gallery during the first decades of the 1600s.
| Alice Fornasiero |
248 muchka – křížová 1996, pp. 54–65; uličný
2017b, pp. 55–177.
249 springell 1963, p. 73. The 1634 inventory was
published in schebek 1881, pp. 587–608; fidler 2002,
pp. 159–168; muchka – křížová 1996, pp. 23–28, 91.
250 On the gallery in the Capodiferro Spada Palace
see p. 174 in this book.
251 On the function of the collection as a form of
self-representation see in particular: fornasiero
2015, pp. 145–150.
252 On the topic see in particular the studies
slavíček 1993; slavíček 2008.
Bibliography
A barbeito 1992 | José Manuel Barbeito, El Alcázar de
adams 2001 | Alison Adams, Reading Georgette de
Montenay, in: David Graham (ed.), An Interregnum of
the Sign: The Emblematic Age in France, Glasgow 2001,
pp. 17–28.
adorni – tafuri 1986 | Bruno Adorni – Manfredo
Tafuri, Il chiostro del convento di Sant’Abondio a
Cremona. Un’interpretazione eccentrica del modello
besco del Belvedere, Arte Lombarda N.S. LXXIX (IV),
1986, pp. 85–98.
ajmar-wollheim – denis 2006 | Marta Ajmar-
Wollheim – Flora Denis (edd.), At Home in Renaissance
Italy, London 2006.
ajmar-wollheim – denis 2007 | Marta Ajmar-
Wollheim – Flora Dennis – Ann Matchette (edd.),
Approaching the Italian Renaissance Interior. Sources,
Methodologies, Debates, Oxford 2007.
alberti 1912 | Leon Battista Alberti, De re
aedificatoria, Max Theuer (ed.), Vienna – Leipzig 1912.
albrecht 1986 | Uwe Albrecht, Von der Burg
zum Schloss: Franzözische Schloßbaukunst im
Spätmittelalter, Worms 1986.
allegri – cecchi 1980 | Ettore Allegri – Alessandro
Cecchi, Palazzo Vecchio e i Medici: guida storica,
Florence 1980.
angelini 2003 | Annarita Angelini, Simboli e
questioni: l’eterodossia culturale di Achille Bocchi e
dell’Hermathena, Bologna 2003.
B CCLXXII, 2001, pp. 327–351.
baldwin smith 1965 | Earl Baldwin Smith,
Architectural Symbolism in Imperial Rome and the
Middle Ages, Princeton 1956.
balsiger 1970 | Barbara J. Balsiger, The Kunst- und
Wunderkammern: A Catalogue Raisonné of Collecting
in Germany, France and England (Dissertation),
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh 1970.
| 226 |
Madrid, Madrid 1992.
barocchi 1950 | Paola Barocchi, Il Rosso Fiorentino,
Rome 1950.
bartlová 2009 | Milena Bartlová, The Choir
Triforium of the Prague Cathedral Revisited: The
Inscriptions and Beyond, in: Zoe Opacic (ed.), Prague
and Bohemia: Medieval Art, Architecture and Cultural
Exchange in Central Europe, Leeds 2009, pp. 81–100.
bauer – haupt 1976 | Rotraud Bauer – Herbert
Haupt, Das Kunstkammerinventar Kaiser Rudolfs II.
1607–1611, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen
in Wien LXXII, 1976, pp. 11–191.
baum 1882 | Antonín Baum, Smlouva král. zem.
Komory se štukatérem Daviden Hagenmüllerem
z roku 1698, Zprávy spolku inženýrů a architektů
v království českém XVII, no. 1, 1882, p. 36.
baxandall 1963 | Michael Baxandall, A Dialogue
on Art from the Court of Leonello d’Este. Angelo
Decembrio’s De politia litteraria pars LXVII, Journal of
the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes XXVI, 1963,
pp. 304–326.
béguin 1972 | Sylvie Béguin et al., La Galerie Francois
Ier au Chateau de Fontainebleau, Revue de l’Art XVI–
XVII, 1972, pp. 102–105.
bergerhausen 2001 | Hans-Wolfgang
Bergerhausen, Die “Verneuerte Landesordnung”
in Böhmen 1627. Ein Grunddokument des
habsburgischen Absolutismus, Historische Zeitschrift
biografia 1828 | Biografia universale antica e moderna
ossia Storia per alfabeto della vita pubblica e privata di
tutte le persone che si distinsero per opere, azioni, talenti,
virtù e delitti. Opera affatto nuova compilata in Francia
da una società di dotti ed ora per la prima volta recata in
italiano con aggiunte e correzioni, Venice 1828.
bistřický 1980 | Jan Bistřický, K otázce knihovny
Augustina Olomouckého, in: Historická Olomouc a její
současné problémy III, Olomouc 1980, pp. 12–14.
bláha – čech – krhánková et al. 2007 | Jiří Bláha
– Jiří Čech – Kateřina Krhánková et al., Restaurátorská
zpráva a dokumentace. Restaurování nástěnných maleb
a štukové výzdoby v tzv. Zlatém pokoji (dříve pracovna
Viléma z Rožmberka), České Budějovice 2007.
bláhová 1998 | Marie Bláhová, Panovnické genealogie
a jejich politická funkce ve středověku, Sborník
archivních prací XLVIII, 1998, pp. 11–47.
blondé – de laet 2006 | Bruno Blondé – Veerle De
Laet, Owning Paintings and Changes in Consumer
Preferences in the Low Countries, Seventeenth-
Eighteenth Centuries, in: N. de Marchi – H. J. van
Miegroet (edd.), Mapping Markets for Paintings in Europe,
1450–1750, Turnhout 2006, pp. 69–86.
blunt 1959 | Anthony Blunt, Illusionistic Decoration
in Central Italian Painting of the Renaissance, Journal of
the Royal Society of Art CVII, 1959, pp. 309–326.
bober – rubinstein 2010 | P. P. Bober – R. O.
Rubinstein, Renaissance Artists and Antique Sculpture:
A Handbook of Sources, London 2010.
boccardo – colomer – di fabio 2004 | Piero
Boccardo – José Luis Colomer – Clario di Fabio (edd.), In
España y Génova. Obras, artistas y coleccionistas, Madrid
2004.
böhmer 1870 | Johann Friedrich Böhmer (ed.), Acta
imperii selecta. Urkunden deutscher Könige und Kaiser mit
einem Anhange von Reichssachen II, Innsbruck 1870.
boström 1987 | Hans Olof Boström, The Studiolo.
Background and Tradition, Nationalmuseum bulletin XI,
no. 2, 1987, pp. 53–68.
bottineau-fuchs 1956 | Yves Bottineau-Fuchs,
L’Alcázar de Madrid et l’inventaire de 1686: aspects de la
cour d’Espagne au XVIIe siècle, Bière 1956.
boubín 2015 | Jaroslav Boubín (ed.), Hledání nové
Evropy. Projekt krále Jiřího, Prague 2015.
bouza álvarez 1994 | Fernando Bouza Álvarez, La
majestad de Felipe II. Construcción del mito real, in:
J. Martínez Millán (ed.), La corte de Felipe II, Madrid
1994, pp. 37–72.
| 227 |
březan 1880 | Václav Březan, Životy posledních
Rožmberků, ed. František Mareš, Prague 1880.
březan 1985 | Václav Březan, Životy posledních
Rožmberků II., ed. Jaroslav Pánek, Prague 1985.
braun 1923 | Edmund Wilhelm Braun, Die
Silberkammer eines Reichsfürsten: (das Lobkowitz’sche
Inventar), Leipzig 1923.
bravermanová – brichtová – bukovinská 2017 |
Milena Bravermanová – Dobromila Brichtová – Beket
Bukovinská et al., Podoby a příběhy: portréty renesanční
šlechty, (exh. cat.), Sternberg palace in Prague, Prague
2017–2018.
brown – lorenzoni 1977 | Clifford Malcolm Brown
– Anna Maria Lorenzoni, The Grotta of Isabella d‘Este,
Gazette des Beaux-Arts LXXXIX, 1977, pp. 155–171.
brown 2005 | Clifford Malcolm Brown, Isabella
d’Este in the Ducal Palace in Mantua: An Overview of
Her Rooms in the Castello di San Giorgio and the Corte
Vecchia, Rome 2005.
brunner 1998 | Monika Brunner, Prag und Rom um
1600: Ein Beitrag zur Architektur der rudolfinischen
Residenz, in: Lubomír Konec n ̆ ý – Beket Bukovinská –
Ivan P. Muchka (edd.), Rudolf II, Prague and the World,
Prague 1998, pp. 24–30.
brykowska 1998 | Maria Brykowska, The
Architecture of the Prague Castle in the Light of
the Plan in the Uffizzi, in: Lubomír Konec n ̆ ý – Beket
Bukovinská – Ivan P. Muchka (edd.), Rudolf II, Prague
and the World, Prague 1998, pp. 220–225.
bubryák 2018 | Orsolya Bubryák, Collecting Clues.
In Search of an Art Collector in Seventeenth-Century
Vienna, Budapest 2018.
büchel 1925 | Johannes Baptista Büchel, Karl von
Liechtenstein, Jahrbuch des Historischen Vereins für
das Fürstentum Liechtenstein XXV, Vaduz 1925,
pp. 76–81.
buchner 1953 | Ernst Buchner, Das deutsche Bildnis
der Spätgotik und der frühen Dürerzeit, Berlin 1953.
budde 1996 | Hendrik Budde, Die Kunstsammlung des
Nürnberger Patriziers Willibald Imhoff unter besonderer
Berücksichtigung der Werke Albrecht Dürer, Münster
1996.
bukovinská 1997 | Beket Bukovinská, Kunstkomora
Rudolfa II., kde byla a jak vypadala?, in: Eliška
Fučíková et al., Rudolf II. a Praha: císařský dvůr a
rezidenční město jako kulturní a duchovní centrum
střední Evropy, Prague – London – Milan, 1997,
pp. 199–208.
bukovinská 2003 | Beket Bukovinská, Hertzich
van Bein, Anmahnung an einen kaiserlichen
Hofgoldschmied, Studia Rudolphina III, 2003,
pp. 42–44.
bukovinská 2007 | Beket Bukovinská,
Die Kunstkammer Rudolfs II.: Umriss der
Forschungsgeschichte und Bibliographie, Studia
Rudolphina VII, 2007, pp. 143–167.
bukovinská 2009 | Beket Bukovinská, Ein Inventar,
mehr als ein Inventar – eine Kunstkammer, mehr als
eine Kunstkammer, in: Beket Bukovinská – Lubomír
Konečný (edd.), München – Prag um 1600, Prague
2009, pp. 165–177.
bulst 1970 | Wolfger A. Bulst, Die ursprüngliche
innere Aufteilung des Palazzo Medici in Florenz,
Mitteilungen des kunsthistorischen Institutes in Florenz
XIV, no. 4, 1970, pp. 369–392.
burstow 2017 | Stephen Burstow, This Face, Here,
Now: Moving Image Portraiture, Journal of Asia-Pacific
Pop Culture II, no. 1, 2017, pp. 73–92.
von busch 1973 | Renate von Busch, Studien zu
deutschen Antikesammlungen des 16. Jahrhunderts,
(Dissertation) University Tübingen, Tübingen 1973.
büttner 1972 | Frank Büttner (Review), Wolfram
Prinz, Die Entwicklung der Galerie in Frankreich und
Italien, Architectura II, 1972, pp. 75–80.
buzási 2014 | Enikő Buzási, Porträts, Maler, Mäzene.
Zur Geschichte des Porträts im 16.–17. Jahrhundert
im Königreich Ungarn, Acta Historiae Artium LV, 2014,
pp. 23–104.
bůžek – bůžková 1994 | Václav Bůžek – H.
Bůžková, Klenoty v renesančních a manýristických
domácnostech na jihu Čech, Jihočeský sborník
historický LXIII, 1994, pp. 23–43.
bůžek – jakubec 2012 | Václav Bůžek – Ondřej
Jakubec, Kratochvíle posledních Rožmberků, Prague
2012.
| 228 |
bůžek 2017 | Václav Bůžek, Paměť v heraldické
výzdobě předmětů hmotné kultury šlechtických sídel
16. a 17. století, in: Václav Bůžek – Pavel Král (edd.),
Paměť urozenosti, Prague 2017, pp. 37–57.
C
chatenay 1957 | Léopold Chatenay (ed.), Vie de Jacques
Esprinchard Rochelais en Journal de ses voyages au XVIe
siècle, Paris 1957.
cajano – settimi 2015 | Elvira Cajano – Emanuela
Settimi (edd.), La galleria dei Carracci, Storia e Restauro,
Dijon 2015.
cambell 1990 | Lorne Cambell, Renaissance Portraits,
European Portrait-Painting in the 14th, 15th and 16th
Centuries, New Haven – London 1990.
casini 2009 | Tommaso Casini, Tra lessico pittorico e
iconografia: Annibal Caro e la fortuna della traduzione
dell’Eneide, in: Gianni Venturi – Francesca Cappelletti
(edd.), Gli dèi a corte – letteratura e immagini nella Ferrara
Estense: IX Settimana di Alti Studi Rinascimentali, Istituto
di Studi Rinascimentali, Florence 2009, pp. 115–134.
calzini 1908 | Egidio Calzini, L’Apollo e le Muse nello
Studiolo del Duce di Urbino, L’arte XI, 1908, p. 225.
caragol – moss – powell 2020 | Taína Caragol –
Dorothy Moss – Richard J. Powell – Kim Sajet, The
Obama Portraits, Washington DC 2020.
carnac temple 1925 | Richard Carnac Temple, The
Travels of Peter Mundy in Europe and Asia 1608–1667,
London 1925.
carrai 2003 | Guido Carrai, I fiorentini al castello. Il
progetto di Bernardo Buontalenti e Giovanni Gargiolli
per la nuova galleria di Rodolfo II, Umění LI, no. 5, 2003,
pp. 370–384.
cecchi – pacetti 2008 | Alessandro Cecchi – Paola
Pacetti (edd.), La Sala delle Carte geografiche in Palazzo
Vecchio:“capriccio et invenzione nata dal Duca Cosimo”,
Florence 2008.
ceri via 1986 | Claudia Ceri Via, L’antico fra mito e
allegoria. Il tema dell’amore nella cultura di immagini fra
‘400 e ‘500, Rome 1986.
ceri via 2003 | Claudia Cieri Via, L’arte delle
Metamorfosi: decorazioni mitologiche nel Cinquecento,
Rome 2003.
chadraba 1970 | Rudolf Chadraba, Die Gemma
Augustea und die rudolfinische Kunst, Umění III, 1970,
pp. 289–297.
checa 1994 | Fernando Checa (ed.), El Real Alcázar de
Madrid. Dos siglos de Arquitectura y coleccionismo en la
corte del los Reyes de España, Madrid 1994.
chleborád 1928 | Arnošt Chleborád, Popis okresu
bechyňského, Bechyně 1928.
chlíbec 2002 | Jan Chlíbec, Umělci a umělecká díla v
denících Kryštofa Popela z Lobkovic, Studia Rudolphina
II, 2002, pp. 40–44.
chlíbec 2008 | Jan Chlíbec, Medaillons with
the portraits of Ladislav of Boskovic and his wife
Magdaléna z Dubé a Lipého, in: Péter Farbaky – András
Végh (edd.), Matthias Corvinus, the King, Tradition
and Renewal in the Hungarian Royal Court 1458–1490,
Budapest 2008, pp. 463–464.
chotěbor 1991 | Petr Chotěbor, K architektonické
podobě českých tvrzí v období renesance a manýrismu,
Umění XXIX, 1991, pp. 101–113.
chueca goitia 1986 | Fernando Chueca Goitia, La
influencia de los Países Bajos en la arquitectura
española, in: Ruiz-Larrea Cangas César (ed.), El
Escorial: Juan de Herrera: la arquitectura del monasterio,
Madrid 1986, pp. 29–42.
clifton 2017 | James Clifton, “Verbum Domini manet
in eternum”. Devotional Cabinets and “Kunst- und
Wunderkammern” around 1600, in: Debra Taylor
Cashion – Henry Luttikhuizen – Ashley D. West (edd.),
The Primacy of the Image in Northern European Art, 1400–
1700, Leiden 2017.
cochrane – kirschner 1986 | E. Cochrane –
J. Kirschner (edd.), The Renaissance, Readings in Western
Civilization, Chicago 1986.
colapietra 1956 | Raffaele Colapietra, Il pensiero
estetico Galileiano, Belfagor XI, no. 5, 1956, pp. 557–569.
constans – da vinha 2010 | Claire Constans
– Mathieu da Vinha (edd.), Les grandes galeries
européennes XVIIe–XIXe siècles (Collection ‘Aulica’), Paris
2010.
conti 1893 | Cosimo Conti, La prima reggia di Cosimo I
de’ Medici nel palazzo già della Signoria di Firenze,
Florence 1893.
| 229 |
conticelli 2013 | Valentina Conticelli, Prima del
Ripa. Le grottesche del Corridoio di Levante della
Galleria degli Uffizi: una lettura iconografica, in: M.
Gabriele – C. Galassi – R. Guerrini (edd.), L’Iconologia di
Cesare Ripa: fonti letterarie e figurative dall’antichità al
Rinascimento. Atti del Convegno internazionale di studi,
Certosa di Pontignano, Florence 2013, pp. 29–48.
coope 1984 | Rosalys Coope, The Gallery in England:
Names and Meanings, Architectural History XXVII,
1984, pp. 446–455.
coope 1986 | Rosalys Coope, The ‘Long Gallery’:
Its Origins, Development, Use and Decoration,
Architectural History XXIX, 1986, pp. 43–84.
cordez 2015 | Philippe Cordez, Objets, images et
trésors d’église, in: Jérôme Baschet – Pierre-Olivier
Dittmar (edd.), Les images dans l‘Occident medieval
(L’atelier du médiéviste, XIV), 2015, pp. 121–130.
cornell 2015 | Lauren Cornell, Self-Portraiture in
the First-Person Age, Aperture CCXXI, 2015, pp. 34–41.
cottafavi – giannantoni 1934 | Clinio Cottafavi
– Nino Giannantoni, Galleria della mostra nel Palazzo
ducale di Mantova: relazione del restauro e della
ricostruzione con una nota storico-artistica, Mantua
1934.
cottafavi 1939 | Clinio Cottafavi, Ricerche e
documenti sulla costruzione dal secolo XIII al secolo XIX,
Mantua 1939.
courtright 2003 | Nicola Courtright, The Papacy and
the Art of Reform in Sixteenth-Century Rome: Gregory
XIII’s Tower of the Winds in the Vatican, Cambridge –
New York 2003.
crossley 2009 | Paul Crossley, Our Lady in
Nuremberg, All Saints Chapel in Prague, and the High
Choir of Prague Cathedral, in: Zoe Opacic (ed.), Prague
and Bohemia. Medieval Art, Architecture and Cultural
Exchange in Central Europe, Leeds 2009, pp. 64–80.
D
dan 1990 | Pierre Dan, Fontainebleau, le trésor des
merveilles de la maison royale, Paris 1990.
danesi squarzina 1989 | Silvia Danesi Squarzina, La
casa dei Cavalieri di Rodi: architettura e decorazione, in:
Silvia Danesi Squarzina (ed.), Roma, centro ideale della
cultura dell’Antico nei secoli XV e XVI. Da Martino V al Sacco
di Roma 1417–1527 (Atti del convegno internazionale,
Roma, 25–30 novembre 1985), Milan 1989, pp. 102–142.
dengler 1992 | Frank Dengler, Karlstein und
Vincennes – zwei spätmittelalterliche Burgen als
Herrschaftssymbole im Vergleich, in: Hartmut
Hofrichter (ed.), Die Burg – ein kulturgeschichtlichen
Phänomen, Stuttgart 1992.
díaz 1998 | Pablo Jiménez Díaz, Spain, Prague and
the Habsburg Ideology, in: Rudolf II. Prague and the
World (Proceedings from the International Conference
Prague, 24 September 1997), Prague 1998, pp. 11–15.
díaz 2001 | Pablo Jiménez Díaz, El coleccionismo
manierista de los Austrias. Entre Felipe II y Rodolfo II,
Madrid 2001.
dienstbier 2019 | Jan Dienstbier, Zelené světnice a
malba v profánních prostorech na konci středověku,
(Dissertation), Charles University, Prague 2019.
diez 1909–1910 | Ernst Diez, Der Hofmaler
Bartholomäus Spranger, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen
Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses XXVIII,
1909–1910, pp. 93–15.
dischinger 1988 | Gabriele Dischinger, Ein
Augsburger Plan für das Münchner Antiquarium,
Oberbayerisches Archiv CXII, 1988, pp. 81–86.
dobalová 2009a | Sylva Dobalová, Zahrady Rudolfa II.,
jejich vznik a vývoj, Prague 2009.
dobalová 2009b | Sylva Dobalová, Quellen und neue
Überlegungen zur Kaisermühle, ihrer Grotte und dem
nicht ausgeführten Schloss, Studia Rudolphina IX,
2009, pp. 53–69.
doering 1901 | Oskar Doering, Des Augsburger
Patriciers Philipp Hainhofer Reisen nach Innsbruck
und Dresden, (Quellenschriften für Kunstgeschichte und
Kunsttechnik des Mittelalters und der Renaissance X),
1901.
donato 1985 | Maria Monica Donato, Gli eroi romani
tra storia ed “exemplum”. I primi cicli umanistici di
uomini famosi, in: Salvatore Settis (ed.), Memoria
dell’antico nell’arte italiana, vol. II, Torino 1985,
pp. 97–154.
| 230 |
dondi 1587 | Niccolò de’ Dondi, Estratti del ‘Diario
delle cose avvenute in Sabbioneta dal MDLXXX al
MDC’, in: Joseph Müller (ed.), Raccolta di cronisti e
documenti storici lombardi inediti, Milan 1587.
dudáček 1985 | Karel Dudáček, Vznik a vývoj
rožmberské knihovny od jejího začátku až do poloviny
17. století, (Master Thesis), Faculty of Arts Charles
University, Prague 1985.
dvořáková 1964 | Vlasta Dvořáková, The Ideological
Design of Karlštejn Castle and its Pictorial Decoration,
in: Vlasta Dvořáková – Josef Krása – Anežka
Merhautová et al., Gothic Mural Painting in Bohemia and
Moravia 1300–1378, London 1964, pp. 51–65.
dvořáková – menclová 1965 | Vlasta Dvořáková –
Dobroslava Menclová, Karlštejn, Prague 1965.
dvorský 1904 | František Dvorský (ed.), Dopisy Karla st.
ze Žerotína 1591–1610, Prague 1904.
duverger 1972 | Erik Duverger, Le Commerce d’art
entre la Flandre et l’Europe Centrale au XVIIe siècle:
Notes et Remarques, in: Actes du XXIIème Congres
Internationale d’Historie de l’Art, Budapest 1972,
pp. 157–181.
dudík 1867 | Beda Dudík, Die Rudolphinische Kunst-
und Raritätenkammer in Prag, Mitteilungen der k. k.
Central Commission zur Erforschung und Erhaltung der
Baudenkmale XII, 1867, pp. 33–44.
dülberg 1990 | Angelica Dülberg, Privatporträts.
Geschichte und Ikonologie einer Gattung im 15. und 16.
Jahrhundert, Berlin 1990.
E
eamon 2016 | William Eamon, The Scientific
Education of a Renaissance Prince: Archduke Rudolf
at the Spanish Court, in: Ivo Purš–Vladimír Karpenko
(edd.), Alchemy and Rudolf II: Exploring the Secrets of
Nature in Central Europe in the 16th and 17th Centuries,
Prague 2016, pp. 129–138.
elsner 1997 | Jas Elsner, Replicating Palestine and
Reversing the Reformation, Journal of the History of
Collections IX, no. 1, 1997, pp. 117–130.
