Forschungsstelle "Westfälischer Friede": Dokumentation

DOCUMENTATION | Exhibitions: 1648 - War and Peace in Europe
Essay Volumes > Tome II: Art and culture

LARS OLOF LARSSON
Rome on the River Vltava. Albrecht von Wallenstein's sculpture garden in Prague

In May 1688 Nicodemus Tessin the Younger, returning from Italy, spent what would appear to have been a few very pleasant weeks indeed in Prague. In a letter to his mother in Stockholm, he reports on the extraordinary hospitality of the noble families in the Bohemian capital, who vied with one another to have the Swedish court architect as their guest. [1] By all accounts, with no doors barred to him, he had the opportunity of getting to know the city's palaces and their art collections well. His detailed report on the collection of paintings held at the Prague Castle gives an impressive insight into the scope and quality of the collection forty years after it was plundered by the Swedes. [2]

Of all the city's palaces, the one he describes in greatest detail is the one he calls the "Friedländer House". Of the garden, which is the focus of our interest here, he writes:

He then goes on to give a detailed description of the famous stables, which he admired enormously.

The mention of the brontzerne Hercules - a reference to the large group by Adriaen de Vries in Drottningholm depicting Hercules in combat with the Hydra - as having stood in the Valdsteijn palace gardens is incorrect. It is certainly not mentioned in the painstakingly precise inventory drawn up after the murder of Albrecht von Wallenstein in 1634. [4] In all probability, the group originally stood in the imperial palace. It is nonetheless understandable that Tessin should have made this error. After all, most of the bronze sculptures by Adriaen de Vries arranged at Drottningholm after Tessin's own plans did in fact come from the Valdsteijn palace gardens. [5] Forty years after the plundering of Prague, it is unlikely that the exact origins of all the major sculptures taken from the city were still known in Stockholm. The very fact that the Valdsteijn palace gardens should have remained so firmly associated in the minds of his contemporaries with the bronze sculptures would indicate that the collection of bronze sculptures had no peer in the whole of Prague.

Tessin makes no mention of actually meeting any of Albrecht von Wallenstein's descendants, with whom he might have discussed the looting of the city 40 years earlier. His fellow Swede Erik Dahlbergh, on the other hand, who spent a fortnight in Prague in 1654 and who seems to have stayed at the Valdsteijn palace, does at least note in his diary his very friendly relations with Count Carl von Waldstein. [6] There is, however, no mention whatsoever of the Swedish looting of Prague which had taken place just six years before his visit. It is almost as though it had not been a topic of conversation between the host and his young Swedish guest. That would certainly suggest an extremely tactful form of hospitality.

Tessin's description of his journey indicates that, even towards the end of the 17th century when other architectural ideals were already beginning to become established, the Valdsteijn palace and its gardens still ranked among the city's most important architectural sites of interest. At the time of its completion, this was undoubtedly one of the most remarkable ensembles of its kind in Central Europe.

Construction began around 1622. [7] Albrecht von Wallenstein, scion of a minor East Bohemian aristocratic family, was among those who profited considerably from the Battle of the White Mountain. The construction of his Prague residence went hand in hand with the rise of his political career. In 1622 he became governor of Prague, thereby taking on the newly created position of imperial stadholder of the Bohemian capital. In 1623 he acquired Friedland which had been pledged to him since 1621 and at the same time was created a member of the Estate of Princes of the Empire. That same year, 1623, he married Isabella von Harrach and this, his second marriage, introduced him to Austrian court circles. In the summer of 1625 he became Duke of Friedland, having gathered a mercenary force at his own expense which he went on to lead in a victorious campaign against the Danes in Northern Germany in 1626-28.

All this goes some way towards explaining the sheer scale and opulence of his Prague residence, surpassing anything the city had ever known bar the Castle itself. Wallenstein, the wealthiest and most powerful man in all Bohemia, was building as though completely untouched by the financial burdens of war. Just how much importance he attached to the construction of the palace and its fittings was to him is reflected in the fact that, even during his military campaigns, he followed progress reports and gave personal instructions on details.

