28|2  2023 A CT A H IS TO R IA E A R TI S SL O VE N IC A  2 8| 2  20 23 Wilhelmina and Vincenz Auersperg in the library of Žleby Chateau, 1845, National Heritage Institute, Prague (© Národní památkový ústav) ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2  2023 ZRC SAZU, UMETNOSTNOZGODOVINSKI INŠTITUT FRANCETA STELETA https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/ahas ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the Nobility Between Old and New Regimes Umetnostna in arhitekturna dediščina plemstva med starimi in novimi režimi Contents • Vsebina Tina Košak, Renata Komić Marn, Helena Seražin, Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the Nobility Between Old and New Regimes: Foreword • Umetnostna in arhitekturna dediščina plemstva med starimi in novimi režimi. Predgovor Kamila Kłudkiewicz, Michał Mencfel, The Stateless Nation’s Elite: Artistic Collections of Polish Aristocracy, 1795–1918 • Elita naroda brez države. Umetnostne zbirke poljskega plemstva, 1795–1918 Arianna Candeago, The Molin Collection Between the Old and New Regime • Zbirka Molin med starim in novim režimom Valeria Paruzzo, Ca’ Rezzonico in the 19th Century: The Dispersal of its Collections and the New Uses of the Palace • Ca’ Rezzonico v 19. stoletju. Usoda zbirke in nove namembnosti palače Šárka Radostová, Kristina Uhlíková, The Role and Activities of Custodians of Aristocratic Collections in Bohemia in the 19th Century and First Half of the 20th Century: Selected Examples • Vloga in delovanje skrbnikov plemiških zbirk na Češkem v 19. stoletju in prvi polovici 20. stoletja. Izbrani primeri Dubravka Botica, The New Life of Baroque Castles in North-Western Croatia: The Renovation of the Erdödy and Vranyczány Families’ Castles at the End of the 19th and Beginning of the 20th Centuries • Novo življenje baročnih gradov v severozahodni Hrvaški. Prenova gradov rodbin Erdödy in Vranyczány konec 19. in v začetku 20. stoletja Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos, The Restoration and Refunctionalisation of Medieval Fortified Manor Houses by the Portuguese Dictatorial Regime (1926–1974) • Obnova srednjeveških utrdb v času portugalskega diktatorskega režima (1926–1974) Whitney Dennis, “In the Appropriate Setting”: Continuity and Context in the Alba Collection in Liria Palace (1931–1957) • »Primerno umeščena«. Kontinuiteta in kontekst zbirke vojvod Alba v palači Liria v Madridu (1931–1957) Marcela Rusinko, “Keep That German Kitsch Away from the Czech Hands!” Ethnic Cleansing in the Light of Material Culture: Furnishings of the Displaced Moravian and Silesian Nobility on the Post-1945 Brno Auction Market • »Spravite ta nemški kič stran od čeških rok!« Etnično čiščenje v luči materialne kulture. Stanovanjska oprema izseljenega moravskega in šlezijskega plemstva na dražbenem trgu v Brnu po letu 1945 Silvia Marin Barutcieff, Old Edifices, New Uses: Three Residential Buildings of a Romanian Aristocratic Family and Their Destiny after 1930 • Stare zgradbe, nove rabe. Tri rezidenčne stavbe romunske plemiške družine in njihova usoda po letu 1930 25 € XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX LJUBLJANA 2023 ZRC SAZU, Umetnostnozgodovinski inštitut Franceta Steleta ZRC SAZU, France Stele Institute of Art History ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 • 2023 Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the Nobility Between Old and New Regimes Umetnostna in arhitekturna dediščina plemstva med starimi in novimi režimi XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX Acta historiae artis Slovenica, 28/2, 2023 Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the Nobility Between Old and New Regimes Umetnostna in arhitekturna dediščina plemstva med starimi in novimi režimi Znanstvena revija za umetnostno zgodovino / Scholarly Journal for Art History ISSN 1408-0419 (tiskana izdaja / print edition) ISSN 2536-4200 (spletna izdaja / web edition) Izdajatelj / Issued by ZRC SAZU, Umetnostnozgodovinski inštitut Franceta Steleta / ZRC SAZU, France Stele Institute of Art History Založnik / Publisher Založba ZRC Urednice / Edited by Tina Košak, Renata Komić Marn, Helena Seražin Uredniški odbor / Editorial board Renata Komić Marn, Tina Košak, Katarina Mohar, Mija Oter Gorenčič, Blaž Resman, Helena Seražin Mednarodni svetovalni odbor / International advisory board Günter Brucher (Salzburg), Ana María Fernández García (Oviedo), Hellmut Lorenz (Wien), Milan Pelc (Zagreb), Sergio Tavano (Gorizia-Trieste), Barbara Wisch (New York) Lektoriranje / Language editing Oliver Currie, Kirsten Hempkin, Darja Gabrovšek Homšak, Patricia Anne Odber de Baubeta Prevodi / Translations to Slovene Renata Komić Marn, Tina Košak, Helena Seražin, Borut Praper Oblikovna zasnova in prelom / Design and layout Andrej Furlan Naslov uredništva / Editorial office address Acta historiae artis Slovenica Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI -1001 Ljubljana, Slovenija ahas@zrc-sazu.si; https://ojs.zrc-sazu.si/ahas Revija je indeksirana v / Journal is indexed in Scopus, ERIH PLUS, EBSCO Publishing, IBZ, BHA Letna naročnina / Annual subscription: 35 € Posamezna enojna številka / Single issue: 25 € Letna naročnina za študente in dijake: 25 € Letna naročnina za tujino in ustanove / Annual subscription outside Slovenia, institutions: 48 € Naročila sprejema / For orders contact Založba ZRC Novi trg 2, p. p. 306, SI-1001, Slovenija E-pošta / E-mail: zalozba@zrc-sazu.si AHAS izhaja s podporo Javne agencije za znanstvenoraziskovalno in inovacijsko dejavnost Republike Slovenije. / AHAS is published with the support of the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency. Tisk / Printed by Present d.o.o., Ljubljana Naklada / Print run: 400 Revija AHAS je takoj po izidu prosto dostopna pod pogoji licence CC BY-NC-ND. To ne velja za slikovno gradivo, označeno z znakom © in imenom lastnika avtorskih pravic. AHAS Journal is freely available immediately upon publication under the terms of the CC BY-NC-ND licence. This does not apply to images marked with the © symbol and the name of the copyright holder. Contents Vsebina Tina Košak, Renata Komić Marn, Helena Seražin Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the Nobility Between Old and New Regimes. Foreword 5 Umetnostna in arhitekturna dediščina plemstva med starimi in novimi režimi. Predgovor 8 DISSERTATIONES Kamila Kłudkiewicz, Michał Mencfel The Stateless Nation’s Elite: Artistic Collections of Polish Aristocracy, 1795–1918 13 Elita naroda brez države. Umetnostne zbirke poljskega plemstva, 1795–1918 36 Arianna Candeago The Molin Collection Between the Old and New Regime 37 Zbirka Molin med starim in novim režimom 52 Valeria Paruzzo Ca’ Rezzonico in the 19th Century: The Dispersal of its Collections and the New Uses of the Palace 53 Ca’ Rezzonico v 19. stoletju. Usoda zbirke in nove namembnosti palače 75 Šárka Radostová, Kristina Uhlíková The Role and Activities of Custodians of Aristocratic Collections in Bohemia in the 19th Century and First Half of the 20th Century: Selected Examples 77 Vloga in delovanje skrbnikov plemiških zbirk na Češkem v 19. stoletju in prvi polovici 20. stoletja. Izbrani primeri 99 Dubravka Botica The New Life of Baroque Castles in North-Western Croatia: The Renovation of the Erdödy and Vranyczány Families’ Castles at the End of the 19th and Beginning of the 20th Centuries 101 Novo življenje baročnih gradov v severozahodni Hrvaški. Prenova gradov rodbin Erdödy in Vranyczány konec 19. in v začetku 20. stoletja 121 Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos The Restoration and Refunctionalisation of Medieval Fortified Manor Houses by the Portuguese Dictatorial Regime (1926–1974) 123 Obnova srednjeveških utrdb v času portugalskega diktatorskega režima (1926–1974) 145 Whitney Dennis “In the Appropriate Setting”: Continuity and Context in the Alba Collection in Liria Palace (1931–1957) 147 »Primerno umeščena«. Kontinuiteta in kontekst zbirke vojvod Alba v palači Liria v Madridu (1931–1957) 176 Marcela Rusinko “Keep That German Kitsch Away from the Czech Hands!” Ethnic Cleansing in the Light of Material Culture: Furnishings of the Displaced Moravian and Silesian Nobility on the Post-1945 Brno Auction Market 177 »Spravite ta nemški kič stran od čeških rok!