F
fabiański 1990 | Marcin Fabiański, Federigo da
Montefeltro’s Studiolo in Gubbio Reconsidered.
Its Decoration and Its Iconographic Program: An
Interpretation, Artibus et Historiae XI, no. 21, 1990,
pp. 199–214.
fajt 1997 | Jiří Fajt, Magister Theodoricus: dvorní malíř
císaře Karla IV.: umělecká výzdoba posvátných prostor
hradu Karlštejna, (exh. cat.) National Gallery, Agnes
Cloister, Prague 1997.
fajt 1998 | Jiří Fajt (ed.), Magister Theodoricus, Court
Painter to Emperor Charles IV: the Pictorial Decoration
of the Shrines at Karlštejn Castle (exh. cat.), National
gallery, Agnes Cloister, Prague 1998.
fajt 2006 | Jiří Fajt (ed.), Karl IV.: Kaiser von Gottes
Gnaden: Kunst und Repräsentation des Hauses
Luxemburg 1310–1437, Munich 2006.
fajt 2009 | Jiří Fajt, Karlstein revisited: Überlegungen
zu den Patrozinien der Karlsteiner Sakralräume,
in: Jiří Fajt – Andrea Langer (edd.), Kunst als
Herrschaftsinstrument. Böhmen und das Heilige
Römische Reich unter den Luxemburgern im europäischen
Kontext, Berlin – Munich 2009, pp. 250–288.
fajt 2015 | Jiří Fajt, Der lange Schatten Kaiser Karls IV. Zur
Rezeption der luxemburgischen Herrschaftsrepräsentation
in den nordöstlichen Territorien des Heiligen Römischen
Reiches, Prague 2015.
falciani 2014 | Carlo Falciani, La galerie de François
Ier à Fontainebleau, in: Monica Bietti (ed.), Rosso
Fiorentino, (exh. cat.), Ambasciata d’Italia a Parigi 2014,
pp. 101–108.
faldi 1961 | Italo Faldi, Gli affreschi del Palazzo Farnese
di Caprarola, Milan 1962.
falke 1877 | Jacob von Falke, Geschichte des fürstlichen
Hauses von Liechtenstein 2, Vienna 1877.
fidler 1989 | Petr Fidler, Spanische Säle –
Architekturtypologie oder –semiotik? Spanien und
Österreich in der Renaissance, Innsbrucker Beiträge zur
Kulturwissenschaft LXVI, 1989, pp. 157–173.
fidler 2002 | Petr Fidler, Valdštejnský palác v rámci
evropské architektury, in: Mojmír Horyna et al.,
Valdštejnský palác v Praze, Prague 2002, pp. 159–168.
filson 2015 | Lily Filson, Rudolf II’s Grotto and
Francesco Medici’s Pratolino: New Observations,
Studia Rudolphina XV, 2015, pp. 135–146.
| 231 |
findlen 1989 | Paula Findlen, The Museum: Its
Classical Etymology and Renaissance Genealogy,
Journal of the History of Collections I, no. 1, 1989,
pp. 59–78.
findlen 1997 | Paula Findlen, Kabinety, sběratelství
a přírodní filozofie, in: Eliška Fučíková et al., Rudolf II.
a Praha: císařský dvůr a rezidenční město jako kulturní
a duchovní centrum střední Evropy, Prague – London –
Milan 1997, pp. 209–219.
fiorio 2011 | Maria Teresa Fiorio, Il museo nella storia:
dallo studiolo alla raccolta pubblica, Milan 2011.
floerke 1906 | Hanns Floerke (ed.), Das Leben der
niederländischen und deutschen Maler von Carel van
Mander, vol. II, Munich – Leipzig 1906.
formánek – parkán – svoboda et al. 1965 | Václav
Formánek – Jaroslav Parkán – Jiří Svoboda et al.,
Pražský hrad, Prague 1965.
fornasiero 2015 | Alice Fornasiero, The
Commission of Copies in the 17th-century Bohemian
Kingdom. Passion for Collecting or Necessity
of Self-Representation?, in: Magdalena Nová –
Marie Opatrná (edd.), See, Hear, Read, Understand.
Conference Proceedings of the International Conference
of Students in Doctoral Programmes, Charles University,
Prague 2015, pp. 145–150.
fornasiero 2019 | Alice Fornasiero, La stanza
affrescata da Bartholomeus Spranger nella
Torre Bianca al Castello di Praga: uno studiolo
dell’imperatore Rodolfo II, in: Carmelo Occhipinti
(ed.), Horti Hesperidum IX, no. 2, 2019, pp. 521–536.
fornasiero – zlatohlávková 2020 | Alice
Fornasiero – Eliška Zlatohlávková, The Studiolo of
Rudolf II at Prague Castle, Journal of the History of
Collections XXXII, no. 2, July 2020, pp. 239–244.
františek pražský 1997 | František Pražský,
Chronicon Francisci Pragensi, in: Jana Zachová (ed.),
Fontes rerum Bohemicarum. Series Nova tomus 1, 1997.
freddolini 2014 | Francesco Freddolini, The
Grand Dukes and Their Inventories: Administering
Possessions and Defining Value at the Medici Court,
Journal of Art Historiography XI, 2014, pp. 1–25.
frezza 1999 | Graziella Frezza, Il Palazzo Farnese di
Caprarola, Rome 1999.
friedl 1949 | Antonín Friedl, Mistr karlštejnské
apokalypsy, Prague 1949.
friedl 1956 | Antonín Friedl, Mikuláš Wurmser, mistr
královských portrétů na Karlštejně, Prague 1956.
friedländer 1889 | Ludwig Friedländer,
Darstellungen aus der Sittengeschichte Roms in der Zeit
von August bis zum Ausgang der Antonine, Leipzig 1889.
fromek – tiray 1905 | František Fromek – Jan Tiray,
Nově objevená sgrafita v zámku Telečském, Časopis
Matice moravské XXIX, 1905, pp. 49–57.
frommel 1973 | Christoph Luitpold Frommel, Der
römische Palastbau der Hochrenaissance. (Römische
Forschungen der Bibliotheca Hertziana XXI), Tübingen
1973.
frommel 2011 | Christoph Luitpold Frommel,
Gallerie e loggia: radici e interpretazione italiana
della „galerie“ francese, in: Christina Strunck –
Elisabeth Kieven (edd.), Europäische Galeriebauten.
Galleries in a Comparative European Perspective (1480–
1800), Munich 2011, pp. 89–104.
frosien-leinz 1980 | Heike Frosien-Leinz, Das
Antiquarium der Residenz: erstes Antikenmuseum
Münchens, Munich 1980.
fučíková 1980 | Eliška Fučíková, Několik poznámek
ke zlaté misce Augustina Olomouckého, in: Historická
Olomouc a její současné problémy III, 1980, pp. 26–31.
fučíková 1987 | Eliška Fučíková, The Collection of
Rudolf II at Prague: Cabinet of Curiosity or Scientific
Museum?, in: Oliver Impey – Arthur MacGregor (edd.),
The Origins of Museums, Oxford 1987, pp. 47–53.
fučíková – bukovinská – muchka 1988 | Eliška
Fučíková – Beket Bukovinská – Ivan Muchka, Die
Kunst am Hofe Rudolfs II., Hanau 1988.
fučíková 1988 | Eliška Fučíková, Zur Konzeption der
rudolfinischen Sammlungen, in: Eliška Fučíková (ed.),
Prag um 1600: Beiträge zur Kunst und Kultur am Hofe
Rudolfs II., Freren 1988.
fučíková 1989 | Eliška Fučíková, Tři francouzští
kavalíři v rudolfínské Praze: Pierre Bergeron, Jacques
Esprinchard, François de Bassompierre, Prague 1989.
| 232 |
fučíková 1989/1990 | Eliška Fučíková, Einige
Bemerkungen zur Wandmalerei am Hofe Rudolfs II.,
Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen sammlungen in Wien
LXXXV/LXXXVI, 1989/1990, pp. 41–45.
fučíková 1997 | Eliška Fučíková (ed.),
Rudolf II and Prague: The Imperial Court and Residential
City as the Cultural and Spiritual Heart of Central
Europe, Prague – London – Milan 1997.
fučíková 2003 | Eliška Fučíková, Císař Ferdinand I.
a arcivévoda Ferdinand II. — dva starostliví
stavebníci, in: Beket Bukovinská – Lubomír Konečný
(edd.), Ars Longa. Sborník k nedožitým sedmdesátinám
Josefa Krásy, Prague 2003, pp. 107–122.
fučíková 2011a | Eliška Fučíková, Rožmberská
kunstkomora, in: Jaroslav Pánek – Eliška Fučíková –
Martin Gaži et al., Rožmberkové: rod českých velmožů
a jeho cesta dějinami, (exh. cat.), National Gallery,
Waldstein Riding school, Prague 2011, pp. 614–615
fučíková 2011b | Eliška Fučíková, Rožmberské
kulturní prostředí v raném novověku, in: Jaroslav
Pánek et al., Rožmberkové: rod českých velmožů a jeho
cesta dějinami, České Budějovice 2011, pp. 338–334.
fučíková 2015 | Eliška Fučíková, Kaiser Ferdinand I.
und das Schicksal des Herrscherzyklus’ im Alten
Königspalast der Prager Burg, Historie — Otázky —
Problémy VII, no. 2, 2015, pp. 135–141.
fučíková 2017a | Eliška Fučíková, The Collection of
Rudolf II at Prague: Cabinet of Curiosities or Scientific
Museum?, in: Oliver Impey – Arthur MacGregor (edd.),
The Origins of Museums. The Cabinet of Curiosities in
Sixteenth- and Seventeenth Century Europe, Oxford
2017, pp. 47–53.
fučíková 2017b | Eliška Fučíková, Die Prager
Burg unter Erzherzog Ferdinand II.: Umbau und
künstlerische Gestaltung, in: Sabine Haag –Veronika
Sandbichler (edd.), Ferdinand II. 450 Jahre Tiroler
Landesfürst, Innsbruck 2017, pp. 47–53.
fučíková 2017c | Eliška Fučíková, Pražský hrad
a jeho výzdoba za arcivévody Ferdinanda II., in:
Blanka Kubíková – Jaroslava Hausenblasová – Sylva
Dobalová (edd.), Arcivévoda Ferdinand II. Habsburský.
Renesanční vladař a mecenáš. Mezi Prahou a
Innsbruckem, Prague 2017, pp. 36–43.
fusenig 2010 | Thomas Fusenig (ed.), Hans von
Aachen (1552–1615). Malíř na evropských dvorech, (exh.
cat.), Prague Castle, Prague 2010.
G gesche 1971 | Inge Gesche, Neuafstellung
galavics 1998 | Géza Galavics, Die frühen Porträts
der Familie Esterházy. Typen, Funktion, Bedeutung
– eine Auswahl (Ein Forschungsbericht), in: Rudolf
Kropf – Gerald Schlag (edd.), Adelige Hofhaltung im
österreichisch-ungarischen Grenzraum (von Ende des 16.
bis zum Anfang des 19. Jahrhunderts), Eisenstadt 1998,
pp. 105–124.
galilei 1793 | Galileo Galilei, Considerazioni al Tasso
di Galileo Galilei e discorso di Giuseppe Iseo sopra il
poema di M. Torquato Tasso: per dimostrazione di alcuni
loughi in diversi autori da lui felicemente emulati, Venice
1793.
garbero zorzi 1980 | Elvira Garbero Zorzi, Il
giardino recinto di Palazzo Medici, in: Franco Borsi
(ed.), Il potere e lo spazio, La scena del Principe, Florence
1980, pp. 309–319.
garcía-frías checa 2005 | Carmen García-Frías
Checa, Gaspar Becerra y las pinturas de la Torre de la
Reina del Palacio de El Pardo, una nueva lectura tras su
restauración, Madrid 2005.
gasbarri 2007 | Paolo Gasbarri, La Stanza
dell’Aurora nel Palazzo Farnese di Caprarola: un caso
di decorazione alchemico-ermetica, Biblioteca
e società LVI, 2007, pp. 43–50.
gastgeber 2015 | Christian Gastgeber, Augustinus
Moravus und seine Beziehung zum Wiener
Humanistenkreis, in: Péter Ekler Farkas – Gábor Kiss
(edd.), Augustinus Moravus Olomucensis. Proceedings of
the International Symposium to Mark 500th Anniversary
of the Death of Augustinus Moravus Olomucensis (1467–
1513), Budapest 2015, pp. 11–30.
gaži – pánek – pavelec 2011 | Martin Gaži – Jaroslav
Pánek – Petr Pavelec (edd.), Die Rosenberger: eine
mitteleuropäische Magnatenfamilie, České Budějovice
2011.
gerard 1984 | Véronique Gerard, De castillo a palacio:
el Alcázar de Madrid en el siglo XVI, Madrid 1984.
| 233 |
gerszi 1969 | Teréz Gerszi, Die Humanistischen
Allegorien der Rudolfinischen Meister, Actes du XXIIe
Congrès International de l’histoire de l’art I, Budapest
1969, pp. 755–762.
antiker Statuen und ihr Einfluss auf die römische
Renaissancearchitektur, (Dissertation), Johann
Wolfgang Goethe Universität, Frankfurt am Main
1971.
ghadessi fleming 2007 | Touba Ghadessi Fleming,
Identity and Physical Deformity in Italian Court Portraits
1550–1650, Dwarves, Hirsutes, Castrati, (Dissertation),
Northwestern University, Evanston 2007.
gianoncelli 1977 | Matteo Gianoncelli, L’antico
museo di Paolo Giovio in Borgovico, Como 1977.
giovio 1546 | Paolo Giovio, Elogia Doctorum Virorum,
Venice 1546.
giovio 1549 | Paolo Giovio, Vitae virorum illustrium,
Florence, Officina Laurentii Torrentini 1549.
giovio 1554 | Paolo Giovio, Elogia virorum bellica
virtute illustrium veris imaginibus supposita, Florence,
Officina Laurentii Torrentini 1554
giovio 1935 | Paolo Giovio, An Italian Portrait Gallery,
Boston 1935.
ginzburg 2008 | Silvia Ginzburg, La Galleria Farnese,
Milan 2008.
gnoni mavarelli 2012 | Cristina Gnoni Mavarelli,
La decorazione pittorica delle stanze a pianterreno:
suggestioni e modelli, in: Jerome Hayez – Diana
Toccafondi (edd.), Palazzo Datini a Prato. Una casa
fatta per durare mille anni, Florence 2012, pp. 141–144.
le goff 2005 | Jacques le Goff, Kultura středověké
Evropy, Prague 2005.
götz 1980 | Wolfgang Götz, Beobachtungen zu den
Anfängen der Galerie in Deutschland, in: Klaus Ertz
– Wilhelm Messerer (edd.), Festschrift für Wilhelm
Messerer zum 60. Geburtstag, Cologne 1980, pp. 273–
295.
gouwens 2013 | Kenneth Gouwens, Notable Men and
Women of Our Time, Cambridge 2013.
gracová 2012 | Božena Gracová, Das
Bild der Liechtenstein in tschechischen
Geschichtslehrbüchern, in: Liechtensteinisch-
Tschechische Historikerkommision (ed.),
Liechtensteinische Erinnerungsorte in den böhmischen
Ländern, Vaduz 2012, pp. 183–194.
gross 1930 | Hynek Gross, Inventář zámku v Českém
Krumlově, sepsaný r. 1600 Václavem Březanem,
Ročenka Vlastivědné společnosti jihočeské v Českých
Budějovicích 1929, České Budějovice 1930, pp. 16–26.
grote 1994 | Andreas Grote (ed.), Macrocosmos in
Microcosmo: Die Welt in der Stube. Zur Geschichte des
Sammelns 1450–1800, Opladen 1994.
guidobaldi 1992 | Nicoletta Guidobaldi, Il ritorno
delle Muse nel Quattrocento, Newsletter of the
Reasearch Center for Music Iconography XVII, no. 1,
1992, pp. 15–24.
guiffres 1894–1896 | Jules Guiffrey, Inventaires de
Jean duc de Berry: (1401–1416), Paris 1894/1896.
guillaume 1994 | Jean Guillaume, La gallerie dans le
château français: place et fonction, Revue de l’art CII,
1994, pp. 32–42.
H Zeit, Munich 2007.
haag 2018 | Sabine Haag (ed.), Frauen – Kunst und
Macht: Drei Frauen aus dem Hause Habsburg, Vienna
2018.
häberlein 2012 | Mark Häberlein, The Fuggers of
Augsburg: Pursuing Wealth and Honor in Renaissance
Germany, Virginia 2012.
von hagen – pursche – wendler 2013 | Bernt von
Hagen – Jürgen Pursche – Eberhard Wendler, Die
“Badstuben” im Fuggerhaus zu Augsburg, Munich 2013.
hájek z libočan 1541 | Václav Hájek z Libočan,
O nesstiastnee przihodie která gse stala skrze ohen
w Menssim Miestie Pražském, a na Hradie Swatého
Waclawa, y na Hradcžanech etc. Leta M.D.xxxj, Prague
1541.
hajná – havlová – troup et al. 2015 | Milena
Hajná – Mája Havlová – Vojtěch Troup et al., Zámek
Kratochvíle. Renesanční letohrádek a historie jeho
památkové obnovy, České Budějovice 2015.
| 234 |
halászová 2016 | Ingrid Halászová (ed.), Die
Noblesse im Bild. Die adeligen Porträtgalerien in
der Frühen Neuzeit in den Ländern der ehemaligen
Habsburgermonarchie, Bratislava – Frankfurt am Main
– Bern –Vienna 2016.
hartig 1917 | Otto Hartig, Die Gründung der Münchner
Hofbibliothek durch Albrecht V. und J. J. Fugger, Munich
1917.
haszler 1861 | Konrad Dieterich Haszler, Reisen und
Gefangenschaft Hans Ulrich Kraffts, Stuttgart 1861.
haupt 1983 | Herbert Haupt, Fürst Karl I. von
Liechtenstein, Obersthofmeister Kaiser Rudolfs II. und
Vizekönig von Böhmen. Hofstaat und Sammeltätigkeit.
1: Textband, 2: Quellenband, Vienna – Cologne – Graz –
Böhlau 1983.
haupt 1985 | Herbert Haupt, “Alß welcher ein sonder
lust zu künstlichen sachen gehabt”, The Swissair
Gazette X, 1985, pp. 14–18.
haupt 1998 | Herbert Haupt, Von der Leidenschaft
zum Schönen. Fürst Karl Eusebius von Liechtenstein
(1611–1684), Vienna – Cologne – Weimar 1998.
haupt 2007 | Herbert Haupt, Fürst Karl Eusebius von
Liechtenstein 1611–1684. Erbe und Bewahrer in schwerer
haupt 2012 | Herbert Haupt, “Ein liebhaber der
gemähl und virtuosen... ” Fürst Johann Adam I. Andreas
von Liechtenstein (1657–1712), Vienna – Cologne –
Weimar 2012.
haupt 2014 | Herbert Haupt, Die Kunst im Dienste
der Repräsentation. Die Fürsten von Liechtenstein
als Auftrageber und Sammler im Zeitlater des
Barocks, in: Liechtensteinisch-Tschechische
Historikerkommision (ed.), Die Liechtenstein und die
Kunst III, Vaduz 2014, pp. 13–30.
hauttmann 1921 | Max Hauttmann, Dürer und der
Augsburger antiken Besitz, Jahrbuch der Preussischen
Kunstsammlungen XLII, 1921, pp. 34–50.
hečková – tišlová – waisser et al. 2020 | Petra
Hečková – Renata Tišlová – Pavel Waisser et al.,
Renesanční štuková díla zámku v Telči v kontextu dějin
umění, technologie a restaurování, Pardubice 2020.
heinz 1963 | Günther Heinz, Studien zur
Porträtmalerei an den Höfen der österreichischen
Erblande, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen
in Wien LIX, 1963, pp. 99–224.
heinz – schütz 1976 | Günther Heinz – Karl Schütz
(edd.): Porträtgalerie zur Geschichte Österreichs von
1400 bis 1800, Vienna 1976.
hejna – benešovská – plátková 1981 | Antonín
Hejna – Klára Benešovská – Zuzana Plátková, Kostel
sv. Víta v Zahrádce u Ledče, Umění XXIX, no. 5, 1981,
pp. 399–417.
hejzlar 1961 | Gabriel Hejzlar, Dvě antiky z
Rudolfových sbírek, in: Sborník prací Filozofické Fakulty
Brněnské Univerzity: F, Řada uměnovědná V, 1961,
pp. 113–134.
helfenstein 2013a | Eva Helfenstein, Lorenzo de’
Medici’s Magnificent Cups: Precious Vessels as Status
Symbols in Fifteenth-century Europe, I Tatti XVI,
2013, pp. 415–444.
helfenstein 2013b | Eva Helfenstein, The
Burgundian Court Goblet: On the Function and
Status of Precious Vessels at the Court of Burgundy,
T. H. Borchert – W. Blockmans – N. Gabriëls et
al. (edd.), Staging the Court of Burgundy, Studies in
Medieval and Early Renaissance Art History LXIX,
London 2013, pp. 159–166.
henslová 2011 | Barbora Henslová, Renesanční
malířská výzdoba Lobkovického (nynějšího
Schwarzenberského) paláce v Praze, (The Bachelor
Thesis), Charles University, Prague 2011.
henwood 1980 | Philippe Henwood, Administration
et vie des collections d’orfèvrerie royales sous le
regne de Charles VI (1380–1422), Bibliotheque de
l’Ecole des Chartes CXXXVIII, 1980, pp. 179–215.
henwood 2004 | Philippe Henwood, Les collections
du trésor royal sous le regne de Charles VI (1380–1422):
l’ inventaire de 1400, Paris 2004.
heres 2005–2006 | Gerald Heres, Die kurfürstlichen
Sammlungen in Renaissance in Frühbarock, in:
Karlheinz Blaschke (ed.), Geschichte der Stadt Dresden I,
Stuttgart 2005–2006, pp. 562–569.
| 235 |
hinkson 2016 | Melinda Hinkson (ed.), Imaging
Identity: Media, Memory and Portraiture in the Digital
Age, Canberra 2016.
hinterdorfer 1990 | Robert Hinterndorfer,
Calaminus’ “Rudolphis” und Reichard Streins
Freidegg, Jahrbuch für Landeskunde von Niederösterreich
LVIII–LIX, 1990, pp. 1–69.
hinterdorfer 1995 | Robert Hinterndorfer, Georg
Calaminus, (Dissertation), Universität Wien, Vienna
1995.
hlaváček 1966 | Ivan Hlaváček, Středověké soupisy
knih a knihoven v českých zemích. Příspěvek ke kulturním
dějinám českým, Prague 1966.
hlaváček 1984 | Ivan Hlaváček, Znakové galerie jako
heraldické kategorie, in: Sborník příspěvků z II. setkání
genealogů a heraldiků, Ostrava 1984, pp. 27–28.
hlaváčková 2006 | Hana Hlaváčková, Idea dobrého
panovníka ve výzdobě Karlštejna, Průzkumy památek
XIII, 2006, pp. 9–18.
hledíková 1991 | Zdeňka Hledíková, Biskup Jan IV.
z Dražic (1301–1343), Prague 1991.
hlobil – petrů 1999 | Ivo Hlobil – Eduard Petrů,
Humanism and the Early Renaissance in Moravia,
Olomouc 1999.
hoberg 1944 | Hermann Hoberg (ed.), Die Inventare
des päpstlichen Schatzes in Avignon 1314–1376, Biblioteca
apostolica vaticana, 1944.
hochamnn 1999 | Michel Hochmann (ed.), Villa
Medici: il sogno di un cardinale: collezioni e artisti di
Ferdinando de‘ Medici, (exh. cat.), La Villa Médicis.
Accademia di Francia a Roma, Rome 1999–2000.
von den hoff – schreurs-morét – posselt-kuhli
et al. 2019 | Ralf von den Hoff –Anna Schreurs-Morét
– Christina Posselt-Kuhli et al., Imitatio heroica. On
the Impact of a Cultural Phenomenon, Helden. Heroes.
Héros. E-Journal zu Kulturen des Heroischen V, 2019,
pp. 79–95.
hoffmann 1971 | Volker Hoffmann (review), Wolfram
Prinz, Die Entwicklung der Galerie in Frankreich und
Italien, Architectura I, 1971, pp. 102–112.
hohti 2010 | Paula Hohti, Domestic Space and Identity:
Artisans, Shopkeepers and Traders in Sixteenth-century
