DOCUMENTATION | Exhibitions: 1648 - War and Peace in Europe |
|
| Essay Volumes > Tome II: Art and culture |
|
JIřI KROUPA
Art, patronage and society in Moravia 1620-1650 |
|
In the first half of the 17th century, Moravia experienced a period of far-reaching change as the country passed from the late Renaissance into the early baroque. Czech historiography, however, has traditionally tended to view this period from more of a political, economic and social perspective. The study of the development of art during these years has generally been ignored in favour of more purely historical considerations. Why should this be so? Perhaps it is simply due to the fact that artistic activity in Moravia was overshadowed by events towards the end of the Thirty Years' War, a conflict which left much of the country in devastation. While this aspect is worthy of consideration, there are a number of other facets involved in this question in historical research. Local historiography has always concentrated primarily on the great artistic epoch under Rudolf II around 1600 and the development of the Bohemian high baroque around 1700. Moravia, however, had relatively little involvement in either of these periods, and could hardly be described in the 17th century as being a country without art. If we compare the works produced at the beginning of the century with those dating from around 1650, we will observe a fascinating interaction of continuity and discontinuity in artistic development at that time. In the field of architecture, for example, this period began with the construction of the court and gateway in Moravská Třebová (Mährisch Trübau), and drew to a close with the completion of the new chateau in Holešov (Holleschau). This polarity in architecture is mirrored in painting by the series of images produced for the Jesuit church in Brno (Brünn) by Baldissera d'Anna, a Venetian artist of Dutch descent, and the altar screen painted by Joachim von Sandrart in around 1650 for the high altar of the Capuchin church, again in Brno. These examples have not been chosen at random. Both in architecture and in painting, they illustrate the development of proto-baroque elements incorporated in the artistic structure of Mannerist work from the beginning of the baroque period until the final arrival of the early baroque in Moravia around 1650. [1]
I
Moravia was at this time one of the lands united under the Bohemian crown. Before the fateful defeat at the Battle of the White Mountain (Bila Hora), the Bohemian crown lands, including Moravia, enjoyed a considerable degree of autonomy. This freedom helped foster a sense of political and cultural identity in the second half of the 16th century which went beyond mere patriotism. Yet it also steered clear of the charge of conceit or any attempt to dislocate the country from the general cultural development in Europe at that time. [2] This feeling of allegiance to the Bohemian crown was supported by the kinship of the Bohemian and Moravian nobility, to say nothing of their shared language and political interests. The Moravian nobility of both denominations had also become more cosmopolitan in its outlook through tours of southern and western Europe, where it experienced life and culture at the royal courts, and gained much knowledge and experience of the finest works of European art. In keeping with its new life-style, the ruling élite in Moravia also began to develop a new approach to architecture. Typical of the new attitude prevalent in the second half of the 16th century was the type of aristocratic residence described by Erich Hubala as the "Moravian arcaded Renaissance chateau" (Telč, Moravský Krumlov, Námšž, Rosice, etc.).
The notion that this era represents the emergence in Moravia of a modern approach to the function of art is not the fruit of contemporary art-historical interpretation, but was defined as such at a much earlier date. Although not a true work of art historical criticism in the contemporary sense, Geschichte der Kunst in Mähren (The History of Art in Moravia), written by the Brno sculptor Andreas Schweigl towards the end of the 18th century, presented an informative interpretation of artistic development from the Middle Ages until his own time:
The fame of Roman architecture, itself derived from the Greeks and their monuments, spread throughout all Germany and as far as us here in Moravia. From then onwards, in this 16th Secullo, little more was built in the Gothic manner. .... Widespread peace brought much opportunity for the creation of many fine paintings, buildings and sculpture. These were like a magnet to the rich of the land, born to incessant curiosity, who aroused envy in neighbouring lands, acquired fine paintings from the outstanding masters of the Netherlands and Italy, built galleries, and brought delight to the heart. ... [3]
After this celebration of art at the junction of the 16th and 17th centuries, Schweigl "skips" the rest of the 17th century, not stopping until he takes up the thread again with the history of art in the 18th century. Was the work produced in the first half of the 17th century really only a brief interruption in the promising development which had gone before? Prior to the Thirty Years' War, a number of social and cultural centres were already in existence in Moravia, and maintained their importance virtually unchanged throughout the development of the baroque and late baroque periods. Among the most important of these centres were a) the royal towns and cities, b) the restored monasteries, convents and places of pilgrimage, and in particular c) the princely residences and the courts of the nobility.