« Etnično čiščenje v luči materialne kulture. Stanovanjska oprema izseljenega moravskega in šlezijskega plemstva na dražbenem trgu v Brnu po letu 1945 199 Silvia Marin Barutcieff Old Edifices, New Uses: Three Residential Buildings of a Romanian Aristocratic Family and Their Destiny after 1930 201 Stare zgradbe, nove rabe. Tri rezidenčne stavbe romunske plemiške družine in njihova usoda po letu 1930 216 5 Foreword Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the Nobility Between Old and New Regimes The present thematic issue of Acta historiae artis Slovenica comprises nine original scientific articles based on the papers presented at the international scientific conference titled Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the Nobility Between Old and New Regimes: Transformations, Reinterpretations and New Uses, which took place at the ZRC SAZU in Ljubljana between 22 and 24 June 2022 as a part of the research project Art and the Nobility in Times of Decline: Transforma- tions, Translocations and Reinterpretations.1 For the first time in such an extensive international context, the conference provided an opportunity to present new insights and allowed for an in-depth discussion of how aristocratic commissioners, collectors, and artwork owners were confronted with the new political and social circumstances during the decline of this social class. Moreover, the conference speakers discussed various aspects of the reception and new uses of aristocratic heritage after the collapse of the old regimes—including the Venetian Republic, the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, the Polish- Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Russian Empire—as well as during and after a number of historical milestones from the French Revolution to the two world wars and the Spanish Civil War.2 The thematic issue at hand presents a selection of these contributions. Kamila Kłudkiewicz and Michał Mencfel address the very significant research topic of the collection trends of the elites in the broader context of the collective social adherence perception after the abolition of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, especially the development of national identity in the 19th century. In addition to art collections, collections of national and historical 1 The project Art and the Nobility in Times of Decline: Transformations, Translocations and Reinterpretations (J6- 1810, July 2019 – June 2023) and the associated international conference were financed by the Slovenian Research and Innovation Agency from the state budget. The project took place at the France Stele Institute of Art History, the Milko Kos Historical Institute of the Scientific Research Centre of the Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, as well as at the Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Civil Engineering, Transportation Engineering and Ar- chitecture of the University of Maribor. For the project results, see the project webpage “Art and the Nobility in Times of Decline: Transformations, Translocations and Reinterpretations,” accessed September 25, 2023, https:// uifs.zrc-sazu.si/en/node/100694. 2 For the programme and summaries, see Tina Košak, ed., Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the Nobility Between Old and New Regimes: Transformations, Reinterpretations and New Uses; International Conference; Program and Abstracts / Umetnostna in arhitekturna dediščina plemstva med starimi in novimi režimi: Transformacije, rein- terpretacije in nove namembnosti; Mednarodna konferenca; Program in povzetki (Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, 2022), accessed September 25, 2023, https://uifs.zrc-sazu.si/sites/default/files/Artistic%20and%20Architectural%20 Heritage.pdf. ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 ∙ 2023, 5–10 6 FOREWORD memorabilia turn out to be crucial. Among these, the collection of Princess Izabela Czartoryska, which the contribution in question analyses as a case study, is essential. Based on the example of Venetian Senator Girolamo Ascanio Molin, Arianna Candeago examines how political changes influenced collecting practices. Under the impression of the circumstances following the fall of the Venetian Republic after the French occupation in 1797, Molin intentionally started to collect everyday objects and artworks that alluded to the golden age of Venice in response to the disorientation caused by the new regime, perceived as foreign and oppressive. This is additionally supported by the fact that Molin bequeathed the collection to the city to make it as broadly accessible to the Venetian public as possible. Based on the example of the Ca’ Rezzonico Palace in Venice, Valeria Paruzzo’s contribution explores the fate of the furnishings and the new uses of Venetian patrician palaces during the period when the city was under Austrian administration. The fate of this famous palace by the Grand Canal was initially determined by the extinction of its original owners, the Rezzonico family, in 1810. At that point, the palace furnishings were largely sold off, while the building’s functions kept changing dramatically until 1936, when it was transformed into The Museum of 18th Century. The studies of archival sources and photographic documentation shed crucial light on the differences in the furnishing practices and residence renovation trends between the established old and new nobility. The examples analysed by Dubravka Botica are exceedingly telling. In the 19th century, the members of the old noble family of Erdődy would furnish the interiors of their renovated residences in Croatia with artworks of the old masters from their own art collections, created over the centuries to emphasise their distinguished status and importance. On the other hand, the members of the Vranyczány-Dobrinović family, the representatives of the new nobility, established themselves as renowned patrons of contemporary artists, while their country estates became the meeting places for the Croatian artistic community of the time. Noble owners would often entrust the administering of their collections, especially more extensive ones, to special custodians. Šárka Radostová and Kristina Uhlíková compare the approach of the lower and higher nobility and the imperial family to this phenomenon. The strategy of the state, which took over the property of the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty after the establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918, represents a special segment. In addition to the aristocratic heritage owners, the crucial aspects that influenced the manner in which the custodians approached the role entrusted to them were their personality, education, ambitions, and life experience, as well as the nature of the collections themselves, as they often required special skills and erudition. The example of the Alba collection in the Liria Palace in Madrid, which Whitney Dennis discusses in her article, demonstrates that even well into the 20th century, some members of the great noble dynasties saw their family collections as a way of justifying their position in the society. Based on the preserved archival inventories and photographs of the Liria Palace interiors, the author of the article analyses the placement of the Alba collection in the period leading up to the Spanish Civil War, during which the palace was destroyed, and after 1957, when it was restored. She explains the collection’s significance for its owners and its use to visualise the relevant family history with Pierre Bourdieu’s idea of the “fiction of continuity”. The new political authorities perceived and appropriated the aristocratic artistic heritage in various ways. Marcela Rusinko analyses the nationalisation and auctioning of the private pro per ty and furnishings from the former German and Hungarian noble residences in Czechoslovakia after Second World War. By consulting the relevant sources, she examines the amount and quality of the selected noble families’ movable property and establishes a starting point for further research into the provenance of individual objects. The post-war ethnic, social, and economic conflicts led to prominent class and social shifts, resulting in new trends in art collection and dwelling culture. 7 FOREWORD Silvia Marin discusses the fate of three residences commissioned by several generations of the Golescu family in the 17th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. Until as late as the 21st century, the survival of aristocratic residential buildings depended on the successful coordination of efforts to ensure the continuity of noble families and their material heritage. This process was also influenced by the emergence of modern Romania, followed by the multiplication and expansion of the volume of donations intended for public monuments. As a rule, the aristocratic residences in some of the Central European successor states of the Habsburg Monarchy were negatively associated with the nobility’s century-long domination and feudalism and perceived as the legacy of defeated foreigners (to some extent already after First World War but even more so after Second World War). The situation in Portugal represents an interesting comparison. As Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos explains, between 1926 and 1974, the nationalist and conservative Estado Novo dictatorship used Portugal’s medieval fortifications, which had always been considered a symbol of Portuguese independence, as an instrument of ideological propaganda. To this end, it restored or creatively renovated them in accordance with its ideas of medieval castle architecture and then used the restored buildings for ceremonial and tourism purposes. All of the studies presented are based on archival analyses. Based on selected examples, each of them sheds light on various aspects of the (self-)representation and reception of nobility and its artworks during what was probably the most turbulent period for this social class; from continuity and preservation on the one hand to neglect and destruction of their heritage on the other hand; from the elimination and sale of noble movable heritage to the appropriation and remodelling of aristocratic residences for the benefit of individuals, selected groups, and post-war society. With its way of life, networking, dynastic and inter-familial connections, mobility, and living practices, nobility has always transcended the confines of a single political system and the borders of individual countries. