Download Habsburgs, Italian Renaissance and the Czech Renaissance of the

Habsburgs, Italian Renaissance and the Czech Renaissance of the 19 th century
Jan Bažant
Introduction
1. View of Prague (detail), 1562, Wroclav, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka no. 4858-A, (after Hlavsa 1972, pl. 2).
Everyone who visits Prague is entranced by the audacious curves of the roof of the Belvedere, which
was undoubtedly the original intention of the builder 1. The Prague Belvedere, including its surrounding garden,
was the biggest architectural project of the Czech king and Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand I (1503-1564) 2.
Ferdinand’s garden stretches out over an incline running parallel to the ridge upon which Prague castle was built
and the sovereign evidently wanted the building to be visible from the center of the city and to be perceived as an
integral part of the ancient castle of the Czech kings and Roman emperors. At the same time, however, his
Belvedere was not meant to blend into the other castle buildings, which is why it was placed some distance from
the eastern end of the Prague Castle3. The placement of the Prague Belvedere has essential significance for an
understanding of the aims of its builder also because the low wooden fortress walls of the garden stand in sharp
contrast to the high stone walls of the castle, which had a symbolic meaning 4. The unprotected garden residence
had already anticipated from afar the beginning of a new era, in which peace and prosperity would reign and
Ferdinand’s subjects would feel safe throughout the entire country, even without castle walls. Though the
panorama of the castle grounds was, by coincidence, not enriched in later centuries with any essentially new
element, which could compete with the Belvedere, it remained the final revision of the concept of the Prague
royal residence.
2. View of Prague (detail), 1562, Wroclav, Biblioteka Uniwersytecka no. 4858-A, detail (after Hlavsa 1972,pl.
2).
This building is exceptional in the context of European art history, as its architecture is one of the first
echoes of the Italian renaissance in transalpine Europe. The arcade gallery, which is its most characteristic aspect
after the roof, is in fact the oldest façade consisting entirely of loggias on this side of the Alps. The Prague
Belvedere freed itself radically from medieval stereotypes through its functional specialization as well. It is
typical for medieval palace architecture when residential buildings and even the rooms placed in them do not
have an explicitly defined function. A further sign of the Belvedere’s pointing to the future is thus the clear
definition of the function of the building, which through its placement and architectural form displayed the fact
that it was designated for the pleasure of the monarch and his guests. This, of course, does not mean that the
functions declared were those actually utilized - the placement of the building and its opening into the public
space of the metropolis explicitly indicate to us that it was not meant to serve the private needs of the ruler
1
This study came about due to the support of the Czech Republic Academy of Sciences Grant Agency (grant no.
A8062101/01), preliminary studies: Bažant 2003a; Bažant 2003b; Bažant 2004.
2
Bibliography of the Prague Belvedere: Ilg 1885; Mádl 1886; Winter 1890; Balšánek 1897; Chytil 1907; Winter
1909; Pollak 1910; Neuwirth 1901, 107; Chytil 1924; Morávek 1929; Mihulka 1934; Mihulka 1939; Morávek
1947; Janák 1954; Brentani 1957; Šamánková 1961, 28-29; Wirth 1961; Wagner-Rieger 1962; Krčálová 1978,
294-296; Svoboda 1978; Krčálová 1979, 51-52; Hitchcock 1981, 93-94; Hubala 1985, 52-55; Preiss 1986, 2031; Lietzmann 1987, 175; Vilímková, Líbal, 1988, 46-48, 54; Kořán 1988, 154-155; Kořán 1989, 117; Krčálová
1989, 7-9; Vlček 1994, 37-38, 125-126; DaCosta Kaufmann 1995, 144; Ullmann 1995, 41; Simons 1997, 80-89;
Procházka 1997; Muchka 2000, 245-250; Muchka 2001, 50; Muchka 2003.
3
The Belvedere is thoroughly connected with the garden. Its western façade runs perpendicular to its axis, thus
closing it off to the east. The garden was originally connected with the Prague castle by a mere bridge which
today has been replaced by a rampart. It should be also recalled, that the hills surrounding Prague were covered
with forest only later, during the 19th century.
4
On the Wroclaw view of Prague from the year 1562, only a palisade reinforced by towers, which guarded it
from the north, is visible to the right of the Belvedere, which is labeled “Lusthaus”. A further palisade was
placed in the southwest corner, in close proximity to the building (Lazarová, Lukas 2002, no. 3; this palisade is
also in the picture from 1608: no. 78). On the view of Prague by Philippe van den Bossche from the year 1606, it
is possible to see that at the end of the ridge over which the royal garden extended, the north palisade continued
on in a sharp angle down to the river, so that a ravine, which now contains the Chotek serpentine road, was
utilized for defense purposes (Lazarová, Lukas 2002, no. 16). Inside the palisade, the eastern end of the valley
which separated Prague Castle from the Royal Gardens can be seen
exclusively. A further feature through which the Prague Belvedere radically distinguished itself from previous
architectural traditions is the fact that all of its façades were done in a uniform manner. Similarly to ancient
Greek temples, with which, however, the Belvedere does not have directly anything in common, the colonnade
circles the entire building, which was set up on a foundation with the shape of an extended rectangle. Even the
sculpture decoration, the richness of which has no parallel in residential buildings of the previous century, is
done in a uniform manner. The decoration includes over one hundred figure reliefs and as many decorative ones,
including an extraordinarily quality frieze, which is many times more than there typically was in Italian buildings
of this type.
3. The western loggia of the Prague Belvedere.
The rich sculpture decoration of residential architecture and its resulting symmetrical arrangement
along two axes crossing into a right angle are typical features of the new renaissance art inspired by classical
antiquity. There is no equal to the Prague Belvedere in amount and intensity of links to ancient Greek and
Roman culture in the entire transalpine renaissance, but the building is exceptional even in its ties to the northern
European cultural tradition. This is explicitly indicated by the shape of the roof and the asymmetrical placement
of the entrances on the north and west façades, which were repaired in accordance with Italian renaissance norms
only during the reconstruction in the mid-19th century. A further northern element is the celebration of the Satyrs,
for whom one-fourth of all figure reliefs was reserved. These beings have an ancient appearance, but the
medieval tradition of wild men, which was typical for northern Europe and especially for the art of the court of
Ferdinand’s predecessor on the imperial throne, Václav IV, survives within them.
Considering these extraordinary circumstances, we might expect the Prague Belvedere to be one of the
key monuments in the discussion of the history and character of the northern renaissance. On this concrete
monument, the ambitions of which are without a doubt European, it would be possible to show to the degree to
which the cultural development in transalpine Europe is intertwined with Italy as concerns the relationship to
ancient heritage and its utilization in royal propaganda. The building could contribute to the recognition of the
influence of the patrons from this side of the Alps on the development of art in the 16 th century, etc. However, no
study of this type has been written and thus the Prague Belvedere is exceptional even in a negative sense – the
lack of interest in this monument among historians is truly remarkable.
The exterior of the building has, at the same time, ever since the time when Ferdinand’s craftsmen
stopped working on it, changed only unsubstantially. It can only be proven that there was any manipulation with
the reliefs in the case of the balustrade columns with putti 5. The only large intervention which acknowledged the
reliefs at that time was the systematic attack on the depiction of naked human figures, some of the first in
transalpine monument art6. Rich archival documentation regarding the process of the building of the Belvedere
has been preserved, so we know that it was built during the years 1537-1563 by Paolo della Stella and Bonifac
Wolmut7. The interest of researchers has been directed primarily toward the first builder of the Belvedere, to
whom the design of the ground floor with the colonnade gallery is attributed. Ferdinand I hired Stella in Genoa,
but researchers have not been able to agree on what he was doing prior to his arrival in Prague. It was not thus
possible to associate the Prague Belvedere with any of the renowned Italian workshops and, due to the atypical
nature of its architectural conception, it was not possible to place it in the context of the development of
European renaissance architecture, not even on the basis of formal analysis. This was likely the main reason why
art historians lost interest in this unique building during the second half of the 20th century.
Every book about Prague or transalpine art of the 16 th century mentions the Belvedere, but none
examines it in depth. The building was never described systematically and has thus far never been integrated into
either a European or a Czech cultural/historical context. There are only two monographic works on the building
and its decoration, Balšánek’s study from 1897 and Mihulka’s from 1939. The first was not written by an art
historian, but by a practicing architect and was intended to serve primarily as a model for neo-renaissance
creations, hence most of the study is made up of drawings, the aim of which was not precise documentation 8.
5
The forties of the 19th century saw the first and final reconstruction during which the larger part of the interiors
was unfortunately destroyed and the entrance arcades on the north and west sides were moved onto the axis of
the building. At that time, the putto on the north façade was transferred from the third arcade to the fifth arcade
and on the western façade, the putto from the eighth arcade was transferred to the seventh arcade. All later
interventions were aimed toward the preservation of the building following this reconstruction. Thus far, the only
step taken toward restoring the site to its original state was merely the reconstruction of the conical balustrade in
the arcade gallery on the ground floor, which took place from 1988-1991 (cf. with Procházka 1997, 43).
6
The attack of the vandals, incidentally, proves that there was a period when nudity in Ferdinand’s Belvedere
was offensive and the entire building was thus not perceived as a charming lookout pavilion.
7
Krčálová 1995b; Krčálová 1995c; Krčálová 2004b; Fidler 2004; Vlček 2004, 624-625, 719-720.
8
Balšánek 1897.
The second monograph was an attempt at art history analysis, but as we reveal below, it is necessary to adopt a
very guarded approach to the author’s information 9.
This book will be devoted primarily to the question of what Ferdinand wanted to say to Prague and to
the world through this building, what he wanted it to reveal to future generations about him and his time. We
know that Ferdinand cultivated very intense social contacts and liked to discuss any topic at any time. He
undoubtedly also explained what exactly he meant by his Prague Belvedere. No such information has been
preserved, but it would not be in any way uncommon. During Ferdinand’s time, the French king François I had
the greatest interest in architecture and made drawings of buildings that he liked. These drawings then served as
a point of departure for his own projects. François also became famous for leading well-known guests on tours of
his buildings and explaining them in detail. “Seeing your constructions without you, they are dead bodies, and
perusing your buildings and not hearing you explain how you conceive of them, is like reading in Hebrew”,
wrote Margaret of Navarra to her royal brother in 153110.