Although the actual importance of the towns and cities in the Bohemian crown lands began to decline in the second half of the 16th century, a number of new market squares bordered by houses decorated with Renaissance façades testify to the still high cultural standing of the local merchants and artisans. The royal cities, particularly Brno (Brünn) and Olomouc (Olmütz), were major centres of bourgeois culture. [4] From the 16th century onwards, civic office was held by the upper strata of the Moravian bourgeoisie known as the Ringsleute, whose practice it was to pass these titles down from father to son. The Ringsleute also included many landowners, and its members rarely married outside their own class. Their influence was compounded by income obtained from their estates as well as from their commercial and banking activities. They also had close links with cultural centres throughout Europe, and it was not unusual for the sons of these families to study abroad at universities in Germany or Italy. The importance of the Ringsleute of Brno is well documented by the surviving inventories of the books and paintings which they possessed, as well as by a remarkable collection of painted epitaphs in the Church of St James and the Collegiate Church of St Peter and St Paul, which were commissioned at the end of the 16th and beginning of the 17th centuries by prominent members of the Brno bourgeoisie. The question of religious denomination was, in my opinion, of no particular significance as regards bourgeois patronage of the arts, which was at that time mainly confined to private collections of paintings, portraits, books, craftwork and the like. Nevertheless, it is clear that the Catholic section of society was generally more inclined to display the works of art (and architecture) which it commissioned. [5] A characteristic figure among the Ringsleute of Brno was Christoph Schwarz von Retz who, in 1589, began construction of a generously proportioned Renaissance palais with richly decorated façade, stucco ornamentation in the interior and an arcaded courtyard. Schwarz's acquaintance with the major representatives of Catholicism in the period leading up to the Battle of the White Mountain made him an important member of Brno society. As such, he was instrumental in supporting the new religious orders, principally the Brno Jesuits. Even after his death in 1601, by which time he had reached the lower echelons of the aristocracy, Schwarz's sons attended the universities of Ingolstadt, Innsbruck, Basle and Freiburg.
As the Counter Reformation made its way into the Bohemian crown lands, the monasteries set up by the new orders underwent something of a renaissance, gradually becoming what were in effect new cultural centres. The revival of the medieval monasteries had already been initiated towards the end of the 16th century by the Premonstratensians (Hradisko/Hradisch near Olomouc, Louka/Klosterbruck), Cistercians (Velehrad, Žïár/Saar), Benedictines (Rajhrad/Raigern) and Augustinians (Brno, Olomouc). These monasteries served as focal points for the Counter Reformation in Moravia, and many new buildings and shrines of pilgrimage were built. It is little wonder then, that the abbots of this period appear again and again in local history as the "founders of the new monasteries" (e.g. Louka/Klosterbruck near Znojmo/Znaim founded by Sebastian Freytag von Čepiroh). In addition to these monastic orders, a number of new Jesuit colleges were established in the 16th century (Olomouc 1566, Brno 1572). Their impact on Moravian society cannot be overlooked, and a unique culture flavoured by that of northern Italy sprang up around them.
However, the most important cultural impetus of the period was provided by the princely residences and courts. Given that Moravia had no central, sovereign court of its own, the precise nature of these residences and courts requires some clarification. Of particular interest in this regard is the unique social and political status enjoyed by the Bishop of Olomouc. From 1599 through the fateful year of 1620 and beyond, this title was held by cardinal Franz von Dietrichstein. Despite the episcopal see being based in Olomouc, Dietrichstein generally resided at his chateau in the south Moravian town of Mikulov (Nikolsburg). This arrangement, combined with the fact that Dietrichstein also spent several years as governor of Moravia with full authority over the region, meant that Mikulov developed many of the characteristics of a royal seat. Only a few noble families such as the Dietrichsteins or Liechtensteins (whose seat Feldsberg-Valtice is now located in Moravia, but was previously part of Lower Austria) maintained their own official seats of residence. Prior to the Battle of the White Mountain, this élite group of families included a number Protestants who held some of the highest offices in Moravia, such as the lords von Lipa (Moravský Krumlov/Mährisch Krummau) and the lords Brtnický von Waldstein (Brtnice/Pirnitz). In addition to its handful of true princely residences, Moravia also had a dense network of lesser estates with their own castles and chateaux.
The years immediately after the Battle of the White Mountain saw major changes in all areas of Moravian society. Social trends observed in the period before the battle were amplified in a way which was to shape the destiny of the region. Of these, it was principally the feudal tendencies which gained the upper hand. Could these developments have contributed to the disruption of historical continuity in Moravia? The political and military events would seem to suggest so. In Moravia, the uprising of the estates collapsed just as rapidly as it did in Bohemia. The consequences were similar as well. In 1628, one year later than in Bohemia, the Verneuerte Landesordnung came into force. This new constitution proclaimed the Habsburgs as hereditary rulers of the Bohemian lands and Catholicism as the sole religion. In 1636 the Moravian royal tribunal was duly installed in Brno as the supreme legal and administrative body for the region, and was linked with the Habsburg court in Vienna via the Bohemian court chancery.
This period saw the towns and gentry divested of power, the loss of their economic foundation forcing many into years of debt. The aristocracy were also relieved of their property and forced into exile. Of the 66 old Moravian families which existed before the uprising, only 27 remained afterwards. The ruling élite, on the other hand, was less affected in Moravia than it was in Bohemia. Of the fifteen richest Moravian families, nine maintained or even increased their wealth after the Battle of the White Mountain, chief among these being the Liechtensteins and Dietrichsteins. Cardinal von Dietrichstein was also able to rescue the possessions of a number of Protestant families such as Kounic, Žerotín and Petřvaldský, by sending their children to be educated in Catholic schools. Later, in the second half of the 17th century and around 1700, these very families would become the new patrons of the arts in Moravia. The beneficiaries of this confiscation of land and property were those Moravian families which had remained loyal to the Habsburgs. The previously autonomous hereditary nobility now sought service at court and was wholly devoted to the Catholic Church.