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider aristocratic heritage, its continuities, as well as its ruptures in broader transnational contexts and from different perspectives. We hope that the present issue and the contributions contained herein will represent a notable stimulus for further international networking and research. Tina Košak, Renata Komić Marn, Helena Seražin 8 PREDGOVOR Predgovor Umetnostna in arhitekturna dediščina plemstva med starimi in novimi režimi Pričujoča tematska številka Acta historiae artis Slovenica prinaša devet izvirnih znanstvenih član- kov, zasnovanih na podlagi referatov, predstavljenih na mednarodni znanstveni konferenci Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the Nobility Between Old and New Regimes: Transformations, Reinter- pretations and New Uses, ki je od 22. do 24. junija 2022 potekala na ZRC SAZU v Ljubljani v okviru temeljnega raziskovalnega projekta Umetnost v času zatona plemstva: transformacije, translokacije in reinterpretacije (J6-1810).1 Konferenca je prvič v tako obsežnem mednarodnem kontekstu omogočila predstavitev šte- vilnih novih spoznanj in poglobljeno diskusijo o soočanju plemiških naročnikov, zbirateljev in la- stnikov umetnin z novimi političnimi in družbenimi okoliščinami v času zatona tega družbenega sloja. Udeleženci konference so obravnavali tudi različne vidike recepcije in nove namembnosti plemiške dediščine po razpadu velikih starih režimov, med drugim Beneške republike, avstro-ogr- ske monarhije, poljsko-litovske zveze in ruskega cesarstva, med številnimi prelomnimi dogodki in po njih, od francoske revolucije do obeh svetovnih vojn in španske državljanske vojne.2 V tematski številki podajamo izbor prispevkov. Kamila Kłudkiewicz in Michał Mencfel se osredotočata na raziskovalno tematiko vprašanja zbirateljskih trendov elit v širšem okviru pojmovanja kolektivne družbene pripadnosti po ukinitvi poljsko-litovske zveze, zlasti razvoja nacionalne identitete v 19. stoletju. Poleg umetnostnih zbirk se kot ključne kažejo zbirke nacionalnih in historičnih memorabilij; med slednjimi ima posebej velik pomen zbirka kneginje Izabele Czartoryske, ki je v prispevku analizirana kot študija primera. Kako so politične spremembe vplivale na zbirateljske prakse, analizira tudi Arianna Candeago na primeru beneškega senatorja Girolama Ascania Molina. Pod vtisom okoliščin, ki so sledile padcu Beneške republike po francoski zasedbi leta 1797, je Molin namenoma začel zbirati predmete iz vsakdanjega življenja in umetnine, ki so aludirale na zlato dobo Benetk, kot odgovor na dezorientacijo, nastalo 1 Projekt Umetnost v času zatona plemstva: transformacije, translokacije in reinterpretacije (J6-1810), julij 2019 – junij 2023) in mednarodno konferenco je iz državnega proračuna financirala Javna agencija za znanstvenorazi- skovalno in inovacijsko dejavnost Republike Slovenije. Projekt je potekal na Umetnostnozgodovinskem inštitutu Franceta Steleta in Zgodovinskem inštitutu Milka Kosa ZRC SAZU ter na Filozofski fakulteti in Fakulteti za gradbeništvo, prometno inženirstvo in arhitekturo Univerze v Mariboru. Za rezultate projekta gl. Umetnostno- zgodovinski inštitut Franceta Steleta ZRC SAZU, Programi in projekti, dostop 25. 9. 2023, https://uifs.zrc-sazu.si/ sl/programi-in-projekti/umetnost-v-casu-zatona-plemstva-transformacije-translokacije-reinterpretacije. 2 Za celoten program in povzetke vseh prispevkov gl. Tina Košak, ed., Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the No- bility Between Old and New Regimes: Transformations, Reinterpretations and New Uses; International Conference; Program and Abstracts/Umetnostna in arhitekturna dediščina plemstva med starimi in novimi režimi: Transforma- cije, reinterpretacije in nove namembnosti; Mednarodna konferenca; Program in povzetki (Ljubljana: ZRC SAZU, 2022), dostop 25. 9. 2023, https://uifs.zrc-sazu.si/sites/default/files/Artistic%20and%20Architectural%20Herita- ge.pdf. 9 PREDGOVOR zaradi novega režima, ki so ga dojemali kot tujega in zatiralskega. To še dodatno podpira dejstvo, da je Molin zbirko zapustil mestu z namenom, da bo dostopna čim širši beneški javnosti. Prispevek Valerie Paruzzo na primeru palače Ca’ Rezzonico v Benetkah odgovarja na vprašanje usode opreme in novih namembnosti beneških patricijskih palač v obdobju, ko je bilo mesto pod avstrijsko upravo. Usodi znamenite palače ob Velikem kanalu je sprva botrovalo izumrtje njenih prvotnih lastnikov, članov rodbine Rezzonico, leta 1810. Njeno opremo so takrat po večini razprodali, njene funkcije pa so se močno spreminjale, dokler niso leta 1936 v njej odprli muzeja umetnosti 18. stoletja. Študije na podlagi arhivskih virov in fotodokumentacije pomembno izpostavljajo razlike v praksah oprem- ljanja in prenove rezidenc med starim, uveljavljenim, in novim plemstvom. Nazorni so primeri, ki jih analizira Dubravka Botica. Člani stare plemiške rodbine Erdődy so v 19. stoletju interierje svojih prenovljenih rezidenc na Hrvaškem opremljali z likovnimi deli starih mojstrov iz svojih stoletja na- stajajočih umetnostnih zbirk z namenom, da bi poudarili svoj visoki status in veljavo, predstavniki novega plemstva, člani rodbine Vranyczány-Dobrinović, pa so se uveljavili kot pomembni naročniki sodobnih likovnih umetnikov – njihove podeželske posesti so postale srečevališča tedanje hrvaške umetniške srenje. Plemiški lastniki so upravljanje in skrb za svoje zbirke, zlasti večje, nemalokrat zaupali posebnim skrbnikom oziroma upraviteljem. Šárka Radostová in Kristina Uhlíková primer- jata pristop nižjega in višjega plemstva ter cesarske družine, posebno kategorijo pa tvori strategija države, ki je po ustanovitvi Češkoslovaške republike leta 1918 prevzela premoženje habsburško- lotarinške cesarske družine. Ključni vidiki, ki so poleg lastnikov plemiške dediščine vplivali na to, kako je upravitelj oziroma skrbnik pristopil k zaupani mu vlogi, so bili njegova osebnost, izobrazba, ambicije in življenjske izkušnje ter tudi narava samih zbirk, ki so nemalokrat zahtevale posebne sposobnosti in erudicijo. Da so nekateri člani velikih plemiških dinastij še globoko v 20. stoletju v rodbinskih zbirkah videli možnost utemeljevanja lastnega položaja v družbi, je razvidno na primeru zbirke Alba v palači Liria v Madridu, ki jo v svojem prispevku obravnava Whitney Dennis. Avtori- ca na podlagi ohranjenih arhivskih popisov in fotografskih posnetkov interierjev palače analizira umestitev zbirke v času pred špansko državljansko vojno, med katero je bila palača porušena, in po letu 1957, ko je bila prenovljena. Pomen zbirke za lastnike in vizualiziranje rodbinske zgodovine z njo pojasnjuje z Bourdieujevo idejo »fikcije kontinuitete«. Nove politične oblasti so plemiško umetnostno dediščino pojmovale in si jo prisvajale na različne načine. Marcela Rusinko analizira podržavljanje in dražbe zasebne lastnine in opreme iz nekdanjih nemških in madžarskih plemiških rezidenc na Češkoslovaškem po drugi svetovni vojni. S pomočjo obravnavanih virov evidentira obseg in kakovost premičnega premoženja izbranih plemiških družin in oblikuje izhodišča za raziskave provenience posameznih predmetov. Povojni etnični, socialni in gospodarski konflikti so pripeljali do pomembnih razrednih in družbenih premikov in botrovali novim trendom v zbirateljstvu in bivalni kulturi. V članku Silvie Marin je predstavljena usoda treh rezidenc, ki jih je v 17. in 19. stoletju ter na začetku 20. stoletja naročilo več generacij družine Golescu. Preživetje plemiških rezidenčnih stavb vse do 21. stoletja je bilo odvisno od uspešnega usklajevanja prizadevanj za kontinuiteto plemiških družin in njihove materialne dediščine, na procese pa je vplival tudi nastanek sodobne Romunije, čemur je sledilo množenje in povečanje obsega donacij, namenjenih javnim spomenikom. Medtem ko so plemiške rezidence v nekaterih srednjeevropskih naslednicah habsburške monarhije do neke mere že po prvi, še bolj izrazito pa po drugi svetovni vojni praviloma negativno povezovali z nadvlado in fevdalizmom ter v njih videli zapuščino premaganih tujcev, je bilo stanje na Portugalskem nekoliko drugačno. Kot pojasnjuje Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos, je nacionalistično in konservativno naravnana diktatorska oblast Estado Novo portugalske srednjeveške utrdbe, ki so že od nekdaj veljale za simbol portugalske neodvisnosti, v letih od 1926 do 1974 izkoristila kot instrument ideološke propagande 10 PREDGOVOR in jih v ta namen obnovila oziroma kreativno restavrirala v skladu s svojimi predstavami o srednjeveški grajski arhitekturi, nato pa obnovljene stavbe uporabljala v protokolarne in turistične namene. Vse predstavljene študije temeljijo na analizah arhivskega gradiva, vsaka pa na svoj način, temelječ na izbranih primerih, osvetljuje različne vidike (samo)reprezentacije in recepcije plemstva in njegove umetnosti v verjetno najturbulentnejšem obdobju za ta družbeni razred: od kontinuitete