This book can be understood as preparation for the reconstruction of what the builder of the Belvedere
would say about it. The dominant role of the patron explains why artistic work does not develop in a linear
manner and why artists change their style from one commission to another. Historians of art around the year
1900 had already discovered the importance of patrons, but it was not until a century later that their attention
began to turn to the 16th century11. It is hence not strange that they key role of the builder during the formation of
the Prague Belvedere has been thus far ignored and all attention has been centered around Paolo della Stella and
Bonifac Wolmut, to whom the innovations which this building brought forth were attributed. In this book, we
attempt to prove that the appearance of the Prague Belvedere was primarily the result of the assignments by
Ferdinand I. The aim of this research has not merely been to reconstruct the original significance of one of the
monuments from the 16th century, but also to clarify the mechanisms which determined the appearance of
building projects in the transalpine renaissance 12.
9
Mihulka 1935; Mihulka 1939.
“Voir vos édifices sans vous, c’est ung corps mort, et regarder vos bastiments sans ouïr sur cela vostre
intention, c’est lire en esbryeu“,Margaret of Navarra 1841, Vol. I, p. 382, quoted in: Chatenet 2002, 300.
11
Hollingsworth 1996.
12
On Renaissance in the Central Europe: Bialostocki 1976; Günther 1988; Segal 1989; Porter, Teich 1992;
Goodman, MacKay 1990; Strnad 1991; Da Costa Kaufmann 1995; Nußbaum 2003.
10
Ferdinand’s Belvedere
The first step toward the building of the Prague Belvedere was mentioned in a letter dated November 13, 1534,
which Ferdinand I sent from Vienna to Prague to the château administrator, George from Gersdorf. In it is
written that the king had closed a contract with the Italian masters and masons, on the basis of which material for
the construction of the Royal Garden was to be prepared and the necessary terrain alterations were to be
completed by winter of that year. In the letter, he asks how the work on the bridge over the Deer Moat, which
separated the hill with the Prague Castle from the ridge running parallel, on which the Royal Garden was to be
built, was progressing13. Though the first steps toward building the Belvedere were not taken until 1537, the
garden evidently took precedence and the project was only later expanded to include the construction of the
summer palace.
Gardens had been a royal attribute since the middle ages and even at that time looked basically the same
as they do today, i.e. with a grove, small pools, shaded alleys, arbors covered with grapevines, summer houses
and other elements serving to increase the gracefulness and comfort of the owner and his guests 14. The
prestigious character of the Prague royal garden is emphasized by a poem through which Villaticus honored it in
1538 – the garden was meant primarily for the king, the queen and their children 15. In order to enhance the
concealed nature of the gardens, the residential buildings were separated from them by walls, which was the case
even in Prague. Oldřich Austalis (Ulrich de Vastiosa) worked on the richly architecturally equipped wall with
stairs, niches, cornices and doors during the year 1559 16 In 1563, however, this wall was still not finished and on
this occasion we discover that the windows in it were covered with bars17. The decorative wall can be seen quite
well on the engraving in the work of Barretus, which, according to the attached label, depicts the Belvedere in
the year 1600, when it served as an astronomic observatory for Tycho de Brahe 18.
4. View of the Royal Garden and the Belvedere, close up (after Barretus 1672, 58).
Renaissance gardens differed from their medieval predecessors in that they were arranged along a main
axis, which had an especially significant function in Prague. The axis of the garden ran parallel to the axis of the
Prague Castle, so they were mutually intertwined. In addition, the main entrance to the Belvedere was placed on
the axis, making it exclusively subjugated to the building placed at its end. Visible on the engraving by Barretus
is a fountain placed on the axis of the garden, on which it was like a small gate leading to the terrace in front of
the west façade of the Belvedere, hence the main entrance to the summer palace.
The trees casting the shade, the meadow suggesting recreation, and the spring or brook providing
refreshment had already been the main attributes of the garden since the time of Ancient Rome, altogether
making up a “locus amoenus”, a graceful place19. A fountain, often richly decorated, served to enhance the water
element in the gardens20. The oldest preserved bronze fountains are from the thirties of the 16 th century and
starting in the sixties, Ferdinand I and his sons Maxmilian II and Ferdinand II of Tyrol built such fountains in
Prague, Innsbruck, and Vienna. In front of the Prague Belvedere, a bronze fountain was built in the year 1571,
designed by Francisco Terzio, with wooden models (Hans Preisser, Nuremburg) casted by Tomáš Jaroš and the
cast chased by Antonio Brocco21. The fountain was decorated with fauns and a captured deer, youths
representing ancient shepherds and on top, a boy playing the bagpipes.
5. Bronze fountain in front of the Prague Belvedere, 1571.
6. Faun from the bronze fountain in front of the Prague Belvedere,
1571.
7. Shepherd from the bronze fountain in front of the Prague Belvedere, 1571.
Reg. no. 5959 (Jahrbuch X). On Ferdinand’s garden in Vienna cf. Perger, Thomas 1998; Hilda Lietzmann in:
Seipel 2003, 259-263.
14
Cf. e.g. Calkins 1986.
15
Villaticus 1538, Epigrammatum liber primus, M4a-b (De horto regio): „Edent scilicet hic perambulantes, rex
reginaque coniuges beati, regnis, prole, parique charitate.“
16
SÚA ČDKM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 107, reg. no. 4264 (Jahrbuch V).
17
SÚA ČDKM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 289-294.
18
Barretus’s book was published for the first time in 1666, cf. Lazarová, Lukas 2002, no. 55.
19
Curtius 1998, 215.
20
Smith 1994, 226-244.
21
Ilg 1889; Pechstein 1973, 99-103.
13
•
The history of the Belvedere’s construction begins in the year 153722. Paolo della Stella, in his
bookkeeping from the year 1540, lists that on December 15, 1537, King Ferdinand ordered a model of the
building (“den form des lusthaus”), on which Stella then worked for the following three months 23. Models of the
residential buildings began to appear in the 15th century and, as an analogy to the model of the Belvedere, it is
possible to compare, for example, the model of the hunting lodge in Chambord, which François I had built, with
consideration given not only to the building’s exterior appearance, but also to the organization of its interior.
Their further function was to act as a substitute for building plans. These models, built to actual scale, on the
basis of which it was possible to determine the form of the entire building, were, however, quite expensive 24. The
model of the Belvedere which was not preserved undoubtedly belonged to this highest category, because the
building process could be begun immediately using it as a guide. A report from the Czech chamber from August
3, 1538 states that Spazio, who began the construction process, understood the model well 25. In addition, in the
autumn of that year, Paolo della Stella himself maintained that one of Spazio’s masters, Zuan (Juan) Maria,
understood it as well as Spazio did26.
All we know about Stella is that he was “de Mileto” and that he died in Prague in 1552, as no attempts
up to now by researchers to identify further works by the model-builder have met with general agreement, but
we shall return to this question27. Some researchers tried to classify Stella as one of the Northern Italian
architects famous at the time, for example, according to Mihulka, the author of the ground level of the Belvedere
came from the circle of Michele Sanmicheli28. However, one of Sansovino’s pupils is listed as the building’s
architect, a conclusion which the author of this book has also reached 29. According to Šamánková, this person is,
conversely, a representative of the Genoa-Milan school, differing from Michele Sanmicheli and Sansovino 30.
The problems regarding Stella’s past yield only one indisputable conclusion – Ferdinand did not engage any of
the already renowned craftsmen, which could create space for creative initiative on the part of the builder.
As concerns villas, the participation of Lorenzo de’Medici in the appearance of his famous villa in
Poggio a Caiano, built by Giuliano de Sangallo after 1485, is generally well known 31. Lorenzo’s design, which
Giorgio Vasari calls “capriccio”, formed the basis for the conception of Poggio a Caiano. Lorenzo also acted as
an advisor during the construction of Poggio Reale, the villa of the Neapolitan king, which was performed by
Giuliano da Maiano. We know that Ferdinand was actively interested in architecture and not only closely
followed the construction of the Prague Belvedere, but also instructed the builder in a detailed manner. Less than
a year before his death, when he was gravely ill, his specialized interest in architecture, which was otherwise
generally expected of the rulers of the time, did not abandon him. When, in 1563, in the company of the
margrave Georg Friedrich Bitten, he looked over the new fortifications of Bamberg and united the plan with its
realization and found several building errors in it which had escaped even the builder 32. Ferdinand’s interest in
architecture was shared by his son, the archduke Ferdinand, who was demonstrably an amateur architect, his
most famous project being the Prague Star Hunting Lodge 33.
Ferdinand, however, definitely was not at the genesis of the concept of the Prague Belvedere.
According to a report from June 1, 1538, Stella was hired by an imperial delegate in Genoa, with whom he made
an agreement regarding not only the building job, but also purely operational matters, such as the exact number
22
Morávek 1938, Svoboda 1978, the references below were taken from these publications.
APH, DK no. i. 57 kart. 1. The oldest preserved model of the private building comes from the years 1489/90,
cf. Evers 1995 no. 77. Regarding models, cf. Milon, Lampugnani 1997, 19-73.
24
Goldwaite 1980, 378-9.
25
Reg. no. 6007 (Jahrbuch X): „Dieweil er daz modell des ganzen gepeus voll verstee“.
26
Reg. no. 6009 (Jahrbuch X): „Daz model und anders so wol als maister Hannss verstee“. Cf. SÚA , SM H
12/20 fol. 10-11, RG 15 fol. 179-180. This practice was common at that time, the author of the model did not
have to construct the building himself, and in the documents preserved, his name is often not even mentioned:
Wolters 2000, 37.
27
On June 27, 1538, he is referred to in a letter from the Prague Chamber to Ferdinand as “Paolo Stella de
Mileto”: reg. no. 6004 (Jahrbuch X). Cf. XXX.
28
Mihulka 1935, 85-87.
29
Chytil 1907; Birnbaum from: Mihulka 1935; Tafuri 1981, 165.
30
Šamánková 1961, 28-29.
31
Ackerman 1990, 79.
32
Cf. Bucholtz VIII, 1968, 770.
33
In the archduke’s library were architectural reference books by Vitruvius, Alberti, and even Serlio, cf. reg. no.
5556 (Jahrbuch 10).
23
of people who would be brought to Prague to make the reliefs 34. The imperial delegate in Genoa at the time was
Gomez Suarez de Figueroa35. Though he is never named in the archival documents dealing with the Prague
Belvedere and we do not find his name even in the secondary literature on this monument, he had to be the one
who negotiated in Genoa with Stella. This fact is extraordinarily significant, because Suarez de Figueroa was a
man of high standing and had immense political influence. Together with the governor of Milan, Don Ferrante
Gonzaga, he managed imperial matters in northern Italy, but his actual influence was much greater. The banks of
Genoa, that is to say, insured the finances of the entire Hapsburg Empire and as imperial delegate in Genoa,
Suarez worked his way up to the position of minister of finance for Charles V 36.