If we follow the pattern of continuity and discontinuity in patronage during the Thirty Years' War, it is clear that the major supporters of the arts in Moravia can be grouped by generation. [6] The older generation of patrons was linked with the humanist milieu and the late Renaissance, and included in its number the lords von Žerotín. Around 1600, the Žerotíns held enormous amounts of territory under their dominion. [7] The names of these estates and villages are well known to all Renaissance historians, as each is associated with an important arcaded chateau. The majority of these chateaux were built in the 1570s and 1580s, however in some cases work was also continued after 1600. A prime example is the chateau at Rosice (Rossitz) near Brno, where construction was still proceeding in 1620 under Karl the Elder von Žerotín based on plans produced at a much earlier date. As a Protestant, Žerotín (1564-1636) was more interested in the written word than the image. It comes as no surprise then that much of his support was for the iconologist and emblematist, Joachim Camerarius. This predilection for the emblematic can also be seen in the iconography of the inner courtyards of the Žerotín chateaux. Other important Protestants of the period had a similar approach to patronage. In 1586 the educated Lutheran, Ferdinand Hofmann von Grünpühel (1540-1607), became president of the court council of emperor Rudolf II, who granted him lands in Moravia, including the enormous estate of Rabenstein-Janowitz. Hofmann was one of the most important patrons and collectors during the reign of Rudolf, with links to Matthäus Gundelach, Giuseppe Arcimboldo and Jacopo Strada among others. His library at Schloss Janowitz was described as a "treasure chamber of 16th century scholarship". Despite their splendour, his collections in Janowitz, Olomouc and Brno have yet to receive adequate recognition.
Ladislav Velen von Žerotín was another major Protestant patron of the arts. His household in Třebová (Trübau) included artists, poets, musicians and alchemists, with German humanists, Italian stonemasons (Johann Mottala de Bonnamone, Johann Foncun, also known as der Welsche or "the Italian") and Dutch painters (Pietro de Petri of Brugge) among the most notable. The castle inventories record a number of "Counts" and "Royal" rooms furnished with exquisite Turkish and Italian carpets and tapestries. Between the years 1611-1618, Žerotín successfully extended the castle, creating one of the most interesting and mysterious pieces of Moravian architecture of this period. At the front, he built a new forecourt with almost rectangular wings surrounded by rusticated arcades, lending the building a severe and fortress-like appearance. The entrance to the court, with its trio of arcades and a large central arch flanked by two smaller ones, is particularly imposing. In determining the date of construction, some art historians link the architecture with the Mannerist art at the court of Rudolf II in Prague, while others point to the more modern character of the architectural forms and the fact that building work was continuing in Třebová in the 1620s. [8] Whatever the truth, the uncertainty does at least underline the unique nature of the building. This uniqueness lies neither in the configuration of the building (the arcaded forecourt is, after all, a feature of late Renaissance chateaux) nor in the direct references to the architectural treatises of Sebastiano Serlios. With its clear inclination towards a hierarchical arrangement of architectural elements and a gradation of the overall structure, the building actually stands on the threshold of the early baroque. Contrary to the assertions of contemporary Czech art literature, we may reasonably assume that some Austro-Italian influence was at work.
A number of other political and social figures may be mentioned in the "older generation" of Moravian patrons discussed above, e.g., the Catholic lord Berka von Dubé in Velké Meziříčí (Groß Meseritsch), Salm-Neuburg in Tovačov (Tobitschau) or the Protestant knight Petřvaldský von Petřvald (Račice, Kolštejn/Goldenstein). All of these men were still committed to the way of life prevalent in the late Renaissance. While some of the Moravian nobility continued to remain loyal to the old ways, a clear break with the past came in the period around 1624, when major changes occurred in land ownership among the Moravian aristocracy. While it is true that some building projects carried out during the war were only interrupted by military action for short periods of time, the castles and chateaux were frequently plundered and few ever reached completion.