in ohranjanja na eni do zapostavljanja in izničevanja plemiške dediščine na drugi strani; od izbrisa in prodaje njihove premične dediščine do prisvajanja in predelav njihovih rezidenc za potrebe po- sameznikov, izbranih skupin in povojne družbe. Plemstvo s svojim načinom življenja, mreženjem, rodbinskim in medrodbinskim povezova- njem, mobilnostjo in bivanjem vselej je in tudi še danes presega okvire enega samega političnega sistema in meje posameznih držav, zato je prav, da njegovo dediščino, njeno kontinuiteto in prelo- me obravnavamo v širših transnacionalnih kontekstih in z različnih vidikov. Želimo si, da bi bila ta številka revije in prispevki v njej pomembna spodbuda za nadaljnje mednarodno povezovanje in raziskovanje. Tina Košak, Renata Komić Marn, Helena Seražin DISSERTATIONES DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.28.2.01 13 ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 ∙ 2023, 13–36 Abstract: The Stateless Nation’s Elite: Artistic Collections of Polish Aristocracy, 1795–1918 1.01 Original scientific article The article aims to investigate aristocratic collecting practices in the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the 19th century, focusing on three points. First, we highlight the specific situation of the Polish aristocracy compared to most European countries and note the weakness of collecting culture in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in the early modern period, followed by its slow emergence at the end of the 18th century. Then, we investigate the most important phenomena of 19th-century aristocratic collecting and distinguish two major trends within it: collecting art and collecting national memorabilia. We also highlight the importance of aristocratic collections for a stateless nation. Finally, to illustrate the overview, using a specific example to underline the key issues, we discuss the collections of Princes Czartoryski. In this essay, we summarize our previous research on the collections of Polish aristocracy and provide, for the first time, a comprehensive and systematic panorama of this phenomenon. Keywords: Aristocratic collections, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Czartoryski collection, Polish aristocracy Izvleček: Elita naroda brez države. Umetnostne zbirke poljskega plemstva, 1795–1918 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek V prispevku so analizirane plemiške zbirateljske prakse na območju nekdanje poljsko-litovske zveze v 19. stoletju s treh vidikov. Z upoštevanjem specifičnih okoliščin poljskega plemstva so v odnosu do evropskih trendov obravnavane šibke točke poljske zbirateljske kulture od njenih poznih začetkov konec 18. stoletja. Nadalje sta na podlagi analiz najznačilnejših pojavov in trendov plemiškega zbirateljstva v 19. stoletju izpostavljena dva ključna tipa zbirk: umetnostne zbirke in zbirke nacionalnih memorabilij. Avtorja izpostavljata pomen plemiških zbirk pri uveljavljanju naroda brez lastne države. Vidike kontekstualizirata v študiji primera kneginje Czartoryski. Prispevek temelji na dolgoletnih raziskavah o zbirateljstvu poljskega plemstva in v njem je prvič podan poglobljen in sistematiziran pregled te tematike. Ključne besede: plemiške zbirke, plemstvo, Poljska, poljsko-litovska zveza, zbirka Czartoryski The Stateless Nation’s Elite Artistic Collections of Polish Aristocracy, 1795–1918 Kamila Kłudkiewicz Assist. prof. Kamila Kłudkiewicz, PhD, Adam Mickiewicz University, Faculty of Arts, Al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, kamila.kludkiewicz@amu.edu.pl, ORCID-ID: 0000-0002-5915-4560 Michał Mencfel Prof. Michał Mencfel, PhD, Adam Mickiewicz University, Faculty of Arts, Al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, mmencfel@amu.edu.pl, ORCID-ID: 0000-0003-4876-4053 14 Traditions and Conditions: The Nobility in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Emergence of Polish Aristocracy In 1771, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was the second largest country in Europe, with an area of 733,500 square kilometres. Although plagued by political and economic crises since the beginning of the 18th century, it still tried to retain its high position among European monarchies.1 In 1795, after the so-called Third Partition, it was ultimately divided between the neighbouring powers: Russia, Austria, and Prussia, and disappeared from the map of Europe as an independent political entity. It would reappear as the Republic of Poland only in 1918. As a result of the state col- lapse, the more than twelve million people inhabiting its territory became subjects of the Romanov, Habsburg, and Hohenzollern dynasties. From then on, they were governed under other legal sys- tems and lived within a different political and social order. The nobility (szlachta) comprised almost eight percent of this population, an exceptionally high percentage compared to other European countries. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the members of the szlachta were distinguished by their ancestry (and consequently a coat of arms), privileges, and the right to hold state offices. They also had a distinct lifestyle, code of conduct, customs, and culture, known under the collective term Sarmatism. Finally, members of this class shared a specific mentality and ideology founded on two ideas: the so-called “Golden Liberty”2 and equality. As might be expected, the nobility of the Commonwealth varied considerably in terms of wealth, importance, and influence. This class encompassed the few richest, most powerful families, known as the magnates, who held the most important offices, and a mass of petty nobility with little more than a coat-of-arms and no political power. However, on the ideological level, all noblemen were equal and considered themselves one political nation. With this prevalent idea of equality, aristocratic titles were not used in the Commonwealth, except by several old Lithuanian princely families; similarly, awarding orders was not practiced until the mid-18th century. Noble- men would occasionally receive titles from the emperor, foreign monarchs, or the pope; however, such titles were disregarded and generally not recognised. This began to change in the second half of the 18th century, when the parliaments of 1764, 1768, and 1775 granted princely titles to several Polish and Lithuanian families. Aristocratic titles appeared on a larger scale at the end of the centu- ry, granted by Russian, Austrian, and Prussian rulers, and also by Napoleon Bonaparte in the early 19th century. This practice openly brought into question the principle of noble equality. Recalling the post-1795 period in her diary, Sabina Grzegorzewska, née Gostkowska wrote: “[…] our nation was thoroughly reshaped over the course of a decade. Even old Polish titles disappeared and were replaced by foreign ones: princes, counts, and barons.”3 The situation in Poland was therefore somewhat paradoxical: whilst in most European countries, the aristocracy (understood as the highest class among the nobility, distinguished by 1 On the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in English, see Butterwick, The Polish-Lithuanian Mon- archy; Butterwick, The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. 2 The idea of Golden Liberty was most expressively manifested in a number of rights and practices of symbolic importance: the principle of “nothing new without the consent of all” (nihil novi sine omnium consensu) adopted by the Sejm in 1505 and the resulting liberum veto, i.e. the right to curtail the Sejm and thereby block legislation with only one opposing vote; the electio viritim privilege of 1572–1573 by which every nobleman had a right to partake in electing a king; and the pacta conventa, contract of employment agreed with every newly elected king after 1573. See Grześkowiak-Krwawicz, Queen Liberty. 