In 1537, Suarez de Figueroa was entirely occupied with financing the Piedmont wars, despite which he
made time to help Ferdinand with the Prague summer palace project, which indicates that the two apparently
knew each other well37. In addition, Suarez helped Ferdinand not only with the summer palace, but also with the
garden, as he sent seeds to Prague via Stella, whom he had gained for the project in Genoa. This was
undoubtedly a rare import from overseas, because Ferdinand would not have appealed to such a busy and
important man in order to procure Italian seeds. In regard to this matter, it is necessary to mention that the
brother of the imperial delegate in Genoa, Nuno Beltran de Guzman, was a conquistador and administrator in
Mexico, where the seeds for Ferdinand could also have originated 38.
The imperial delegate in Genoa was undoubtedly well oriented with questions of the taste of the time,
so he was able to further develop Ferdinand’s conception and perhaps even formulate it better than the builder
himself. His Spanish origin is important, because the type of villa which Ferdinand built at Prague Castle could
came to Prague from Madrid 39. No less significant was the fact that the model was ordered in Genoa, which was
then famous due to its representative villa architecture and ever since 1533, the already famous Villa Doria stood
here, the column arcades of which, as we shall show, could have served as a model for the Prague Belvedere.
Genoa also played the role of one of the main gates through which Italian sculptors and with them the stimuli for
the new sculpture style entered transalpine Europe.
The presentation of the architectural model was a significant event in the 16 th century for the architect
and the builder both40. That is to say that the builder’s prestige increased not only by the finished product, but
even the ceremonial presentation of the project. The reliefs on the wardrobe in the form of a temple which
were intended to be the conceptual center of the Florentine duke’s gallery, for example, reveal both the
significance of such an event and the way in which it was arranged. We see the society standing upon them, in
the center of which Francesco de’Medici is depicted as he, comfortably planted in a chair, studies a model set on
the table, which the architect standing next to him explains41. The presentation of the model could have taken
place between April 10, 1538, when Stella arrived in Prague, and May 16, 1538, when Ferdinand left Prague 42. It
likely took place soon after Stella’s arrival, because he soon departed for Italy, so that he could return on May
25th with 13 stonecutters, who immediately started working43. From this progression, it appears to follow that
Ferdinand made the decision regarding Stella’s design only after carefully studying the imported model. Stella
had to come with the model to Prague first and upon its approval he had to return to Italy in order to enlist
craftsmen and came back once again immediately. The realization of the building, upon which work was
supposed to have immediately commenced, was entrusted to Giovanni Spazio. It is evident from the quick
succession of events that Ferdinand was in a great hurry with the building.
The key role of the Italian craftsmen in the building of the Prague Belvedere corresponds to the
European standards of the time. Up until the middle of the 16th century, most European builders were directed to
Italian architects, builders and artists during the building and the decoration of sites in the new style. Suarez de
Figueroa knew this new style undoubtedly as a style “a lo Romano” or “a l’antigue”, and similarly in all other
European languages, in which Italian art was at that time a synonym for new art inspired by the ancients. The
French and Spanish kings, undoubtedly for political reasons, had since the thirties already begun to give
preference to local artists, in France this was above all Pierre Lescot and Philibert de l’Orme, in Spain probably
Pedro Macucha. In Bohemia this change did not take place until the middle of the century, when Ferdinand
entrusted the reconstruction of the Prague Belvedere to Bonifac Wolmut.
34
Reg. no. 6000 (Jahrbuch X).
Brandi 1937, 341; Vitale 1955, 1, p. 214 and 216.
36
Federico Chabod in: Treccani degli Ilferi 1961, 405 cf. also Tracy 2002.
37
Federico Chabod in: Treccani degli Ilferi 1961, 446-448, 465.
38
Chipman 1967.
39
See p. xxx.
40
Regarding the architect, cf. Scamozzi 1615, 51-52 (first edition 1584).
41
Giambologna, gilded relief, “Buontalenti hands Francesco de Medici the model of the Florentine house”, prior
to 1585, Florence, Museo degli Argenti: Evers 1995, no. 93.
42
Morávek 1938, 3 (see APH, DK no. i. 57 kart. 1).
43
Reg. no. 5998 (Jahrbuch X).
35
The first builder of the Prague Belvedere, Spazio, was among the Italian masters and masons who had
been working on the construction of the royal garden ever since November 13, 1534, so he could begin building
immediately following the approval of the model and Stella’s departure for Italy 44. On May 25, 1538, i.e. after
Stella’s return, a total of 44 Italians continued working on the building 45. Ferdinand’s attempt to increase the
tempo by dividing up the work between Stella and Spazio, was, however, without effect, as a conflict arose
between Stella and Spazio after Stella’s return46. Up until August 3, 1538, Spazio built the cellar and the walls of
the ground floor, but no arches47. The Bohemian royal chamber was satisfied with him overall, but he seemed
too expensive for them. Stella took advantage of this fact and came up with the idea to leave only four
journeymen and a master, who could be, as mentioned above, one of Spazio’s people, Zuan (Juan) Maria, to
whom he has already supposedly explained the model, at the construction site 48. This move proved successful
and in September 1538, Stella was entrusted with the management of the building of the Belvedere 49.
With supervision of the masonry work, a man who had come to Prague with Spazio 50, but was wholly
on Stella’s side, because he was, as was revealed, his relative, was entrusted to them 51. This Zuan Maria could be
the same as Joan Mario de Pambio, otherwise known as Giovanni Maria Aostalli or Jan Austalos from
Ponubia52. If this is true, he was a competent specialist who later successfully established himself in Bohemia as
the builder of the Prague Castle53. Zuan Maria is of interest to us as he is the first Italian we come across in
relation to the Prague Belvedere. As it is unlikely that two relatives would meet in Prague on one and the same
building project purely by accident, it is possible to speculate that Zuan Maria appealed to Stella to offer his
services to Ferdinand in some way. On the basis of Stella’s design, Ferdinand could request that Suarez de
Figueroa represent the king in negotiations with Stella and close a contract with him for the preparation of the
model for the Prague building. Another possibility is that Stella appealed directly to the imperial delegate in
Genoa.
Work on the Prague Belvedere initially progressed quite rapidly, from April 14-19, 1539, the
foundation for the stairway leading from the terrace to the basement rooms was dug 54. The arches in the halls had
evidently been being built since April55. In July the carpenters set up the roof so that they could place it on the
finished wall, from which we can conclude that originally only a ground-level building was planned 56. In the
oldest part of the building, in the underground arched hall, however, there are five reinforcements extending
approximately 60 cm into the space, the placement of which corresponds to the original dividing line in the
interior. This means that the internal arrangement was from the very beginning meant to include a staircase
corridor, from which one could enter both the side halls and the loft. The loft was not meant to be flat, because in
later documents, a roof with lead covering is mentioned, so the stairs could have led only to the terrace above the
ground-level colonnade, which means that the gallery above it must have been a part of the original plan and
thus even of Stella’s model.
In April 1540, the prepared stone decorations were to be placed on the loggia (“das gehaut pild und
laubwerk”), but the Bohemian royal chamber secretary, Florian Griespek, who was then entrusted with the
supervision of the construction process, informed Ferdinand of the fact that the Italians had not built the wall
straight57. The crooked wall explicitly indicates that Stella did not have much experience with the realization of
buildings and likely was thus not even the author of the concept of the Prague Belvedere. This circumstance
reveals that from the beginning, Ferdinand was interested primarily in the sculpture decorations of the Belvedere.
This was evidently the reason why he tried to honor the wishes of Stella and stood behind him even though
Ferdinand’s Vienna builder Jan Čert (“Tscherte”) had to come to Prague for an inspection due to Stella’s
incompetence. Though Griespek insisted that Čert stay in Prague and finish the Belvedere, the ruler ordered him
44
APH, DK n. i. 57 kart. 1 (summary of the debts to Master Paolo from 11.16.1540). SÚA, SM S 21/4 fasc. 2
fol. 718-719 2096 SÚA, RG 15 fol. 147v-148.
45
Reg. 5998 (Jahrbuch X).
46
SÚA RG 15 fol. 158v-160, reg. no.6004 (Jahrbuch X), SÚA RG 19 fol. 31-32, reg. no.6005 (Jahrbuch X).
47
Reg. no. 6007 (Jahrbuch X); 6008 (Jahrbuch X).
48
SÚA , SM H 12/20 fol. 10-11, RG 15 fol. 179-180, reg. no. 6009 (Jahrbuch X).
49
Reg. no. 6012 (Jahrbuch X).
50
Reg. no. 6013 (Jahrbuch X).
51
Reg. no. 6052 (Jahrbuch X): „Wir haben jeczo mit maister Paulen de la Stella, obristen uber di wellischen
stainmeczen, und seinem mitverwondten auch dem maister Zoan Maria, wellischen maurer.”
52
Muchka 2000, 246.
53
Preiss 1986, 31.
54
Selected from the bill of the building scribe Lukáš Vetter, APH, Court Building Bureau (HBA), no. i. 2045
kart. 106.
55
Reg. no. 6037 (Jahrbuch X).
56
APH, DK no. i. 37 kart. 1.
57
APH, DK no. i. 43 kart. 1.
to return to Vienna on June 23, 154058. At the time of Čert’s inspection, the ground floor was built and vaulted,
the building painted white and the main work was being done by the stonemasons 59. However, a report from the
Prague chamber on November 16, 1540 reveals that the columns and arches of the colonnade were not yet
completed60.
The Belvedere was not destroyed in the great fire in Prague on June 2, 1541, but work on it had to be
suspended and the rough-hewed stones had to be stored under the roof61. However, by August 24, Ferdinand had
already ordered Stella to continue working on the reliefs and other stone work for the Belvedere 62. In a letter to
his sister Mary, he complains that he had so much work during his stay in Prague at the end of 1541, that he had
not had time to have a look at the progress of the Belvedere’s construction 63. In 1542, Ferdinand requests in the
Czech chamber the delivery of the iron that was promised 64, which reminds us that the colonnade had still not
been completed. It can only be proven that Stella and his stonemasons were working on the building at the
time65. No records were kept up until 1543, but we can assume that they were continually working on the reliefs,
because the documents from the year 1545 mention Stella’s work once again. In this year, the masons also
returned to the building site, but conflicts also arose between Stella and Zuan Maria, which Ferdinand settled
once again in favor of the former, as he sent the latter to another building site, on October 2, 1545. The fact that
this and other conflicts between craftsmen working on the Belvedere were settled personally by Ferdinand
indicates that he very closely observed the building process continually.