The Valdsteijn palace is an irregular ensemble grouped around a number of courtyards. The garden was created from 1623 onwards under the direction of Andrea Spezzo and was probably more or less completed by 1627. As we have already seen, Nicodemus Tessin the Younger described it as large, but über die Maßen irregulier (extraordinarily irregular). Indeed, it is structured in several relatively independent parts. We do not know to what extent these areas were actually linked by pathways and vistas. There is no direct connection linking the living quarters and state apartments with the gardens as such. The palace and the gardens are, however, bracketed together by the sala terrena. Here, we intend to take a closer look at the central part of the gardens closest to the living quarters of the palace. This consists of a more or less square parterre measuring some 50 x 50 m, the west side of which is dominated by the large loggia known as the sala terrena. In the middle of this parterre there is now a fountain with a group by Benedikt Wurzelbauer depicting Venus and Amor. [8] To the south is a large aviary and a high wall with grotto-work. This part, in particular met with Tessin's unmitigated approval, and he described the grotto-work as the best he had ever seen.

We do not know exactly how the gardens looked when first completed. There are no illustrations showing them before the Swedes plundered them in 1648, and the description of the gardens by the English traveler Thomas Carve, who visited Prague in 1634, though full of admiration and mentioning the most important elements, is too imprecise to be of much assistance. He writes of a garden not far from the palace, full of columns with figures and water pipelines, with an aviary full of all manner of birds in which trees and hedges had been plated for the birds to nest in, and with a fishppond in the middle full of all kinds of fish. [9]

Sculptures, fountains, the aviary and the large pond (of which he claims that it is in the middle of the garden) already existed at that time. Surprisingly, if it was already built, the large grotto wall that delighted Tessin is not even mentioned by Thomas Carve. It was certainly planned or under construction by then, as the grotto architecture seems to have been intended right from the start to dominate the entire central part of the garden. Only in the light of this information can we understand the remark made in 1626 by Adriaen de Vries when he calls for his sculptures to be placed in front of the loggia: "given that the building is of such magnificent appearance, it would be seemly for the grotto to be no less so". [10] The generous proportions of the entire ensemble and the arrangement of individual elements (loggia, grotto, fountain, parterre) in a manner new to Central Europe deserve a more important place in the history of the landscaped garden than it has hitherto been accorded.

A fuller source of information still than Thomas Carve's report, at least as far as the sculptures in the garden are concerned, is the inventory drawn up in 1634 after Wallenstein's murder. It lists the following items: This fountain and the four remaining figures were situated in front of the loggia. A little further away there was a second fountain, the so-called Venus Fountain by Benedikt Wurzelbauer, which Wallenstein had acquired from the house of Lobkowitz. In a chest in the treasurer's vault, there was also a large bronze sculpture Pollo genannt (known as Pollo). [11]

The sculptures mentioned are works by Adriaen de Vries. After the death of Emperor Rudolf II, to whom he had been court sculptor, de Vries stayed on in Prague and maintained his apartment and workshop on the castle grounds.

The sculptures were seized by the Swedish army in 1648 and are now in Stockholm, with the exception of the animal heads and ducks, which have been lost, and the Venus Fountain which was reacquired by Prague in 1887. They are a Laocoön, a Bacchus, Wrestlers, a Venus and Adonis, an Apollo, a Neptune, all about life-size, and two slightly smaller seated river deities and two seated female figures belonging to the fountain. At the beginning of this century, copies of the sculptures and (based on Tessin's description) of the Hercules group were set up in the gardens of the Valdsteijn palace. The original arrangement of the figures, however, was not taken into account. [12]

Excavations have shown that the Neptune Fountain once stood in the middle of the square parterre in front of the loggia, in the place where the Venus Fountain by Benedikt Wurzelbauer now stands. Some impression of how Adriaen de Vries' fountain may have looked can be gained from other fountains by the same artist, such as the Neptune Fountain at Frederiksborg Castle. It is quite possible that the fountain basin standing in the Valdsteijn palace gardens today has the same size and type of mounting as the original basin which may well have survived the plundering relatively unscathed.