3 Grzegorzewska, Pamiętniki, 90. KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL 15 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 hereditary titles of barons, counts, dukes, or princes) gradually diminished in importance after 1789 and gave way to other social groups, primarily the bourgeoisie,4 in Poland, its emergence and subsequent development into the elite of a stateless nation was only just beginning. By adopting the titles, Polish noble families entered the pan-European, cosmopolitan com- munity of aristocrats. The collective identity of this group was expressed in their lifestyle, cultural standards, customs, preferences, pastimes, the common language (French), matrimonial policy, and finally, their attitude towards art, of which collecting was an important element.5 Aristocratic collecting was driven by various motivations, yet one factor that was almost in- variably at stake was prestige—not only personal but also the prestige of the family and social class. Similarly to the European nobility, the Polish elites found the long 19th century a time of great chal- lenges. Old Polish court offices, i.e., largely honorary positions traditionally held by the magnates which confirmed their leading social role, were abolished, while a career in the administration of the bureaucratized partitioning states was not an attractive option to most aristocrats, as it in- volved de facto clerical work. The legal privileges previously belonging to the nobility disappeared one by one. Many elements of the traditional noble lifestyle were embraced by the bourgeoisie, while on the other hand, the nobility itself adopted a number of behaviours characteristic of urban culture. Consequently, the former determinants of aristocratic status gradually disappeared. What remained was the aristocratic matrimonial policy (the closely guarded tradition of endogamy) and the shrinking pool of leisure activities with considerable prestige potential. The latter included in- volvement with art, especially the traditionally elitist art collecting. The formation of the aristocracy was of great importance to the Polish collecting culture: most Polish art collections in the 19th century, and certainly almost all the most important ones, were created on the initiative of this social class. The different political conditions in the Russian, Prus- sian, and Austrian partitions did not play a significant role, with the aristocratic collections created in all three partitions showing substantial similarities. Collecting in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth before 1795: Weak Traditions and Revival under the Reign of Stanisław August Poniatowski Collecting traditions in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were scarce until the second half of the 18th century for a variety of reasons. One of them was the political system of the state, especially the practice of electing kings and the resulting lack of dynastic continuity. Poland did not have any great royal collections, which elsewhere in Europe would be accumulated by members of a dynasty for generations and would serve as a model for collectors from social elites.6 Second, from the 4 Meyer, The Persistence of the Old Regime, 79–127. 5 On the European aristocracy in the 19th century, see e.g., Les noblesses européennes; Beckett, The Aristocracy; Wi- enfort, Der Adel; Doyle, Aristocracy; Reif, Adel. 6 Even though some of the Polish kings showed interest in collecting, there was no continuation to their endeav- ours. The rich treasury of the last two male rulers of the Jagiellonian dynasty, Sigismund the Old (1476–1548) and Sigismund Augustus (1520–1572), did not transform in the 16th century into a cabinet of curiosities, as happened with the treasuries of other sovereigns in Central Europe. Eventually, the items of the treasury were dispersed. In the first half of the 17th century, the same fate befell the artistic collections of Sigismund III Vasa (1566–1632), who was interested in art and even produced his own amateur paintings and craftwork. Despite the fact that two of the king’s sons successively sat on the Commonwealth throne, the collection did not survive. In the first half 16 KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL middle of the 16th century, the importance of cities continuously declined (with a few exceptions, such as Gdańsk).7 Consequently, there was no wealthy patriciate with cultural ambitions or sig- nificant scholarly circles that could contribute to the emergence of a scientific collecting culture. Third, and most importantly for the present discussion, the nobility culture developed new ways to fulfil their cultural needs and gain prestige, other than collecting or general preoccupation with art. The Sarmatian ideal was embodied in rural life in a family manor, devoted to farming the land; abandoning this life could only be excused by participating in military campaigns or public life.8 The need for splendour was expressed and addressed by lavish hospitality, feasting, hunting, dressing, festivities, funeral rites, founding churches and monasteries, and building residences. Collecting was a rare practice throughout the early modern era. In the first half of the 19th century, Henryk Rzewuski (1791–1866) recalled the disappearing traditional noble culture with sentiment in Pamiątki Soplicy, in which he spoke with dislike or even some disgust about the “libraries and collections of various sort,” emphasising, not without pride: “we, the nobility, do not have those at home, we know nothing about them, and all our pleasure is to associate with people.”9 An ambitious art project including an element of collecting was undertaken by Stanisław Au- gust Poniatowski (1732–1798), the last king of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (crowned 1764). He saw art as an important element of the monarch’s decorum and its revival as part of the general renewal of the state, which was undergoing a profound crisis.10 Despite enormous fi- nancial difficulties, the king managed to create, almost from scratch, a fairly significant gallery of paintings and assemble a collection of sculptures (mostly plaster casts of antique works), graphics, numismatics, and scientific instruments.11 Political events stood in the way of his more ambitious plans. Following the partitions, Stanisław August was forced to abdicate on November 25, 1795. An excellent assembly of paintings that had been collected for the king in London since 1790 by Noël Desenfans (1745–1807) and Francis Bourgeois (1756–1811) never reached Warsaw. Ultimately, in 1811, it was donated to Dulwich College under Bourgeois’ will, and became the basis for the Dul- wich Picture Gallery, which exists to this day.12 The activity of Stanisław August was a model for his political supporters and a challenge to his opponents, and it was mostly under his influence that a collecting community gradually developed in the last decades of the 18th century. This period marked the emergence of institutions and prac- tices related to collecting, such as auctions, antique shops, and, later on, exhibitions. In 1775, the first memorial concerning the establishment of a museum under state protection was submitted by Michał Jerzy Mniszech (1748–1806).13 The issue of independent exhibition architecture was raised of the 18th century, Poland was ruled by Augustus II and Augustus III of the Saxon dynasty, who attached great importance to art. However, they carried out their ambitious collecting projects in their native Dresden, not in Warsaw. See Grusiecki, “Connoisseurship,” 209–26. 7 See Sobecka, Obrazowanie natury. 8 On the aristocratic culture in the Commonwealth, see Tazbir, Kultura szlachecka; Świderska-Włodarczyk, Homo Nobilis; Faber, Sarmatismus. 9 Rzewuski, Pamiątki Soplicy, 299. 10 On the role of art and collecting in the politics of Stanisław August, see Rottermund, Zamek warszawski; Mani- kowska, Sztuka. 11 On Stanisława August’s collection, see Mańkowski, Rzeźby zbioru Stanisława Augusta; Kossecka, Gabinet Rycin; Juszczak and Małachowicz, Galeria obrazów; Wyka, Ciekawym wiedzieć. 12 Murray, The Dulwich Picture Gallery; Collection for a King. 13 Mniszech, “Myśli względem.” 17 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 as well. Collecting was undertaken by other members of the king’s family and milieu, including his younger brother, Michał Jerzy Poniatowski (1736–1794), who was the primate of Poland from 1784, and his nephew Stanisław (1754–1833).14 Finally, as Julian Ursyn Niemcewicz (1758–1841), an astute observer of his times, recalled: “Following the example of the king, Polish nobles began to assemble.”15 He referred to representatives of the Polish aristocratic families: Potocki, Lubomirski, Radziwiłł, Czartoryski, and Mniszech, who took up collecting. Having a collection became one of the attributes of an enlightened nobleman. These were mostly artistic collections: galleries of paintings by old and contemporary Euro- pean masters, and collections of Roman antiquities or their copies and imitations, exhibited in residences. Such was the profile of the collections of Princess Izabela Lubomirska (1736–1816) in Łańcut, of Wincenty Potocki (c. 1740–1823; he was given the title of Prince of the Holy Roman Em- pire in 1784 but did not accept it) in Leszno near Warsaw, of Princess Helena Radziwiłłowa (1753– 1821) in Nieborów, and, probably the most outstanding one, the collection of Count Stanisław Kostka Potocki (1755–1821) in Wilanów near Warsaw. The latter was distinguished not only by the number of paintings, their rank, careful selection, and professional description but also by the fact that they were placed in a gallery building erected especially for this purpose. Potocki was an ambi- tious amateur antiquarian with a good knowledge of painting. He also wrote texts on art, including a Polish translation of the works of Johann Joachim Winckelmann.16 Collections of the Polish Aristocracy in the 19th Century: Art Collections The trend oriented towards European painting, sculpture, and antiquities, which arose from the experiences of the late 18th century in Polish collecting, continued into the 19th century. However, it resulted in few outstanding accomplishments, unless one takes into account the collections of Polish aristocrats living abroad, such as Count Athanasius Raczyński (1788–1874) in Berlin, Count Andrzej Mniszech (1823–1905) in Paris, Count Michał Tyszkiewicz (1828–1897) in Rome and Count Karol Lanckoroński (1848–1933) in Vienna.17 Meanwhile, until the late 19th century, most collections in the territory of Poland, although sometimes large, were rather random and unsupported by thorough knowledge of the history of art or even any sincere interest in it. They consisted mainly of works of old masters and fashionable contemporary painters that were currently available on the market. Among such collections were: the painting gallery of Count Józef Kajetan Ossoliński (1764–1834) in the palace at Tłumackie Street in Warsaw, composed partly of works purchased from the dis- persed collection of King Stanisław August; the painting gallery of Count Aleksander Chodkiewicz (1776–1838) in the palace at Miodowa Street in Warsaw; a collection of paintings and sculptures of Count Artur (1787–1832) and Countess Zofia (1790–1879) Potocki, exhibited in their country pal- ace in Krzeszowice and the palace in Kraków known as “Pod Baranami;” a painting collection of Count Rajmund (1791–1859) and Countess Marianna (1804–1888) Skórzewski in Czerniejewo; the painting gallery of Count August (1806–1867) and Countess Aleksandra (1818–1892) Potocki in the 14 Busiri Vici, I Poniatowski e Roma. 15 Niemcewicz, Pamiętniki czasów moich, 310. 