In the autumn of 1545, the Belvedere’s construction tempo became once again more free but was,
however, meant to continue under the leadership of Stella, for whom the task of working on the reliefs
(“historien oder pildwerch”) 66 with his stonemasons was reserved. In the spring of 1546, a new group of
builders, master Joan Baptista de Savosa with four of his journeymen, appeared on the building site in addition
to Stella and his eight stone masons67. A significant enlivening of the work, however, did not take place until
1548, when the group mentioned above grew to thirty stonemasons. Zuan Maria’s group (34 stonemasons),
including Stella joined them and 14 stonecutters, among them even his brother, Jan Dominik, who had been
employed on the Belvedere site since 1540, worked on the reliefs 68. During the building seasons in the years
1548-1550, the colonnade was markedly and wholly completed, because all of the stonecutters’ work was to be
stopped by October 12, 1550, hence the arcades of the Belvedere, looking the same as they do today, were
already standing at that time69.
The Belvedere was essentially already completed in 1552. In February of that year, Ferdinand had
samples of the three types of copper roofing material and its attachments sent to Vienna 70 and from July there is
a payment order for 1371 guilders for the copper already delivered71. Judging from the preserved arcade gallery,
which had been, including reliefs, already completed in 1550, this was a very representative construction 72. We
would expect that Ferdinand would wish to utilize it immediately, but he decided instead to reconstruct it in a
radical way. At the same time, Ferdinand had to realize the risk of further delay due to the fact that the
Belvedere’s construction was continually primarily financed by the Czech chamber. In 1558 and 1560,
construction actually did not take place due to a lack of funds73.
58
APH, DK no. i. 54 kart. 1.
SÚA, RG 15 fol. 354-355.
60
SÚA, RG 15 fol. 389, APH, DK no. i. 57 kart. 1, reg. no. 6051 (Jahrbuch X); cf also APH, DK no. i. 55 kart.
1.
61
SÚA, RG 19 fol. 233v-234v, APH, DK no. i. 63 kart. 1, reg no. 6056 (Jahrbuch X). Cf also reg. no. 6050,
6052, 6054 (Jahrbuch X).
62
APH, DK no. i. 64 kart. 1, reg no. 4094 (Jahrbuch V): (Stella) „die arbeit der historien und all ander arbeit zu
dem gartengebew die zeit hinumb ... ausmachen und verrichten soll“.
63
„Er durch vier Wochen nicht Muße gehabt, ein einziges Mahl in den Schloßgarten zu genem, wozu man nur
über eine Brücke zu genem habe, um dort webem des Gebäudes, das er machen lasse, etwas anzuordnen.“
(Buchholz 1968, vol. IV, 536).
64
SÚA, SM S 21/4 fol. 744 kart. 2096, APH, DK no. I 67 kart. 1.
65
APH, DK no. i. 69 kart. 1; SÚA, RG 19 fol. 316, reg no. 6061, 6062 (Jahrbuch X); SÚA, RG 19 fol. 319v320.
66
Reg. no. 4118 (Jahrbuch V). Cf. SÚA, RG 31 fol. 18v-19, APH, DK no. i 81 kart. 1).
67
APH, DK no. i. 82 kart. 1; SÚA, SM S 21/4 fasc. 2 fol. 593 kart. 2096.
68
APH HBA no. I 6 kart 1.
69
Only Jan Dominik, who was to complete the symbols which were begun on the windows on the ground floor,
was to continue working on the Belvedere: SÚA, ČDKM IV. kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol 52, reg. no. 4182 (Jahrbuch V).
70
APH, DK no. i. 125-126 kart. 1.
71
APH, DK no. i. 129 kart. 1.
72
SÚA, ČDKM IV. kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol 52, reg. no. 4182 (Jahrbuch V).
73
SÚA ČDKM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 275 and fol. 238.
59
The delays were caused even by purely technical problems connected to Ferdinand’s choice of a
Mediterranean-style construction, including a terrace extending around the entire perimeter of the roof, with
which no one up to that time had any experience, hence it was necessary to solve the problem of drainage 74. An
entire series of solutions was tested, but two years prior to the completion of the Belvedere, archduke Ferdinand,
who was entrusted with the supervision of the building process, wrote the ruler that it would be unconditionally
necessary to change the system of draining water from the roof before the onset of another winter. The procedure
was also delayed by the fact that Ferdinand himself wanted to make all decisions regarding the building process
personally. When, for example, later, in the concluding phases, the archduke recommended connecting the
ceiling with rafters, on which the planets and the astrological signs would be painted, Ferdinand agreed with the
ceiling in the form of an arch, but wanted to choose the topic of the painting himself upon his arrival in Prague 75.
The greatest delay in the completion of the Prague Belvedere’s construction was caused by Ferdinand’s
decision to radically expand the not-yet-completed building. This decision was made some time around the end
of the year 1554, but Ferdinand wanted first of all to hear the opinions of the experts personally. For this matter,
he engaged the architect Hans Tirol, who had been employed at Prague Castle since 155276, and two other men
who worked for him in Vienna, the stonecutter Bonifac Wolmut and the painter Peter Ferabosco 77. He originally
wanted them both to come to Prague immediately, consult everything on location with Tirol, and then come visit
him in Augsburg, where he was then staying78. In the end he agreed with the suggestion of Archduke Ferdinand,
who on March 6, 1555 invited all three artists to a local investigation session, out of which a common design
would come79.
The result was a plan for the Belvedere’s reconstruction, which Ferdinand approved in July 1555, but
which was unfortunately preserved only in description. It was agreed that the finished roof would be removed
and, with the standing walls, windows, doors, and fireplaces taken into consideration, another floor would be
added onto the Belvedere. The floor was to have a metal ceiling and a lead covering, similar to the one which
had been on the Belvedere previously, was planned for the roof. As a copper covering is mentioned in writing in
1552, it had to have been changed to lead between 1552 and 1555. The construction work was entrusted to Tirol
and the head supervisory function to Archduke Ferdinand. 80 The ruler, however, evidently did not trust Tirol
very much, which follows from the fact that he originally wanted to negotiate only with Wolmut and Ferabosco.
He did entrust Tirol as the head builder in the summer, but later reconsidered and ultimately relieved him of this
function81. Starting in the spring of 1556, work on the Belvedere was directed by Wolmut82.
8. The Prague Belvedere from the Northwest.
In January 1557, the new upper quarters of the Belvedere were for the most part ready, with the
exception of the stonework. Ferdinand then approved Wolmut’s model for the façade of the first floor – the
doors, niches, and windows were to be decorated with stonework, they were to be decorated all around under the
highest roof cornice with purely abstract ornamentation, at the same time there were to be no plant motifs in the
niches83. This decision was fully respected and the floor was realized in an austere Doric style, which stands in
sharp contrast to the Ionic ground floor with its over-rich plant decoration. In 1557, Ferdinand approved not only
the façade of the first floor of the Prague Belvedere, but the shape of the roof as well. Wolmut had already had
the old lead covering taken down in June 1556, but then it was revealed that it could not be reused 84. This is why
the building was temporarily covered with boards in December 1556 and Ferdinand approved of it being covered
with copper instead of lead, however he wanted to see the design for the form of the roof first 85. In January 1557,
Ferdinand evidently approved Wolmut’s proposal86. In 1558, the copper sheets for the roof were ordered, which
assumes that the plan for their form must have already been clear 87.
74
Report from 5. 8. 1561. Reg. no. 7463 (Jahrbuch XI).
SÚA, SM S 21/4 fasc. 2 fol. 614 kart. 2096, reg. no. 6182 (Jahrbuch X).
76
APH, DK no. i. 131 kart. 1.
77
Reg. no. 6159 (Jahrbuch X): „Peter Verabitscha“. Cf. SÚA, ČDK - I - B - F kart. 22 (instruction), SÚA SM
21/4 kart. 2096.
78
APH, DK no. i. 151 kart. 1.
79
APH, DK no. i. 152 kart. 1.
80
SÚA ČDKM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 74-75, reg. no. 4240 (Jahrbuch V); Reg. no. 4282 (Jahrbuch V).
81
Reg. no. 7180 (Jahrbuch XI).
82
APH HBA no. I 8 kart. 1.
83
SÚA RG 57 fol. 114-117, SÚA ČDKM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 88-89, reg. no. 4256 (Jahrbuch V).
84
APH, DK no. i. 158 kart. 1.
85
SÚA ČKDM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 81 and 83, reg. no. 4253 (Jahrbuch V).
86
SÚA RG 57 fol. 114-117, SÚA ČDKM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 88-89, reg. no. 4256 (Jahrbuch V).
87
Svoboda 1978, 6.
75
From the list of contracts which Wolmut closed in June 1559 with his helpers regarding work on the
summer palace, it follows that the building had already been completed and plastered, including the copper
gutters88. Work on the stonecutting in the interiors, however, continued at a very slow pace and evidently
stopped entirely in the following year due to insufficient funds 89. In 1561, the tiles in the gallery and the first
floor had still not been laid down and at the same time, it had not yet been decided how the ceiling in the upper
quarters would be done90. Ferdinand’s above-mentioned instructions in this matter prove that his greatest
concern was not the use of the Belvedere as soon as possible, but rather, its view from the center of Prague. He
wrote that he would make the decision regarding the decoration of the ceiling on the first floor after his arrival in
Prague, but that weathervanes with national symbols should be made immediately, which he had already thought
of while planning the new roof in 155791.
At the beginning of the sixties, the masons, carpenters and stonecutters were still working on the
Belvedere’s interiors, but the tiling of the marble galleries and the Italian fireplaces were not completed until
156392. Ferdinand’s health, however, had already begun to rapidly worsen at the beginning of 1563 and on April
21st of the following year, he handed over rule to Maxmilian. When Emperor Ferdinand I died on July 25, 1564
in Vienna, the Prague Belvedere was finally equipped with furniture. It is characteristic that even these last items
from the list of costs for Ferdinand’s Prague Belvedere were, according to a report from August 30, 1564,
acquired on credit93. Due to the ambitious nature of this project, on which Ferdinand had worked twenty-seven
years, it is also characteristic that it was still not finished at the time of his death. The interiors of the Prague
Belvedere were still being worked upon during the reign of Emperor Maxmilian94.
9. Girolamo Romanino, A master builder pays his workers, 1531-1532, wall painting. Trento, Castello del
Buonconsiglio (after Chini 1988, fig. 5 on p. 13).