It is difficult to say how the four sculptures arranged "against the pipe cistern" were actually aligned. Though it may be assumed that they were placed around the fountain, it is also possible that the designation "against" actually indicates the direction they faced, in which case they probably stood between the fountain and the loggia from which the author of the inventory describes the garden.

This fountain and all the sculptures, like the extensive gardens as a whole, constituted something new. Although placing a fountain in front of the loggia does suggest the Belvedere gardens where the so-called Singing Fountain took up a similar position towards the end of the 16th century, what was new was the type of fountain with its large-scale sculptures and the placing of large bronze sculptures in the garden. [13] At the time, there was nothing comparable in Central Europe except in Munich. It is also interesting to note that this particular type of fountain seems more suited to an urban square or palace courtyard than a garden setting. At this period, garden fountains tended to take the form of either a basin or a candelabrum. This exception to the stylistic rule is probably due to the artist's preference for this particular type of fountain, which he used in all his fountain projects with only slight variations.

Not only did this ensemble include unusually extensive gardens for a city palace, but it also boasted an architecturally sumptuous sala terrena, a superb wealth of sculptural decoration, and the grottoes and aviaries so admired by all who saw them. In all these elements, the Italian influence is clearly evident, be it in the way the double columns of the sala terrena cite the Palazzo de Té in Mantua, the way the bronze sculptures and grottoes recall the gardens of Florence or the way the aviaries evoke the Palazzo Doria in Genova. For the overall composition of the ensemble, however, there is no need to look to Italian precursors. The symmetrical garden parterre with its central fountain and an open loggia on one side, representing an independent structural element, was certainly not an unfamiliar feature in the great city gardens of Central Europe at the time, albeit rarely in such monumental proportions. Wolfgang Kilian's view of Augsburg dating from the early 17th century certainly shows a number of such gardens.

A letter from Wallenstein requesting a similar design for the gardens of his palace of Ji...in indicates just how important this was to him: "Tell the master architect that a magnificent fountain must stand in the middle of the place before the loggia, to which all the water shall run...". [14]

The fact that the garden was ornamented so richly with bronze sculptures need not indicate direct Italian influences. The very fact that Adriaen de Vries, a sculptor reputed throughout Europe for his bronzes and his large-scale fountains, was at work here, would be enough. A number of gardens in Germany may also have provided inspiration. The gardens of the Munich Residence contained a wealth of sculptures by Hubert Gerhard and others. Other German palace gardens - in Wolfenbüttel, Stuttgart and Heidelberg - had richly ornamented fountains. [15] However, they are unlikely to have equalled the sheer monumentality of the Valdsteijn palace gardens and its sculptural ornamentation. In this respect, one is reminded more clearly of Florence, whose gardens were surely familiar to de Vries as an artist who had trained under Giambologna.

The iconography of the Valdsteijn sculptures is particularly interesting. A letter written by the artist in February 1626 indicates that the fountain was originally to be crowned by the Laocoön. [16] This group is dated 1623 and is thus the earliest of the sculptures for the Valdsteijn gardens. The four seated fountain figures are dated 1625, while the sculptures located "against the pipe cistern" bear the date 1624. Of the sculptures intended to grace the fountain according to the plans of February 1626, the crowning sculpture had already been completed by 1623, while the others were not created until 1625. In the interim, in 1624, the artist had cast four further large sculptures unrelated to the fountain project, but nevertheless destined for the gardens. This fact would suggest some change of plan.