Siena, Urban History XXXVII, no. 3, 2010, pp. 372–385.
holladay 2019 | John A. Holladay, Genealogy and the
Politics of Representation in the High and Late Middle Ages,
Cambridge 2019.
homolka 1978 | Jaromír Homolka, Ikonografie
katedrály sv. Víta v Praze, Umění XXVI, no. 6, 1978,
pp. 564–575.
homolka 1998 | Jaromír Homolka, The Pictorial
Decoration of the Palace and Lesser Tower of Karlštejn
Castle, in: Jiří Fajt (ed.), Magister Theodoricus, Court
Painter to Emperor Charles IV, (exh. cat.) National Gallery,
Agnes Cloister, Prague 1998, pp. 45–105.
hoppe 1996 | Stephan Hoppe, Die funktionale
und räumliche Struktur des frühen Schloßbaus
in Mitteldeutschland. Untersucht an Beispielen
landesherrlicher Bauten der Zeit zwischen 1470 und 1570,
Cologne 1996.
hoppe 2000 | Stephan Hoppe, Bauliche Gestalt
und Lage von Frauenwohnräumen in deutschen
Residenzschlössern des späten 15. und des 16.
Jahrhunderts, in: Jan Hirschbiegel – Werner Paravicini
(edd.), Das Frauenzimmer. Die Frau bei Hofe in
Spätmittelalter und früher Neuzeit, Stuttgart 2000,
pp. 151–154.
horacek 2013 | Ivana Horacek, The Art of
Transformation: Kunstkammer Gifts between Emperor
Rudolf II and Elector Christian II of Saxony, Studia
Rudolphina XII–XIII, 2013, pp. 32–50.
horníčková 2009 | Kateřina Horníčková, In Heaven
and on Earth: Church Treasure in Late Medieval Bohemia,
Budapest 2009.
hrdlička 1991 | Jakub Hrdlička, Páni dvořané Petra
Voka z Rožmberka a dvořanská světnice třeboňského
zámku, Heraldická ročenka, 1991, pp. 5–67.
hrdlička 1992 | Jakub Hrdlička, Páni dvořané Petra
Voka z Rožmberka a dvořanská světnice třeboňského
zámku, Heraldická ročenka (dokončení z heraldické
ročenky 1991), 1992, pp. 5–37.
hrdlička 1994 | Josef Hrdlička, Nově objevený
inventář renesančních interiérů zámku v Telči z roku
1589, Jihočeský sborník historický LXIII, 1994, pp. 178–184.
| 236 |
Hrdlička 1998 | Josef Hrdlička, Adam II. z Hradce a jeho
dvůr, in: Václav Bůžek, Poslední páni z Hradce, České
Budějovice 1998, pp. 127–144.
hrubý 1937 | František Hrubý, Moravská korespondence
a akta z let 1620–1636, II, 1625–1636. Listy Karla st. ze
Žerotína, Brno 1937.
hrubý 2003 | Vladimír Hrubý, Pozdní gotika a raná
renesance v Pardubicích v letech 1491–1548. Malířství a
sochařství, Pardubice 2003.
hubala 1958/1959 | Erich Hubala, Ein Entwurf für das
Antiquarium der Münchner Residenz 1568, Münchner
Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst, III, nos. 9–10, 1958/1959,
pp. 128–146.
hubala 1985 | Erich Hubala, Die Baukunst der
mährischen Renaissance, in: Ferdinand Seibt (ed.),
Renaissance in Böhmen, Munich 1985, pp. 114–167.
I
ilg 1882 | Albert Ilg, Das K. K. Schloss Ambras in
Tirol: Beschreibung des Gebäudes und der Sammlungen,
Vienna 1882.
impey – macgregor 2017 | Oliver Impey – Arthur
MacGregor, The Origins of Museums. The Cabinet of
Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth Century Europe,
Oxford 2017.
irmscher 2009 | Günter Irmscher, Hermathena in
der Hofkunst Prags und Münchens um 1600, in: Beket
Bukovinská – Lubomír Konečný (edd.), München – Prag
um 1600, Prague 2009, pp. 77–101.
ivanič 2019 | Suzanna Ivanič, Religious materiality
in the “Kunstkammer” of Rudolf II, in: Suzanna
Ivanič –Mary Laven – Andrew Morrall (edd.), Religious
Materiality in the Early Modern World, Amsterdam 2019.
J
jakubec 2011 | Ondřej Jakubec, Pozdně renesanční
sídla rožmberských velmožů a jejich výzdoba, in:
Václav Bůžek et al., Světy posledních Rožmberků, Prague
2011, pp. 245–246.
jakubec 2012 | Ondřej Jakubec, Defining the
Rosenberg Residence of Kratochvíle: the Problem of its
Architectural Character, Opuscula historiae artium LXI,
no. 2, 2012, pp. 98–119.
janiš – vácha – vrla 2011 | Dalibor Janiš – Zdeněk
Vácha – Radim Vrla, Poznámky ke stavebnímu vývoji
hradu v Uherském Ostrohu v období pozdní gotiky a
rané renesance, Archaelogia Historica XXXVI, 2011,
pp. 109–123.
jansen 2019 | Dirk Jacob Jansen, Jacopo Strada and
Cultural Patronage at the Imperial Court: Antiquity as
Innovation, Leiden – Boston 2019.
jirásko 1994 | Luděk Jirásko, Jindřichův Hradec: Castle
and Chateau, Prague 1994.
de jonge 1998 | Krista de Jonge, Triunfos flamencos:
Felipe II y la arquitectura del Renacimiento en Flandes,
Madrid 1998, pp. 347–369.
de jonge 2010 | Krista de Jonge, Galleries at the
Burgundian-Habsburg Court from the Low Countries
to Spain 1430–1600, in: Christina Strunck – Elisabeth
Kieven (edd.), Europäische Galeriebauten. Galleries
in a Comparative European Perspective (1400–1800).
(Römische Studien der Bibliotheca Hertziana XXIX),
Munich 2010, pp. 73–88.
joost-gaugier 1982 | Christiane L. Joost-Gaugier, The
Early Beginnings of the Notion of “Uomini Famosi”
and the “De Viris Illustribus” in Greco-Roman Literary
Tradition, Artibus et Historiae III, no. 6, 1982, pp. 97–115.
K Dennis Washburn (edd.), The Affect of Difference.
karner 2014 | Herbert Karner (ed.), Die Wiener Hofburg
1521–1705, Baugeschichte, Funktion und Etablierung als
Kaiserresidenz, Vienna 2014.
kaufmann 1978 | Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann,
Variations on the Imperial Theme in the Age of Maxmilian
II and Rudolf II, New York 1978.
kaufmann 1978/1979 | Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann,
Remarks on the Collections of Rudolf II: The
Kunstkammer as a Form of Representatio, Art Journal
XXXVIII, 1978/1979, pp. 22–28.
kaufmann 1986/1987 | Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann,
The nature of imitation: Hoefnagel on Dürer, Jahrbuch
der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien LXXXII/
LXXXIII, 1986/1987, pp. 168–172.
kaufmann 1988 | Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann,
The School of Prague, Painting at the Court of Rudolf II,
Chicago 1988.
| 237 |
kaufmann 1989/1990 | Thomas DaCosta
Kaufmann, Astronomy, technology, humanism and
art at the entry of Rudolf II into Vienna, 1577, Jahrbuch
der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien LXXXV/
LXXXVI, 1989/1990, pp. 99–121.
kaufmann 1994 | Thomas Dacosta Kaufmann, From
Treasury to Museum: The Collections of the Austrian
Habsburgs, in: John Elsner – Roger Cardinal (edd.), The
Culture of Collecting, Cambridge 1994,
pp. 137–154.
kaufmann 1995 | Thomas DaCosta Kaufmann,
Court, Cloister, and City. The Art and Culture of Central
Europe 1450–1800, Chicago 1995.
kenner 1894 | Friedrich Kenner, Die
Porträtsammlung des Erzherzogs Ferdinand von
Tirol, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des
allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses XV, 1894, pp. 147–260.
kerscher 2000 | Gottfried Kerscher, Architektur als
Represäntation: Spätmittelalterliche Palastbaukunst
zwischen Pracht und zeremoniellen Voraussetzungen.
Avignon – Mallorca – Kirchenstaat, Tübingen – Berlin
2000.
kim 2016 | Gyewon Kim, Faces that Change:
Physiognomy, Portraiture, and Photography in
Colonial Korea, in: Christopher P. Hanscom –
Representations of Race in East Asian Empire, Honolulu
2016, pp. 133–158.
kindl 2012 | Miroslav Kindl, The De Herdt (De Harde)
Family in the Service of Emperor Leopold in Vienna,
in: Koenraad Brosens – Leen Kelchtermans – Katlijne
van der Stighelen (edd.), Family Ties Art Production
and Kinship Patterns in the Early Modern Low Countries,
Turnhout 2012, pp. 119–128.
kindl 2014 | Miroslav Kindl, The Painting Collection
of Prince-Bishop Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno,
in: Friedrich Polleroß (ed.), Frühneuzeit-Info XV, Vienna
2014, pp. 83–98.
kindl 2014 | Miroslav Kindl, Die niederländischen
Künstler der zweiten Hälfte des 17. Jahrhunderts in
Diensten der Fürsten von Liechtenstein in Feldsberg
(Valtice), in: Die Liechtenstein und die Kunst, Vaduz
2014, pp. 161–183.
kindl 2019 | Miroslav Kindl, Collecting in the Era of
Bishop Karl, in: Rostislav Švácha – Martina Potůčková –
Jiří Kroupa (edd.), Karl von Lichtenstein-Castelcorno (1624–
1695). Places of the Bishop’s Memory, Olomouc 2019, pp.
289–295.
kindlmann 2010 | Petr Kindlmann, Římské motivy v
sebeprezentaci renesančního velmože. Symbolická výzdoba
ve Zlatém sále letohrádku Kratochvíle, (Bachelor Thesis),
South Bohemian University, České Budějovice 2010.
kindlmann 2013 | Petr Kindlmann, Antické motivy
ve světě posledních Rožmberků, (Master Thesis), South
Bohemian University, České Budějovice 2013.
kipfer 2000 | Barbara Ann Kipfer, Encyclopedic
Dictionary of Archaeology, New York 2000.
kirkbride 2008 | Robert Kirkbride, Architecture
and Memory: The Renaissance Studioli of Federico da
Montefeltro, New York 20sc08.
klatte 2017 | Gernot Klatte, Höfische Rüstkammern
– Waffensammlung, Magazin der Hofausstattung,
Museum: eine Institution des Hofes der frühen Neuzeit
am Beispiel Dresden und Berlin, in: Matthias Müller
– Peter-Michael Hahn (edd.), Zeichen und Medien des
Militärischen am Fürstenhof in Europa, Berlin 2017, pp.
87–116.
kleisner – holečková 2006 | Tomáš Kleisner
– Zuzana Holečková, Mince a medaile posledních
Rožmberků. Vilém (1535–1592) a Petr Vok z Rožmberka
(1539–1611) / Coins and Medals of the Last Rosenbergs.
William (1535–1592) and Peter Vok of Rosenberg (1539–1611),
Prague 2006.
kleisner 2007 | Tomáš Kleisner, Medals of Petr Vok of
Rožmberk, Studia Rudolphina VII, 2007, pp. 125–131.
klípa 2014 | Jan Klípa, Poklady benediktinských
klášterů, in: Dušan Foltýn – Jan Klípa – Pavlína Mašková
et al., Otevři zahradu rajskou. Benediktini v srdci Evropy
800–1300 (exh. cat.), Waldstein Riding School, Prague
2014, pp. 256–281.
knauss 2009 | Florian Knauß, Kunstkammer und
Antiquarium. Die frühen Antikensammlungen der
Wittelsbacher, in: Dietmar Willoweit (ed.), Wissenwelten.
Die Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften und die
wissenschaftlichen Sammlungen Bayerns, Munich 2009,
pp. 146–155.
| 238 |
knoz 1992 | Tomáš Knoz, K osudům moravských hradů,
zámků a tvrzí v pobělohorských konfiskacích, Časopis
moravského muzea LXVII, 1992, pp. 240–263.
knoz 2001a | Tomáš Knoz, Liechtensteinové, Morava a
Valtice v 1. polovině 17. století, in: Emil Kordiovský (ed.),
Město Valtice, Valtice 2001, pp. 301–315.
knoz 2001b | Tomáš Knoz, Renesanční zámky na
Moravě, in: Tomáš Knoz (ed.), Morava v době renesance a
reformace, Brno 2001, pp. 46–58.
knoz 2008 | Tomáš Knoz, Karel starší ze Žerotína: Don
Quijote v labyrintu světa, Prague 2008.
knoz 2013 | Tomáš Knoz, Dietrichstein, Wallenstein,
Liechtenstein. Drei Wege zum Erfolg, in: Marek Vařeka
– Aleš Zářický (edd.), Das Fürstenhaus Liechtenstein in der
Geschichte der Länder der böhmischen Krone, Ostrava –
Vaduz 2013, pp. 119–246.
knoz 2017 | Tomáš Knoz, Šlechtická paměť v
uměleckém ztvárnění moravských renesančních
zámků, in: Václav Bůžek – Pavel Král, Paměť urozenosti,
Prague 2017, pp. 23–36.
kočandrle 1969 | Josef V. Kočandrle, Erbovní světnice
na Blatné, Heraldika II, no. 2, 1969, pp. 17–23.
koeppe 2008 | Wolfram Koeppe, Mysterious and
Prized: Hardstones in Human History Before the
Renaissance, in: Wolfram Koeppe – Anna Maria Giusti
(edd.), Treasures in Pietre Dure from the Palaces of Europe,
New York 2008, pp. 2–11.
koering 2012 | Jeremie Koering, Le prince et ses
modèles: le Gabinetto dei Cesari au palais ducal de
Mantoue, in: Philippe Morel (ed.), Le miroir et l’espace du
prince dans l’art italien de la Renaissance, Tours 2012, pp.
165–194.
konečný 1997 | Lubomír Konečný, Fauna, flóra a Rudolf
II. Deset let objevů, Umění a řemesla. Čtvrtletník pro
kulturu prostředí XXIX, no. 3, 1997, pp. 37–42.
konečný 2003a | Lubomír Konečný, Augustine
Käsenbrot of Olomouc, his Golden Bowl in Dresden,
and the Renaissance revival of ‘poetic’ Bacchus, Artibus
et historiae XXIV, no. 48, 2003 (2004),
pp. 185–197.
konečný 2003b | Lubomír Konečný, Habsburské
impresy v Telči, in: Jiří Kroupa (ed.), Ars naturam
adiuvans. Sborník k poctě prof. PhDr. Miloše Stehlíka, Brno
2003, pp. 95–104.
konečný et al. 2014 | Michal Konečný et al., Zámek
Litomyšl, Litomyšl 2014.
konečný 2018 | Michal Konečný, Chateau Lednice,
Kroměříž 2018.
konečný 2019 | Michal Konečný, Palace Valtice,
Kroměříž 2019.
konečný 2005 | Lubomír Jan Konečný, Románská
rotunda ve Znojmě: ikonologie maleb a architektury, Brno
2005.
köpl 1889 | Karl Köpl, Urkunden, Acten und Regesten
aus dem K. K. Statthalterei-Archiv in Prag, Jahrbuch
der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten
Kaiserhauses X, 1889, pp. 63–200.
köpl 1891 | Karl Köpl, Acten und Regesten aus
dem k. k. Statthalterei-Archiv in Prag, Jahrbuch der
Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten
Kaiserhauses XII, 1891, pp. 1–90.
körner 2005 | Stefan Körner, Die Gärten des
Fürsten Aloys von Liechtenstein. Gartenkunst in
gesellschaftlichen Umbruchzeiten, Jahrbuch des
Historischen Vereins für das Fürstentum Liechtenstein CIV,
2005, pp. 85–136.
koukal 1996 | Petr Koukal, Narození, sňatky,
manželky a děti Zachariáše z Hradce a na Telči,
Vlastivědný sborník Vysočiny X, 1996, pp. 41–64.
kräftner 2013 | Johann Kräftner, Die Familie
Liechtenstein als Kunstsammler und Mäzene, in:
Liechtensteinisch-Tschechische Historikerkommission
(ed.), Die Liechtenstein: Kontinuitäten – Diskontinuitäten
2, Vaduz 2013, pp. 263–274.
krása 1964 | Josef Krása, Nástěnné malby žirovnické
zelené světnice. Příspěvek ke studium pozdně gotické
profánní malby, Umění XII, 1964, pp. 230–248.
krása 1982 | Josef Krása, Nástěnná a knižní malba 13.
století v českých zemích, in: Jiří Kuthan (ed.), Umění
doby posledních Přemyslovců, Roztoky u Prahy 1982, pp.
23–67.
kratinová 1950 | Vlasta Kratinová, Gotické nástěnné
malby v brněnské muzejní kapli, Časopis Moravského
muzea v Brně XXXV, no. 2, 1950, pp. 413–421.
| 239 |
kratinová – samek – stehlík 1992 | Vlasta
Kratinová – Bohumil Samek – Miloš Stehlík, Telč.
Historické město jižní Moravy, Prague 1992.
krčálová 1952 | Jarmila Krčálová, Sgrafitová výzdoba
zámku v Telči, Prague 1952.
krčálová 1963 | Jarmila Krčálová, Renesanční
nástěnné malby zámku Bechyně, Umění XI, no. 1,
1963, pp. 29–45.
krčálová 1970 | Jarmila Krčálová, Palác pánů
z Rožmberka, Umění XVIII, no. 5, 1970, pp. 469–485.
krčálová 1972 | Jarmila Krčálová, Kruh v
architektuře českého manýrismu, Umění XX, 1972,
pp. 1–28.
krčálová 1975 | Jarmila Krčálová, Poznámky
k rudolfínské architektuře, Umění XXIII, no. 6, 1975,
pp. 499–526.
krčálová 1978 | Jarmila Krčálová, Domenico
Benedetto a Antonio Comettové v jižních Čechách,
Umění XXVI, no. 1, 1978, pp. 34–55.
krčálová 1983 | Jarmila Krčálová, La Toscana e
l’architettura di Rodolfo II: Giovanni Gargiolli a Praga,
in: Firenze e la Toscana dei Medici nell’Europa del ‘500.
Atti del convegno, 1980 III, Florence 1983, pp. 1029–
1051.
krčálová 1986 | Jarmila Krčálová, Renesanční stavby
Baldassara Maggiho v Čechách a na Moravě, Prague
1986.
krčálová 1989a | Jarmila Krčálová, Renesanční
nástěnná malba v Čechách a na Moravě, in: Jiří
Dvorský (ed.), Dějiny českého výtvarného umění, II/I,
Prague 1989, pp. 62–91.
krčálová 1989b | Jarmila Krčálová, Renesanční
architektura v Čechách a na Moravě, in: Jiří
Dvorský (ed.), Dějiny českého výtvarného umění II/1,
Prague 1989, pp. 6–69.
kreyczi 1887 | Franz Kreyczi, Urkunden und
Regesten aus dem K. und K. Reichs-Finanz-Archiv,
Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des
Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses V, 1887, pp. XXV–CXIX.
kreyczi 1894 | Franz Kreyczi, Urkunden und
Regesten aus dem K. und K. Reichs-Finanz-Archiv,
Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des
Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses XV, 1894, pp. I–XLVIII.
křížová 1979 | Květa Křížová, K některým částem
výzdoby renesančních interiérů zámku v Telči, Zprávy
památkové péče XXXXIX, 1979, pp. 534–540.
krones 1883 | Franz Krones, Karl von Liechtenstein,
in: Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie. 18: Lassus –
Litschower, Leipzig 1883, pp. 614–618.
kroupa 1998 | Jiří Kroupa, Palazzo in fortezza und
palazzo in villa in Mähren. Zur kulturgeschichtlichen
Bedeutung der Bauaufgabe um 1600, in: Lubomír
Konečný – Beket Bukovinská – Ivan P. Muchka (edd.),
Rudolf II, Prague and the World, Prague 1998, pp. 64–
69.
kroupa 2001 | Jiří Kroupa, Zámek Valtice v 17. a 18.
století, in: E. Kordiovský (ed.), Město Valtice, Břeclav
2001, pp. 155–192.
kroupa 2004 | Jiří Kroupa, Funkce, forma
a mentality v raně novověké profánní architektuře,
Památková péče na Moravě VIII, 2004, pp. 7–22.
kroupa 2009 | Jiří Kroupa, “Rinascimento oscuro”
a vznešený detail, in: Ivo Hlobil – Marek Perůtka (edd.)
Historická Olomouc. Úsvit renesance na Moravě za vlády
Matyáše Korvína a Vladislava Jagellonského (1479–1516)
v širších souvislostech XVII, Olomouc 2009, pp. 25–38.
kroupa – jakubec 2013 | Jiří Kroupa – Ondřej
Jakubec, Telč. Historické centrum, Prague 2013.
kroupa 2017 | Jiří Kroupa (ed.) Litomyšl: The chateau
Mount, Prague 2017.
krzemieńska – třeštík – merhautová 2000 |
Barbara Krzemieńska – Dušan Třeštík – Anežka
Merhautová, Moravští Přemyslovci ve znojemské
rotundě, Prague 2000.
kubeš 2005a | Jiří Kubeš, Reprezentační funkce sídel
vyšší šlechty z českých zemí (1500–1740) (Dissertation)
South Bohemian University, České Budějovice 2005.
kubeš 2005b | Jiří Kubeš, Hlavní sál – sebereflexe
šlechty ve výzdobě společenských místností
venkovských rezidencí (na příkladě českých zemí 17. a
první poloviny 18. století), Česko-slovenská historická
ročenka, Brno 2005, pp. 31–59.
kubeš 2008 | Jiří Kubeš, Vývoj obytné jednotky
v sídlech vyšší šlechty z českých zemí (1550–1750),
Svorník VI, 2008, pp. 79–90.
| 240 |
kubíček 1953/1954 | Alois Kubíček, Rožmberský
palác na Pražském hradě, Umění I, 1953/1954,
pp. 308–318.
kubíková 1993 | Anna Kubíková, Renesanční
přestavby českokrumlovského zámku a jeho interiéry,
in: Václav Bůžek et al., Život na dvoře a v rezidenčních
městech posledních Rožmberků, České Budějovice
1993, pp. 367–378.
kubíková 2011 | Blanka Kubíková, Gemälde in den
Residenzen der Letzten Rosenberger, in: Martin
Gaži – Jaroslav Pánek – Petr Pavelec (edd.), Die
Rosenberger: eine mitteleuropäische Magnatenfamilie,
České Budějovice 2011, pp. 436–445.
kubíková 2016a | Blanka Kubíková, Portrét
v renesančním malířství v českých zemích: jeho
ikonografie a funkce ve šlechtické reprezentaci, Prague
2016.
kubíková 2016b | Blanka Kubíková, Portraits and
the Art Patronage of Kryštof Popel the Younger of
Lobkowicz, a Courtier of Rudolf II, Studia Rudolphina
XVI, 2016, pp. 7–15.
kubíková 2016c | Blanka Kubíková, Die Anfänge
der Porträtgalerie in Böhmen und Mähren, in: Ingrid
Halászová (ed.), Die Noblesse im Bild. Die adeligen
Porträtgalerien in der Frühen Neuzeit in den Ländern
der ehemaligen Habsburgermonarchie, Bratislava –
Frankfurt am Main – Bern –Vienna 2016, pp. 41–74.
kubíková 2020 | Blanka Kubíková, Karel of Žerotín,
a Commander of Noble Moravian Descent, in the
Heldenrüstkammer of Archduke Ferdinand II at
Ambras Castle, Studia Rudolphina XIX, 2020, pp. 9–18.
kudělka 1958 | Zdeněk Kudělka, K otázce
manýrismu na Moravě, SPFFBU VII, F, 1958, pp. 88–98.
kugler 1988 | Georg Kugler, Rudolf II. als Sammler,
in: Eliška Fučíková (ed.),Prag um 1600: Beiträge zur
Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II., Prague 1988,
pp. 8–20.
kuster 2011 | Thomas Kuster, Das Antiquarium, in:
Sabine Haag (ed.), All’antica. Götter, Helden auf Schloss
Ambras, Vienna 2011, pp. 35–38.
kuster 2017a | Thomas Kuster, “Dises heroische
Theatrum”: Die Heldenrüstkammer von Schloss
Ambras, in: Blanka Kubíková – Jaroslava
Hausenblasová – Sylva Dobalová (edd.), Ferdinand
II. Erzherzog von Österreich aus dem Hause Habsburg:
Renaissance-Herrscher und Mäzen: zwischen Prag und
Innsbruck, Prague 2017, pp. 33–35.
kuster 2017b | Thomas Kuster, “dises heroische
theatrum”: Die Heldenrüstkammer von Schloss
Ambras, in: Sabine Haag – Veronika Sandbichler (ed.),
Ferdinand II. 450 Jahre Tiroler Landesfürst, Innsbruck
2017, pp. 82–87.
kuthan 2010 | Jiří Kuthan, Královské dílo za Jiřího
z Poděbrad a dynastie Jagellonců. Díl první – Král a
šlechta, Prague 2010.
kuthan 2015 | Jiří Kuthan, Karel IV., relikvie a poklad
katedrály sv. Víta v Praze. Obrazy uctívané, obdivované
a interpretované. Sborník k 60. narozeninám profesora
Jana Royta, Prague 2015, pp. 23–46.
kuwakino 2013 | Koji Kuwakino, The Great
Theatre of Creative Thoughts. The Inscriptiones
vel tituli theatri amplissimi … (1565) by Samuel von
Quiccheberg, Journal of the History of Collections,
published online 9 January 2013 (https://academic.
oup.com/jhc/article-abstract/25/3/303/638834).
kyzourová – boldan 2007 | Ivana Kyzourová –
Kamil Boldan, Básník a král, Bohuslav Hasištejnský
z Lobkovic v zrcadle jagellonské doby, Prague 2007.
L die Entstehung eines Raumtyps und seine Entwicklung
ladner 1932 | Gerhart Ladner, Die Porträtsammlung
des Erzherzogs Ferdinand von Tirol, Vienna 1932.
von ledebur 1831 | Leopold von Ledebur,
Geschichte der königlichen Kunstkammer in
Berlin, Allgemeines Archiv für Geschichtskunde des
Preussischen Staates VI, 1831.
ledvinka 1993 | Václav Ledvinka, Rezidence a dvůr
Zachariáše z Hradce v Telči (1550–1589), in: Václav
Bůžek (ed.), Život na dvoře a v rezidenčních městech
posledních Rožmberků, České Budějovice 1993,
pp. 199–213.
lejsková-matyášová 1959a | Milada Lejsková-
Matyášová, K otázce předloh pro sgrafita zámku
v Telči, Umění VII, 1959, pp. 402–403.
| 241 |
lejsková-matyášová 1959b | Milada Lejsková-
Matyášová, Ještě k předlohám Virgila Solise, Umění
VII, 1959, pp. 66–68.
lejsková-matyášová 1962 | Milada Lejsková-
Matyášová, K otázce předloh renesančních maleb
bechyňského zámku, Památková péče XXII, 1962,
pp. 111–112.
lejsková-matyášová 1963 | Milada Lejsková-
Matyášová, K malířské výzdobě rožmberské
Kratochvíle, Umění XI, 1963, pp. 360–370.
lejsková-matyášová 1973 | Milada Lejsková-
Matyášová, Program štukové výzdoby tzv. soudnice
zámku v Bechyni, Umění XXI, no. 5, 1973, pp. 1–17.
lensi 1929 | Alfredo Lensi, Palazzo Vecchio, Milan
1929.
lenzi 1971 | Natale Lenzi, Sabbioneta, piccola Atene,
Sabbioneta 1971.
lesný 1984a | Ivan Lesný, Zpráva o nemocech
mocných, Prague 1984.
lesný 1984b | Ivan Lesný, Rudolf II. jako nemocný
člověk, Folia Historica Bohemica VII, 1984, pp. 271–279.
líbal 2000 | Dobroslav Líbal, Stavební vývoj Starého
paláce Pražského hradu do husitských válek do
úrovně Vladislavského sálu, Castellologica Bohemica
VII, 2000, pp. 61–74.
liebenwein 1977 | Wolfgang Liebenwein, Studiolo:
bis zum 1600, Berlin 1977.
liebenwein 2005 | Wolfgang Liebenwein,
Studiolo: storia e tipologia di uno spazio culturale,
Modena 2005.
lietzmann 1987 | Hilda Lietzmann, Das Neugebäude
in Wien, Sultan Süleymans Zelt – Kaiser Maximilians II.
Lustschloß. Ein Beitrag zur Kunst- und Kulturgeschichte
der zweiten Hälfte des sechzehnten Jahrhunderts,
Munich 1987.
lietzmann 1997 | Hilda Lietzmann, Der kaiserliche
Antiquar Jacopo Strada und Kurfürst August von
Sachsen, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte LX, no. 3, 1997,
pp. 377–400.
limouze 1990 | Dorothy Limouze, Aegidius Sadeler
(c. 1570–1629): Drawings, Prints and Art Theory
(Dissertation), Princeton University, 1990.
lippmann 2006/2007 | Wolfgang Lippmann,
Il Neugebäude di Vienna: genesi e analisi di un insolito
complesso, Annali di architettura: rivista del Centro
Internazionale di Studi di Architettura Andrea Palladio
XVIII–XIX, 2006/2007, pp. 143–168.
list 1986 | Camillo List, Wiener Goldschmiede und
ihre Beziehungen zum kaiserlichen Hof, Jahrbuch
der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten
Kaiserhauses XVII, 1896, pp. 291–306.
löcher 2012 | Kurt Löcher, Jakob Seisenegger.
Hofmaler Kaiser Ferdinands I. – Neue Funde und
Stand der Forschung, Münchner Jahrbuch der
Bildenden Kunst LVIII, 2012, pp. 104–109.
lotz 1981 | Wolfgang Lotz, Vignole et Giacomo della
Porta, in: André Chastel (ed.), Le Palais Farnese, Rome
1981, vol. I, pp. 225–241.
loughman – montias 2000 | John Loughman – John
Michael Montias, Public and Private Spaces: Works of
Art in Seventeenth-century Dutch Houses, Zwolle 2000.
louthan – murdock 2015 | Howard Louthan –
Graeme Murdock, A Companion to the Reformation in
Central Europe, Boston 2015.
luchner 1958 | Laurin Luchner, Denkmal eines
Renaissancefürsten. Versuch einer Rekonstruktion des
Ambraser Museums von 1583, Vienna 1958.
lukášová 2015 | Eva Lukášová, Zámecké interiéry:
pohledy do aristokratických sídel od časů renesance do
doby první poloviny 19. století, Prague 2015.
lukášová – smolová 2018 | Eva Lukášová – Věra
Smolová, Renesanční sídlo pánů z Hradce v nejstarších
inventářích jindřichohradeckého zámku, České
Budějovice 2018.
lüken 1998 | Sven Lüken, Kaiser Maximilian I. und
seine Ehrenpforte, Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte LXI,
1998, pp. 449–490.
M 1993.
machiavelli 1961 | Niccolo Machiavelli, Lettere, ed. F.
Gaeta, Milan 1961.
macek 1992 | Josef Macek, Hrad a zámek. Studie
historicko-sémantická, Český časopis historický XC,
1992, pp. 1–16.
macgregor 1994 | Arthur MacGregor, Die besondere
Eigenschaften der “Kunstkammer” , in: Andreas Grote
| 242 |
(ed.), Macrocosmos in Microcosmo: Die Welt in der Stube:
Zur Geschichte des Sammelns 1450–1800, Opladen 1994,
pp. 61–106.
mader 2007 | Eric-Oliver Mader, Fürstenkonversionen
zum Katholizismus in Mitteleuropa im 17. Jahrhundert,
Zeitschrift für historische Forschung XXXIV, no. 3, 2007,
pp. 403–440.
maňas 2014 | Vladimír Maňas, Musik am Hofe Karls I.
von Liechtenstein zu Beginn des 17. Jahrhunderts im
mitteleuropäischen Kontext. Eine Vermutung der
Zusammenhänge, in: Liechtensteinisch-Tschechische
Historikerkommision (ed.), Die Liechtenstein und die
Kunst 3, Vaduz 2014, pp. 149–160.
van mander 1618 | Carel van Mander, Het Schilder-
Boek […], Amsterdam 1618.
de marchi – van miegroet 2006 | Neil de Marchi
– Hans J. van Miegroet (edd.), Mapping markets for
paintings in Europe, 1450–1750, Turnhout 2006.
marchi 2015 | Alessandro Marchi (ed.), Lo studiolo del
Duca: il ritorno degli Uomini Illustri alla Corte di Urbino
(exh. cat.) Urbino, Palazzo Ducale, Galleria Nazionale
delle Marche , Milan 2015.
marconi – fiore – muratore – valeriani 1973 | Paolo
Marconi – Francesco Paolo Fiore – Giorgio Muratore
et al., La città come forma simbolica studi sulla teoria
dell’architettura nel rinascimento, Rome 1973.
mareš 1896/1897 | František Mareš, Materiálie
k dějinám umění, uměleckého průmyslu a podobným,
Památky archaeologické XVII, no. 7, 1896/1897,
pp. 637–660.
mariaux 2006 | Pierre Alain Mariaux, Collecting
(and Display), in: Conrad Rudolph (ed.), A Companion
to Medieval Art: Romanesque and Gothic in Northern
Europe, Malden 2006, pp. 214–232.
marin 1993 | Louis Marin, Des pouvoirs de l’image, Paris
marsilli 1993 | Pietro Marsilli, Giovanni Maria Filippi:
una figura emblematica dell’età madruzziana fra
Italia e Mitteleuropa, in: Laura Dal Prà (ed.), I adruzzo e
l’Europa, 1539–1658. I principi vescovi di Trento tra Papato e
Impero, Milan – Florence 1993, pp. 602–607.
martellotti 1955 | Guido Martellotti, Francesco
Petrarca, prose, Milan – Naples 1955.
mašín 1954 | Jiří Mašín, Románská nástěnná malba
v Čechách a na Moravě, Prague 1954.
maťa 2004 | Petr Maťa, Svět české aristokracie,
Prague 2004.
maťa 2011 | Petr Maťa, “De Rosenbergiis Bohemis
plura sunt controversa.” Die Rosenberger in der
adeligen Erinnerungskultur des 17. Jahrhunderts, in:
Martin Gaži – Jaroslav Pánek – Petr Pavelec (edd.), Die
Rosenberger: eine mitteleuropäische Magnatenfamilie,
České Budějovice 2011, pp. 544–551.
matějka 2014 | Milan Matějka, Pozdně gotické
architektonické sochařství na Hrádku v Kutné Hoře
(Bachelor Thesis), Charles University, Prague 2014.
matějková 1960 | Eva Matějková, K nově odkrytým
malbám v kutnohorském Hrádku, Zprávy památkové
péče XX, 1960, pp. 233–236.
matějovičová 2011 | Petra Matějovičová, Nádoby z
drahých kovů, in: Jaroslav Pánek – Eliška Fučíková –
Martin Gaži et al. Rožmberkové: rod českých velmožů
a jeho cesta dějinami (exh. cat.), Waldstein Riding
School, Prague 2011.
matteuci 1993 | Anna Maria Matteuci, Gli affreschi
di uno studiolo tardogotico nel piacentino, Arte
lombarda CV/CVII, 1993, pp. 19–23.
mattox 2006 | Philip Mattox, Domestic Sacral Space
in the Florentine Renaissance Palace, Renaissance
Studies XX, no. 5, 2006, pp. 658–673.
mayer-löwenschwert 1927 | Erwin Mayer-
Löwenschwert, Der Aufenthalt der Erzherzoge Rudolf
und Ernst in Spanien, 1564–1571, Vienna 1927.
mecenseffy 1956 | Grete Mecenseffy, Geschichte des
Protestantismus in Österreich, Graz 1956.
menclová 1958 | Dobroslava Menclová, Státní hrad
Karlštejn, Prague 1958.
menclová 1969 | Dobroslava Menclová, Hasištejn –
přehled dějin hradu, Chomutov 1969.
měřínský – plaček 2001 | Zdeněk Měřínský –
Miroslav Plaček, Vývoj hradu, města a jeho opevnění
do poloviny 17. století, in: Emil Kordiovský (ed.), Město
Valtice, Břeclav 2001, pp. 133–154.
merki 2013 | Christoph Maria Merki,
Liechtensteinische Güter und Rechte in Böhmen,
Mähren und Schlesien vom Spätmittelalter bis
| 243 |
ins 20. Jahrhundert. Zur Besitzgeschichte der
grenzüberschreitenden Dynastie Liechtenstein,
in: Christoph Maria Merki – Josef Löffler, Das Haus
Liechtenstein in den böhmischen Ländern vom Mittelalter
bis ins 20. Jahrhundert, Güter, Rechte, Verwaltung, Vaduz
2013, pp. 9–167.
metzler 2014 | Sally Metzler, Bartholomeus Spranger:
Splendor and Eroticism in Imperial Prague, (exh. cat.), The
Metropolitan Museum of Art ,New York, 2014–2015.
michelotti 1989 | Michela Michelotti, La Galleria degli
Antichi di Sabbioneta: il Museo di Vespasiano Gonzaga,
Civiltà mantovana XXV, 1989, pp. 61–82.
miedem 1994 | Hessel Miedema (ed.), Karel van Mander:
The Lives of the Illustrious Netherlandish and German
Painters […] I, Doornspijk 1994.
minges 1998 | Klaus Minges, Das Sammlungswesen der
frühen Neuzeit, Münster 1998.
möhl 1977 | Christoph Möhl, Die Herren von
Liechtenstein und die Wiedertäufer in Mähren,
Jahrbuch des Historischen Vereins für das Fürstentum
Liechtenstein LXXVII, 1977, pp. 119–172.
mommsen 1952 | Theodor E. Mommsen, Petrarch and
the Decoration of the Sala Virorum Illustrium in Padua,
Art Bulletin XXXIV, 1952, pp. 95–116.
morán – checa 1985 | j. Miguel Morán – Fernando
Checa, El coleccionismo en España: de la cámara de
maravillas a la galería de pinturas, Madrid 1985.
morselli 2002 | Raffaella Morselli (ed.), Gonzaga: la
Celeste galleria (exh. cat.), Mantua, Palazzo Te – Palazzo
Ducale, Mantua 2002.
mout 1982 | M. E. H. N. Mout, Hermes Trismegistos
Germaniae: Rudolf II en de arcane wetenschappen.
Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek I, 1982, pp. 161–189.
muchka 1969 | Ivan P. Muchka, Stylové otázky v české
architektuře kolem roku 1600, (Master Thesis), Charles
University, Prague 1969.
muchka 1976 | Ivan P. Muchka, Dispozice renesančního
a barokního zámku, Zprávy památkové péče XXXVI, no.
3, 1976, p. 173.
muchka 1988 | Ivan P. Muchka, Die Architektur unter
Rudolf II., gezeigt am Beispiel der Prager Burg, in: Prag
um 1600. Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II. (exh. cat.),
KHM in Vienna, Freren, 1988, pp. 85–93.
muchka 1989/1990 | Ivan P. Muchka, Die Prager
Burg zur Zeit Rudolfs II.: Neue Forschungsergebnisse,
Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien
LXXXV–LXXXVI, 1989/1990, pp. 95–98.
muchka 1993 | Ivan P. Muchka, Rožmberský palác na
Pražském Hradě, in: Václav Bůžek et al. (edd.), Život na
dvoře a v rezidenčních městech posledních Rožmberků,
České Budějovice 1993, pp. 353–359.
muchka – křížová 1996 | Ivan P. Muchka – Květa
Křížová, Valdštejnský palác, Prague 1996.
muchka 2001 | Ivan P. Muchka, Renesanční
architektura. Deset století architektury, (exh. cat.),
Prague 2001.
muchka 2008 | Ivan P. Muchka, Císařský mlýn v
Královské oboře v Praze, Zprávy památkové péče
LXVIII, no. 1, 2008, pp. 91–95.
muchka 2009a | Ivan P. Muchka, Architektur in Prag
und München um 1600 – eine Juxtaposition, in: Beket
Bukovinská – Lubomír Konečný (edd.), München – Prag
um 1600, Prague 2009, pp. 143–154.
muchka 2009b | Ivan P. Muchka, Hlava čtvrtá 1526–
1620, in: Petr Kratochvíl (ed.), Velké dějiny Koruny
české, Prague 2009, pp. 310–369.
muchka 2013 | Ivan P. Muchka, Architektura
posledních Rožmberků v evropském kontextu, in:
Lubomír Konečný – Lubomír Slavíček (edd.), Libellum
Amicorum Beket Bukovinská, Prague 2013, pp. 36–55.
mudra 2012 | Aleš Mudra, Ecce panis angelorum,
výtvarné umění pozdního středověku v kontextu
eucharistické devoce v Kutné Hoře, České Budějovice –
Prague 2012.
müller 1998 | Jan Müller, Pozdně renesanční
rezidence pánů z Hradce, in: Václav Bůžek (ed.),
Poslední páni z Hradce, České Budějovice 1998,
pp. 91–102.
mussa 1969 | Italo Mussa, L’architettura illusionistica
nelle decorazioni romane, Capitolium xli, 1969,
pp. 41–88.
mžyková 1996 | Marie Mžyková, Sgrafitová
architektonická výzdoba tzv. klenotnice zámku
v Telči, Zprávy památkové péče LVI, nos. 5–6, 1996,
pp. 145–153.
| 244 |
N
nagler 1858–1879 | Georg Kaspar Nagler, Die
Monogrammisten und diejenigen und unbekannten
Künstler aller Schulen, Bezeichnung ihrer Werke eines
figürlichen Zeichens, der Initialen des Namens, der
Abbreviatur desselben etc., Munich 1858–1879.
nather 2007 | Wilhelm Nather, Kronika olomouckých
domů II., Olomouc 2007.
němec 2015 | Richard Němec, Architektura – vláda –
země: rezidence Karla IV. v Praze a zemích koruny české,
Dolní Břežany 2015.
němec 2017 | Richard Němec, Solitude or
Performance? The Papal and Royal-Imperial
Residences of Benedict XII and Charles IV in
Avignon, Prague and Karlstein, Journal of the British
Archaelogical Association CLXX, 2017, pp. 115–151.
nencioni 1983 | Giovanni Nencioni, La galleria
della lingua, in: P. Barocchi – G. Ragionieri (edd.), Gli
Uffizi. Quattro secoli di una galleria. Atti del Convegno
internazionali di Studi, Florence 1983, pp. 1525–1561.
neumann 1970 | Jaromír Neumann, Kleine Beiträge
zur Rudolfinischen Kunst und ihre Auswirkungen,
Umění XVIII, 1970, pp. 142–170.
neuwirth 1896 | Joseph Neuwirth, Der verlorene
Cyklus böhmischer Herrscherbilder in der Prager
Königsburg, Prague 1896.
neuwirth 1897 | Josef Neuwirth, Der Bilderzyklus des
Luxemburger Stammbaumes aus Karlstein, Prague
1897.
novák 1901 | Josef Novák, Soupis památek
historických a uměleckých v politickém okresu Jindřicho-
Hradeckém, Prague 1901.
novák 1917 | Josef Novák, Slavatové a
umění výtvarné, Památky archeologické XXIX, 1917,
pp. 17–36.
nový 1971 | Rostislav Nový, Jindřichohradecká
znaková galerie z r. 1338, Acta Universitatis Carolinae
Philosophica et Historica III–IV, Studia historica 6–7,
1971, pp. 179–197.
O
oberhammer 1990 | Eveline Oberhammer, Gesegnet
sei dies Band. Eheprojekte, Heiratspakten und
Hochzeit im fürstlichen Haus, in: Evelin Oberhammer
(ed.), Der ganzen Welt ein Lob und Spiegel, Munich 1990,
pp. 182–203.
ortwin rave 1994 | Paul Ortwin Rave, Schriften über
Künstler und die Kunst, Stuttgart 1994.
otavský 2003 | Karel Otavský, Reliquien im Besitz
Kaiser Karls IV., ihre Verehrung und ihre Fassungen, in:
Jiří Fajt (ed.), Court Chapels / Dvorské kaple. Proceedings
from the International Symposium
23 September – 25 September 1998, Prague 2003,
pp. 129–141.
otavský 2006 | Karel Otavský, Zlatý relikviářový kříž,
in: Jiří Fajt (ed.), Karel IV. Císař z Boží milosti. Kultura
a umění za vlády posledních Lucemburků 1347–1437,
Prague 2006, pp. 111–114.
otavský 2010 | Karel Otavský, Der Prager Domschatz
unter Karl IV. im Lichte der Quellen. Ein Sonderfall
unter spätmittelalterlichen Kirchenschätzen, in: Ulrike
Wenland (ed.), Das Heilige sichtbar machen. Domschätze
in Vergangenheit, Gegenwart und Zukunft, Regensburg
2010, pp. 181–263.
ourodová-hronková 2011 | Ludmila Ourodová-
Hronková, Interiéry rožmberských rezidencí v 16.
století, in: Martin Gaži (ed.), Rožmberkové: Rod českých
velmožů a jeho cesta dějinami, České Budějovice 2011,
pp. 574–588.
P paravicini 1998 | Werner Paravicini, Gruppe und Person.
pagliaga 1997 | Franco Paliaga, Vincenzo Campi,
Soncino 1997.
pánek 1985 | Jaroslav Pánek (ed.), Václav Březan. Životy
posledních Rožmberků, Prague 1985.
pánek – dvořáková 1989 | Jaroslav Pánek – Vlasta
Dvořáková, Poslední Rožmberkové:velmoži české
renesance, Prague 1989.
pánek 1990 | Jaroslav Pánek, Dva typy českého
šlechtického mecenátu v době Rudolfa II., Folia
Historica Bohemica XIII, 1990, pp. 159–186.
pánek 1993 | Jaroslav Pánek, Zahraniční cesty
posledních Rožmberků a jejich kontakty s evropským
dvorským prostředím, in: Václav Bůžek et al., Život na
dvoře a v rezidenčních městech posledních Rožmberků,
České Budějovice 1993, pp. 9–24.
| 245 |
pánek 1996 | Jaroslav Pánek, Poslední Rožmberk. Životní
příběh Petra Voka, Prague 1996.
pánek – polívka 2003 | Jaroslav Pánek – Miloslav Polívka,
Výprava české šlechty do Itálie v letech 1551–1552: Die Reise des
böhmischen Adels nach Italien in den Jahren 1551–1552, České
Budějovice 2003.
pánek 2010 | Jaroslav Pánek, Petr Vok z Rožmberka. Život
renesančního kavalíra, Prague 2010.
pánek et al. 2011 | Jaroslav Pánek et al., Rožmberkové: Rod
českých velmožů a jeho cesta dějinami, České Budějovice
2011.
pánek 2011 | Jaroslav Pánek, Vilém z Rožmberka, politik
smíru, Prague 2011.
panofsky 1956 | Erwin Panofsky, Galileo as a Critic of the
Arts: Aesthetic Attituda and Scientific Thought, Isis XLVII,
no. 1, 1956, pp. 3–15.
papežová 1952 | Zdeňka Papežová, Plastická a malířská
výzdoba zámku v Telči (Dissertation), Charles Univeristy,
Prague 1952.
papík 1972 | Miloslav Papík, Jan IV. z Dražic jako stavebník
(Master Thesis), Charles University, Prague 1972.
paprocký z hlohol 1593 | Bartoloměj Paprocký
z Hlohol, Zrdcadlo Slawného Margkrabstwij Morawského,
Olomouc 1593.
paprocký z hlohol 1993 | Bartoloměj Paprocký z
Hlohol, Zrcadlo slavného Markrabství moravského, Ostrava
1993.
Repräsentation durch Wappen im späteren Mittelalter,
in: Otto Gerhard Oexle – Andrea von Hülsen-Esch (edd.),
Die Repräsentation der Gruppen. Texte – Bilder – Objekte,
Göttingen 1998, pp. 327–389.
pariset 1980 | François-Georges Pariset, Pierre Bergeron
à Prague 1600, Institut Historique Belge de Rome IV, 1980,
pp. 180–189.
parlato 2000 | Enrico Parlato, Hemathena a Caprarola,
in: Vincenzo De Caprio – Concetta Ranieri (edd.), Presenze
eterodosse nel Viterbese tra Quattro e Cinquecento, Rome
2000, pp. 159–191.