•
The care taken regarding the Belvedere’s appearance from a distance does not in any case mean that
Ferdinand placed less value on its effect on visitors at close distance. The entrance did not get a monumental
form, which was evidently intentional, the visitor was not supposed to simply enter but rather to gradually
uncover, as in the trip through the garden labyrinth. The slow tempo at which one is meant to walk through the
Belvedere and the surprises which were waiting for the visitor evoke a relaxed atmosphere, which would later
become typical for garden constructions.
From the very beginning, there was a wall in which there was a gate through which the guests were
meant to be brought in on the north side of the Belvedere. At the end of the 19 th century, the only access to the
Belvedere was still precisely this northern gate, “so that we might have a look at the master quality of this Italian
work”, wrote Edvard Herold in 1886, “we must go from the beautiful shaded garden to the dusty road and,
walking along the garden wall, seek the small gate which will let us inside” 95. The wall with the gate placed
opposite to the northern façade of the Belvedere can be found even in the oldest plans for the royal garden and
also in the drawing by Daniel Huber from 1769 96.
10. Josef Daniel Huber, View of Prague (detail), 1769, drawing, Wien, Österreichische National Bibliothek,
detail (after Bečková 2000, p. 116).
Beyond the gate, the northern façade of the Belvedere, which was partially on the socle which today
determines the form of the east and south sides, stuck out imposingly. The path did not lead directly to the north
SÚA ČDKM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 107, reg. no. 4264 (Jahrbuch V).
SÚA ČDKM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 275 a fol. 238.
90
Reg. no. 7463 (Jahrbuch XI).
91
SÚA, SM S 21/4 fasc. 2 fol. 614 kart. 2096, reg. no. 6182 (Jahrbuch X).
92
SÚA ČDKM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 289-294 a fol. 342, reg. no. 7665 (Jahrbuch XI).
93
SÚA, SM S 20/5. Reg. no. 7976 (Jahrbuch XII).
94
Vojtíšek 1919, 37; Svoboda 1978, 67ff.
95
Herold 1884, 454; Herold 1886, 418.
96
Wien, Österreichische National Bibliothek, cf. Bečková 2000, 116. From Huber’s drawing it is also evident
that in front of the west façade of the Belvedere a decorative wall was placed, behind it a fountain and a small
house adjoining the north wall.
88
89
façade, but rather to its western corner97. The original project had intended for the entrance to be through an
arcade in the western corner of the northern façade, which is why the monogram “FA” (Ferdinand and Anna)
was placed precisely here. On the oldest plans for the Belvedere, there are always two entrances drawn on the
loggia. Next to the north entrance, placed in the most western arcade, there was a main entrance here, which was
on the west side opposite the entrance to the large hall, which took up the entire southern half of the building.
We can find these entrances, for example, in the plans by J.M. Ziegelmayer from 1744, in which the north gate is
also drawn in the garden wall98.
11. Plan for the Belvedere (detail) Prague, Prague Castle Archive 142/36, (after Assmann 1996, pl. 22).
Originally, hence, the exterior communication in the Prague Belvedere was concentrated in the western
corner of the northern loggia and the adjacent north half of its western extension, because the loft was not
entered directly, but through the gallery underneath the arcades – either from the north or from the south. It was
otherwise possible to enter the main hall on the ground floor directly through the entrance arcade on the west
side, but it was also possible to use the entrance arcade on the north side and walk through to the entrance
through the loggia. In addition, here there were two entrances leading to the eastern loggia, which connected the
building even more tightly to both the covered arcade and the natural surroundings. The opening-up of both
doors leading to the large ground floor hall was without a doubt very effective, because it enabled direct
functional and even optical communication not only between the
loggias, but also between the western part of
the Royal Garden and its continuation in the east.
The reconstruction of the original communication system in the Belvedere proves how ingeniously
the building was fit for an active and diverse social life. The center of the building was unquestionably the main
hall in the south, which was the only room in the Belvedere to have a direct entrance through the arcade gallery,
but it was also possible to enter it from the eastern loggia or the stairway corridor, through the room adjoining its
northern side. Another room intended for large social events was the largest of the Belvedere’s halls, located in
the southern part of the upper floor. Archduke Ferdinand, who was observing the construction at that time, wrote
that he did not recommend putting marble tile in this room, as he would slip while dancing, and proposed using
bricks painted to look like marble or a chess board99. The letter comes from 1561, when the archduke’s father
was already 58 years old, so it can be proven that it was not a question of how the Belvedere would be utilized
by its builder. Both father and son, who represented his father in Prague, were merely concerned that the
Belvedere be equipped so that it might best represent the imperial majesty. This representative function of the
upper floor was emphasized through the main entrance to the upper rooms and the terrace being differed from
the windows in a striking way and the niche was above the main entrance to the building. This association was
destroyed during the reconstruction after 1842, when this entrance was replaced with a window.
Next to the rooms intended for larger groups of people, there were three more intimate spaces in the
Belvedere – two northern rooms, one placed above the other, and further, a chamber which adjoined the hall on
the ground floor in the north, both northern rooms were the only ones equipped with a fireplace. The functional
differentiation of interiors in the Belvedere is manifested not only in the size of its rooms, but also in their
accessibility. While the large hall on the ground floor directly invited the visitor to enter it, it was necessary to
seek out the entrances to the other quarters. Next to the walk-through chamber in the center of the ground floor
here were two rooms in the northern part, into which only one set of doors led, so it was easy to close them up,
as they were evidently Ferdinand’s private quarters. The building was constructed for strolling through and
gradual discovery, in addition to the instructions making circulation easier, the architect placed an entire set of
various possibilities before the visitor, which could, in turn, also confuse him. The Prague Belvedere was thus
meant to be the subject of interest due to its atypical and over-richly decorated exterior, but also to its clever and
perfectly functional internal arrangement.
12. Antonín Langweil, Model of Prahy (detail with the Belveder from the Northeast), 1826-1837, paper,
wood, water colours. Praha, Muzeum hlavního města Prahy.
13.
The Belvedere after Ferdinand
“Like a holy angel! Ann stood here
before her strict spouse, the shield of love
above her nation powerfully she did raise.”
97
The original situation is captured by the detailed carving on the drawing by Bernard Haltmaier from 1786 in
the Albertinum in Vienna, cf. Svoboda 1978, fig. on p. 73.
98
Prague Castle Archive 142/36, cf. Assmann 1996, pl. 22.
99
Reg. no. 7463 (Jahrbuch XI).
Julius Zeyer, Olgred Gejštor
The Prague Belvedere has a very intensely experienced mythical dimension, which has influenced even
art historians, in Czech culture. These myths, of course, could have come about only when its original point had
been forgotten, which happened as a result of revolutionary historical events taking place over several
generations following the completion of the building. That is to say, it evidently only served as a royal summer
palace up until the Thirty Years’ War, the last report of a celebration organized here was from March 31,
1620100.
The Prague Belvedere, however, had lost its residential character and became a museum even earlier. In
1597, the humanist Jacques Esprinchard of La Rochelle visited Prague. In his travel report, he writes that in the
Prague Belvedere, in “the room, where, remarkably even the weakest of whispers resounds, one can see very
cunningly made statues of Venus and Mercury, as large as the most tallest people one could possibly meet. In the
other rooms with tiles of rough marble are exquisitely painted pictures” 101. Pierre Bergeron described his visit to
the Belvedere in 1603, “By the garden is a charming palace, where the emperor sometimes goes to recreate, and
in it are several bronze statues. In the great hall there is a group of statues of Oreithia being kidnapped by
Boreas”102. By this he was evidently indicating the same Adrien de Vries statue which is today in the Louvre and
depicts Mercury kidnapping Psyche. Bergeron could have confused Mercury with his winged shoes and cap with
the god of the north wind, Boreas. The female figure does not have, with the exception of beauty and nudity, any
exclusive attribute which might characterize her. The statues could have remained in the Prague Belvedere until
the later part of the 17th century, as Wolf Albrecht Stromer von Reichenbach also mentions the Prague Belvedere
“adorned with statues”103.
13. Adrien de Vries, Mercury abducting Psyche, 1593, bronze, Louvre M.R. 3270.
According to Bergeron, the Belvedere did not contain just statues: “there are also renderings of two
horses of Indian breed, both so remarkably colored, that it can’t even be described, they were once given as gifts
to the emperor, but then they perished… On the ground floor arcade galleries of the summer palace, one can see
a countless number of spheres, globes, astrolabs, quadrants, and thousands of other mathematical instruments, all
made from bronze and tin and are fantastic in size. There are analemas, quandrants, spheres, dioptries and
Ptolemy’s scales for the exact determination of height, distance, and constellations of the sun and stars. They are
divided into many smaller parts and are on a scale of sixty. There are also many instruments for the measurement
of weight. All of this was made during the time of the great Tycho Brahe, the Danish mathematician who was a
guest of the emperor for a period of time. In Prague, Brahe made interesting and exact astronomical observations
and it was also here where he had died several years prior. In one room of the Belvedere, we can behold his
portrait, on which he is portrayed with a bust of Euclid in his hand; furthermore, next to one of the large
instruments, there are likenesses of the Spanish king Alphonse X, Charles V, Rudolph II, and the Danish king
Fridrich II. Ptolemy, Albateginus, Copernicus and Tycho himself are also depicted”.
Bergeron arrived in 1603 as an ordinary tourist, which indicates that the Prague Belvedere was
accessible to all at that time and was likely a museum or a monument to the Hapsburg empire. The ancient-style
statues were evidently meant to evoke the ancient dimensions of Rudolf’s royalty, astronomical instruments set
up in the loggia were not mere museum objects on display, but were intended to overwhelm the visitor with their
complicated nature and emphasize both Rudolf’s support for the sciences and the space-like proportions of the
Hapsburg empire, the eternal persistence of which was firmly anchored in the constellations of the stars.
The Belvedere’s current exterior deviates from its original likeness only in small details, but these
minor changes are very expressive, as they prove that ever since the end of the 17 th century, it was perceived
differently than during Ferdinand’s time. The first intervention to signalize from afar that the building had lost its
original calling was the removal of the state symbols on the roof. We know from archival documents that the
appearance of the roof and the symbols were very important to Ferdinand. He had not been satisfied with the
original roofing and thus decided in 1554 to heighten the building by an entire story, to which a high roof was
also added.
In January 1557 he ordered the roof, upon its completion, to be supplemented on both sides with copper
globes, above which there were to be weather vanes: on the side facing the fields (i.e. to the north) there was to
be a Czech lion, and facing the town was to be an imperial eagle 104. In 1561, Ferdinand changed his design. In
100
Beckovský, 1879, vol. II, 2 p. 252.