The earliest surviving document on the contract received by Adriaen de Vries is a receipt from the artist dated July 1624 in which he confirms receiving part-payment for four individually specified scuptures. [17] The sculptures in question are undoubtedly the Wrestlers, Adonis and Venus, Bacchus and Apollo. These sculptures were later placed around the fountain or between it and the loggia. The part-payment was probably made once the figures were cast. The receipt makes no mention of either the Laocoön or the fountain, though this does not necessarily mean that they had not been commissioned by that time. A second letter from the artist is dated a year and a half later, in February 1625. [18] In it, he reports on the progress of work on the fountain figures, explaining that all the figures will ready by the summer, including fitting the waterpipes in the sculptures. Casting and finishing were probably completed by then, as all the sculptures bear the date 1625. This is the earliest letter to mention that a fountain is planned. The Laocoön group is also mentioned here for the first time. Wallenstein, however, seems to have expressed his doubts regarding this idea, for the artist adds, "Now that Your Princely Grace prefers the Neptune atop (the fountain) it will be ready around Michaelmas..." [18]. A Neptune, it would seem, had not been commissioned. As we know, it was Wallenstein himself who decided on this change of programme. The figure of Neptune, however, was not completed until after the death of the artist, in 1627, in his workshop.

The Laocoön group is of particular interest to us in this context. Was it the first sculpture Wallenstein commissioned for the gardens, and was it intended for a fountain right from the start? Or did the idea of erecting a fountain with sculptures in front of the loggia take shape only after the four sculptures for which the artist received a part-payment in 1624 had already been completed? It is hardly conceivable that no fountain at all was planned for this site, though a simpler model may originally have been planned. The fact that the rivergods and nymphs that complete the fountain composition were not created until 1625 would suggest an extension of the original plan. If so, what had been the original plans for the Laocoön group? Was it perhaps not commissioned by Wallenstein at all, but already in the workshop of the artist and proposed as part of the fountain when that was commissioned? These questions are important, as they can help to determine just how important the Laocoön group was in terms of the garden's overall iconography. Given that the sources available do not give us an unequivocal answer, let us assume that the Laocoön group was in fact designed for the Valdsteijn palace gardens, for we do not know of any patron who might have otherwise have commissioned such a work from Adriaen de Vries in the period between 1622, when his major patron Ernst von Hollstein-Schaumburg died, and 1624, when he is documented as working for Albrecht von Wallenstein.

The Laocoön theme is so unusual in the sculpture of the modern period that we must seek a reason for its choice. It is most unlikely that Laocoön could have been meant to symbolise Wallenstein himself, not least of all because he chose to have it replaced by Neptune. A Hercules, Perseus or Alexander the Great would surely have been more likely choices for this particular patron. However, it has also been surmised that the figure of Neptune had some connection with Wallenstein's appointment as General of the Entire Imperial Armada at Sea and General of the Oceanic and Baltic Seas and that it was therefore meant as a play on Wallenstein as ruler of the seas. His appointment as Admiral, however, came two years later, in 1628. [19] The change in the fountain programme also precludes an interpretation of the Laocoön as the central element in the sculpture programme. In order to understand the significance of the Laocoön, we should recall that this figure was known primarily from the famous classical marble in the Vatican Museum. In other words, it was known first and foremost as a work of art, rather than as a mythological or historical figure. We may assume that the Laocoön in the Valdsteijn palace gardens refers to this classical statue rather than to the literary portrayal of the figure in Virgil's Aeneid. Nevertheless, the artist may well have sought to create a free variation on the theme rather than simply copying the the classical work. Instead of the relievo composition of the classical statue, intended to be viewed from a single angle, Adriaen de Vries links the three figures to create a remarkable example of sculptural composition in the round. He was probably inspired by the Simon that Michelangelo created as a counterpart to his David to be placed in front of the Palazzo della Signoria in Florence, but never executed in full size. [20] A comparison with the Laocoön in the Vatican Museum nevertheless indicates how closely, for all his compositional freedom, Adriaen de Vries did indeed follow the classical version, especially where the poses of the individual figures are concerned.

Let us now turn our attention to the other sculptures. They are a pair of Wrestlers,Venus and Adonis, Bacchus with a small satyr and Apollo. It is difficult to deduce from this any icongraphical programme in the conventional sense. Neither the garden setting nor the virtues and triumphs of the patron seem to be used as a point of reference for the sculptures as an ensemble. It is, however, striking that at least two of these groups or figures - Apollo and the Wrestlers - recall famous classical works in much the same way as the Laocoön group. Where Bacchus is concerned, it should be noted that Michelangelo's Bacchus was treated in those days as a work of classical antiquity and that it was probably known throughout Europe from copperplate engravings.