parry-giles – kaufer 2012 | Shawn J. Parry-Giles – David
S. Kaufer, Lincoln Reminiscences and Nineteenth-Century
Portraiture: The Private Virtues of Presidential Character,
Rhetoric and Public Affairs XV, no. 2, 2012, pp. 199–234.
pastoureau 1986 | Michel Pastoureau, Figures
et couleurs. Études sur la symbolique et la sensibilité
médiévales, Paris 1986.
pavoni 1985 | Rosanna Pavoni, Paolo Giovio, et son
musée de portraits: a propos d‘une exposition, Gazette
des beaux-arts CV, 1985, pp. 109–116.
payne 2009 | Alina Payne, Materiality, Crafting, and
Scale in Renaissance Architecture, Oxford Art Journal
XXXII, no. 3, 2009, pp. 367–386.
pechová – zbíralová 1956 | Oliva Pechová – Milada
Zbíralová, Renesanční kazetový strop bechyňského
zámku a jeho restaurování, Zprávy památkové péče XVI,
1956, pp. 213–216.
pelc 2002 | Milan Pelc, Illustrium Imagines. Das
Porträtbuch der Renaissance, Leiden – Boston – Cologne
2002.
peleggi 2013 | Maurizio Peleggi, The Aesthetics and
Politics of Royal Portraiture in Thailand, Ars Orientalis
XLIII, 2013, pp. 83–95.
pešek 1988 | Jiří Pešek, Porträts in den Bürgerhäusern
des rudolfinischen Prags, in: Eliška Fučíková (ed.), Prag
um 1600, Beiträge zur Kunst und Kultur am Hofe Rudolfs II,
Freren 1988, pp. 161–170, 244–248.
pešek 1991 | Jiří Pešek, Obrazy a grafiky a jejich
majitelé v předbělohorské Praze, Umění XXXIX, 1991,
pp. 369–383.
pešek 2013 | Jiří Pešek, Obrazy, které “nebyly”.
Soukromý portrét v pražské měšťanské domácnosti
doby předbělohorské, in: Ivana Ebelová, Mezi kulturou
a uměním. Věnováno Zdeňku Hojdovi k životnímu
jubileu, Prague 2013, pp. 77–85.
pešina z čechorodu 1675 | Tomáš Pešina
z Čechorodu, Phosphorus Septicornis, Stella alias
Matutina. Sanctae Metropolitanae Divi Viti Ecclesiae
Pragensis Majestas et Gloria. Thoma Joanne Pessina de
Czechorod, Prague 1675.
petnekim 1989 | Áron Petnekim, Identificatio,
Exemplum, Stimulus. Mode und Rolle der
Ahnengalerie in Ostmitteleuropa, in: August
Buck – Tibor Klaniczay – Katalin S. Németh (edd.),
Geschichtsbewußtsein und Geschichtsschreibung in der
Renaissance, Budapest 1989, pp. 47–56.
| 246 |
petráň 1985 | Karel Petráň, Gotická nástěnná malba
na zámku v Blatné, in: Sborník k 750. Výročí Blatné:
sborník vlastivědných prací vydaný k 750. Výročí první
písemné zprávy o Blatné, Blatná 1985, pp. 51–57.
pierguidi 2010 | Stefano Pierguidi, Theatra mundi
rinascimentali: Sulla Stanza della Segnatura e la
Sala della Guardaroba di Palazzo Vecchio, Marburger
Jahrbuch für Kunstwissenschaft XXXVII, 2010, pp.
151–166.
pillsbury 1974 | Edmund P. Pillsbury, Drawings by
Jacopo Zucchi, Master Drawings XII, 1974, pp. 3–33.
plaček 1996 | Miroslav Plaček, Valtice – nový pohled
na stavební vývoj zámku a města, Jižní Morava XXXII,
no. 35, 1996, pp. 103–123.
pliny the elder | Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia.
pliny the elder 2014 | Pliny the Elder, Natural
History, translated by Harris Rackham, Cambridge
2014.
podlaha – šittler 1903 | Antonín Podlaha – Eduard
Šittler, Chrámový poklad u sv. Víta v Praze: jeho dějiny a
popis, Prague 1903.
podlaha 1920–1921 | Antonín Podlaha, Plány
a kresby chované v kanceláři hradu Pražského,
Památky archeologické XXXII, 1920–1921, pp. 77–210..
polleross 1988 | Friedrich Polleroß, Das sakrale
Identifikations Porträt. Ein höfischer Bildtypus vom 13.
bis zum 20. Jahrhundert, Worms 1988.
polleross 1993 | Friedrich Polleroß, “Dem Adl und
fürstlichen Standt gemess Curiosi.” Die Fürsten von
Liechtenstein und die barocke Kunst, Frühneuzeit Info
IV, 1993, pp. 174–185.
polleross 1995 | Friedrich Polleroß “Des
abwesenden Prinzen Porträt”. Zeremonielldarstellung
im Bildnis und Bildnisgebrauch im Zeremoniell, in: Jörg
Jochen Berns – Thomas Rahn (edd.), Zeremoniell als
höfische Ästhetik in Spätmittelalter und Früher Neuzeit,
Tübingen 1995, pp. 382–409.
polleross 1998 | Friedrich B. Polleroß, Tradition
und Recreation, Die Residenzen der Habsburger in der
frühen Neuzeit (1490–1780), Majestas VI, 1998,
pp. 91–148.
polleross 2010 | Friedrich B. Polleroß, La galerie
de portraits entre architecture et littérature: essai de
typologie, in: Claire Constans, Mathieu da Vinha (edd.),
Les grandes galleries européennes: XVIIe-XIXe siècles, Paris
2010, pp. 67–90.
polleross 2015 | Friedrich B. Polleroß, “Kayserliche
Schatz- und Kunstkammer”: die habsburgischen
Sammlungen und ihre Öffentlichkeit im 17.
Jahrhundert, in: Sabine Haag (ed.), Das Haus Habsburg
und die Welt der fürstlichen Kunstkammern im 16.
und 17. Jahrhundert. Schriften des Kunsthistorischen
Museums XV, Vienna 2015, pp. 255–295.
posselt-kuhli 2015 | Christine Posselt-Kuhli,
Kunst und Krieg. Semantiken der Inszenierung des
“Kunsthelden” am Beispiel des Armamentarium
heroicum, Helden. Heroes. Héros. E-Journal zu Kulturen
des Heroischen II/III, 2015, pp. 44–56.
porträtsammlung 1892 | Porträtsammlung des
Erzherzogs Ferdinand von Tirol/Kunsthistorische
Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses, Vienna
1892.
prchal 2008 | Vítězslav Prchal, Privátní zbrojnice
a aristokratická sídla v českých zemích 1500–1750,
Svorník VI, 2008, pp. 141–148.
prchal 2011 | Vítězslav Prchal, Rüstkammern in
Residenzen: Die Repräsentation der Aristokratie
aus den böhmischen Ländern und Wandlungen der
adeligen Militärtätigkeit in 16. und am anfang des 17.
Jahrhundert, in: David Schriffl – Niklas Perzi (edd.),
Schlaglichter auf die Geschichte der Böhmischen Länder
vom 16. bis 20. Jahrhundert. Ausgewählte Ergebnisse zu
den österreichisch-tschechischen Historikertagen 2006
und 2008, Vienna – Berlin 2011, pp. 53–62.
preiss 1957 | Pavel Preiss, Cykly českých panovníků
na státních zámcích. Příspěvek k ikonografii českých
knížat a králů, Zprávy památkové péče XVII, 1957,
pp. 65–78.
press 1988 | Volker Press, Das Haus Liechtenstein
in der europäischen Geschichte, in: Volker Press –
Dietmar Willoweit, Liechtenstein – fürstliches Haus
und staatliche Ordnung: geschichtliche Grundlagen und
moderne Perspektiven, Vienna – Munich 1988, pp. 15–86.
pressouyre 1969 | S. Pressouyre, Les Fontes de
Primatice à Fontainebleau, Bulletin Monumental
CXXVII, 1969, pp. 223–239.
| 247 |
preyer 1998 | Brenda Preyer, Planning for visitors at
Florentine Palaces, Renaissance Studies XII, no. 3, 1998,
pp. 357–374.
price zimmermann 1996 | T. C. Price Zimmermann,
Paolo Giovio: Historian and the Crisis of Sixteenth-Century
Italy, Princeton 1996.
prinz 1970 | Wolfram Prinz, Die Entwicklung der Galerie
in Frankreich und Italien, Berlin 1970.
prinz 1988 | Wolfram Prinz, Galleria. Storia e tipologia
di uno spazio architettonico, Ferrara 1988.
prinz 2006 | Wolfram Prinz, Galleria. Storia e tipologia
di uno spazio architettonico, Modena 2006.
prokop 2011 | Mária Prokop, Gli affreschi
quattrocenteschi dello studiolo del primate del regno
d’Ungheria a Esztergom: una nuova attribuzione, Péter
Farbaky – Louis A. Waldman (edd.), Italy and Hungary,
Humanism and Art in the Early Renaissance, Florence
2011, pp. 293–315.
promis 1877 | Vincenzo Promis, Ambasciata di Carlo
Francesco Manfredi di Luserna a Praga nel 1604,
Miscellanea di Storia dell’Arte Italiana XVI, 1877, pp.
515–628.
purš 2016 | Ivo Purš, Rudolf II’s Patronage of
Alchemy and the Natural Sciences, in: Ivo Purš –
Vladimír Karpenko (edd.), Alchemy and Rudolf II:
Exploring the Secrets of Nature in Central Europe in the
16th and 17th Centuries, Prague 2016, pp. 139–204.
Q
quinones 1972 | Ricardo J. Quinones, The Renaissance
Discovery of Time, Cambridge 1972.
R
ram – wauquelin 1854 | Pierre François Xavier Ram
– Jean Wauquelin (edd.), Chronica nobilissimorum
ducum Lotharingiae, brabantiae ac regnum francorum,
Brussels 1854, pp. 432–433.
rak 1994 | Jiří Rak, Bývali Čechové. České historické
mýty a stereotypy, Prague 1994.
reeves 2015 | Eileen Reeves, Galileo, Oracle: On the
History of Early Modern Science, I Tatti Studies in the
Italian Renaissance XVIII, no. 1, 2015, pp. 7–22.
von reichl 1930 | Otto von Reichl, Zur Geschichte
der ehemaligen Berliner Kunstkammer, Jahrbuch der
Preussischen Kunstsammlungen LI, 1930, pp. 223–249.
reitinger 2019 | Lukáš Reitinger, Znojemský cyklus
Přemyslovců a oficiální katalog českých knížat / The
Přemyslid Painting Series in Znojmo and the Official
Catalogue of Bohemian Dukes, Umění LXVII, no. 6,
2019, pp. 498–513.
rejchrtová 1989 | Noemi Rejchrtová (ed.),
Antialkorán. Václav Budovec z Budova, Prague 1989.
remington 1941 | Preston Remington, The Private
Study of Federigo da Montefeltro: A Masterpiece of
XV Century Trompe-L‘oeil, The Metropolitan Museum
of Art Bulletin XXXVI, nos. 1–2, 1941, pp. 3–13.
rentzow 1998 | Lutz Rentzow, Die Entstehungs- und
Wirkungsgeschichte der Verneuerten Landesordnung
für das Königreich Böhmen von 1627, Frankfurt am
Main 1998.
riebesell 1989 | Christina Riebesell, Die Sammlung
des Kardinal Alessandro Farnese: Ein studio für Künstler
und Gelehrte, Weinheim 1989.
rokyta – skřivánek 1990 | Hugo Rokyta – František
Skřivánek, Poklady, klenotnice a umělecké kabinety
zámků, paláců a církevních objektů, Prague 1990.
romagnoli 2012 | Margherita Romagnoli, La
decorazione pittorica di palazzo Datini. Vicende e
cronologia, in: Jerome Hayez – Diana Toccafondi
(edd.), Palazzo Datini a Prato. Una casa fatta per durare
mille anni, Florence 2012, pp. 111–124.
rosen 2009 | Mark Rosen, A New Chronology of
the Construction and Restoration of the Medici
Guardaroba in the Palazzo Vecchio, Florence,
Mitteilungen des Kunsthistorischen Instututes in Florenz
LIII, nos. 2–3, 2009, pp. 285–308.
rosen 2015 | Mark Rosen, The Mapping of Power in
Renaissance Italy. Painted Cartographic Cycles in Social
and Intellectual Context, New York 2015.
rossholm lagerlöf 2013 | Margaretha Rossholm
Lagerlöf, Fate, Glory, and Love in Early Modern Gallery
Decoration: Visualizing Supreme Power; Galerie François
Ier at Fontainebleau, Galleria Farnese in Rome, Galerie
des glaces at Versailles, and Karl XI’s Gallery in Stockholm,
Farnham 2013.
| 248 |
rousová 2009 | Andrea Rousová, Bizarní služebníci
kardinála Farneseho: portréty fyzicky postižených lidí,
Dějiny a současnost XXXI, no. 9, 2009, p. 12.
rovelli 1928 | Luigi Rovelli, L’opera storica ed artistica di
Paolo Giovio, comasco, Vescovo di Nocera: [Paulus Jovius.]
Il museo di ritratti, Como 1928.
royt 2009 | Jan Royt, Bischof Johann IV. Von Draschitz
als Kunstmäzen, in: Eva Schlotheuber (ed.), Böhmen
und das deutsche Reich: Ideen- und Kulturtransfer im
Vergleich (13. – 16. Jahrhundert), Munich 2009, pp. 265–
282.
rudolf 1995 | Karl Rudolf, Die Kunstbestrebungen
Kaiser Maximilian II. im Spannungsfeld zwischen
Madrid und Wien, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen
Sammlungen in Wien XCI, 1995 (1996), pp. 165–256.
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 II, 2002, pp. 3–15.
von rotterdam 1967 | Erasmus von Rotterdam,
Colloquia Familiaria/ Vertraute Gespräche, Darmstadt
1967.
ruvoldt 2006 | Maria Ruvoldt, Sacred to Secular,
East to West: the Renaissance Study and Strategies of
Display, Renaissance studies XX, no. 5, 2006, pp. 640–
657.
russell 2000 | Michael Russell, The Chemistry of
Fireworks, Cambridge 2009.
růžek 1988 | Vladimír Růžek, Česká znaková galerie na
hradě Laufu u Norimberku z roku 1361. Příspěvek ke
skladbě královského dvora Karla IV., Sborník archivních
prací XXXVIII, no. 1, 1988, pp. 37–311.
S
salaba 1896/1897 | Josef Salaba, Slavatovská
obrazárna, Památky archeologické XVII, no. 8,
1896/1897, pp. 710–718.
salaba 1902/1903 | Jozef Salaba, Ke stykům Viléma
z Rožmberka s Jakubem Stradou, Památky archeologické
a místopisné XX, 1902/1903, pp. 279–280.
salaba 1944 | Josef Salaba, Několik poznámek k vývoji
a osudům rožmberské knihovny [v Třeboni], Časopis
československých knihovníků, 1944, pp. 9–12.
salava 2008 | Jan Salava, Sgrafitová
výzdoba Klenotnice a Hodovní síně ve státním zámku Telč,
(Bachelor Thesis), Charles University, Prague 2008.
salava 2011 | Jan Salava, Rodová a osobní prezentace
Zachariáše z Hradce v zámecké rezidenci v Telči, (Master
Thesis), Charles University, Prague 2011.
saliger 2003 | Arthur Saliger, Aspekte zur
künstlerischen Einmaligkeit der Heiligkreuzkapelle
auf Burg Karlstein bei Prag, in: Jiří Fajt (ed.), Court
Chapels of the High and Late Middle Ages and Their
Artistic Decoration, Prague 2003, pp. 103–113.
salmi 1919 | Mario Salmi, Gli affreschi di Palazzo Trinci
a Foligno, Bollettino d’arte XIII, 1919, pp. 139–180.
šamánková 1952 | Eva Šamánková, Stavební vývoj
kutnohorského Hrádku, Zprávy památkové péče XI–XII,
nos. 9–10, 1952, pp. 282–300.
sancho 1996 | José Luis Sancho, El Palacio Real de
Aranjuez, in: José Luis Sancho (ed.), Palacios Reales
en España. Historiay arquitectura de la magnificencia,
Madrid 1996, pp. 107–124.
sancho 2003 | José Luis Sancho, El Palacio Real de
Aranjuez, Cuadernos de restauración de Iberdrola VII,
Madrid 2003.
santi 1970 | Francesco Santi, L’affresco baglionesco
della galleria nazionale dell’Umbria, Commentari XXI,
1970, pp. 51–54.
sapper 1999 | Christian Sapper, Kinder des Geblüts
– die Bastarde Kaiser Rudolfs II., Mitteilungen des
Österreichischen Staatsarchiv XLVII, 1999, pp. 1–116.
šašek z bířkova 1974 | Václav Šašek z Bířkova, Deník
o jízdě a putování pana Lva z Rožmitálu a Blatné z Čech až
na konec světa, Prague 1974.
von sauter 1971 | Lilly von Sauter, Das Ambraser
Antiquarium: Zwischenbericht über einen
neuentdectken Bestandteil der Sammlungen
Ferdinands II., Mitteilungen der Gesellschaft für
Vergleichende Kunstforschung in Wien XXIV, nos. 1–2,
1971.
saxl 1992 | Fritz Saxl, Un “Discorso” di Jacopo Zucchi
e gli affreschi di Palazzo Rucellai a Roma, in: Claudia
| 249 |
Cieri Via (ed.), La cultura artistica nelle dimore romane
fra Quattrocento e Cinquecento, Rome 1992, pp. 172–
211.
scamozzi 1615 | Vincenzo Scamozzi, Dell’idea
dell’architettura, Venice 1615.
schade 1974 | Werner Schade, Die Malerfamilie
Cranach, Dresden 1974.
schebek 1881 | Edmund Schebek, Die Lösung der
Wallensteinfrage, Berlin 1881.
scheicher 1975 | Elisabeth Scheicher, Der
Spanische Saal von Schloss Ambras, Jahrbuch der
Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen in Wien LXXI, 1975,
pp. 39–94.
scheischer 1986 | Elisabeth Scheicher,
Schloss Ambras, in: Johanna Felmayer (ed.), Die
Kunstdenkmäler der Stadt Innsbruck. Die Hofbauten,
Vienna 1986, pp. 509–623.
scheicher 1990 | Elisabeth Scheicher,
Historiography and Display: The ‘Heldenrüstkammer’
of Archduke Ferdinand II in Schloss Ambras, Journal of
the History of Collections II, no. 1, 1990, pp. 69–79.
scheicher 2017 | Elisabeth Scheicher, The Collection
of Archduke Ferdinand II at Schloss Ambras: Its
Purpose, Composition and Evolution, in: Oliver
Impey Arthur – MacGregor, The Origins of Museums.
The Cabinet of Curiosities in Sixteenth- and Seventeenth
Century Europe, Oxford 2017, pp. 29–38.
schipke 2015 | Renate Schipke, Raritäten und
Kuriositäten: Die Kunstkammer in ehemaligen
Berliner Stadtschloss im Spiegel ihrer Verzeichnisse in
der Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin, in: Barbara Schneider-
Kempf – Martin Hollender (edd.), Festschrift für Daniela
Lülfing zum 65. Geburtstag, Berlin 2015, pp. 26–42.
schlosser 1908 | Julius von Schlosser, Die Kunst- und
Wunderkammer der Spätrenaissance, Leipzig 1908.
schlosser 2000 | Julius von Schlosser, Raccolte d’arte
e di meraviglie del tardo Rinascimento, Florence 2000,
p. 15. (Italian edition, first edition: Julius von
Schlosser, Die Kunst – und Wunderkammern der
Spätrenaissance: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des
Sammelwesens: Ein Handbuch für Sammler und
Liebhaber, Braunschweig 1978.
schmidt 1969 | Gerhard Schmidt, Malerei bis 1450.
Tafelmalerei – Wandmalerei – Buchmalerei, in: Karl
Maria Swoboda (ed.), Gotik in Böhmen: Geschichte,
Gesellschaftsgeschichte, Architektur, Plastik und Malerei,
Munich 1969, pp. 167–321.
schmid 2009 | Wolfgang Schmid, Vom Rheinland
nach Böhmen: Studien zur Reliquienpolitik Kaiser
Karls IV., in: Ulrike Hohensee et al. (edd.), Die Goldene
Bulle: Politik – Wahrnehmung – Rezeption, Berlin 2009,
pp. 431–464.
von schönherr 1890 | David von Schönherr,
Urkunden und Regesten aus dem K. K. Staatshalterei-
Archiv in Innsbruck, Jahrbuch der kunsthistorischen
Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses XI, 1890,
pp. LXXXIV–CCXLI.
schrenckhio à nozingen 1601 | Iacobo Schrenckhio
à Nozingen, Augustissimorum Imperatorum,
Serenissimorum Regum, Atque Archiducum,
Illustrissimorum Principum, necnon Comitum, Baronum,
Nobilium, aliorumq[ue] clarissimorum virorum, qui aut
ipsi cum imperio bellorum Duces fuerunt ... gestarum
succinctae descriptiones […], Oeniponti, Ioannes
Agricola 1601.
schrenck von notzing 1603 | Jakob Schrenck von
Notzing, Der Aller Durchleuchtigisten und Großmächtigen
Kayser/ Durchleuchtigisten unnd Großmächtigen
Königen und Ertzhertzogen/ ... Fürsten/ wie auch Grafen/
Herren/ vom Adel/ und anderer treflicher berühmbter
Kriegßhelden ... warhafftige Bildtnussen/ und kurtze
Beschreibungen ihrer wol in Fridts: als Kriegßzeiten
verrichten fürnembsten thaten und handlungen […],
Inssprugg, Daniel Baur 1603.
schütz 1972 | Karl Schütz, Lucas Cranach der Ältere und
seine Werkstatt. Jubiläumsausstellung museumseigener
Werke 1472–1972, Vienna 1972.
schütz 2002 | Karl Schütz, Die Porträtsammlung
Erzherzog Ferdinands II, in: Wilfried Seipel (ed.), Werke
für die Ewigkeit: Kaiser Maximilian I. und Erzherzog
Ferdinand II., Vienna 2002, pp. 19–23.
schwarz 1943 | Heinrich Frederik Schwarz, The
Imperial Privy Council in the Seventeenth Century,
Cambridge 1943.
| 250 |
schwarz 1997 | Michael Viktor Schwarz, Felix
Bohemia Sedes Imperii – Der Prager Veitsdom als
Grabkirche Kaiser Karls IV., in: Michael Viktor Schwarz,
Grabmäler der Luxemburger. Image und Memoria eines
Kaiserhauses, Luxembourg 1997, pp. 123–153.
schwarz 2005 | Michael Viktor Schwarz, Kathedralen
verstehen: St. Veit in Prag als räumlich organisiertes
Medienensemble, in: Elisabeth Vavra (ed.), Virtuelle
Räume: Raumwahrnehmung und Raumvorstellung
im Mittelalter. Akten des 10. Symposiums des
Mediävistenverbandes, Berlin 2005, pp. 47–68.
von schwarzenfeld 1961 | Gertrude von
Schwarzenfeld, Rudolf II. der saturnische Kaiser, Munich
1961.
schweinberger 2016 | Jürgen Schweinberger,
Fürst Karl I. von Liechtenstein. Adeliger und Staatsman
im Konfessionellen Zeitalter (Diploma Thesis), Karl-
Franzens-Universität, Graz 2016.
seelig 1987 | Lorenz Seelig, The Munich Kunstkammer
1565–1807, in: Oliver Impey – Arthur MacGregor (edd.),
The Origins of Museums, Oxford 1987, pp. 76–89.
seelig 2017 | Lorenz Seelig, The Munich Kunstkammer
1565–1807, in: Oliver Impey – Arthur MacGregor (edd.),
The Origins of Museums. The Cabinet of Curiosities in
Sixteenth- and Seventeenth Century Europe, Oxford
2017, pp. 76–89.
seipel 2006 | Wilfried Seipel (ed.), Giambologna.
Triumph des Körpers, Milan 2006.
šembera 1840 | Alois Vojtěch Šembera, Páni z Boskovic
a potomní držitelé hradu boskovického, Vienna 1840.
serlio 1575 | Sebastiano Serlio, ll settimo libro
d‘architettura di Sebastiano Serglio [sic] bolognese nel
qual si tratta di molti accidenti che possono occorrer‘al