16 On Stanisław Kostka Potocki, see Getka-Kenig, Stanisław Kostka Potocki. 17 Kaiser, Sammler, Kenner, Kunstschriftsteller; Mencfel, Athanasius Raczyński; Rosset, Kolekcja Andrzeja Mniszcha; Rosset, Un aspect du patrimoine parisien; Rosset, “By skreślić historię;” Winiewicz-Wolska, Karol Lanckoroński. 18 Wilanów Palace, which grew out of the aforementioned collection of Stanisław Kostka Potocki.18 With few outstanding or authentic works of the greatest masters, the collections were dominated by secondary and tertiary paintings, also with some copies and fakes. However, they still played an important cultural and social role. Three of the collections listed above were located in cities and were either widely available (Ossolinski’s gallery and August and Aleksandra Potocki’s collections) or were planned to become so (Artur and Zofia Potocki’s collection). In this way, they replaced non- existent public exhibition institutions. We shall elaborate on this issue later. It was only at the end of the 19th century that a handful of large and outstanding aristocratic picture galleries were established in Poland. The most important of those belonged to Count Ig- nacy Korwin Milewski (1846–1926) and Count Aleksander Edward Raczyński (1847–1926). Both aristocrats showed a genuine and deep interest in art, which was reflected not only in collecting but also in conscious and consistent patronage. Raczyński was also involved in organisational work as the president of the Society of Friends of Fine Arts in Krakow in 1895–1913. They both devel- oped their expertise in art during study trips around Europe; Milewski was even a student of the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich but did not complete his studies. Their collections differed from each other in many respects yet shared some common features. First, they consisted of carefully selected works and therefore had a distinctive character defined by their creators rather than fash- ion or chance. Milewski gathered paintings of the Polish representatives of the so-called Munich school, while Raczyński collected European salon paintings, mostly from Parisian Salon de Mars, as well as works of Polish artists.19 The second important common feature of these collections was the presence of contemporary Polish painting. It could have been partly motivated by the patriot- ism of the collectors but the primary reasons were undoubtedly artistic. Polish painting flourished enormously at the end of the 19th century and at the beginning of the 20th century; indeed, it was then that the artistic phenomenon of “Polish painting” or the “Polish school” emerged. Support- ing this process through patronage of Polish artists was an important element of Milewski’s and Raczyński’s collecting activity. Finally, the third common feature of the two collections was that both aristocrats devoted much attention to the way their collections were presented, promoted, and displayed. Before Milewski went into exile and travelled around Europe with his collection, it was kept and shown to the public in his palace in Vilnius. The aristocrat planned to move the collection to Kraków or Lviv, where it could truly become a public institution, but their plans were thwarted. However, single works or even groups of works were presented at public exhibitions: the First Great Exhibition of Polish Art in Kraków in 1887, in Lviv in 1894, and finally at the Künstlerhaus in Vi- enna in 1895. Raczyński’s collection remained closely linked to his country residence in Rogalin in the province of Wielkopolska. In 1910, however, it was moved to a separate building and opened to the public. A brief guide to the gallery was published in the 1930s.20 18 Ryszkiewicz, Kolekcjonerzy i miłośnicy, 54–101; Manikowska, “Zbiór obrazów i rzeźb.” 19 Kłudkiewicz, “Aristocracy and Contemporary Art.” 20 Przewodnik galerji obrazów. KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL 19 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 “The romantic trend in Polish museum history”: Collections of Memorabilia Galleries of painting were just one of the trends in Polish aristocratic collecting in the 19th century. A different and popular model, which developed after 1795 and resulted in original and sometimes outstanding achievements, dominated: collecting national memorabilia, initiated in Poland by Princess Izabela Czartoryska (1746–1835) in her residence in Puławy. Although collecting histori- cal relics was a European phenomenon at that time, its significance for a nation deprived of its state was remarkable. Izabela Czartoryska’s collecting pursuits were a direct response to the political catastrophe. Years later, the Princess wrote in her Mémoires et petits diverses: “In 1793 [the year in which the so- called Grodno Sejm passed the act of the Second Partition of Poland], Poland died! […] It was then that I first thought of collecting Polish memorabilia.”21 Over the next thirty years, Izabela amassed a collection of thousands of items related to the history of Poland: the regalia and memorabilia of Polish monarchs, war trophies and flags, weapons and elements of armour, valuables, documents, numismatics, relics of famous Poles, etc. The collection will be described in more detail later in this essay. At this point, we simply wish to highlight that this freely accessible museum, visited by thousands of guests from all over the former Commonwealth, was a huge success. It was an excel- lent response to the emotional needs of Poles in the first decades of their enslavement. Puławy became an important, if not the most important, centre of Polish patriotism. Consequently, the museum directly or indirectly inspired a number of collecting initiatives in the first and also in the second half of the 19th century, and thus gave rise to a widespread phenomenon called by Zdzisław Żygulski Jr. “the romantic trend in Polish museum history.”22 The trend was reflected in particular in the collections of military memorabilia created in the first decades of the 19th century, such as the armouries of Count Wincenty Krasiński (1782–1858) in his palace in Warsaw, of Count Edward Raczyński (1786–1845) in Rogalin, and Count Tytus Działyński (1796–1861) in Kórnik. While armouries had existed in Polish noblemen’s residences in the modern period, they now assumed a different character. First, while the chief purpose of the early armouries was to glorify a particular family or sometimes related families, they now glori- fied the whole nation, documenting its splendid and victorious past; in other words, their message was now strongly patriotic.23 Second, the collections of weaponry were exhibited in specially pre- pared rooms with picturesque and meaningful decorations. Krasiński’s armoury was arranged in a “Gothic chamber,” where the old items “presented a delightful view in the brilliant light.”24 Edward Raczyński gave his armoury a similar Gothic tone when, around 1820, he transformed the main hall of the Rogalin palace (previously a ballroom) into exhibition space.25 In both cases, the decor was meant to connote knightly courage, valour, and heroism. A different, truly unique, setting was conceived by Tytus Działyński for his collection of military items, memorabilia, and crafts: the main hall of his palace in Kórnik was given a “morisco” décor with references to the architecture of the Alhambra. This was probably intended to suggest the historical similarities between the Moors 21 Czartoryska, Mémoires et petits diverses, pp. 65–66, Ew XVII/986, Biblioteka Czartoryskich w Krakowie. 22 Żygulski, “Nurt romantyczny.” 23 See Kłudkiewicz, “Zbrojownie w XIX wieku.” 24 See Ajewski, Zbiory artystyczne Biblioteki, 35–109. 25 See Ostrowska-Kębłowska, “Siedziby-muzea;” Leszczyńska, “Skarbnica pamiątek wielkopolskich.” 