Chatenay, 1957; Fučíková 1989, 33.
102
Manuscript Bibliothèque Nationale, Paris, sign. 5560, fol. 157a-165b; Fučíková 1989, 83. Cf. Pariset 1980.
103
Stromer 1671, II, 289: „auch ein steineres Lusthaus mit fürtrefflichen Statuis und Bildern ausgeziert“.
104
SÚA RG 57 fol. 114-117, SÚA ČDKM-IV kart. 190 fasc. 1 fol. 88-89, reg. no. 4256 (Jahrbuch V).
101
the meantime, he had become emperor, which is why he wished that both gilded copper globes on the corners of
the roof would now take the shape of imperial eagles, while the Czech lion would merely be painted on the
copper covering, which was to be painted with alternating white and red stripes so that it would be more
visible105. The imperial eagles were actually affixed to the roof and are easily visible in depictions from the 17th
century106. In 1677, Edward Brown, in a description of Prague, mentions a “beautiful imperial summer palace”,
which may indicate that the two-headed eagles were in their place at that time 107.
14. View of Prague from Smíchov (detail), L. Schnitzer (?), after 1660 (after:
Lazarová, Lukas 2002, fig. 57).
In the 18th century, the imperial eagles were removed from the Belvedere’s roof, which explicitly
proves that they lost their original function at that time 108. A change had already taken place much earlier in the
new name “mathematical house”, which came into use in addition to the traditional name “Lusthaus”. The origin
of the name comes from the times of Rudolf II, when the Belvedere served as an astronomical observatory 109.
The alternative name proves that the building had already ceased to be associated with Ferdinand, the Hapsburg
self-representation and Holy Roman Empire at that time. The building scribe of the Prague Castle, Jan Jindřich
Dienebier, who took on this function in 1722, attributes the building to Emperor Rudolph, which reveals how
quickly Ferdinand’s Belvedere was forgotten110. Eventually, the building was no longer associated with the
Hapsburg rulers at all. In 1745, Richard Pocock writes that “the so-called mathematical house in the garden is
not without flaws, but is still a nice piece of structural art. If I’m not mistaken, it was either built for Tycho
Brahe or intended for his use” 111. In 1787, another visitor to Prague describes the Belvedere as “the house
covered in copper, where Tycho Brahe lived” 112.
Starting in the second half of the 18th century, the Belvedere was used as a storage warehouse and
finally, in 1779, it was handed over to the use of the artillery and the army set up a site for the manufacture of
gunpowder. The change did not take place until the beginning of the 19 th century – starting in the twenties, the
court building authority made efforts to have the army clean out the building, which finally happened in 1836 113.
At roughly the same time, the Belvedere began to be valued by foreigners visiting Prague. In 1833, the
Belvedere became a point of interest to a French poet not only due to the way in which it differed from the
Gothic architecture of the Prague Castle, but also through its displaced southern appearance. “Not far from that
shapeless matter, in the sky is the outline of a pretty building with an elegant portico from Cinquecento; this
architecture has the disadvantage that it is not in harmony with the climate. If they could only put these Italian
palaces into a greenhouse with palms for the Czech winters. I was constantly seized by the thought of how cold
they must be at night”114.
15. The western loggia of the Prague Belvedere from the North.
In 1839 it was decided that the building would be used as a patriotic gallery and in 1842, a
reconstruction was begun, which proves that the building was viewed from a purely aesthetic point of view at
that time115. No one associated the Belvedere with Ferdinand I any longer, which is explicitly indicated by the
radical change in the location of the entrances to the loggia and even into the building, which played a key role
in Ferdinand’s project. During the classicist reconstruction, the north entrance to the loggia was shifted to the
axis of the façade, so the monogram “FA” ended up, rather illogically, outside of the entrance to the gallery. The
western entrance was dealt with in a similar manner – even though the entrance arcade was visibly marked with
Ferdinand’s imperial eagle and the order of the golden fleece, it was obscured by a balustrade and the new
entrance was opened up one arcade over in the direction of the north, on the axis of the façade. Ferdinand’s
entrance arcade was not only, however, marked with his symbols, but also corresponded to the axis of the garden
105
SÚA, SM S 21/4 fasc. 2 fol. 614 kart. 2096, reg. no. 6182 (Jahrbuch X).
Lazarová, Lukas 2002, fig. 57, 133, 135, 140.
107
Brown 1673, cf. Schwarz 1940, 42.
108
They may have already been destroyed during a hurricane on 6.20.1686, when a part of the roof was also
blown down. Cf. Svoboda 1978, 68.
109
Belvedere „domus Mathematicam omnes apellant“: Balbín Miscelanea Bohemiae III.C.IX, § III s. 127;
drawing of Josef Daniel Huber from the year 1769, Wien, Österreichische National Bibliothek, cf. Bečková
2000, 116.
110
APH, HBA no.i. 1912 kart. 101.
111
Pocock 1745, cf. Schwarz 1940, 89.
112
Anonym 1787, cf. Schwarz 1940, 139.
113
Svoboda 1978, 73-74.
114
Chateaubriand 1850, cf. Schwarz 1940, 254.
115
Svoboda 1978 209-210.
106
and the entrance to the main hall on the ground floor of the building, so all relations between the garden, the
building’s exterior, and the original arrangement of the interior were terminated.
Fortunately, no loss of the original construction elements was suffered in this process, because on the
site of today’s western entrance, there was originally a window looking onto the central hall on the ground floor,
so the window was merely replaced by doors during reconstruction after 1842 116. These replacements, however,
disturbed the hierarchal structure of the figural reliefs, which was, as we shall show in the relevant chapters,
intertwined with the original entrance arcades, which served as the point of departure for narrative stories. The
aims of the reconstruction were dictated by the aesthetic principles of academic classicism, which demanded
absolute symmetry and most drastically affected the inner arrangement of the building. While it would be
possible to easily restore Ferdinand’s entrance arcades, it is no longer possible to reconstruct the original
appearance of the interior. That is to say, there had been not only a change in the placement of the doors, but also
the destruction of the entire northern part of the interior. Originally, the main entrance stood opposite the eighth
arcade of the western façade and led into the largest hall on the ground floor. The eastern entrance, which had an
equally richly decorated wall lining, but was characterized as a side entrance due to the fact that its figural
decoration lacked a concrete story, was placed directly opposite the western entrance to this hall. Two further
entrances to the Belvedere building were also placed opposite one another, roughly in the middle, between the
entrances to the hall and the northern façade. They were smaller and led to the stairway hall, enabling access to
the upper floor of the building as well as to the northern room.
Both the stairway hall and the two northern rooms were eliminated during the neoclassicist
reconstruction. On both floors, a large hall with a staircase by the walls was established and a new entrance to
the building was made by cutting an opening in the wall in the center of the northern façade, through which one
was meant to continue on to all other halls. This entrance replaced the window, the lining of which was
transferred to the western façade and the new door frame was prepared in accordance with the already existing
renaissance doors. Through this change in inner arrangement, the building, which had been very refined in
structure, was drastically reduced to a single axis and a single entrance. Both the exterior and the interior of the
building lost their intimate character and with it the nature of the private home – the internal quarters were
combined into one whole and the arcade gallery, which, ever since the forties of the 19 th century, leads nowhere,
became a purely ornamental element.
The Belvedere was designed to be a place which proposed the free movement during private parties, at
which the guests independently determined how they would use each room. Through the changes made
following 1842, it was transformed into a public building, which allowed for only one type of use and the visitor
was constantly monitored. Through the classicist reconstruction, the inner spaces became, as a result,
subordinate to the north-south axis, upon which all doors were placed, and thus immediately upon entering
through the main doors in the northern façade, the visitor sees both the rooms on the ground floor and the
entrance to the hall on the upper floor. Through its new inner arrangement, the Belvedere gained in
monumentality and functionality, as it markedly quickened the circulation of its visitors but at the same time
ceased to be a residential building. This is how its character principally changed.
16. The inside of the Prague Belvedere today (from the South).
The building was not constructed for permanent residence and, as we shall further reveal, was never
meant to serve recreational purposes, but was to be interpreted as the dwelling of the monarch and through the
de-personalization which was the result of the classicist alterations, the contrast between the official space of the
Prague castle and the private character of the Belvedere was destroyed. Similarly to the way in which “La
casina”, the construction of which was completed in 1563 behind St. Peter’s Basilica, was meant to celebrate the
pope and his uniqueness, even the Prague Belvedere was meant to primarily celebrate the uniqueness of its
imperial builder117. In both cases, the residential building was not the goal, but rather the main means of
expression, which is why it was unconditionally necessary that the building not lose its private character, for
which intimacy, unpredictability and functional variability were typical.
116
Here, further changes of a similar type took place. On the western façade, the entrance to the staircase
corridor was walled in and next to the window in the third arcade, a new window with a frame was built, which
had been brought from the northern façade, both windows were covered, because they led to the new vestibule.
On the eastern façade, the entrance to the staircase corridor and even and a small window located above, which
provided it with light, were also walled up; similarly to the western façade, for the sake of symmetry, in addition
to the window in the eleventh arcade, which was covered, a blind window, fitted with an imitation of the original
frame, was added in the tenth arcade. On the eastern façade, a change of the doors and window also took place in
the sixth and seventh arcade, the same as on the western façade.
117
See p. xxx
In 1842, the highest burgrave, Charles the Count of Chotek, proposed to the Society of Patriotic Friends
of Art in Bohemia that they would decorate the main hall with frescos from Czech history 118. The list of topics
proposed by the Society was presented to the Habsburg ruler in 1849, but was not approved due to its implicitly
anti-Hapsburg character. In place of the rejected topics, the emperor proposed others and the list of ideas which
were actually realized corresponds with the original in only two items: in the depiction of Břetislav bringing the
remains of St. Vojtěch to Prague and in the depiction of Emperor Rudolph II as a friend of the arts 119. It is
noteworthy that there was no proposal, neither from Prague nor from Vienna, to commemorate the Belvedere’s
builder, not to mention his wife Queen Ann, with whom the building was later associated. It is further
noteworthy that there was a an exceptional consensus between Prague and Vienna that Rudolph II, who was in
fact the first to change this residential building into an exhibition space, should be commemorated in the
Belvedere. Around the mid-19th century, the Prague Belvedere was clearly generally understood primarily as an
ideal place for the exhibition of works of art.