II
The second wave of patrons were the "nouveaux riches" of Liechtenstein, Dietrichstein, Collalto, Kounic, Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn, Magnis and Rottal. It is, however, clearly very difficult to make any sweeping generalisation about the Moravian élite and their patronage of the arts. Not only was their approach to art bound up in personal taste and the new functions which art was expected to fulfil, it was also influenced by the course of the war and other external factors. Again, these new landowners can also be classified by generation. The first of three distinct generations, those who profited after the Battle of the White Mountain, were the contemporaries of the "older generation" described above. Their interest in art was directed more towards its potential as a means of self-aggrandisement. With this aim in mind, they set about converting or rebuilding their newly acquired properties, creating enormous estates and establishing their seats of residence as symbols of their new-found power. Some of these aristocratic families combined their economic ventures with support for new monasteries and shrines of pilgrimage, which in turn bore the family arms or housed the family crypt. In Feldsberg-Valtice, the reconstruction of the family seat of the princes von Liechtenstein was initially directed by the imperial architect, Giovanni Battista Carlone, while the plans for the complex containing the chapel (which also served as the parish church) were drawn up by Giovanni Giacomo Tencalla. Building continued not only during the war, but almost throughout the entire century. The princes von Dietrichstein and the counts von Collalto commissioned equally renowned architects of the period to take charge of modifications to their residences. The Althan and Magnis families also sought to further enhance their social status by creating new religious orders. Count Michael von Althan founded the Jesuit colleges in Znojmo and Jihlava, while Franz count Magnis supported the Capuchins and Piarists, and had his family crypt installed in the Augustinian monastery of St Thomas in Brno. It was an example followed by other "new" members of the aristocracy. The second generation of new landowners defended what they had acquired and either set about restoring their estates or simply left the country. Only the third generation, that which shaped public life in the 1660s and 1670s, was able to re-establish the level of economic prosperity which the estates had enjoyed prior to the Battle of the White Mountain. This generation set up business ventures and carefully expanded economic activity within its own courts. It also had enough financial means at its disposal to commission new works of art in the baroque style.
A classic example of one such patron of the arts was prince Franz von Dietrichstein, cardinal and bishop of Olomouc. [9] Franz von Dietrichstein came from a family which had already gained lands in Moravia before the Thirty Years' War. These possessions were increased by Dietrichstein through the acquisition of confiscated estates. In the first half of the war, Dietrichstein built a new family residence in Mikulov with three principal architectural aims in mind. Undoubtedly the most important of these was to provide a residence for his family and a base from which to develop the administrative centre of the Dietrichstein lands. This aim was augmented by two additional functions, namely to serve as the centre of the bishopric of Olomouc and, given that the cardinal was also governor of Moravia, to act as its "capital". These objectives are reflected in the architectural scheme he employed: the palazzo in fortezza. In the actual capital of Moravia, Brno, Dietrichstein completed the Hof der Olmützer Bischöfe (Court of the Bishops of Olomouc), before beginning work in its immediate vicinity on a new family palace. Along with his brother, Maximilian, and his nephew, also named Franz, Dietrichstein was a patron of the Jesuits of Brno. In 1631 he invited the Piarists to Moravia, funding the first Piarist college outside Italy in Mikulov. Following the general chapter of the Piarists in Moravia in 1635, Dietrichstein increased the number of colleges north of the Alps yet further, extending their influence even as far as Poland. [10] During this period the cardinal maintained a remarkable princely residence in Mikulov, in which he housed scholars from Italy and Spain. Particularly noteworthy are the valuable libraries which came into his possession. [11] The word "possession" should be understood as it is intended: the cardinal possessed these libraries not for the purpose of study, but as a status symbol. Among the collections he acquired were the Žerotín library from Třebová (Trübau), the Waldstein library from Brtnice (Pirnitz), and a library which had once belonged to the learned Lutheran burgher of Brno, J. K. Praetorius von Perlenberg. With the end of the war came the end of the cardinal's fabulous wealth. In 1645 Mikulov fell to the Swedes, who pillaged the chateau and transported the entire library to Stockholm. It was left to his successor, prince Maximilian II von Dietrichstein, to restore the former glory.
III
If we consider the buildings constructed in the first half of the 16th century, it is possible to observe a clear relationship between the architecture employed and the taste and aesthetic values of their owners. Just as a new mentality had begun to appear among the new Catholic and court-oriented generation of aristocratic patrons, so the purpose of the art they commissioned was also being redefined. This development will be examined through the examples of the "architectura sacra and self-representation" and the "palazzo in fortezza" of the new Moravian ruling class.
Architectura sacra and self-representation. The first development of this kind was the pilgrimage church at Vranov (Wranau) in the forests outside Brno. In 1617 "Andreas Erna, mason of Brno," undertook to "demolish the old church and to build a new one after the plans of Joan Marie, architect." The work was commissioned by Katharina, princess von Liechtenstein (daughter of the builder of the Mannerist Schloss Bučovice, Johann Šembera Černohorský von Boskovitz, and wife of prince Maximilian von Liechtenstein). In 1633 the Liechtensteins invited the Order of St Paul to use the associated monastery and installed the family crypt in the church. The architecture was not particularly complex, consisting of a simple, three-bay hall church with niche-like chapels between pilasters and a rectangular choir flanked by twin towers. It was effective in its clarity and strict, almost purist simplicity. Even Georg Skalecki referred to the very high chapels which cut into the vaulting. The result was a homogenous spatial unit, whose simplicity may well be directly attributable to the architect. The design is evidently based on that of the Jesuit church of pilgrimage in Stará Boleslav (Alt Bunzlau) built in 1613. Unfortunately, there is no reliable information concerning the architect of the church in Stará Boleslav, although he may also have been Rudolf's architect, Giovanni Maria Filippi (known as "Joan Maria"). [12] Whoever the architect at Stará Boleslav was, this white, cuboid and well-balanced structure situated on a wooded hill in Vranov is very impressive indeed. The pair of original portals on the main and side façades were flanked by high Tuscan pilasters and crowned with a semi-circular window decorated with stuccowork. The monastery building is also marked by a similar clarity and monumentality, which it has managed to retain in spite of a minor alteration in the neo-classical style. The pointed clarity and economy of the formal architectural motifs were probably requested by Katharina, and are characteristic of the architectural purism which became part of the new aesthetic of the aristocracy.