The Apollo is based on the Apollo di Belvedere, the most famous ancient sculpture in Rome apart from the Laocoön. Again, Adriaen de Vries sought to create a variation on the theme of the bow-wielding Apollo rather than simply copying the classical model. As in the case of the Laocoön, however, this does not exclude the possibilty of a deliberate reference.

The Wrestlers are so different from their possible classical source, the Greek Wrestlers now in the Uffizi in Florence, that it is tempting to ask whether there is any connection at all. One feature that does support the notion of a connection is the fact that this was such an unusual subject for sculpture during this period. What is more, the Wrestlers can hardly be seen as part of some arbitrary iconographic programme. The statue is set apart by mere dint of the fact that it is the only anonymous figure. Of course, one must ask whether Adriaen de Vries actually knew the classical statue of the Wrestlers at all, which was by no means as well known as the Laocoön. The Wrestlers were found in Rome in 1583 together with a statue of Niobe's Children and soon came into the possession of the Medici. [21] They were kept in the Villa Medici in Rome until 1677 when they were transferred to Florence. Adriaen de Vries, who worked with Giambologna in Florence in the 1680s, could well have seen them on a visit to Rome around that time. At the end of the 16th century, Caccini made a copy of the group in Florence and by 1594 at the latest the work was also known from a copper engraving by Cavalerii. This classical sculpture seems to have been widely admired in the 17th century. Casts were made of it for the English and Spanish courts. According to John Evelyn, who visited Rome in 1644, it was the "inextricable mixture with each others' arms and legs" that aroused the greatest admiration. Adriaen de Vries, himself a master of intertwined group compositions, undoubtedly had an eye for the qualities of this ancient work. Nevertheless, he is unlikely to have been interested in merely producing an approximate likeness. Instead, he has created an alternative solution, seeking to rival his ancient forebears rather than imitate them. Here, too, there are greater similarities with the classical sculpture than might be evident at first glance. This is particularly clear in comparison with the engraving by Cavalerii, which shows the classical figures in a more upright pose than the later restoration. This may well have inspired Adriaen de Vries to create a composition involving two standing wrestlers.

As for the other two groups, in spite of their classical themes, no direct reference to any famous classical sculptures can be found. The Bacchus figure, however, does invite comparison with Michelangelo's Bacchus. Here, too, an engraving may well have served as the direct model: a print from Caraglio's series of gods after drawings by Rosso. [22]

Having demonstrated that the sculptures in the Valdsteijn palace gardens neither follow any conventional garden themes nor pay tribute to Wallenstein himself in symbolic or allegorical form, we must now ask what meaning he ascribed to the programme of the garden. Could he have intended to indicate a connection between Prague and Rome? After all, even though the Emperor no longer maintained his court there permanently as Rudolf II had done, Prague was still an imperial residence.

The notion of Prague as the New Rome was not far-fetched. However, as we have seen, shortly before completion of the fountain, Wallenstein ordered the Laocoön to be replaced by a Neptune, a figure more in keeping with conventional fountain iconography. What is more, in the course of the reshuffle, none other than the figure of Apollo was replaced by the Laocoön group. Indeed, in 1634, the Apollo was still in a packing case. One reason for this may have been the fact that the Apollo was the only single figure amongst the sculptures that were not part of the fountain. It was probably in the interests of regularity to place only groups of figures around the fountain, leaving aside the single figure. What is more, a fifth statue would also have destroyed the symmetry. All these factors would seem to disprove the theory that the patron was primarily interested in symbolising Rome in his garden.