architetto in diuersi luoghi ... = Sebasbiani Serlij
Bononiensis architecturae liber septimus in quo multa
explicantur, quae architecto variis locis possunt occurrere...
Andreas Wechel (ed.), Frankfurt am Main 1575.
serlio 1619 | Sebastiano Serlio, Tutte l’opere
d’architettura et prospettiva […], Venice 1619.
settis 1983 | Salvatore Settis, Origine e significato
delle gallerie in Italia, in: Paola Barocchi – Giovanna
Ragionieri (edd.), Gli Uffizi. Quattro secoli di una galleria,
Atti del Convegno internazionali di Studi, Firenze 20–24
settembre 1982, vol. I, Florence 1983, pp. 309–17.
skrabanek 2008 | Alena Skrabanek, Architektur
des Renaissanceschlosses Ungarschitz/Uherčice in
Südmähren (Master Thesis), Universität Wien, Vienna
2008.
skrabanek 2008–2009 | Alena Skrabanek,
Architektura renesančních zámků Uherčice a Telč ve
středoevropském kontextu, Památky Vysočiny: sborník
NPÚ ÚOP v Telči, Telč 2008–2009, pp. 134–155.
slavíček 1993 | Lubomír Slavíček (ed.), Artis pictoriae
amatores. Evropa v zrcadle pražského barokního
sběratelství, Prague 1993.
slavíček 2004 | Lubomír Slavíček, Sběratelství a
obchod s uměním v barokních Čechách: Stav a úkoly
českého bádání, in: Olga Fejtová – Václav Ledvinka – Vít
Vlnas (edd.), Barokní Praha – Barokní Čechie 1620–1740.
Sborník příspěvků z vědecké konference o fenoménu
baroka v Čechách, Prague 2004, pp. 491–538.
slavíček 2007 | Lubomír Slavíček, “Sobě, umění,
přátelům”. Kapitoly z dějin sběratelství v Čechách a na
Moravě 1650–1939, Brno 2007.
šmahel 1958 | František Šmahel, Knihovna Jana
z Rabštejna, Zápisky katedry čs. dějin a archivního studia
III/III – IV, 1958, pp. 93–113.
spenlé 2010 | Virginie Spenlé, Renaissance and
Baroque Banquet Cutlery: Court Culture as Reflected
in Kunst- und Wunderkammern, in: Georg Laue (ed.),
Kostbare Bestecke für die Kunstkammern Europas,
Munich 2010, pp. 30–55.
springell 1963 | Francis C. Springell, Connoisseur and
Diplomat, The Earl of Arundel’s Embassy to Germany in
1636…, London 1963.
stahl 2002 | Patricia Stahl, “Im Großen Saal des
Römers ward gespeiset in höchstem Grade prächtig”.
Zur Geschichte der kaiserlichen Krönungsbankette
in Frankfurt am Main, in: Hans Ottomeyer – Michaela
Völkel (edd.), Die öffentliche Tafel: Tafelzeremoniell in
Europa 1300–1900, Wolfratshausen 2002, pp. 58–71.
stehlíková 2001 | Dana Stehlíková, Poklad
vyšehradské kapituly a klenoty vyšehradských
prelátů, in: Královský Vyšehrad. 2. Sborník příspěvků ke
křesťanskému miléniu a k posvěcení nových zvonů na
| 251 |
kapitulním chrámu sv. Petra a Pavla, Kostelní Vydří
2001, pp. 193–208.
stejskal 1978 | Karel Stejskal, Die Rekonstruktion
des Luxemburger Stammbaums auf Karlstein, Umění
XXVI, no. 6, 1978, pp. 535–562.
stejskal 1983 | Karel Stejskal, Profánní náměty
malířství 13. století, in: Josef Krása (ed.), Umění 13.
století v českých zemích: Příspěvky z vědeckého zasedání,
Prague 1983, pp. 341–351.
stejskal 1998 | Karel Stejskal, Die Wandzyklen des
Kaisers Karls IV. Bemerkungen zu Neudatierungen
und Rekonstruktionen der im Auftrag Karls IV.
gemalten Wandzyklen, Umění XLVI, nos. 1–2, 1998, pp.
19–41.
stejskal 2003 | Karel Stejskal, Ještě jednou o
datování a atribucích karlštejnských maleb, in: Jiří
Fajt (ed.), Court chapels of the high and late Middle
Ages and their artistic decoration. Proceedings from
the international symposium, Convent of St. Agnes of
Bohemia, 23–25 September 1998, Prague 2003, pp.
343–350.
stejskal – pouzar 1998 | Aleš Stejskal – Ladislav
Pouzar, Renesanční Bechyně, Urbs felix, Bechyně 1998.
stejskal 2001 | Aleš Stejskal, Rožmberská a
švamberská kunstkomora na počátku 17. století a její
inventář, Archivum Trebonense IX, 2001, pp. 66–85.
stejskal 2004 | Aleš Stejskal, Inventáře letohrádku
Kratochvíle v předbělohorském období (unpublished
internal material, Národní památkový ústav České
Budějovice), 2004.
štěpánek 2016 | Pavel Štěpánek, Geschichte,
Zusammensetzung und Nutzung der Raudnitzer
Lobkowitz-Sammlung, im besonderen Hinblick auf
die Porträtsammlung, in: Ingrid Halászová (ed.),
Die Noblesse im Bild. Die adeligen Porträtgalerien in
der Frühen Neuzeit in den Ländern der ehemaligen
Habsburgermonarchie, Bratislava – Frankfurt am
Main – Bern – Vienna 2016, pp. 77–104.
štibraná 2012 | Ingrid Štibraná, Pálffyovská kolekcia
na dreve maľovaných portrétov viri illustri z prelomu
16. a 17. storočia, Opuscula Historiae Artium LXI, no. 2,
2012, pp. 24–37.
štibraná 2013 | Ingrid Štibraná, Rodová portrétna
galéria a umelecké zbierky Pálffyovcov na Červenom
Kameni. Obdobie prvých troch generácií rodu v 16. – 17.
storočí, Trnava 2013.
stloukal 1912 | Karel Stloukal, Karel z Lichtenštejna
a jeho účast ve vládě Rudolfa II. (1596–1607), Český
časopis historický XVIII, 1912, pp. 21–37.
stögmann 2007 | Arthur Stögmann, Karl von
Liechtenstein, Albrecht von Waldstein und die
Umwälzungen in Böhmen nach der Schlacht am
Weißen Berg (1620–1627), in: Eliška Fučíková – Ladislav
Čepička (edd.), Albrecht von Waldstein. Inter arma silent
musae?, Prague 2007, pp. 295–303.
stögmann 2009 | Arthur Stögmann, Karl I. von
Liechtenstein und die Politik in Böhmen. 1590–1627, in:
Johann Kräftner (ed.), Einzug der Künste in Böhmen:
Malerei und Skulptur am Hof Kaiser Rudolfs II. in Prag,
Vienna 2009, pp. 13–18.
stögmann 2017 | Arthur Stögmann, Karl I. von
Liechtenstein und die Politik in den böhmischen
Ländern (ca. 1590 bis 1627), Studia historica Brunensia
LXIV, 2017, pp. 61–94.
strunck – kieven 2010 | Christina Strunck – Elisabeth
Kieven (edd.), Europäische Galeriebauten: Galleries
in a Comparative European Perspective (1400–1800).
(Römische Studien der Bibliotheca Hertziana XXIX),
Munich 2010.
švejda 2011 | Antonín Švejda, Astronomie,
zeměměřictví a měřící přístroje, in: Jaroslav Pánek
– Eliška Fučíková – Martin Gaži et al., Rožmberkové:
rod českých velmožů a jeho cesta dějinami (exh. cat.),
Waldstein Riding School, Prague 2011.
syndram 1991 | Dirk Syndram, Naturschätze,
Kunstschätze: vom organischen und mineralischen
Naturprodukt zum Kunstobjekt, Bielefeld 1991, pp. 34–
48.
svoboda 2004 | Miroslav Svoboda, Lednice lenním
statkem moravských markrabat a českých králů, in:
Emil Kordiovský (ed.), Městečko Lednice, Lednice 2004,
pp. 175–191.
svoboda – strnadová – vávrová et al. 1992 |
J. Svoboda – V. Strnadová – V. Vávrová et al., Pražský
hrad – Ústav šlechtičen II, Prague 1992.
| 252 |
syndram 1999 | Dirk Syndram, Die Schatzkammer
Augusts des Starken: von der Pretiosensammlung zum
Grünen Gewölbe, Leipzig 1999.
syndram 2012 | Dirk Syndram, Die Anfänge der
Dresdner Kunstkammer, in: Dirk Syndram and Martina
Minning (edd.) Die kurfürstlich-sächsische Kunstkammer
in Dresden. Geschichte einer Sammlung, Dresden 2012,
pp. 15–38.
syson – thornton 2001 | Luke Syson – Dora
Thornton, Objects of Virtue: Art in Renaissance Italy, Los
Angeles 2001.
T
tauber 2018 | Christine Tauber, Der Idealstadtgründer
als Kustos im Monumentenmuseum, Münchner
Jahrbuch der bildenden Kunst LCIX, 2018, pp. 37–69.
thomas 1993 | Christine Thomas, Wien als Residenz
unter Ferdinand I, Jahrbuch des Vereins fur Geschichte
der Stadt Wien IL, 1993, pp. 73–98.
thornton 1997 | Dora Thornton, Scholar in his Study:
Ownership and Experience in Renaissance Italy, New
Haven 1997.
trnek 2001 | Helmut Trnek, Daniel Fröschl,
“kaiserlicher miniatormahler und antiquaries”:
Überlegungen zur geistigen Urheberschaft von Konzept
und Gliederung des Inventars der Kunstkammer Kaiser
Rudolfs II. von 1607 – 1611, in: Helmut Trnek – Sabine
Haag (edd.), Exotica: Portugals Entdeckungen im Spiegel
fürstlichen Kunst- und Wunderkammern der Renaissance.
Jahrbuch des Kunsthistorischen Museum in Wien III,
Vienna 2001, pp. 220–231.
trnková 2016 | Magda Trnková, Jaroslav Lev z
Rožmitálu, diplomat a politik pozdního středověku
(Bachelor Theses), Charles University, Prague 2016.
tůmová 2014 | Ludmila Tůmová, Svět Kryštofa Popela
mladšího z Lobkowicz optikou jeho deníků (Master
Thesis), Charles University, Prague 2014.
U
uličný 2014 | Petr Uličný, Belvederes and Loggias in
Prague: Two Faces of the Leisure Architecture of the
Imperial City, Studia Rudolphina XIV, 2014, pp. 30–50.
uličný 2015a | Petr Uličný, The Palace of Queen Anne
Jagiello and the Archduke Ferdinand II of Tyrol by
the White Tower in Prague Castle, Historie – Otázky –
Problémy II, 2015, pp. 142–154.
uličný 2015b | Petr Uličný, Hans and Paul Vredeman
de Vries in Rudolf II’s Prague Castle, Studia Rudolphina
XV, 2015, pp. 48–63.
uličný 2017a | Petr Uličný, The Making of the
Habsburg Residence in Prague Castle: History of the
Journey of the Imperial Palace from the Centre to the
Periphery, Umění LXV, no. 4, 2017, pp. 377–395.
uličný 2017b | Petr Uličný, Architektura Albrechta
z Valdštejna: italská stavební kultura v Čechách v letech
1600–1635, Prague 2017.
uličný 2018a | Petr Uličný, Od císaře k oráči a zase
zpět. Panovnické cykly ve Starém královském paláci,
Umění LXVI, no. 6, 2018, pp. 466–471.
uličný 2018b | Petr Uličný, “Bella, et rara armaria
di Sua Altezza”: Zbrojnice Pražského hradu v době
Ferdinanda Tyrolského, Průzkumy památek XXV, no. 1,
2018, pp. 25–46.
V vitzhum 1963 | Walter Vitzthum, A Drawing for the
vaccari 1997 | Maria Grazia Vaccari, La Guardaroba
Medicea dell’Archivio di Stato di Firenze, Florence 1997.
vacková 1971 | Jarmila Vacková, K malbám ve
Smíškovské kapli, Umění IX, 1971, pp. 255–279.
valeš – konečný 2011 | Tomáš Valeš – Michal
Konečný, Umělci a umělečtí řemeslníci ve valtických
matrikách 17. a 18. století, Opuscula Historiae Artium LX,
no. 1, 2011, pp. 50–73.
vaněček – kejř 1964 | Václav Vaněček – Jiří Kejř (edd.),
The Universal Peace Organization of King George of
Bohemia: A Fifteenth-century Plan for World Peace 1462–
1464, Prague 1964.
vařeka 2020 | Marek Vařeka, Lichtenštejnská panství
na Moravě do Bílé hory, Ostrava 2020.
vasari 2010 | Giorgio Vasari, Lives of the most Eminent
Painters Sculptors and Architects, vol. 10 (of 10). Bronzino
to Vasari, & General Index,Gaston du C. De Vere
(translation), 2010.
venturi 1885 | Adolfo Venturi, Zur Geschichte der
Kunstsammlungen Kaiser Rudolf II., Repertorium für
Kunstwissenschaft XVIII, 1885, pp. 1–23.
| 253 |
veselá 2005 | Lenka Veselá, Knihy na dvoře Rožmberků,
Prague 2005.
veselá 2011 | Lenka Veselá, Bibliothek der
Rosenberger, in: Martin Gaži – Jaroslav Pánek – Petr
Pavelec (edd.), Die Rosenberger: eine mitteleuropäische
Magnatenfamilie, České Budějovice 2011, pp. 236–243.
vilímková – kašička 1976 | Milada Vilímková
– František Kašička, Křídlo Španělského sálu ve
stavebním vývoji Pražského hradu, Zprávy památkové
péče XXXVI, no. 7, 1976, p. 385–391.
vilímková – kašička 1977 | Milada Vilímková –
František Kašička, Stavební proměny Středního křídla
Pražského hradu, Památky a příroda XXXVII, 1977, pp.
129–139.
vilímková 1995 | Milada Vilímková, Dějiny
Lobkovického paláce na Pražském hradě, Umění XLIII,
1995, pp. 395–410.
vítovský 1999 | Jakub Vítovský, Nástěnná malba
v bývalém dvoře probošta a kapituly v Brně, in: Kaliopi
Chamonikola (ed.), Od gotiky k renesanci, výtvarná
kultura Moravy a Slezska, II. Brno, Brno 1999, pp. 215–217.
Walls of the Farnese Gallery and a Comment on
Annibale Carracci’s “Sala Grande”, The Burlington
Magazine CV, 1963, pp. 445–446.
vlček 1999 | Pavel Vlček, Ilustrovaná encyklopedie
českých zámků, Prague 1999.
vlček 2000 | Pavel Vlček (ed.), Umělecké památky Prahy.
Pražský hrad a Hradčany, Prague 2000.
vlčková 2013 | Jitka Vlčková, Výzdoba Smíškovské
kaple v kutnohorském chrámu sv. Barbory a otázka
náboženského vyznání Michala z Vrchovišť, in: Kateřina
Horníčková – Michal Šroněk (edd.), In Puncto Religionis.
Konfesní dimenze předbělohorské kultury Čech a Moravy,
Prague 2013, pp. 117–136.
volrábová – kubíková 2012 | Alena Volrábová –
Blanka Kubíková (edd.), Rudolf II. a mistři grafického
umění (exh. cat.), National Gallery, Prague 2012.
voltelini 1892 | Hans von Voltelini, Urkunden und
Regesten aus dem k. u. k. Haus-, Hof- und Staats-Archiv
in Wien, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des
Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses XIII, 1892.
voltelini 1899 | Hans Voltelini, Urkunden und
Regesten aus dem K. u. K. Haus-, Hof- und Staats-archiv
in Wien, Jahrbuch der Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des
Allerhöchsten Kaiserhauses XX, no. 2, 1899, pp. 26–174.
vorel 2012 | Petr Vorel, Páni z Pernštejna. Vzestup a pád
rodu erbu zubří hlavy v dějinách Čech a Moravy, Prague
2012.
vrbová 2013 | Eliška Vrbová, Bechyňský zámek za Petra
Voka z Rožmberka (Bachelor Thesis), Charles University,
Prague 2013.
vrbová 2017 | Eliška Vrbová, Zelená světnice na zámku
Blatná a východiska její výmalby (Master Thesis), Charles
University, Prague 2017.
všetečková 2011 | Zuzana Všetečková, Středověká
nástěnná malba ve středních Čechách, Prague 2011.
W Vatikan. Akten des internationalen Kongresses zu Ehren
wackernagel 1951/1952 | Martin Wackernagel, Die
ideale Landsitz eines christlichen Humanisten der
Renaissancezeit, Schweizer Rundschau LI, 1951/1952, pp.
174–182.
wanková 2015 | Veronika K. Wanková, Perla Moravy:
Nástěnná malířská výzdoba pěti sálů na zámku
v Bučovicích, Prague 2015.
wasserman 1961 | Jack Wasserman, Palazzo Spada,
The Art Bullettin XXXXIII, 1961, pp. 58–63.
wasserman 1966 | Jack Wasserman, Ottavio
Mascarino and His Drawings in the Accademia
Nazionale di San Luca, Rome 1966.
watson 1979 | Paul F. Watson, The Garden of Love in
Tuscan Art of the Early Renaissance, Philadelphia 1979.
weiss 1953 | Roberto Weiss, The Castle of Gaillon
in 1503/1510, Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld
Institutes XVI, 1953, pp. 1–12.
wetter 2017 | Evelin Wetter (ed.), Prayer Nuts, Private
Devotion and Early Modern Art Collecting, Riggisberg
2017.
wild 1993 | Barbara Wild, Geschichte des
Kunsthandels in Wien. 1. Teil: Im Dienste des Kaisers
und der Fürsten; Von 1600 bis 1800, Parnass XIII, no.
3, 1993, pp. 60–67.
wilhelm 1944 | Gustav Wilhelm, Baugeschichte des
Schlosses Feldsberg, Brno – Munich – Vienna 1944.
| 254 |
wilhelm 1947–1950 | Gustav Wilhelm, Fürst Karl
von Liechtenstein und seine genealogischen und
heraldischen Bestrebungen, Neues Jahrbuch der
Heraldisch-Genealogischen Gesellschaft “Adler” II,
1947–1950, pp. 5–13.
wilhelm 1960 | Gustav Wilhelm, Der historische
liechtensteinische Herzogshut, Jahrbuch des
Historischen Vereins für das Fürstentum Liechtenstein
LX, 1960.
wilhelm 1977 | Gustav Wilhelm, Die Fürsten von
Liechtenstein und ihre Beziehungen zu Kunst und
Wissenschaft, Jahrbuch der liechtensteinischen
Kunstgesellschaft I, 1977, pp. 9–179.
winner – andreas – pietrangeli 1998 | Matthias
Winner – Bernard Andreas – Carlo Pietrangeli (edd.),
Il Cortile delle statue. Statuenhof des Belveder im
von Richard Krautheimer, Rom, 21. – 23. Oktober 1992,
Mainz am Rhein 1998.
winkelbauer 1999 | Thomas Winkelbauer,
Karrieristen oder fromme Männer. Adelige
Konvertiten zum Katholizismus in den böhmischen
und österreichischen Ländern um 1600, in: Bronislav
Chocholář – Libor Jan – Tomáš Knoz (edd.), Nový Mars
Moravicus, Brno 1999, pp. 431–452.
winkelbauer 2000 | Thomas Winkelbauer, Konfese
a konverze. Šlechtické proměny vyznání v českých
a rakouských zemích od sklonku 16. do poloviny 17.
století, Český časopis historický LXXXXVIII, no. 3, 2000,
pp. 476–540.
winkelbauer – knoz 2002 | Thomas Winkelbauer –
Tomáš Knoz, Geschlecht und Geschichte. Grablegen,
Grabdenkmäler und Wappenzyklen als Quellen für das
historischgenealogische Denken des österreichischen
Adels im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert, in: Arno Strohmeyer
– Joachim Bahlcke (edd.), Die Konstruktion der
Vergangenheit. Geschichtsdenken, Traditionsbildung und
Selbstdarstellung im frühneuzeitlichen Ostmitteleuropa
(1500–1800), Berlin 2002, pp. 129–177.
winkelbauer 2012 | Thomas Winkelbauer, Karl
von Liechtenstein und das “Prager Blutgericht” vom
21. Juni 1621 als tschechischer Erinnerungsorg im
Spiegel der Historiographie, in: Liechtensteinisch-
Tschechische Historikerkommision (ed.),
Liechtensteinische Erinnerungsorte in den böhmischen
Ländern, Vaduz 2012, pp. 51–71.
winter 1895 | Zikmund Winter, V měšťanské světnici
starodávné, Prague 1895.
winzeler 2018 | Marius Winzeler (ed.),
Schwarzenberský a Salmovský palác, Prague 2018.
wirth 1913 | Zdeněk Wirth, Inventář zámku
Litomyšlského z r. 1608, Časopis společnosti přátel
starožitností českých v Praze XXI, no. 3, 1913, pp. 123–125.
wocel 1858 | Jan Erazim Wocel, Relací o opravě
hradu Karlštejna od r. 1597, Památky archaelogické a
místopisné III, no. 2, 1858, pp. 67–74.
wölfle 2009 | Sylvia Wölfle, Die Kunstpatronage der
Fugger 1560–1618, Augsburg 2009.
wurzbach 1866 | Constantin von Wurzbach,
in: Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums
Oesterreich, Enthaltend die Lebensskizzen der
denkwürdigen Personen, welche 1750 bis 1850 im
Kaiserstaate und in seinen Kronländern gelebt haben, 15,
Leon – Lomen, Vienna 1866, pp. 129–130.
Y malby v národní kulturní památce Rotunda sv. Kateřiny a
yuen 1972 | Toby Yuen, Illusionistic Mural
Decorations of the Early Renaissance in Rome
(Dissertation), New York 1972.
Z Guardaroba in the Florentine Ducal Residences,
zarner 1975 | Henri Zarner, Le système décoratif de
la Galerie François Ier à Fontainebleau, in: Actes du
Colloque international sur l’art de Fontainebleau, Paris
1975, pp. 31–34.
záruba 2016 | František Záruba, Belege von
Bilbiotheken und Studienräumen in böhmischen
Burgen im Spätmittelalter. Das Studiolo im Hrádek
in Kuttenberg, in: Robert Šimůnek – Uwe Tresp (edd.),
Wege zur Bildung – Nutzen von Bildung in Mitteleuropa im
13. – 16. Jahrhundert, Göttingen 2016, pp. 155–168.
zatloukal 2012 | Pavel Zatloukal (ed.), The Lednice-
Valtice Estate, Prague 2012.
| 255 |
zimmer 2009 | Jürgen Zimmer, Aus den Sammlungen
Rudolfs II. Der “Kameo”, Studia Rudolphina IX, 2009,
pp. 110–126.
zimmer 2010 | Jürgen Zimmer, Aus den Sammlungen
Rudolfs II.: “Die Zwölff Heidnischen Kayser sambt Iren
Weibern” Mit einem Exkurs: Giovanni de Monte, Studia
Rudolphina X, 2010, pp. 7–47.
zimmermann 1888 | Heinrich Zimmermann,
Urkunden, Acten und Regesten: aus dem Archiv
des k. k. Ministeriums des Innern 2, Jahrbuch der
kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des Allerhöchsten
Kaiserhauses VII, 1888, pp. XV–LXXXIV.
zimmermann 1905 | Heinrich Zimmermann, Das
Inventar der Prager Schatz- und Kunstkammer
vom 6. Dezember 1621: nach Akten des k. und
k. Reichsfinanzarchivs in Wien, Jahrbuch der
Kunsthistorischen Sammlungen des allerhöchsten
Kaiserhauses XXV, 1905, pp. XIII–LXXV.
žitavský 1873–1932 | Petr Žitavský, Chronicon Aulae
regiae, Fontes rerum Bohemicarum, Josef Emler et al.
(edd.), Prague 1873–1932.
znojemská rotunda 2004 | Znojemská rotunda:
výsledky současného výzkumu. Sborník z 2. konference o
rotundě, konané 25.–26. června 2003 ve Znojmě, Znojmo
2004.
zucchi 2011 | Valentina Zucchi, The Medici
c. 1550–1650, in: Susan Bracken – Andrea M. Galdy
– Adriana Turpin (edd.), Collecting and the Princely
Apartment, Newcastle upon Tyne 2011, pp. 1–22.
 Bein, Herzig van | 94, 123