In the years 1637-1641, this architectural schema of a hall church with pilasters and rectangular choir flanked by sacristies and oratories was used for other Liechtenstein churches such as the parish church in Mikulov. The interior of the Mikulov church, however, is more baroque in flavour. The architect, Giovanni Giacomo Tencalla, was also responsible for two of the most important churches in terms of the development of architecture in the first half of the 17th century in the hereditary territories of the Habsburg dynasty. These are the Dominican church in Vienna and the Liechtenstein parish church in Feldsberg-Valtice. [13] With his work in Moravia, Tencalla has apparently acceded to the wishes of his patron and employed purist architectural forms which can be clearly differentiated from Protestant ecclesiastical architecture of the late Gothic or Mannerist periods.
More so than ever before, ecclesiastical architecture in all its forms (parish church, chapel, pilgrimage church, crypt) was now geared towards enhancing the social status of their nouveau riche patrons. The severe and almost classical form described above had a great influence on contemporary architecture, as the Jesuit buildings in Moravia clearly confirm. [14] The oldest Jesuit college in Olomouc (1566) was housed in a former Minorite monastery, which was only gradually repaired and modernised. The Brno Jesuits also started out using an older Augustinian convent (1581), and restricted new building work to the construction of their colleges. In around 1600 the Catholic Moravian governor general, Ladislav Berka von Dubé, arrived on the scene and, contrary to the wishes of the Jesuit hierarchy, financed the construction of a new church between 1598 and 1602. Naturally, the governor general had expected to have a family crypt within the building, and something of an architectural struggle ensued. Cardinal Franz von Dietrichstein continued the building work and installed a large family crypt for the Dietrichsteins in 1605. It was of little importance to him that the masons were forced to totally rebuild the newly completed choir. The series of paintings by the Venetian artist, Baldissera d'Anna, depicting scenes from the life of the Virgin Mary was presumably also part of the Dietrichstein donation. [15]
This close relationship between patrons of the arts and the Society of Jesus in central Europe has already been studied by Petr Fidler. [16] In addition to the examples presented by Fidler, I would like to cite one further case of the use of purist architectural forms in Moravia, namely that of the Jesuits in Znojmo (Znaim). In 1626, count Michael Adolf von Althan invited the Jesuits to Znojmo, offering them the use of the Gothic-style Church of St Michael. As always, the patres concentrated on the construction of their college, which left few resources for the modernisation of the church. It was not until the collapse of the tower and the resulting destruction of the vaulting in 1642 that the decision was made to rebuild the church. This work was again funded by Michael Adolf von Althan and by Dorothea von Liechtenstein (wife of the reigning prince von Liechtenstein zu Feldberg). The old late Gothic choir was augmented by a three-bay nave with chapels on either side. As in the Paulanerkirche in Vienna (Church of the Order of St Paul), the clear lines of the ground plan conformed with the austere and unadorned interior. The design of the façade, however, presented something of a problem. On the one hand, the superior general in Rome had issued instructions that the façade should not be allowed to become too pompous or grand, lest it detract from the contemplation of simplicity and Christian poverty, while on the other, it should also serve to glorify Catholicism, the Society of Jesus and, not least of all, its patrons. The completed façade satisfied all these demands. It is simple, yet at the same time monumental, the network of lesenes and niches combining with unaffected clarity. The inspiration for the interesting three-storey design may have come from the main façade of the Karmelitenkirche zu St. Joseph in Vienna (Carmelite Church of St Joseph), yet falls some way short of its classical balance. The sound construction is clearly a development on the stylistic purism evident in the church in Vranov. It therefore cannot be ruled out that the façade in Znojmo was the final work of Andreas Erna, an architect who began his career in Vranov in the service of the Liechtensteins and the city of Brno.
The most important ecclesiastical buildings in Moravia, however, are those linked with cardinal Franz von Dietrichstein. His interest in architecture was apparent even before the Battle of the White Mountain. It was Dietrichstein who, at some point prior to 1617, rebuilt the Chapel of St Anne in the immediate vicinity of Olomouc cathedral, and erected a new presbytery with crypt in the cathedral itself. Building work was much delayed due to the war and was not completed until 1661. Like the choirs of the late Gothic period, the Olomouc presbytery had an enormous span and was a powerful symbol of the new ambitions of the Counter Reformation. Of greater significance in terms of the development of architecture are the churches which Dietrichstein built at his seat in Mikulov. Here, he converted the parish church into the chapel and collegiate church of St Wenceslas attached to his chateau. He also founded a church dedicated to the Madonna of Loreto, one of the first of its kind in central Europe. Construction was authorised by the pope in 1622, and in 1625 the foundations of this faithful copy of Bramante's Loreto chapel were laid close to the Capuchin monastery. It was to become an important centre for the many public pilgrimages of the Thirty Years' War, and in 1631 was even visited by the emperor and his household. Unfortunately, there is no evidence confirming whether the cardinal had given thought to the uniform layout of the entire complex. Only after his death in 1636 was all the renovation and building work completed by prince Maximilian von Dietrichstein and the other aristocratic patrons, which saw the various elements combine to form one architectural entity. In 1636 a new hall church consecrated to St Anne and featuring a rectangular choir was built on the site of the church of Loreto, however the entire project was not completed until 1656. The interior of the church was richly adorned with sculpture and stucco [17], as were the many chapels filled with exquisite rarities and religious objects. These chapels were funded by well-known Catholics and were named in their honour (the chapel of count Michael Althan, count Collalto, count Michna von Vacínov and the beautiful proto-baroque chapel of count Georg von Náchod which is still in existence). These were a group of young Catholic patrons who supported the new culture but who also used it to promote their own status in society. It is illustrative of the state of patronage at that time that it was precisely these men who would join forces to finance a building in which the new mentality and aesthetic were manifested.