Was Albrecht von Wallenstein a man cultivated and educated enough to appreciate the representational value of these references to classical sculpture? This question is difficult to answer. It is unlikely that Wallenstein had any particularly learned humanist interests, for his otherwise sumptuously equipped palace in Prague had no library. We do know, however, that he attended a reputable school and that he studied at the universities of Altdorf and Padova. Though it would seem that he spent much of his time in Altdorf drinking and fighting rather than studying (nothing is known of his lifestyle in Padova), he did possess a good command of Italian and Latin and he endeavoured to establish good educational institutions in his principalities. In our particular enquiry, however, his studies may be of less importance than the experience and impressions he gained on his grand tour, which took him to Italy and, in all probability, to France, and his familiarity with the courts of Prague, Vienna and Munich. We may assume that Wallenstein possessed at least a rudimenary humanist education and that he was familiar with the courtly culture of his day. This alone would probably have qualified him to appreciate a programme of sculptures such as the one outlined here, though it is unlikely that Wallenstein designed it personally.

This begs the question as to the extent to which Wallenstein as patron actually contributed his own ideas to the details of the planning process. He did so, it would seem, astonishingly often, as documented by his many letters to the architects and builders. We have also noted that Adriaen de Vries negotiated the change in programme with him personally and that the changes, in this case, had been instigated by Wallenstein himself. It is possible that Wallenstein's role lay primarily in having the plans submitted for approval and then proposing changes or making decisions.

Let us now return to the question of references made to specific works of classical antiquity and the significance of classical art in terms of royal prestige. The prestige value of classical sculptures was, of course, recognised beyond Rome and Italy even in the 16th century. Though collectors were interested primarily in Roman coins at first, ancient sculptures, above all portrait busts, were to be found in a number of collections outside Italy. The Antiquarium of the Munich Residence is probably the finest example of this. Such collections focused more on the antiquarian interest of a work than its aesthetic interest. The aesthetic and artistic exploration of classical antiquity was restricted to a relatively small number of works in Rome, which by the 16th century already formed a canon that was widely disseminated in engravings and other reproductions and remained valid until the 19th century. [23] These include, above all, the sculptures in the Cortile di Belvedere of the Vatican, on the Capitol and in some private collections in Rome. Accepted as the measure of artistic perfection, they became an integral part of the European canon of education.

An important contributing factor in this development was the fact that the French king Francois I commissioned Primaticcio to produce casts of the most famous Roman antiquities as early as 1540, which he then displayed in the gardens of Fontainebleau. After Francois I died, the stadholder of the Netherlands, Mary of Hungary, a sister of Emperor Charles V, commissioned her court sculptor Leone Leoni to acquire Primaticcio moulds so that similar works could be produced for her palace at Binche near Brussels. [24] We do not know whether Wallenstein visited Fontainebleau or Binche on his grand tour, but we may assume that he was familiar with this canon of artistic perfection.

Needless to say, the canonic significance of certain classical works of art is also of interest to us here. An important aspect is the artist's emancipated and confident attitude to these Roman precursors. It is not a question of reiterating classical themes as such, nor of reproducing antique originals, nor even of achieving an artistic form in the style of classical antiquity, but a question of being entitled to address the canonic works of Ancient Rome on an equal footing. In short, it is a question of emulating and surpassing them rather than imitating them.

In the oeuvre of Adriaen de Vries, such an approach is to be found frequently. Take, for example, his freely interpreted version of the Farnese Bull in the Schlossmuseum at Gotha, created in 1614. In a letter to Count Ernst von Hollstein-Schaumburg in 1620, the artist writes of this sculpture being the equal of the one "zu Roma von Marmor stehe" (of marble, standing in Rome). [25] Such words betray the consciousness of a modern artist who does not doubt his ability to rank with the finest of the ancient masters, and who did not hesitate to invite comparison with them by adopting such themes as the Farnese Bull, Laocoön, Apollo di Belvedere or the Wrestlers. Would it be unrealistic to surmise that this artist was able to persuade his ambitious patron Albrecht von Wallenstein - a man undertaking to build a palace of unprecedented grandeur in the former imperial court city - to create a sculpture garden a la moderna whose bold and virtuoso emulation of the famous works of classical antiquity would make it the peer of the famous ancient gardens "zu Roma"? As we have seen, Wallenstein was clearly not prepared to comply with the artist on every issue. When it came to having the fountain crowned by an unusual Laocoön, he decided on a more conventional Neptune. Though he was not interested in Roman symbolism in the narrower sense or even in a political sense, it is conceivable that he was attracted to the notion of such confident artistic rivalry with classical antiquity and the prestige of a unique sculpture garden that put even the imperial gardens in its shade.