The idea of utilizing the Prague Belvedere for the support of Czech nationalism, however, came up
empty. The reconstruction of the building made slow progress and was not definitively completed until the
beginning of the 20th century, but the main reason for this failure was the compromised nature of this patriotic
project. As a result of the rapid radicalization of the European national movement, the cycle of historical
paintings, which was intended to transform the Belvedere into some type of Czech Valhalla, was forgotten
nearly immediately following its completion. It was overshadowed by more point-blank projects with greater
publicity and professional marketing, such as, for example, the National Theater, which will be discussed below.
The Prague Belvedere was written into the consciousness of the Czech patriots in a rather different
manner than that intended by academy director Kristian Ruben, the author of the concept of the historical
paintings, and the Society of Patriotic Friends of Art. It is noteworthy that the legend on the basis of which the
Prague Belvedere bears its official current name, “The Summer Palace of Queen Ann”, established itself only
after the building lost the status of a private home as a result of the neoclassicist alterations. This paradox may be
merely an illusion, as both the conceptual and actual emptying of the building could have been an impetus to fill
it with new contents. It is thus possible to consider whether the exclusive removal of the Belvedere from the
context of residential architecture perhaps inspired the placement of the house of the mythical queen on precisely
this spot. After 1842, the interior of the Belvedere became a cold, emotionally neutral space, which may have
seemed somewhat surreal in the middle of the intimate garden and thus perhaps encouraged myth-creating
fantasy. The neoclassicist reconstruction could have also of course contributed to the formulation of the legend,
the origin of which was attributed to the Czech national-feeling atmosphere of the second half of the 19th
century.
•
Starting in the second half of the 19th century, the exceptional nature of the Belvedere was most often
explained as the unique circumstances to which it supposedly owed its origin – that is to say, it was to have been
a place of relaxation for Queen Ann or was even built “due to her initiative”. “The fabulous building even has a
greater meaning for us”, wrote Josef Svátek prior to 1900, “given that King Ferdinand established it ‘in order to
please his beloved spouse’ Queen Ann of Jagellon, this ‘true mother of the Czech nation’, as this noble lady was
called in Bohemia even long after her death” 120. Only Svátek’s second quote is real. We often read about
Ferdinand establishing the building “in order to please his beloved spouse”, but there is no information to
support this statement in archival documents from Ferdinand’s time.
It is noteworthy that the legend of the “Queen Ann Summer Palace” also significantly influenced art
historians for more than a century121. The basis for the legend was a picture of Ann as the “last queen who felt
that she was Czech”122 and the beginnings of this concept can be traced to her contemporaries, Sixtus from
Ottersdorf and Nicholas from Práchňany. “As she was the true mother of all the poor and needy,” wrote one of
them, “to whom she provided help in the form of alms and saved those, whose estates and necks were many
times under threat, through kind intervention with the king. Throughout the whole Czech kingdom and then most
of all in Prague, all those good and noble felt so sorry for the death of this honorable and noble queen and had
great rue and grief”123. Perhaps Ann actually was popular with the people, but for an understanding of the sense
118
Svoboda 1978, 206.
Svoboda 1978, 212.
120
Svátek, before the year 1900, 131.
121
E.g. Smith 1994, 234: “the project … had been initiated by … Anna”. Muchka in: Seipel 2003, 250:
“”Lustschlößchen”, das Ferdinand für seine Gattin, Königin Anna, bauen ließ“. Bergemann 2004: „Ferdinand’s
major architectural project was the Belvedere ... a garden villa for his wife“.
122
Stloukal 1941, 39.
123
Sixtus 1919; Sixtus 1950.
119
of Ottersdorf’s praises, it is necessary to state that she was an inseparable part of his description of the Estates’
resistance to Ferdinand in the years 1546-47.
The political nature of the praise of the “good queen” by Nicholas of Práchňany (1485-1550) is highly
likely. In his chronicle notes from 1547, he initially describes the arrangement of Ferdinand’s execution, torture,
confiscation of property and revoking of privileges in detail, closing with the words: “The glory of the Czech
kingdom, especially of the Prague burghers, has dropped ruefully and irretrievably” 124. He immediately connects
this sentence to a description of Ann’s death, which is, in addition, put into the direct context of Ferdinand’s
harshness with the words: “Before this Czech fall”. Despite the fact that Nicholas does not mention Ann’s
support of the local inhabitants even once in his prior notes, following her death he writes that she was “the true
mother and Hester of the Czech nation”. The comparison of Ann with a Jewess who risked her own life and put
in a good word with her husband the king for “her nation”, is far-fetched at the very least. Like every queen, Ann
certainly put in a good word to the king for persecuted individuals who had appealed to her 125, but there is no
documentation to support the idea that she had fought for “her nation”. In any case, she did not sympathize with
Protestants, did not have any special relationship to the Czech surroundings in general and it is not even certain
that she could speak Czech.
It is necessary to take both testimonies to Ann’s “love for the Czechs” with a grain of salt even simply
because they come from a period when she was no longer living, and everything suggests that the impetus for the
legend of the “good queen” was not the life of this quiet and submissive woman, but her death on January 27,
1547. The queen died on the eve of the uprising against the ruler, which enabled the commentators to depict the
“good” Ann in opposition to the “unmerciful” Ferdinand, who cruelly punished rebels and took advantage of the
suppressed rebellion in the spring of 1547 in order to commence a campaign against the privileges of the Estates
and the Czech religious reformation. Characteristic for the birth of a legend is the fact that we find its beginnings
in private notes, in which the authors could express themselves entirely freely. They evidently hoped, at the same
time, the political situation would one day change and that they would be able to make their notes public, which
was likely the reason for their praise of the “good queen”. The legend initially lived only in oral form among
Czechs, who criticized Ferdinand I privately but basically hoped that a reconciliation, to which perhaps
ostentatious
declarations of love for the late queen would contribute, would occur.
Ann, like a second Ester, nevertheless quickly entered the Czech historical conscience 126. Every myth
needs its icon and hers became the picture of Queen Ann on her deathbed, requesting of Ferdinand “that his
royal majesty be inclined toward the Czech nation with its kindness, recalling their services, which they rendered
to her dearest father, the late king Vladislav of beloved memory, and which they performed faithfully and
willingly at all times for his royal majesty and have thus far not ceased to perform. And that she thus cared more
for the future good of the Czech nation than for her own health” 127. In this narrative, Ester is not exclusively
mentioned, but the motif of putting the interests of “her nation” ahead of concerns regarding her own life,
borrowed from the biblical heroine, appears here. This pathetic depiction was formulated in 1616 by Jiří Závěta
and further developed in 1700 by Jan František Beckovský (1658-1725). He first called Ann “the true mother of
the Czech nation” and then continued “she, recognizing that die she must, grabbed the neck of her husband,
imploring him with tears to he look kindly upon the Czechs” 128.
The tale of the queen who could have saved “her people” had she not prematurely died became more
fashionable during the Czech National Revival. In 1860, we come across the legend in an “Encyclopedia”, in
which, as can be expected, the key moment is the queen’s death 129. At the beginning of the seventies, Karel
Tieftrunk published a historical study devoted to the Estates’ Uprising, in which “good Queen Ann”130 is
mentioned. In 1878, Antonín Rezek published the note by Nicholas of Práchňany about “Czech Ester” 131, which
had previously existed only in manuscript form, for the first time and in 1879 also published the second volume
of Beckovský’s “The Messenger of Old Czech stories”, which had also only existed previously as a manuscript.
Dačický 1955, 176.
The often-cited case of Jan Opit (Peřina) from Maličín is a part of Sixt’s description of the events from the
years 1546-1547.
126
In the mid-16th century, Marek Bydžovský writes about Ann as “the true Ester and mother of the Czech
nation” (Bydžovský 1987, 59).
127
Závěta 1616.
128
Beckovský 1879, 169.
129
“The Czechs heartily mourned their queen, to whom they were bound by a special kind of love. It was all the
greater misfortune that just in a moment so decisive as the year 1547 was for the Czechs, this intermediary
between the Czechs and her husband disappeared”, Slovník naučný (Encyclopedia), I. Ed. F.L.Rieger, Praha
1860, 240.
130
Tieftrunk 1871; Tieftrunk 1872, 71.
131
Dačický 1878, 76.
124
125
These publications brought to a broader public the testimony regarding Ann, who up until that time had been
known only to experts, which certainly contributed to the spread of the legend.
In 1889, an entry called “Ann of Jagellon” was published in Otto’s Encyclopedia and in it, Ignác
Kollmann presents all above mentioned motifs from the legend of “good Queen Ann” as historical facts 132. With
the passing of time, this historically unfounded but much repeated legend of Ann’s “love for the Czechs” became
a fact which no one doubted. This is why Josef Svátek could write in 1891 that “Queen Ann, the great patron and
“the true mother of the Czech nation” liked to speak Czech and did so fluently, imparting love for this language
in her young heart to her children”133.
The turning point in the development of the legend is the poem Olgerd Gejštor from 1889, in which the
great Czech poet Julius Zeyer wrote in epic proportion about good Queen Ann, Czech saint and
“interventionist”134. The very arrival of the newly elected king in Prague was in Zeyer’s poem the prophecy of an
approaching Czech tragedy. “Whoever saw him, fell silent, brooding, coldness blew from him onto the entire
Czech nation”. Only Ann could reverse this tragedy, to whom the Czech nation “was so dear” and who at that
time “like promising salvation, went with her husband, like the dove of peace, she carried herself at his side” 135.
Zeyer’s verses about how Ann saved her people “with a shield of love”, liken the Czech queen to the Hussite
soldiers. Žižka’s soldiers defended the Czechs with weapons in hand, but Ann does not have to take the Hussite
shield into her hand, because her goodness is a much more powerful weapon.
Zeyer’s Ann sums up the Czech post-White Mountain topos by saying the best defense is humility and
pure emotion, which will triumph in the end even over the greatest power, which is personified in this case by
Ferdinand. It is typical that given the countless number of verses singing Ann’s praises, her death, which stepped
into the history of the Czech nation, is always recalled. Even Zeyer’s poem climaxes with Ann’s death and its
catastrophic impact on the further fate of the Czech nation 136. An entire line of Czech literary figures of the time
was similarly unhappy about her death. “Unfortunately she died just when the need for her goodness was the
greatest; as it was a time of resistance and punishment in the year 1547”, wrote, for example, Ruth 137.