In 1631, count Michael Althan donated a further considerable sum of money for the Loreto church in Mikulov. However, this money was passed on by cardinal von Dietrichstein, with the benefactor's consent, to fund the construction of the Piarist college in Mikulov. Here, the Piarists had been granted use of the former hospital church, where rebuilding (Quadratur with college and novitiate) continued until the 1660s. The surviving sources clearly reveal that the order had no interest in their patron's view of the building as a vehicle of self-representation. The church, on the other hand, was intended for use by the public and, as such, was conceivable as a place where the generosity of an aristocratic benefactor could be acknowledged; the college, however, was the "private" house of the order.
In 1588 a chapel and crypt were built in the outer ward of Pirnitz castle for the Protestant family, Brtnický von Waldstein. The new owner, count Rombald Collalto et San Salvatore, a condottiere during the Thirty Years' War, had the chapel modified in 1629 by Wallenstein's architect, the military engineer Giovanni Pieroni da Gagliano, and his master mason, Giovanni Petruzzi. [18] Apart from the choir and main entrance, the principal modifications were to the interior, where the hall was augmented on either side by a pair of rectangular chapels topped with cupolas. In a letter from Pieroni to Collato, the architect assures his patron that "your project will be more beautiful than the church at Stará Boleslav". It is an assurance which has always baffled local historians. In my opinion, however, the architect was probably referring to the way in which the space was centred through the use of the cupolas, as well as alluding to the importance of the baroque stuccowork. The finished church was consecrated in 1641 as the Church of the Assumption of Our Lady and used by a new monastery founded by count Collalto for the Order of St Paul.
When the war had drawn to a close, work began on extending the major towns and cities of Moravia. The capital, Brno, was a particularly popular location for public displays of patronage by the upper classes. New churches were built with single façades articulated with lesenes such as the Franciscan church (built between 1651-1654 with Andreas Erna as architect) or the church of the Order of the Poor Ladies (1651-1654, Paul Weinberger). In 1653 prince von Lobkowitz commissioned a painting from Joachim von Sandrart for the high altar of the Capuchin church in Brno. [19] It was an tremendous gift both for Brno and for the history of art in the city. At that time, however, Sandrart's baroque painting had no major influence on local artists and, in terms of its quality, remained something of an exception in Moravian art for many years thereafter.
The final stage in the development of a strict and purist ecclesiastical architecture in Moravia came with the construction of the Dominican church in Brno. Again, building was financed by another member of the nobility, in this case one who had only recently become established. Count Leo Wilhelm von Kounic came from a Protestant family, but was educated as a Catholic as a result of the intervention of cardinal Franz von Dietrichstein. The cardinal was also able to salvage some of the Kounic property for the young heir, and arranged for him to marry a member of the Dietrichstein family. In his will, Leo Wilhelm bequeathed funds to the Dominicans for the construction of a church, which was duly completed between 1659 and 1679 and dedicated to St Michael. The finished building displayed all the trends of architectural development up to that point, being a pilaster church with chapels, galleries, barrel vaulting and the suggestion of a transept, all of which were subordinate to a strict and purist concept of the overall space. Stylistically, the church bowed to the tradition of earlier church architecture, yet appears somewhat oversized in terms of its architectonic forms. The same is true of the exterior in general, and the façade in particular. In this, one of his earliest works, the architect, Johann Baptist Erna (son of Andreas Erna), changed the orientation of the original building, apparently at the request of his patron. The new easterly main façade became part of the new square alongside the Moravian royal tribunal. The severity of the façade not only represented the old Dominican monastery, it was also intended to function as a tribute to the patron, hence the arms of alliance of the Konouc and Dietrichstein families positioned above the main portal and the Kounic family crypt housed within. As work on the Dominican church in Brno came to an end, so to did an epoch in Moravian architecture. The strict geometry of the architectural forms is exaggerated and overstated, and ultimately gave way to work by Erna which was much more moderate in terms of style and more sympathetic towards the baroque.