20 fighting against the Spanish during the medieval Reconquista and the Poles fighting the oppression of the occupants during the partitions.26 Tytus Działyński died in 1861, leaving his project unfinished. The work was continued by his son Jan (1829–1880), who inherited the palace in Kórnik, combined his father’s and his own col- lections, and rearranged the items into a new exhibition. He introduced significant changes to the original concept by focusing on a systematic arrangement of weaponry and crafts rather than their picturesque appearance.27 However, the “Moor Chamber” included also a small space filled with commemorative items, arranged in an artistic manner not unlike in Puławy. It was undoubtedly an intentional reference to the “romantic” collecting tradition: Jan Działyński deliberately intro- duced a “romantic,” somewhat archaic, element to his otherwise innovative exhibition, as some- thing firmly embedded in the minds of the Poles. As we shall see, the same thing was done by Iza- bella Działyńska née Czartoryska (1830–1899) when she established a museum in her residence in Gołuchów. In both cases, therefore, we observe a sui generis historicism in collecting, proving that the heroic and sentimental trend of collecting national memorabilia was still vital and attractive in the second half of the 19th century. Aristocratic Collections on Display: Location, Accessibility, and Legal Protection Aristocratic collections accessible to the public played an important role in 19th-century Poland, as the first public museums were opened, as in other Central European countries, relatively late.28 Due to the lack of statehood, they were established on the initiative of either scientific associations (e.g., in Poznań and Kraków) or municipal authorities (Kraków and Lviv). The latter cases were related to the reform of local government in the Galician autonomy within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While the earliest such projects can be dated to the middle of the century, the first major public museums appeared in the 1870s: the Mielżyński Museum in Poznań, which opened thanks to the generosity of a local aristocrat and collector Count Seweryn Mielżyński (1804–1872), and the National Museum in Krakow, a municipal institution. Since no art museum was founded on the initiative of the rulers or governments of the par- titioning powers until the beginning of the 20th century—the first one was the Kaiser Friedrich Museum opened in Prussian Posen/Poznań in 190429—the publicly available aristocratic collec- tions compensated for the lack of state museums and constituted an important complement to the existing public exhibitions in Poland. At the same time, as elsewhere in Europe, a process of 26 See Whelan, “Kórnik;” Dolczewska and Dolczewski, “Historia zbrojowni zamkowej.” 27 Kłudkiewicz, “Collector at the Crossroads.” 28 For Austria-Hungary, see Rampley, Prokopovych, and Veszprémi, The Museum Age, 17–50; on the aristocratic collections open to the public especially 42–48. 29 The Museum in Poznan was founded on the initiative of the local government on the basis of the previously exist- ing collection of the German Historical Society (Historische Gesellschaft für die Provinz Posen). The museum was financed by three sources: the Prussian state treasury (central government in Berlin), the local government of the Province of Poznan, and the authorities of the City of Poznan. It was an institution intended mainly for a German audience. There were a number of museums established by German municipal and local authorities in other cities of the Prussian partition too, for example, in Gdansk and Torun. These, however, were local and grassroots ini- tiatives that benefited little from funding and support from the government in Berlin. Various initiatives (Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenian, Russian) to establish museums under the Russian partition can also be identified. For the most part, however, these were of a local nature and were not supported by the Tsar and his officials. KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL 21 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 institutionalization and musealization of aristocratic collections can be observed throughout the 19th century: they evolved from exhibitions in private residences with relatively limited access to private museums open to the public. The collections were usually displayed and made accessible in private houses: ancestral resi- dences in the countryside or aristocratic city mansions with separate rooms dedicated to the ex- hibition. This was the case of Łańcut Manor, belonging to Count and Countess Potocki,30 Łohojsk Manor of Count and Countess Tyszkiewicz,31 Podhorce Manor, which in the 19th century belonged to the Sanguszko Princes,32 the aforementioned Kórnik Palace of the Działyński family (later Zamoyski) and Gołuchów belonging to the Czartoryskis. Sometimes aristocrats would add a gal- lery wing to their residence, e.g., in Miłosław belonging to Count and Countess Mielżyński, or erect a separate building connected to the palace by a passage, as in Rogalin belonging to Count and Countess Raczyński.33 Only a few families had entirely detached buildings dedicated to the exhibitions on their palace grounds: the Czartoryskis in Puławy and the Potockis in Wilanów. Despite differences in the motivations for their creation, background, and interests of the owners, these two important initiatives can be considered the first Polish collections open to the public and, according to some researchers, the first Polish museums.34 The Temple of the Sybil and the Gothic House in Puławy, opened in the early 19th century by Izabela Czartoryska née Flemming, were independent exposition pavilions. They will be discussed in more detail later in the article. Stanisław Kostka Potocki’s residence in Wilanów combined sev- eral functions: the southern wing contained the apartments of the Potocki family, while the main body of the palace with royal apartments dedicated to King Jan III Sobieski constituted a place of remembrance of the king’s residence, and the northern wing was a space to present a collection of European painting, sculpture, antique vases, and Chinese and Japanese art. From 1805, the lat- ter part, together with a nearby detached building called the Gothic Gallery, functioned as “the Museum.”35 The Gothic Gallery had been built in 1802 near the northern wing of the palace solely for exhibition purposes. It housed mainly a collection of antique sculptures and perhaps also some works of 17th- and 18th-century European painting, and Etruscan vases. When Wilanów was rede- signed by its subsequent owners in the mid-19th century, the Gothic Gallery was remade and added as a new wing to the main body of the palace. While the collectors declared their collections open for the general public, in reality their availability was initially limited to a small circle of family, friends, and sometimes carefully se- lected invited guests. This was true of both Puławy and Wilanów, and also other aristocratic resi- dences: Łańcut (the Potocki family), Podhorce (Sanguszko), Kórnik (Działyński), and Gołuchów (Czartoryski). In the second half of the 19th century, granting access to collections became more formal and regulated. From then on, collections located in country residences had fixed opening hours (usually only in the summer season), at least one scholarly supervisor, a guide for showing 30 Majewska-Maszkowska, Mecenat. 31 Aftanazy, Dzieje rezydencji, 93–100. 32 Ostrowski and Petrus, Podhorce. 33 Kłudkiewicz, Wybór i konieczność, 112–72. 34 Żygulski, Romantyczny nurt. 35 On the artistic collections in the Wilanów palace, see Dobrowolski, “La collection de vases grecs;” Gutowska-Gu- tek, “Początki muzeum w Wilanowie;” Jaskanis and Rottermund, Grand Tour; Fijałkowski, “Muzeum ‘Polskiego Winkelmana’.” 22 the visitors around, and related publications, usually in the form of short guidebooks, sometimes scientific catalogues. The collectors would create more or less precise sets of rules for visiting their residences or at least for admitting guests into the house during the owners’ absence. For instance, visits to the castle and the collections of Princess Izabella Działyńska née Czartoryska (1830–1899) in Gołuchów were prearranged for selected guests. When the owner was absent, the curators of the collections were instructed to show them to “eminent and well-known individuals only.”36 The obligation to submit a written request to view a collection located in an aristocratic home remained in force until the beginning of the 20th century.37 In the second half of the 19th century, it became a custom among aristocrats to display their collections to the public in their townhouses. While travelling to country manors was often com- plicated, time-consuming and expensive, the city offered an influx of many more visitors. In War- saw, a gallery of old masters was open to the public in the palace of Counts Kossakowski at Nowy Świat.38 In Lviv, Count Leon Piniński (1857–1938) opened a gallery of paintings by Polish and for- eign masters.39 In Vilnius, the public could see the archaeological collection of Count Eustachy Tyszkiewicz (1814–1873) located in his private palace40 and the painting collection of the aforemen- tioned Count Ignacy Korwin Milewski. However, in terms of the number of aristocratic residences open to the public, it was Krakow that stood out as a flourishing cultural and artistic centre of the Austrian partition and the main home of Polish aristocrats and landlords.41 Among places to visit in the city was the Wodzicki Palace with its artistic and ornithological collection, the Lubomirski Palace with collections of art and history, Moszyński’s Palace with a collection of Polish paintings and militaria, the gallery of paintings of the Potockis from Krzeszowice in the Pod Baranami Palace, the Pusłowski Palace with artistic collections, and the Palace of Count Emeryk Hutten-Czapski (1828–1895) with a cabinet of numismatics.42 At the end of the 19th century, some of the aristocratic collections were transformed into pri- vate museums. It was not just a matter of changing the names of the collections and introducing further regulations concerning the way they functioned. The main goal was to secure financial re- sources to keep the collections and guarantee their integrity and public availability for many years to come. To achieve this goal, aristocrats often made use of the family entail model, which was then undergoing a revival in some European countries, primarily in Prussia. The origins of this legal formula go back to the Middle Ages; it was popular in Europe in the Modern period, although 36 Such instructions were given by Izabella Działyńska to the custodian of the collection Mikołaj Bobowski; Letter from M. Bobowski to I. Działyńska, BPP 845, Biblioteka Polska w Paryżu. 