In the second half of the 19th century, all conditions for the legend of the “good queen” to become
intertwined with the celebration of the Czech renaissance were created, resulting in the myth of the “Queen Ann
Summer Palace”. In 1890, Zigmund Winter, in one of his widely-read cultural-historical works, emphasized that
the roots of the Czech renaissance were directly in Italy, from whence the new style was brought by professional
craftsmen summoned from there, which was very important, as this signified a refusal of any kind of German
influence. Some time later, according to Winter, a specifically Czech renaissance was developed, which, in its
top works of art such as the Belvedere, exceeded the Italian models – this building “would be an object of awe in
the cypress surroundings above Florence and would remain victorious over its Italian associates” 138. As
supporting evidence for the self-existence of the “Czech renaissance”, Winter presents the fact that in his day,
architects were returning to these very buildings in order to found a new and specifically Czech school of
architecture139. This spiritual climate bred Balšánek’s above-mentioned monograph about the Prague
Belvedere140.
The classicist reconstruction of the Belvedere was completed at the end of 1866 and the building was
opened to the public, which without a doubt enlivened the interest in this site. It had already become a key
monument of the modern architectural tradition in this part of the Hapsburg monarchy, however, in 1865, when
Josef Zítek cited it in his plans for the most significant building of the Czech National Revival, the National
Theater in Prague. Zítek’s inspiration from the two-story material form of the Belvedere and the shape of its roof
is explicitly proven by the oldest sketch of the theater’s silhouette from 1865, on which the roof has the same
arc-shaped profile as Ferdinand’s summer palace 141. Only in the definitive plans was this profile replaced by an
“Queen Ann was sincerely loved in Bohemia. They considered her the true mother of the nation… Her
sudden departure was mourned throughout the entire country. It was an enormous misfortune for the Czechs,
who just that year would have needed her impressive intervention, attested so many times…As she lay dying,
she implored her spouse to remain forever inclined toward the Czech nation with his kindness.” Ottův slovník
naučný (Otto’s Encyclopedia), II, Prague 1889, 400-401.
133
Svátek 1891, 7. Cited literally in: Ruth 1904, 717.
134
Zeyer 1889, 54.
135
Zeyer 1889, 56-57.
136
„Juž tedy více, anděl, nestála/ štít velké lásky v rukou třímajíc/ před trůnem chotě, chráníc národ svůj“ (Zeyer
1889, 115).
137
„Juž tedy více, anděl, nestála/ štít velké lásky v rukou třímajíc/ před trůnem chotě, chráníc národ svůj“ (Zeyer
1889, 115).
138
Winter 1890, 358.
139
Winter 1890, 356-358.
140
Balšánek 1897.
141
Cf. Ksandr 1996, 79 and 122; Matějček 1954, 45. On the National Theater cf. Benešová 1999.
132
Italian-style arch, but even after this change, the similarity in silhouette between the two buildings is one of the
features which combine to create the Prague panorama, of which the people of the time were well aware.
17. Josef Zítek, Sketch for the National Theater, 1865, drawing, City Museum, Volyně.
Using the neo-renaissance style, the architect accommodated the requests of the Committee for the Foundation
of the National Theater, the opinions of which were publicized in a series of articles published in the year the
competition was announced in the newspaper “Národní listy”. An anonymous writer, likely Julius Gregr, wrote
there that Zítek’s design was created: “overall in a domestic style, in this style, which was brought from the
country of art, that is, from Italy onto the impressionable domestic territory of everything which is beautiful, and
which is nothing else but the rebirth or the renaissance of the construction art of the Greeks and Romans, the
only ones who were, are and will be a fountain-head of all beauty in architecture. This building style, in which
the most remarkable and greatest buildings in the world are rendered, became a part of our country, and we have
a large number of buildings and palaces in Prague which are more or less correctly and often also unnaturally
built in this style. This style appears most sincere on Ferdinand’s château, the Belvedere, on its lower floor with
columns around it.” Paradoxically, the author of the article criticizes the Belvedere’s roof, which had the greatest
influence on Zítek. In the opinion of the author of the article cited above, “on the upper floor, less noble forms
appear”142.
The article cited above still mentions “Ferdinand’s château”, later, however, this and other names
(“Ferdinadeum”, “Belvedere”) entirely pushed out by the name “The Queen Ann Summer Palace”. The conflict
between pride in the renaissance architecture of the Belvedere and dislike of anything relating to the Hapsburgs
was solved elegantly by the legend of Queen Ann Summer Palace, in which the building was detached from the
historical context by the unfounded statement that it was “built by love” 143. In this way, the building was also,
figuratively speaking, taken away from the Hapsburgs and associated with the local ruling dynasty.
The question of how significant a place the Belvedere occupied in the Czech National Revival is
strongly attested by the fact that during the definitive opening of the neo-renaissance National Theater in 1883,
the play “Salomena” by Bohumil Adámek (1848-1915) was presented, as the first ever Czech play performed in
this venue. The plot of the play is situated in the Prague Belvedere and its involution diversifies the motif of the
“Czech Ester”, which is why the play was so successful and was soon published in book form numerous times.
In Salomena, Italian artists working on the Belvedere do appear, but the main conflict is politics, religion, and
nationality.
The main protagonists are an Italian, Zuan, the main builder of the Belvedere, and his Czech wife
Salomena. Zuan is a catholic loyal to Ferdinand and personifies lack of morality, lack of honor and the backward
nature of the developed “western” world. Opposite him stands Salomena, who personifies the unadulterated
moral nature of the Slavs, in which unconditional love dominates. Salomena sympathizes with the protestant
rebels and becomes actively involved in the resistance against Ferdinand, for which she pays with her own life in
the end. The entire drama is based on the opposition of the innocent ruling Czech atmosphere and the imported
Italian culture oriented toward intellectual and material indulgences. In opposition to the refined renaissance
over-pride is placed earnest human emotion, an unthreatened fight for freedom and religious ideals. One reaction
to “Salomena” is perhaps Brožík’s painting “Emperor Ferdinand among his artists” 144.
18. Václav Brožík, Emperor Ferdinand I among his artists, 1900-1, colored sketch, NG O 1171.
The theme of Salomena is the conflict between the awe felt towards western civilization and the
aversion to its corruptness, the product of which was the legend of the “Queen Ann Summer Palace”. We can
find this conflict taken to extremes in “Hradčany Songs”, which František Serafinský Procházka published some
time around 1900. This sarcastic critique of the Hapsburg government in Bohemia immediately became a
bestseller and even contains the song “Belvedere” in which national pathos is shielded by pseudo-historical
erudition. The poem is actually a cultural-historical analysis of the Prague Belvedere which has only one aim harsh judgment of the Hapsburg government in Bohemia 145.
In the first half of the opening verse is a refined celebration of the beauty of the building, which is
referred to as a “stone poem” and a “green emerald from a ring”, but immediately in the second part of the verse,
its Czech context is emphasized. The Belvedere is, in conflict with reality, placed in the middle of Slavic linden
trees and at the same time, the contrast between the imported renaissance and the earthly nature of the local folk
Národní listy 1865 (quoted in: Matějček 1934, 49).
Procházka 1900, 45.
144
Cf. Golden Prague 1908, p. 4-5 fig. 11-12; Blažičková-Horová 1996, 104.
145
Procházka 1900, 44-46.
142
143
culture and its indefeasibility is indicated (“the linden of the low branch begins, full of silver buds”).
Furthermore, the inspiration for the Belvedere in classical antiquity is recalled (“the hymn-like greeting of
eternal beauty”) and its aristocratic character, which is indicated by the picture of “dove-colored greyhounds”
running all over the lawn. A “quiet harp” sounds, played by Queen Ann in her “sweet dreaming”, who is
characterized as the “great granddaughter from the Jagellonian line”, thus a member of the local and Slavic
dynasty. In addition to the dreaming are some love motifs (“whispering tones waft, as if to lure someone”, “red
blossoms ardently spring up”), but in the next verse, the author confesses that “the poem disappoints” – the
Belvedere was meant for the queen, but she did not live to see its completion. (“Here lies your body, dead, and
the harp waited in vain”). Here again the theme of death, which was key to the legend of the “good Queen Ann”,
appears.
At the moment when Ann’s untimely death is recalled, Procházka turns away from the Belvedere in
order to reveal the true face of the Hapsburg presence at the Prague Castle. The summer palace is confronted
with the towers of the Prague Castle which rise up behind it, from which primarily Daliborka became famous as
a dungeon, which is referred to in the verse “the rebels sink into the depths through a hole in the ceiling” The
Belvedere was implanted into this broader context, through which its place in Czech culture essentially changed:
the “curses” and “illnesses “ of the prisoners “in the garden they roughly smother, harp, your tones deafen, fire
disturbs the ambience”. The Belvedere was confronted with the horrors of the Hapsburg imperial rule, which the
fate of the summer palace during the rule of Rudolph II colorfully illustrates (“in the haven of love at the end of
a chain, the crazy king expresses his grief”). The Belvedere is beautiful and what’s more it was “built by love”,
but according to Procházka, we must look at it from a broader point of view and we cannot forget that in the time
when it came about, “elsewhere, the demon crushed the Czech homeland wildly exacerbated with anger”. In
conclusion, Procházka expresses regret that the Hapsburg love was limited to the Belvedere and did not extend
to the entire country. That is to say that the Hapsburgs did leave the Belvedere in Prague, but if they had never
been here at all, there would be thousands of such buildings, according to Procházka (“poor country, where you
would be, what miracles there would be here!”)
As a result of its connection to the queen, whose untimely death prevented her from saving the Czech
nation, the Belvedere became a monument of sorts to its tragic fate, which manifested itself in an otherwise
difficult to comprehend aura of sadness with which this harmonic building suggesting recreation was
surrounded. We repeatedly read that “the abandoned summer palace looks sadly and somberly at the neighboring
Imperial Garden and Chotek Orchards”146. These formulations clearly reflect the doubly brittle nature of the
relationship between the Czech patriots and the Prague Belvedere, which is admired, but also sensed as
something basically foreign to the local spirit.
The Czech National Revival thus had a two-sided relationship to the Belvedere. On the one hand,
Prague and Bohemia were interrelated with Italy and the Italian renaissance due to this building, which was an
opportunity to distance oneself from Austria and the German architectural tradition, which the nationalists
welcomed. On the other hand, this building was exclusively associated with the hated Hapsburgs, as it was in a
way a monument to their ascension to the Czech throne. This conflict was resolved by the myth of “The Queen
Ann Summer Palace”, but the images of Ferdinand and the Hapsburgs could never be completely disassociated
with the Belvedere, which was evidently the reason why the myth is still alive in the Czech historical conscience.
This is the first chapter from author’s book “THE PRAGUE BELVEDERE AND THE TRANSALPINE
RENAISSANCE” which is to be published in 2005.
146
Ruth 1904, 47: “the noble building on the hill, brooding in the lovely orchard.”