Palazzo in fortezza. The principal focus of architecture during the Thirty Years' War was, naturally enough, the construction of fortifications and development of architectura militaris. When the Florentine architect Giovanni Pieroni arrived at the Viennese court in 1622, he was commissioned to inspect the Habsburg fortifications and, based on his findings, to develop new defensive systems. [20] Documentary evidence exists of his work in Vienna, Prague, at Prague castle and the chateau at Náchod, as well as at Burg Spielberg in Brno and in the eastern Moravian border town of Uherské Hradišt.
During the war, the construction of new stately homes was the exception rather than the rule. It was much more common for existing castles and fortified homes to be restored and extended, a typical example being the modification of the castle of the Deutsche Kreuzherren order of knights at Sovinec-Eulenburg carried out after 1632. Nevertheless, it is still possible to trace when the important members of the Moravian nobility began to lay the foundations of their new seats of residence. As a region of great strategic importance for the movement of troops, Moravia was one of the regions of central Europe most affected by the events of the Thirty Years' War. Many chateaux and towns were laid waste and only gradually rebuilt towards the end of the 17th century. Hence the reliance on contemporary sources and reconstructions. [21] Of particular importance in the planning of the major residences of the 17th century was the concept of the palazzo in fortezza (palace set amid real or mock bastions and ravelins) B a concept by no means confined to Moravia. A beautiful example of this type of construction is the Liechtenstein residence in Feldsberg-Valtice. In 1614, on Lower Austrian territory not far from the Moravian border, the architect Giovanni Battista Carlone I began to modify and extend the old fortress of prince Karl von Liechtenstein. During several phases of construction spread throughout the whole of the 17th century, a series of courts gradually began to take shape. It is interesting to note the criticism of the aspiring architect, prince Karl Eusebius von Liechtenstein, for whom Feldsberg was nothing but a labyrinth of courts and passages. [22]
Similar modifications were taking place in the Dietrichstein seat of Mikulov. Although we do not yet have the documentary sources required for a detailed chronology of the construction of the chateau, it is clear that semi-circular bastions were added to the existing castle. The inner courtyard was divided by a roofed passage leading to the arcades, which was built to improve access. Among the additions to the older parts of the castle were a throne room, a great hall and rooms housing the cardinal's remarkable library, while the forecourt was gradually extended in the direction of the town. Today, only a few features survive from this period, such as the Dunkles Tor (Dark Gate) with its mighty, rusticated pillars which was built before 1630, and the modified chapel and collegiate church in the outer ward.
As with the Liechtenstein castle at Feldsberg, the Dietrichstein residence at Mikulov underwent modification in subsequent years. Despite these changes, it is still possible to deduce the existence of some original architectural schema from the plan of the site. However, the perfect example of the palazzo in fortezza with church situated in an outer enclosure can be found in the plans for the Collalto castle at Brtnice (Pirnitz). For some time now, scholars have known of a drawing of an unidentified chateau with three courtyards and a chapel accessed via a covered passage. The Brno-based art historian Václav Richter has suggested a connection between this sketch in pencil and the plans for the alteration of the castle in Brtnice by Giovanni Pieroni. [23] While I agree with Richter's identification of the site as Brtnice, it is more likely to have been a sketch for the conversion of the castle into a more civilised type of residence. This can be deduced from the fact that a) the drawing is the only existing plan in which the otherwise irregular elements of the castle and outer works are combined into one harmonious entity, and b) there is no documentation of any actual modification of this kind having taken place. Nevertheless, this sketch is still of considerable importance for the study of central European architecture in the 17th century. The characteristic features of the palazzo in fortezza described above are all clearly present, with the older core of the castle surrounded by bastions and other fortifications and extended in the direction of the town with a system of self-encompassing Quadraturen and passages into the courts. In front of the elongated rectangular castle lies an extremely long forecourt (practically as long as the castle itself) skirted by a covered passageway leading along the arcades to the chapel, which also served as the church of the monastery of the Order of St Paul. After 1631 a number of radical alterations were made, mainly to the older buildings in which the new public rooms, the Kaisersaal (Imperial Hall) and Ahnensaal (Ancestral Hall), were decorated with rich stuccowork. Although the chateau complex remained a conglomerate of irregular buildings erected during various periods, the sketch reveals a well-ordered architectural composition. It is clear that the palazzo in fortezza served primarily as a model for princely residences, and was used by some of the most prominent members of the Moravian élite.
The concept of a chateau situated in open countryside was one which gained only gradual acceptance in Moravia. In 1624, one of the future triumvirs, count Christoph Paul von Liechtenstein-Kastelkorn, converted a small fortress in Bludov (Blauda) into a three-winged chateau with a façade flanked by a pair of towers and featuring fine stuccowork in the interior. The façade was very simple, the only decoration being a rusticated entrance. [24] The interior of the Liechtenstein chateau in Mikulov was also subject to some modification (1633, 1637-1641), including the addition of a fountain by Giovanni Giacomo Tencalla in the arcaded courtyard. In 1638, prince Karl Eusebius von Liechtenstein began work on a summer residence in Lednice-Eisgrub. The end of this period of development is marked by the completion of Schloss Holleschau. Around 1652, the triumvir and Moravian governor general, Johann count von Rottal, extended his residence after plans by the imperial engineer, Philiberto Lucchese. The multiple-winged complex featured an octagonal tower at every corner, while the rooms of the Sala terrena, Theatersaal (Theatre), etc. were decorated with stuccowork. The planimetric design of the façade clearly illustrates that Moravia had found itself on the threshold of a new epoch in art. Despite the inclusion of many late Mannerist elements, Holleschau actually signalled the beginning of the early baroque period in Moravian architecture. It seems somehow symbolic that these developments coincided in 1652 with the death in Brno of the architect Andreas Erna, a man described in the chronicles of the day as "celebris in provincia ac primarius Architectus". [25] In the second half of the 17th century, however, his purist monumental architecture could no longer be regarded as "primarius". Its function now was more that of a panegyric, a monument to the rise of the new aristocracy in the midst of the carnage of war.