Personal Bembo, Bonifacio | 28, 29

Bembo, Pietro | 32, 34
Benedict XII, Pope | 35, 48, 74

index
Beránek, Bartoloměj | 122, 220
Berckho (probably Heinrich Wolf Berka of Dubá
and Lipá) | 150
Bergeron, Pierre | 21, 24, 62, 95, 109
Berlaymont, Charles de | 122
Berruguete, Pedro | 52
A Blocklandt, Anthonie van Moonfort | 91
Aachen, Hans von | 24, 94, 123, 163, 225 Bocchi, Achille | 69
Agricola, Rudolf | 61 Bocksberg the Younger, Johann | 89
Albert V, Duke of Bavaria | 17, 18, 71, 116, 159, 162 Bocskai, Stephan | 140
Albert V, Duke of Bavaria | 17, 18, 71, 116, 159, 162 Bon, Philip Le | 46
Albert VII, Archduke of Austria | 118 Bonfini, Antonio | 53
Alberti, Leon Battista | 30, 79, 169, 177, 180, Boskovice and Černá hora, Anna Maria of | 128
Aldegrever, Heinrich | 76 Boskovice, Kateřina of | 168
Aldrovandi, Ulisse | 156 Boskovice, Ladislav of | 60, 128
Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia | 77, 174 Boskovice, Protasius of | 60
Alighieri, Dante | 54 Botzheim, Johannes | 29, 69
Allio, Nicolo | 137 Bourg, Anne du | 210
Altdorfer, Albrecht | 181 Bourré, Jean | 175
d‘Amboise, Charles, Seigneur de Chaumont | 209 Bouzey, Pierre de | 92
d'Amboise, Georges | 177 Bracciolini, Poggio | 28
Amman, Jost | 89 Brahe, Tycho | 94
Andreasi, Ippolito | 81 Bramante, Donato | 155, 156, 220
Anna of Schweidnitz, Queen of Bohemia | 41, 43 Brandenburg-Küstrin, Catherine | 113
Anne Jagiellon, Queen of Bohemia | 16 Brandenburg, Joachim II Elector of | 113
Anne of Bohemia and Hungary | see Anne Jagiellon, Brocco, Antonio | 163
Queen of Bohemia Bronzino, Agnolo | 143
Aostalli, Ulrico | 25, 66, 67, 215, 218, 221 Brussel, Jobst von | 150
Apfellman, Hans | 62, Břetislav I, Duke of Bohemia | 99
Apuleius, Lucius Madaurensis | 174 Březan, Václav | 82, 123, 124, 188
Arcimboldo, Giuseppe | 19 Březová, Laurence of | 54
Argentan, Lord of | 209 Bukovinská, Beket | 10
Ariosto, Ludovico | 141 Bulderus, Herman Bulder of | 210
Armenini, Giovanni Battista | 162 Buonarotti, Michelangelo | 143, 160
Asulae, Matheo | 152 Burgkmair, Hans the Elder | 76, 77, 181,
Augustin of Olomouc (born Augustin Käsenbrot) | Busch, Renate von| 9, 10
48, 55, 57, 58, 59 Büttner, Frank | 10
Augustus the Younger, Duke of Brunswick-
Lüneburg | C
Augustus, Elector of Saxony | 102, 112, 115, 116 Caesar, Gaius Julius, Roman Emperor | 169, 192, 210
Augustus, Marcus Aurelius Antoninus | 168 Calaminus, Georg | 178
Augustus, Roman Emperor | 20, 52, 168, 169, 177 Cambiasio, Luca | 223
Austria, Joanna of | 215 Campi, Bernardino | 82, 83
Austria, Margaret of | 15 Campi, Vincenzo | 63, 221
Averlino, Antonio di Pietro (Filarete) | 31, 79 Capodiferro, Girolamo | 174, 225
Caracalla, Antonio | 177
B Carbone, Ludovico | 28
Baldi, Bernardino | 33 Carducho, Vicente | 223
Bandinelli, Baccio | 141, 142 Carlone, Giovanni Battista | 137
Barocci, Federico | 20 Carpaccio, Vittore | 181
Bauer, Rotraud | 10 Carrara, Francesco I da (Lord of Padua) | 37
Becerra, Gaspar | 223 Castello, Giovannni Battista (Bergamasco) | 223
Bedřich (son of King Vladislav II) | 99 Castrucci, Cosimo | 123

| 256 |
Castrucci, Giovanni | 119 Ellyr, Lorenc | 86
Celtis, Conrad | 55 Erbachi, Christiano | 152
Cerceau, Jacques Androuet du | 76 Erhardt, Bernard | 164, 165, 221
Černohorský of Boskovice, Jan Šembera | 166 Ernest of Habsburg, Duke of Austria | 17, 223
Charlemagne, Emperor of the Romans | 209 Ernstinger, Hans Georg | 166
Charles Emmanuel I, Duke of Savoy | 13, 63, 163 dell'Escale, Joseph | 210
Charles II, Archduke of Austria | 17 Esprinchard, Jacques | 24, 25, 209
Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor | 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, d'Estampes, Robinet | 15
53, 99, 100, 190, 191, 193, 196, 197 d'Este (family) | 28
Charles V of Valois, King of France | 40, 48, 53, 75, d'Este, Alessandro | 13
100 d'Este, Borso | 28
Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor | 71, 84, 168, 169, d’Este, Cesare, Duke of Modena | 63
213, 224 d'Este, Isabella | 18, 75, 177
Christian I, Elector of Saxony | 115 d'Este, Leonello, Marquis of Ferrara | 28, 65, 84
Christian II, Elector of Saxony | 14 Evelyn, John | 210
Christian II, Elector of Saxony | 14
Cicero, Marcus Tullius | 28, 33, 48, 69 F
Cimburk (Lords of) | 46 Farnese, Alessandro | 68, 69, 70, 71, 220
Cincinato, Romulo | 71 Federico II of Gonzaga, Duke of Mantua | 224
Collaert, Adriaen | 86 Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor | 15, 16, 17, 85, 133,
Commines, Philippe de | 209 192, 194, 196, 199, 214
Constans, Claire | 10 Ferdinand II, Holy Roman Emperor | 131
Corraduz, Rudolf | 19 Ferdinand II of Tyrol, Archduke of Austria | 17, 21,
Cosimo I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany | 84, 132, 140, 169, 141, 170, 194, 196, 208, 218
142, 208 Ferdinand III, Holy Roman Emperor | 126, 207
Cosimo II de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany | 147 Ferdinando I de' Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany |
Cossa, Francesco del |181 147, 175
Coxcie, Michiel |213, 222 Ferrabosco di Laino, Pietro | 86
Cranach the Elder, Lucas | 111, 181 Fiala, Karel | 38
Cranach the Younger, Lucas | 208 Ficino, Marsilio | 69
Crivelli, Carlo | 181 Filarete | see Averlino, Antonio di Pietro
Cuspinian, Johannes | 34, 55, 58 Filippi, Giovanni Maria | 135, 137, 141, 155, 163
Custos, Domenicus | 133, 134 Fiorentino, Rosso (born Giovanni Battista di Jacopo)
| 174
D Foix (family) |209
Danti, P. Ignazio | 143, 144 Foix, Gaston de | 209
Datini, Francesco | 77, 176 Fontana, Giovanni Battista | 133, 134
Decembrio, Angelo | 84, 169 Fontana, Orazio | 218, 219
Dechsner, Oldřich | 86 Francesco I de‘Medici, Grand Duke of Tuscany | 72,
Demosthenes | 28 112, 215, 217
Dientzenhofer, Kilian Ignaz | 165 Francis I, King of France | 159, 174
Dietrichstein (House of) | 126, 129 Frátská, Anna | 50
Dietrichstein, Franz of | 59, 128, 147 Frederick V, Elector of Palatinate | 165
Donà, Leonardo | 14 Friedrich, Johann | 113
Dorisi, Pietro | 137 Fröschl, Daniel | 118, 119, 177
Dražice, Jan IV of | 44, 124, 190 Fučíková, Eliška | 10
Dubá, Magdalena of | 60 Fugger (family) | 24, 157, 158, 165, 166, 168, 178, 182
Dürer, Albrecht | 20, 207 Fugger, Johann Jakob | 122, 156, 159, 160
Dynter, Edmund de |190 Fugger, Raymund | 111, 156
Furioso, Orlando | 141
E
Eck, Valentin | 48, 55, 59 G
Eckthurn, Dominico Benedetto Cometta von | 210 Galilei, Galileo | 141,
Edward IV, King of England | 46 Gallo, Philippe | 91
Egmont, Lamoraal | 122 Gargiolli, Giovanni | 159, 217, 219
Elizabeth I, Queen of England and Ireland |122 Gent, Justus van | 52, 191
Elizabeth Přemyslid, Queen of Bohemia | 100, 196 Georg, Johann | 113

| 257 |
Gerson, Jean Charlier de | 210 J
Ghiberti, Lorenzo | 27 Jansen, Dirk Jacob | 10
Ghisi, Teodoro |224 Jessenius | 125
Ghisoni, Fermo | 83 Jode, Gerard de | 86
Giambologna (born Jean Boulogne) | 65 John of Bohemia | see John of Luxembourg, King of
Giotto di Bondone | 191 Bohemia
Giovio, Paolo | 33, 208 John of Luxembourg, King of Bohemia | 38
Gonzaga (family) | 82, 171 John XXII, Pope | 34
Gonzaga Vincenzo, Duke of Mantua | 63, 65, 175 John, Duke of Berry | 15, 100
Gonzaga, Eleonora | 126 Julius II, Pope | 156, 220
Gonzaga, Guglielmo | 175, 224
Gregory XIII, Pope | 117, 220 K
Grote, Andreas | 9 Kathar, Katharin Wenzel von | 146, 147 152
Guise, Claude de | 209 Kepler, Johannes | 125
Kereczeny (family) | 126
H Keyssler, Johann Georg | 171
Habermel, Erasmus | 123 Khevenhüller, Hans | 19, 218, 223
Habsburg (House of) (see also under individual Khlesl, Melchior | 20
names) | 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 70, 71, 85, 86, 97, 122, Kieven, Elisabeth | 10
128, 129, 170, 178, 180, 186, 196, 198, 206, 207 Kinsky, Wenzel | 150
Hac, Hans van | 24 Knoz, Tomáš | 128, 129
Hagenmüller, David | 165 Koller, Hans | 145, 147
Hainhofer, Philipp | 170 Kolovraty (Kolowraty), Hanuš II of | 54
Hajek of Libočan, Wenceslas | 41 König, Hans Jakob | 19
Halászová, Ingrid | 198, 199 Konrád II (Přemyslid Prince) | 189
Hasištejnský of Lobkowicz, Bohuslav | 54, 60 Kornblum, Magnus | 132
Haupt, Herbert | 10, 131, 146, 152 Krafft, Hans Ulrich | 22, 23, 24
Henry III, King of France | 210 Krása, Josef | 45
Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor | 192 Krčálová, Jarmila | 72, 181
Herrera, Juan de | 218 Krug, Ludwig | 103
Heyperger, Leopold | 15, 112 Kubíková, Blanka | 207
Hoffmann, Volker | 10 Kunštát and Poděbrady, Georg of | 46, 197
Hohenzollern (family) | 112 Kuster, Thomas | 134
Holbein the Younger, Hans | 76, 181
Homolka, Jaromír | 194 L
Hopfer, Daniel | 77 l'Escut, Lord de | 209
Hospitall, Lord dell | 210 Landi, Ottavio | 17
Hradec (Neuhaus) (Lords of) | 107, 108, 128, 197, 199, Lasso, Ferdinando di | 152
200, 201, 202, 204 Lehmann, Caspar | 123
Hradec, Adam II of | 79, 86, 87, 88, 107, 187, 200 Leo X, Pope | 156
Hradec, Adam of | 199, 201 Leonardo da Vinci | 20, 63
Hradec, Elisabeth of | 199, 200, 202 Leoni, Leone | 213, 214
Hradec, Joachim of | 199, 200, Lev of Rosental and Blatná, Jaroslav | 46
Hradec, Katherine of | 107, 187 Libštejnský of Kolovraty (Kolowraty), Albrecht II |
Hradec, Mandelina of | 199, 200 199
Hradec, Ursula of | 199, 200 Libuše (Mythical Czech Princess) | 187
Hradec, Zacharias of | 10, 73, 74, 78, 81, 200 Licinio, Giulio | 18
Liechtenstein-Nikolsburg, Georg Erasmus of | 130
I Liechtenstein (House of) | 11, 126, 128, 129, 130, 131,
Ignazio, Fra (Ignazio da Laconi) | 143 135, 137, 138, 140, 143, 145, 151, 152, 153, 198
Imhoff (family) | 112 Liechtenstein, Georg Hartmann of | 137
Imhoff, Conrad | 58 Liechtenstein, Gundakar of |128, 129, 130, 131
Imhoff, Willibald | 24 Liechtenstein, Hartmann II of |129, 130, 135, 136, 137
Innocent VII, Pope | 162 Liechtenstein, Heinrich I of | 126
Isabella Clara Eugenia, Archduchess of Austria | 118 Liechtenstein, Heinrich II of | 126
Liechtenstein, Heinrich IX of |130
Liechtenstein, Christopher IV of | 137