For the artist, Rome may well have been associated with the concept of artistic virtuosity. Prevailing concepts of artistic accomplishment were closely linked with Ancient Rome and with Rome under the Renaissance popes, and so, by vying openly with the Roman masters, he sought to make Prague the New Rome.

The magnificent sculpture garden was to be short-lived. In the summer of 1648, Swedish troops led by General von Königsmark occupied and looted the Malá Strana and the Prague Castle. The removal of the large bronze sculptures fromthe Valdsteijn palace gardens was probably undertaken on the orders of the Swedish commander Charles Gustav (later King Charles X Gustav), who resided at the Valdsteijn palace during the occupation of Prague. They must have been transported in the autumn of 1648. On 15 January 1649 the bronzes were in Glogau on the Oder. [26] By what route they arrived there is not known. From there, they were probably shipped along the Oder to Stettin and then on to Stockholm.

The Venus Fountain from the Valdsteijn palace gardens by Benedikt Wurzelbauer was also taken to Sweden, but seems to have been transported by a different route. At any rate, it is not mentioned in the list. Four smaller water-works packed in crates are mentioned, however. These presumably came from Prague, possibly even from the Valdsteijn palace, and it is likely that they were shipped to Sweden at the request of Charles Gustav. These items, of which no more is known, were fountains of some two metres in height featuring small figures in three or four superimposed rows. One of the fountains bore a depiction of Diana and Actaëon, and the others a Wild Boar Hunt, a Swiss Fencing School and a Swabian Peasant Dance. Such fountains, which could be used as indoor fountains, were produced mainly in Nuremberg, where the Labenwolf workshop maintained a prolific output. Many individual figures and a few complete fountains of this kind have survived, including an Actaëon Fountain in the Victoria and Albert Museum, London, which gives some impression of how the stolen fountains may have looked. [27]

Charles Gustav seems to have taken the indoor fountains with the forthcoming coronation of Queen Christina in mind. Whether they arrived safely in Stockholm and whether they were actually used at the coronation is not known. The large garden sculptures, on the other hand, found a worthy place in the gardens of Drottningholm palace near Stockholm, designed in the 1680s by Nicodemus Tessin the Younger. [28] In completing his programme of sculpture, Tessin was able to draw upon further looted treasures, including the great Neptune Fountain at the Danish Palace of Frederiksborg, a work by Adriaen de Vries that was removed by the Swedes during the occupation of Zeeland in 1659. [29]

In this secondary setting, the iconographic significance of the sculptures naturally lost much of its impact. The individual sculptures are more or less submerged within the overall decorative programme. An exception to this is the Hercules group mentioned at the beginning of the essay, which crowned the fountain in the middle of the parterre. Here, the royal widow Hedwig Eleonora had originally envisaged a marble fountain to be created by Nicholaus Millich. It was soon decided, however, to use the large Hercules from Prague. [30] Hedwig Eleonora, who channeled the entire decoration and fitting of the palace towards glorifying the memory of the late King Charles Gustav and the dynasty may well have seen a parallel between the fighting figure of Hercules and the deeds of Charles Gustav. At the same time, the Hercules Fountain may have reminded here of the large Hercules Fountain in the gardens of Gottorf palace near Silesia, where she had grown up. [31]




[Exhibition of the Council of Europe]   [Index]   [Top of Page]   [Footnotes]