FOOTNOTES
1. For a bibliography and other source material on monuments dating from the first half of the 17th century in Moravia see Skalecki 1989; Fidler 1990; Krsek/Kudlka/Stehlík/Válka 1996.
2. For the most recent study of the historical situation at this time, see the excellent Válka 1995.
3. Schweigl 1972.
4. Olomouc and Brno have traditionally struggled for the title of capital of Moravia, developing different roles in the process. Olomouc became the centre of religious power in the country during the Counter Reformation and in the wake of the triumph of Catholicism. It was also the home of the episcopal see as well as of a number of religious orders. Brno, on the other hand, became the economic centre of Moravia. The fact that Brno later became the sole capital can be attributed to its successful defence against the Swedes in 1645.
5. Cf. Peloušková 1997.
6. This classification of the nobility by generation is intended purely for the sake of this study. The purpose here is to discover the difference between the late Renaissance/humanist mentality of the aristocracy and the early baroque self-representation of the court nobility.
7. Žerotín estates could be found in western Moravia (Rosice, NámšÙ), in the north (Velké Losiny, Moravská Třebová, Žerotín), in central Moravia (Přerov, Hustopeče, Dřevohostice, and others) as well as in the south (Židlochovice, Břeclav).
8. Cf. Krčálová 1989; Krčálová considers the architect of the chateau at Třebová to have been Giovanni Maria Filippi.
9. Cf. the only biography of the cardinal yet published: Balcárek 1990.
10. Neumann 1933, p. 26-31 (the standard work on the Piarists; see details of sources on the Mikulov college).
11. After the Battle of the White Mountain, the chateau at Mikulov housed ten major libraries, five of which were confiscated from their Protestant owners.
12. Giovanni Filippi was resident in Brno as architect to the Liechtensteins between 1618-1620. He lived in a house situated close to the Jesuit church in Brno, and may have overseen its completion.
13. Fidler 1995.
14. From this point of view, the "anti-art" buildings of the Franciscans (Kromříč, 1606) and Capuchins (1604 outside Brno, and later within its fortifications 1648-1651; Mikulov 1611, Znojmo 1628, Jihlava 1630) should be regarded as examples of a completely different type of architecture. These monasteries and churches, while extremely unadorned in terms of their external appearance, were often enhanced by their aristocratic patrons through the addition of interior furnishings (e.g. the altar screen by Joachim von Sandrart in Brno) or by other buildings located nearby (Loreto chapel and stuccowork in Mikulov).
15. Cf. Vacková 1989, p. 328.
16. Fidler 1994; Fidler 1996.
17. Richter/Krsek/Stehlík/Zemek 1971. The church is the work of the architect Giovanni Giacomo Tencalla, his brother, the plasterer, Giovanni Tencalla, as well as other artists from their circle. The sources relating to the construction of the Loreto church, in particular the contracts signed with these artists and plasterers, are held in the Moravian Regional Archive in Brno (F 18, the principal archive of the Dietrichstein family in Mikulov, box 1117).
18. Krčálová 1988.
19. Preiss 1996.
20. Krčálová 1988; Kroupa 1996.
21. In simplified terms, the baroque residences built by the aristocracy represent a development from the older concept of the fortified home towards the palazzo in fortezza. In most cases, this was done by adding new tracts to the outer enclosures and modifying the actual core to suit modern requirements (e.g., Frýdek castle in the Moravian part of Silesia, 1637-1644).
22. Lorenz 1990, p. 141.
23. Richter 1933, p. 68.
24. A similar simplicity can be found in the Dietrichstein palace in Brno, the palaces of the knight Morkovský von Zástřizl and Georg Zikmund von Zástřizl, as well as in Palais Salm-Neuburg (all in Olomouc).
25. The most important architects during the first half of the 17th century in Moravia were all Austro-Italians: Giovanni Maria Filippi (originally based in Prague, recorded as residing in Brno between 1617-1620); Giovanni Battista Carlone (1580/90-1645, architect to the Liechtensteins in Eisgrub and Bučowitz); Giovanni Giacomo Tencalla (active between 1630-1638, considered to be the first major exponent of the early baroque style in Moravia); Giovanni Battista Pieroni da Gagliano (1586-1654); Andrea Erna arrived in Moravia in 1617 and died in Brno in 1652).
© 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