| 258 |
Liechtenstein, Johann Adam I Andreas of | 131, 140 Monteagudo | 18
Liechtenstein, Judith of | 130 Montefeltro (family) | 30, 33, 44, 50, 52
Liechtenstein, Karl I of | 11, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, Montefeltro, Federico da | 29, 75, 81, 191
132, 135, 137, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 150, 151, 152, 198, Montenay, Georgette de | 92
209 Montluc, Marshal de | 210
Liechtenstein, Karl Eusebius of | 139, 140 Mora, Juan Gómez de | 71,
Liechtenstein, Katharina of | 130 Morini, Octavio | 137
Liechtenstein, Maximilian of | 128 Muchka, Ivan. P | 215
Litold | 43
Livy | 87 N
Lobkowicz (House of) | 54, 94, 103, 128, 204, 206 Naples, Beatrice of | 53
Lobkowicz, Polyxena of | 103, 128, 204, 205, 206, 207 Nečtiny, Bavor of | 99
Lombardo, Marcantonio | 209, Nero, Roman Emperor | 168
Lorenzetto (Lorenzo Lotti) | 156 Niccoli, Niccolò de' | 28, 169
Lorraine, Antoine of | 162 Notzing, Jacob Schrenck of | 133, 134, 135
Louis IX, St., King of France | 98
Louis XII, King of France | 209 O
Lupicini, Antonio| 217 Orange, William of | 122
Luserna, Carlo Francesco Manfredi di | 13, 14, 63, 225 Orge, Lord della | 210
Ortelius, Abraham | 121
M Ortenburg, Anna Maria zu | 129
Maccagnino, Angelo | 28 Ovid | 23, 77, 174, 225
Machiavelli, Niccolò | 30
Mander, Karel van | 219, 221 P
Mansfeld-Vorderort , Peter Ernst I of | 133, Pallavicini, Benedicto | 152
Manzuolo | 224 Paprocki of Hloholy, Bartholomew | 129
Marco, Marco de | 137 Paracelsus | 125
Maria Theresa, Holy Roman Empress | 66, 165 Paredes, Martín de | 15
Marque, Robert della (Robertus Diabolus) | 209 Parmigianino (born Girolamo Francesco Maria
Marshall (French Ambassador at the court of Mazzola) | 141
Rudolf II) | 109 Paul II, Pope | 31, 177
Mary, Queen of Hungary | 213, 214 Paul, Raimund | 86
Mascarino, Ottavio | 117, 174, 220 Pernstein (House of) | 128, 204, 205, 206, 208
Master Theodoric | 100, 191 Pernstein, Jan IV of | 182
Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary | 53, 56 Pernstein, Jan V | 206
Matthias of Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor | 14, Pernstein, Jaroslav of | 205, 206
106, 107, 130, 134 Pernstein, Mary of | 205, 206
Matthias of Habsburg, Holy Roman Emperor | 106, Pernstein, Polyxena of | see Lobkowicz, Polyxena of
107, 130, 134 Pernstein, Vojtěch of | 181, 182
Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor | 15, 101, 178 Pernstein, Vratislav II of | 173
Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor | 15, 17, 18, 19, Pernstein, Vratislav of | 186, 204
101, 178 Pernstein, William of | 181
Maximilian II, Holy Roman Emperor | 14, 17, 29, 70, Perret, Pedro | 218
71, 73, 81, 155, 179, 183, 186, 196, 214 Perschmidt, Michael |138, 146
Maximilian III, Archduke of Austria | 122, 130 Petrarch | 27, 37, 54, 55, 92
Medici (family) (see also under individual names) | Petschatzer, Antonio | 137
72, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 151, 157, 159, 215, 217, 218 Peutinger, Conrad | 48, 58, 169
de‘Medici, Caterina | 174, 175 Philip II, King of Spain | 21, 71, 213, 217, 218, 223
de‘Medici, Giovanni di Cosimo | 169 Philip IV, King of Spain | 71
de‘Medici, Lorenzo di Piero (Lorenzo il Magnifico) Pinturicchio (Bernardino di Betto) | 162
| 84 Pius, Antonius | 168
de‘Medici, Maria | 215 Pizan, Christine de | 36
Melana, Antonio | 87, 91 Plato | 28
Mendoza, Maria Manrigue de Lara y | 186, 204, 205 Plessis, Lord du | 210
Michelangelo | see Buonarotti, Michelangelo Pliny | 27, 28, 48, 97, 169, 177
Mirandola, Pico della | 30 Popel of Lobkowicz the Younger, Christopher | 92,
Miseroni, Ottavio | 123 93

| 259 |
Popel of Lobkowicz, Georg | 54 Santino, Julio Cesare | 137
Popel of Lobkowicz, Zdeněk Vojtěch | 54, 103, 204 Scotti (family) | 28,
Pragerová, Alžběta | 187 Scotti, Alberto III | 28, 30
Prat, Antoine du | 210 Seisenegger, Jakob | 199, 200, 201, 202, 204, 205,
Pražský, František | 44 206
Primaticcio, Francesco | 174 Šemberová of Boskovice and Černá Hora,
Prinz, Wolfram | 10, 173, 175 Katharina | 128
Probo d’Atri, Jacopo | 177 Seneca, Lucius Annaeus | 18, 28
Přemysl Otakar II, King of Bohemia | 126 Senesis, Thomae Pecci | 151
Ptolemy I Soter | 33, 121, 143 Septimius, Johann | 130
Puchaimb, Hans Rudolph Graf von | 151 Serbia, Mary of | 189
Pythagoras | 33 Serlio, Sebastiano | 81, 82, 161, 175
Serragli, Bartolomeo | 169
Q Sforza, Francesco, Duke of Milan | 30
Quiccheberg, Samuel von | 19, 113, 114, 115, 116, 119 Sforza, Galeazzo Maria | 31
Schlick, Joachim Andreas von | 131
R Schongauer, Martin | 49
Rabenhaupt, Hans Heinrich | 123 Schreyer, Sebald | 24, 28, 48
Rabštejn, Jan of | 54 Schwanberg, John George of | 92
Ramada, Johan Baptista | 137 Schweinberger, Anton | 122
Renatus, Beatus | 111 Slavata (family) | 201, 204
Ricci, Giovanni | 175 Slavata, Adam | 76, 128
Rittmester, Rasch | 150 Smíšek of Vrchoviště, Jan | 49, 50
Robbia, Luca della | 30, 31 Smíšek of Vrchoviště, Michal | 50, 53
Rogendorf, Anna of | 122 Soběslav II, Duke of Bohemia | 99
Rohan, Louis René Édouard de | 210 Solis, Virgil | 76
Romano, Giulio | 82, 83, 160 Somatz, Francesco | 137
Rosenberg (House of) | 82, 89, 92, 102, 103, 104, 107, Soranzo, Girolamo | 14
122, 123, 124, 125, 128, 199, 202, 204, 207, 210 Soviano, Giovanni Battista | 163
Rosenberg, Bohunka of | 203 Spranger, Bartholomeus | 22, 23, 24, 66, 67, 68, 70,
Rosenberg, Elisabeth of | 203 71, 94, 123
Rosenberg, Eva of | 203 Squarcione, Francesco | 27
Rosenberg, Jost III of | 122 Stella, Paolo della | 194
Rosenberg, Peter Wok of | 10, 11, 83, 87, 89, 92, 103, Sternberg, Adam of | 91
122, 123, 124, 126, 186, 188, 189, 202 Stewart, Bernard (Lord of Aubigny) | 209
203, 204, 210, 212, 225 Strabo | 33
Rosenberg, William of | 10, 73, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 102, Strada, Jacopo | 14, 81, 83, 85, 159, 160, 161, 162, 165,
103, 122, 123, 125, 128, 165, 183, 186, 202, 203, 204 166, 183
Rosental and Blatna, Jaroslav Lev of | 46, 197 Strein, von Schwarzenau, Reichard | 178, 179
Rosental, Anna von | 199, 201 Strunck, Christina | 10,
Roterodamus, Desiderius Erasmus | 84, 94, 123 Styria, Maria of | 19
Roue the Elder, Lord della | 210 Suger (Abbot) | 98
Ruccellai, Orazio | 174 Sustris, Friedrich | 157, 158, 162, 166
Rudolf I of Habsburg, King of Bohemia | 126 Šumburk, Jindřich of | 44
Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor | 8, 11, 13, 14, 16, 17, Švamberk (Lords of) | 107, 124
19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 54, 61, 62, 63, 65, 66, 67, 70, 71, Švamberk, Peter of | 124
72, 82, 83, 86, 92, 107, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, Švamberk, Johann Georg of | 92
123, 124, 125, 130, 131, 134, 155, 163, 165, 187, 188, 196,
198, 204, 209, 213, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, T
223, 224, 225 Tasso, Torquato | 141
Telč, Oldřich Kříž of | 191
S Terzio, Francesco | 180,
Sadeler the Younger, Aegidius | 83, 94 Theodoric of Prague | see Master Theodoric
Sadeler, Raphael | 89 Thomas Felderer (Holderer) | 145
Sambucus, Johannes | 34 Thun, Georg von | 17
San Clemente, Don Guillén de | 95, 109 Thürnwaldt, Hans | 145, 152
Santi, Raphael | 20, 34, 156, 222 Titian (born Tiziano Vecelli) | 20, 82, 83, 143, 224

| 260 |
Toledo, Jaun Bautista de (Juan) | 223 William V, Duke of Bavaria | 162
Tours, Berengar of | 210 Winge, Joose van | 89
Tranquillus, Gaius Suetonius | 169 Winkelbauer, Thomas | 129
Trautson, Paul Sixtus III | 109, 186, 209 Wittelsbach, (House of) | 162
Travný, Adam | 181 Wohlmut, Bonifaz | 195, 196
Tremoille the Elder, Lord de | 209 Wolfhart, Hanusch | 179
Tribolo, Niccolò | 157 Wollenweken, Ditlhoff | 151
Trismegistus, Hermes | 70 Wyssenbach, Jeremias | 79
Třebochovský, Tomáš | 123
Tura, Cosimo | 28 Z
Zaccari, Federico | 71
U Zajíc of Hasenburg, Jan | 192, 194
Uličný, Petr | 192, 195 Zeiler, Martin | 171
Ulrich (carpenter) | 189 Zierotin, Karl the Elder of | 130, 208, 209, 210
Ursini (family) | 124 Žižka, Jan | 208, 134
Uslaub, David | 115 Zuccari, Federico | 68, 69
Zucchi, Jacopo | 174
V Zucchi, Valentina | 142
Valenti, Antonio | 217 Zwitzel, Simon | 161, 162
Valle, Andrea della | 177
Varád, Forgách Ferenc, Bishop of | 53
Varro, Marcus Terentius | 33
Vartemberk (Lords of) | 46
Vasari, Giorgio | 27, 33, 143, 144, 167, 168, 175
Veronese, Guarino | 33
Veronese, Paolo (born Paolo Caliari) | 24,
Verrocchio, Tommaso del | 168
Vespasiano I Gonzaga | 175
Vignola, Giacomo Barozzi da | 220
Vinha, Mathieu da | 10
Vitéz John, Archbishop of Esztergom | 53
Viti, Timoteo | 33, 34
Vitruvius | 28
Vladislav II Jagiellon, King of Bohemia | 53, 55, 56,
196
Vladislav II of Hungary | see Vladislav II Jagiellon,
King of Bohemia
Vladislav II, Duke of Bohemia (Vladislav I as King of
Bohemia) |99
Vlašim, Jan Očko of | 45
Volpaia, Florentine Lorenzo della | 144
Vos, Maarten de | 86
Vredeman de Vries, Hans | 25, 219, 221, 222
Vredeman de Vries, Paul | 25, 164, 221, 222
Vries, Adriaen de | 14, 163

W
Waldstein (Counts of) | 129
Waldstein, Albrecht Wenzel Eusebius, Duke of
Friedlant | 128, 225
Waldstein, Maximilian | 150
Wenceslas II, King of Bohemia | 99
Wenceslas III Adam, Duke of Cieszyn |204
Wenceslas IV, King of Bohemia | 190
Wenceslas, St., Duke of Bohemia | 43, 99
Werner, Baltazar | 122
Widmann, Jiří | 86, 89

| 261 |
Local index F
Ferrara | 20, 28, 33, 34, 54
Florence | 31, 84, 112, 141, 144, 159, 167, 169, 180, 217
Foligno | 177
Fontainebleau | 159, 173, 174
A Frankfurt am Main | 106, 107
Freidegg | 178, 179, 180
Aachen | 122 Friedberg | 181
Alexandria | 33
Ambras | see Innsbruck G
Ancy le Franc | 175 Gaillon | 173, 177
Antwerp | 91, 122, 160, 222 Geneva | 130, 179
Aranjuez | 218, 223 Genoa | 73, 81
Arezzo | 97 Goldegg | 181
Arquà | 37, 55 Gubbio | 29, 30, 32, 44, 49, 52, 115
Augsburg | 58, 95, 111, 122, 129, 156, 157
Avignon | 34, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 44, 45, 48, 55, 74, 75, H
77, 101 Hasištejn (Hassenstein) | 54, 55, 60
Herrnbaumgarten | 130
B Hohenau | 130
Basel | 130, 181 Houska | 45
Bechyně | 10, 82, 89, 92, 93, 94, 125 Hradčany see Prague-Hradčany
Berlin-Cölln | 113 Hrádek of Kutná Hora | see Kutná Hora
Berlin | 112, 113 Hrádek u Kunratic | 197
Binche | 213
Blatná | 45, 46, 47, 48, 185, 197 I
Blois | 173, 210 Imperial Mill see Prague-Bubeneč
Bologna | 54, 213 Innsbruck | 121, 132, 133, 134, 141, 159, 165, 169, 170, 171,
Brixen (Bressanone) | 179 184, 208
Brno | 55, 59, 60 Issogne | 181
Brussels | 46, 213, 214 Ivančice (Eibenschütz) | 128, 130
Bučovice | 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 178
Buchlov | 197 J
Buda | 53, 55, 56 Jindřichův Hradec | 45, 48, 49, 86, 87, 88, 107, 178, 180,
187, 196, 197, 200
C K
Caprarola | 68, 69, 70, 159, 220 Kardašova Řečice | 200
Červená Lhota | 200 Karlštejn | 39, 40, 43, 44, 100, 190, 191, 192, 196
Český Krumlov | 81, 82, 83, 86, 102, 103, 122, 123, 125, Kirchheim | 165
186, 202, 204, 220 Kratochvíle | 82, 87, 88, 89, 90, 220
Cheb | 197 Kutná Hora | 49, 50, 51, 52, 53
Chomutov | 54 Kyšperk (today Letohrad) | 81
Cölln | see Berlin-Cölln
Cologne | 122 L
Cremona | 28, 60, 61, 73 La Aceca | 218
Lauf an der Pegnitz | 197
D Lednice (Eisgrub) | 128, 130, 132, 135, 136, 137, 138, 140,
Dachau | 165 146
Dobrovice | 196 Liège | 122
Dolní Kounice | 45, 46, 48 Linz | 123
Dresden | 56, 57, 102, 115, 116 Litoměřice | 44
Litomyšl | 178, 186, 206, 207
E Lucerne | 181
Ebersdorf | 18 Lyon | 92
El Escorial | 213, 217, 218, 223
Esztergom | 53

| 262 |
M S
Maastricht | 122 Sabbioneta | 82, 175
Madrid | 25, 71, 72, 213, 223 Saint-Denis | 98
Mantua | 73, 75, 76, 82, 83, 163, 166, 171, 177, 222, 224 Saint-Germain-en-Laye | 35
Mechelen | 15, 213 Sarmato | 28, 29, 30
Melun | 35 Schallaburg | 178
Metz | 40 Schwarzenau | 178, 179
Mikulov (Nikolsburg) | 126 Sebeș | 194
Milan | 73, 101 Segovia | 213
Moravská Třebová | 60, 81 Siena | 97
Munich | 17, 18, 112, 116, 121, 159, 161, 162, 163, 165, 170 Slavonice | 81
Split | 215, 216
N Stams | 44
Nancy | 162, 173 Stará Boleslav | 43
Nelahozeves | 104, 105, 203, 204 Švihov | 185
Nová Bystřice | 200
Nuremberg | 28, 58, 103, 112, 199 T
Telč | 10, 73, 74, 76, 77, 79, 80, 108, 178, 179, 180, 185,
O 201
Olomouc | 48, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 129 Toledo | 20, 224
Opočno | 178 Torgau | 223
Tovačov | 197
P Trento | 73
Padua | 27, 32, 34, 37, 55, 56, 57 Třeboň | 83, 92, 122, 123, 125, 188, 189, 191, 192, 204, 210,
Pardubice | 178, 180, 181, 182 211, 225
Paris | 35, 38, 46, 53, 98, 99, 182 Turin | 163
Pavia | 73, 101
Pecka | 196 U
Perugia | 177 Uherčice | 179
Písek | 197 Uherský Ostroh | 45, 48
Pistoia | 177 Urbino | 29, 33, 44, 49, 50, 52, 53, 75, 81, 115, 169, 191
Planau | 202
Plessis Bourré | 173 V
Prague (Praha) | not included for frequent occurence Valsaín | 213, 218, 223
Prague Castle | see Prague-Hradčany Valtice (Feldsberg) | 126, 129, 130, 135, 136, 137, 138,
Prague-Bubeneč | 158, 215, 216 140, 141, 142, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152
Prague-Hradčany | 10, 11, 13, 15, 20, 21, 24, 25, 38, 40, Vatican | see Rome
43, 44, 45, 54, 61, 62, 64, 66, 68, 71, 72, 81, 82, 83, 84, Vaucluse | 37, 55
86, 92, 94, 99, 100, 103, 109, 116, 120, 121, 123, 124, 155, Venice | 19, 97, 160
163, 178, 183, 184, 187, 191, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 203, Vienna | 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 25, 34, 48, 55, 62, 70, 71, 85, 97,
205, 212, 215, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 223 121, 122, 130, 134, 166, 213, 214, 215, 219, 224
Prague-Kunratice | 53 Vincennes | 35, 40, 43, 46, 75
Prague-Old Town | 53, 131, 164, 190, 209 Vyšehrad | see Prague-Vyšehrad
Prague-Vyšehrad | 99, 190
Prague-White Mountain | 128, 129, 131, 198, 225 W
Prague-Zbraslav | 99 White Mountain | see Prague-White Mountain
Prato | 77, 176 Wilfersdorf | 130
Prostějov | 152, 182 Windhaag | 179
Wrocław | 55, 56, 210
R
Rabensburg | 130 Z
Ringelsdorf | 130 Zahrádky | 190
Rome | 33, 34, 69, 85, 86, 87, 101, 106, 117, 155, 156, 162, Zbraslav | see Prague-Zbraslav
169, 173, 174, 175, 177, 180, 186, 215, 220, 222, 225 Žirovnice | 45, 46, 185
Roudnice nad Labem | 54, 204, 207 Znojmo | 189
Rožmberk (Rosenberg) | 186 Zvíkov | 185

| 263 |
Space for your notes

| 264 |
Space for your notes

| 265 |
Space for your notes

| 266 |
Space for your notes

| 267 |
Space for your notes

| 268 |
Space for your notes

| 269 |
Authors of the texts | Alice Fornasiero, Eliška Zlatohlávková, Miroslav Kindl
Reviewers | Friedrich Polleroß, Ondřej Jakubec
Translation | Daniel Řezníček, Alice Fornasiero, Eliška Zlatohlávková, Miroslav Kindl
Proof-reading | Simon Gill, Ashley Davies
Photography | Rijksmuseum Amsterdam — 1, 2, 3, 4, 38, 44, 45; Castello Sarmato — 5; Metropolitan Museum
of Art — 6, 40, 41; Národní památkový ústav — 7, 8, 19, 22, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 54, 60, 61, 62; Eliška Zlatohlávková
— 9, 10, 11, 57; bpk, Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, photo: Jürgen Karpinski — 12; Martin Zlatohlávek
— 14; Archiv Pražského hradu — 15, 16, 56, 73; Správa Pražského hradu, photo: Jan Gloc — 17, 59; Direzione
Regionale Musei Lazio – Caprarola (VT) — 18; Fabrice Lepeltier — 20; SOA Třeboň — 21; Ministero per i beni
e le attività culturali e per il turismo – Palazzo Ducale di Mantova — 23; Panství Bechyně s.r.o., Alice For-
nasiero — 27, 28; Herzog Anton Ulrich-Museum, Braunschweig — 29; The Lobkowicz Library and Archive,
Nelahozeves Castle, Czech Republic — 30, 31; database © IPR Praha, Jindřich Vaněk — 37; Staatsgalerie
Stuttgart, Graphische Sammlung — 46; Bayerische Schlosserverwaltung Schwenk, München — 47; Archiv
hl. m. Prahy — 48; Veronika K. Wanková — 49, 50; Fondazione Casa Pia dei Ceppi – Palazzo Datini Onlus
— 53; Východočeské muzeum v Pardubicích — 55; Ústav dějin umění AVČR, Prokop Paul — 58; Lobkowicz
Collections, Lobkowicz Palace, Prague Castle, Czech Republic — 63, 67, 68, 69, 70; Lobkowicz Collections,
Chateau Nelahozeves, Czech Republic — 64, 65, 66; Universitäts- und Landesbibliothek Düsseldorf — 72;
Royal Academy of Arts, London — 74; Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale — 75; Národní archiv Praha —
76; Getty Research Institute — 77
Cover, graphic layout | Miroslav Kindl
Desktop publishing | Miroslav Kindl, Eliška Zlatohlávková
Indexes | Veronika Fousková
Font | Tisa Sans Pro
Printing | Reprotisk, s.r.o., M. R. Štefánika 318/1, 787 01 Šumperk
Print run | 300
Publisher | Catholic Theological Faculty Charles University, Thákurova 3, Prague 6, 160 00, Czech Republic

© 2020 — Alice Fornasiero, Eliška Zlatohlávková, Miroslav Kindl

© 2020 — Catholic Theological Faculty Charles University

ISBN — 978-80-87922-28-6