FOOTNOTES

1. Sirén 1914, pp. 245ff.

2. Sirén 1914, pp. 223ff.

3. "Der garten darhinter ist gross, aber über diemassen irregulier, (hierinnen ist gestanden der brontzerne Hercules, welcher nun zu Drottningholm ist); die grosse Loggie unter dem haus mit ihren dreijen Arcaden nach dem garten zu ist dass ansehnlichste. Zu rechten dess gartens in der ecken ist ein grosses treflich wohl ordonniertes vogelhauss, von grottescken bogen mitt gegitter zwischen, welches ich gezeijchnet habe, undt continuiret darneben ein lang styck mauer von selbe arbeit, so ich à part beschrieben habe, welche wohl 16 Ellen hoch ist, undt zwischen den hohenbeümen einen sehr bizzarren effect thuet, an ein paar stellen ist sie durchlöchert, undt in der mitten ist wie eine grotte darin." Sirén 1914, p. 225.

4. The inventory is published in Schebeck 1881, pp. 587ff.; on the garden sculptures see p. 601 and p. 605. Cf. Larsson 1967, pp. 91ff.

5. Wollin 1927, pp. 72ff. Cf. Larsson 1967, pp. 67ff. and 91ff. and Larsson 1992, pp. 94ff.

6. Dahlbergh 1912, p. 57.

7. On the biography of Albrecht von Wallenstein, see Mann 1971 and later editions. Remarkably little attention seems to be paid to the Valdsteijn Palace in the relevant literature. Cf. Swoboda 1964, p. 11ff.

8. The sculpture measures 123 cm and is dated 1599. It was also looted by the Swedes, but reacquired in 1887 for the Museum of Decorative Arts in Prague. The original is now is the gallery of the Prague Castle. A copy stands in the Valdsteijn gardens.

9. Carve 1642. The reports of Thomas Arundel's ambassadorial visit to Prague in 1636 does not provide more information. Cf. Springell 1963, p. 71.

10. "die Weil der Gebau ein so gewaltigen stattlichen Aussehen hat, so were es auch scheinlich ... daß der grotten nicht weniger sein solt " Letter dated 25 August 1626 - Ilg 1883.

11. Schebeck 1881, pp. 601 and 605.

12. The copies were cast at the Bergmans Konstgjuteri in Stockholm.

13. Diemer 1995.

14. Gothein 1926, p. 123.

15. "Sagt dem Baumeister, daß gleich in der Mitte auf dem Platz vor der Loggia muß eine großmächtige Fontana sein, dahin alles Wasser laufen wird..." Gothein 1926, pp. 109ff.; Weihrauch 1967, pp. 321 ff.; Larsson 1988a.

16. Schebeck 1881, pp. 589; Ilg 1883, pp. 147f., Larsson 1992, p. 98.

17. Trautmann 1893.

18. "Ist nun, daß Ihr fürstliche Gnaden lieber den Neptun obenauf haben wollen, der wird ungefähr zu Michaelis fertig sein...", Ilg 1883, pp. 147f.

19. Neumann 1970a, p. 100 assumes a connection between Wallenstein's appointment as admiral and the change of programme. On Wallenstein's appointment, cf. Mann 1971, p. 516.

20. Larsson 1975, pp. 83ff.

21. Haskell/Penny 1981, pp. 337ff.

22. Larsson 1992, 1975, pp. 71ff.

23. Haskell/Penny 1981, pp. 1-22.

24. Haskell/Penny 1981, p. 5.

25. Larsson 1967, p. 84.

26. Granberg 1929, p. 122ff.

27. Weihrauch 1967, pp. 310f.

28. Wollin 1927, pp. 33ff.

29. Larsson 1967, p. 67ff.

30. Wollin 1927, p. 73f.

31. Schulze 1997, I, pp. 211-222.



[Exhibition of the Council of Europe]   [Index]   [Top of Page]   [Footnotes]
© 2000-2003 Forschungsstelle / Research Centre "Westfälischer Friede", Westfälisches Landesmuseum für Kunst und Kulturgeschichte Münster, Domplatz 10, 48143 Münster, Deutschland/Germany. - Last update: September 25, 2002