37 For example, the collection at Działyński’s castle in Kórnik near Poznań was available mainly to the closest circle of family and friends as well as invited guests, most of whom were researchers. Other people had to send a written request to gain access to it. Jan Działyński, who owned the castle in 1861–1880, received only 19 such applications. However, their number continued to grow in the years 1880–1918, when Kórnik belonged to the Zamoyski fam- ily, the Działyńskis’ relatives. The number of people applying to see the collection varied from a dozen to several hundred every year. See Naganowski, “Udostępnienie zbioru pamiątek.” 38 Jaroszewski, “Kilka słów.” 39 Piniński, “Obrazy szkoły angielskiej.” 40 Aftanazy, Materiały do dziejów, 1: 93–100. 41 On the dominance of the nobility in the cultural, political, and economic life of Kraków, see Purchla, Matecznik polski. 42 On the collections in the aristocratic palaces in Kraków, see Beiersdorf, “Rezydencje ziemiańskie Krakowa.” KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL 23 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 rarely used in the Republic of Poland.43 The Polish version of the family entail, called ordynacja, ensured the indivisibility of the family estate and the prestigious title of ordynat for the principal heir. Its importance was explicitly stated in the report on the creation of the Princes Czartoryski family entail in Gołuchów: “By creating a family entail we guarantee that certain historical fami- lies, carrying the burden of higher responsibilities and revered as leaders by our society, will not lose their economic foundation.”44 At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, family entails secured the existence of the major aristocratic collections and museums: the Lubomirski and Dzieduszycki Museums in Lviv as well as the Czartoryski collections. Even on the eve of Second World War, the family entails of Polish aristocratic families estab- lished before 1918 were considered “institutions of significance to national culture.”45 Although the institution of family entail, with its feudal origins, was considered out of date in the interwar period and removed from Polish legislation in 1939, twelve aristocratic entails remained under special legal protection due to their connection with private museums or excellent artistic and scientific collections created in the partition era.46 By creating a family entail, aristocrats secured their property and collections, provided that the family lineage remained unbroken. If the last male representative of the family lacked a male descendant, the continuity of the surname was interrupted. In such cases, aristocrats decided to take actions that would at least preserve the memory of the family and its achievements in the field of collecting. This aim could be achieved by establishing a foundation, i.e., donating their wealth for public purposes. The name of the foundation would commemorate the family name or the family seat of the founders. Polish aristocrats took advantage of the possibility of establishing foundations after Poland regained independence.47 One of these foundations, established in the in- terwar period, was the Zakłady Kórnickie Foundation, including the assets of the aforementioned Działyński family. The funds were used to maintain the castle in Kórnik with its library and col- lection of artworks, which were open to the public in accordance with the wishes of the founder (Władysław Zamoyski, Jan Działyński’s heir). Case Study: The Collections of Princes Czartoryski The history of collecting in the Czartoryski family begins with the aforementioned Princess Izabela Czartoryska, née Flemming and her residence in Puławy. After returning to Puławy from a several-month exile caused by her involvement in an un- successful anti-Russian revolt, known as the Kościuszko Uprising, in 1796 the Princess set out to 43 Sójka-Zielińska, Fideikomisy familijne; Zielińska, “Ordynacje w dawnej Polsce.” 44 Sygn. BPP 845, k. 14, Biblioteka Polska w Paryżu. 45 Article 3. 2 of the Act on the Abolition of Family Entails, July 13, 1939, in Dz. Ust. (Journal of Laws) 1939, No. 63, item 417. 46 The 1939 Act on the Abolition of Family Entails listed: the Princes Czartoryski Museum in Gołuchów, the Dzieduszycki Museum of Natural History in Lviv, the Lubomirski Museum as part of the Ossolineum in Lviv, the Princes Czartoryski Museum in Krakow, and collections available to visitors (although not as institutionalized as museums) belonging to Counts Krasiński in Opinogóra, Counts Zamoyski in Zamość, Princes Radziwiłł in Nieświerz, Counts of Wielkopolski Gonzaga Myszkowski in Chroberz, Counts Potocki in Łańcut, Counts Skórzewski in Czerniejewo, and Princes Radziwiłł in Ołyka. 47 On the foundations established to maintain libraries and collections, see Kosiński, “Biblioteki fundacyjne.” 24 1. Zygmunt Vogel, Johann Gottlob Schumann: View of the Sybil Temple in Puławy, etching, 1807, National Museum, Warsaw (© Muzeum Narodowe) KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL 25 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 create what she called a “temple of memory” in her residence.48 In the years 1798–1801, she had a pavilion built in the palace park that would house memorabilia relating to the glorious history of Poland. Modelled on the ancient temple in Tivoli near Rome, it was called by Czartoryska the Temple of the Sibyl (fig. 1). In 1809, she erected a second museum pavilion called the Gothic House, which contained mostly European items (fig. 2). The richness of the collections was recorded in the four-volume handwritten inventory of the Temple of the Sibyl and the Collection of Memorabilia Deposited in the Gothic House in Puławy published in 1828.49 Czartoryska’s collections consisted primarily of items of historical or even sentimental value, often visually inconspicuous, such as memorabilia related to events or outstanding personalities from the past, militaria, portraits of historical figures, documents, numismatics, and small works of artistic craftsmanship. While some artefacts were, unsurprisingly, of outstanding artistic value, it was not aesthetic quality that guided the collector. Indeed, the paintings that belonged or still belong to the most valuable works of art in Polish collections—Raphael’s Portrait of a Young Man (lost), Rembrandt’s Landscape with the Good Samaritan, and Leonardo da Vinci’s Lady with an Ermine—found their way to Puławy almost by accident. The relics were attractively arranged and accompanied with an extensive commentary in a he- roic and sentimental tone. Moreover, they were used as props in a peculiar kind of patriotic perfor- mance with almost ritual features that Czartoryska created for visitors to the museum in Puławy.50 The aforementioned importance and success of Czartoryska’s exhibitions was due to not only the selection of items but also their presentation, which triggered their affective potential and helped the visitors to experience them in a more emotional way. The significance of Puławy was excellently 48 On the Puławy collection, see Żygulski, “Dzieje zbiorów puławskich;” Aleksandrowicz, “Z problematyki nowego wieku;” Żygulski, The Princess Czartoryski Museum; Jurkowska, Pamięć sentymentalna; Labuda, “Ich versammelte.” 49 Czartoryska, Poczet pamiątek. 50 Jurkowska, Pamięć sentymentalna, 366–401; Mencfel, “The Theatre of Affectionate Hearts.” 2. Joseph Richter: View of the Gothic House in Puławy, watercolour, gouache, before 1830, National Museum, Warsaw (© Muzeum Narodowe) 26 KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL captured by the anonymous author of an 1829 article in The Foreign Review, who wrote: To those Poles who, in the trophies of the past, find hopes for the future, this temple of the Sybil is the asylum of national glory, an object of profound veneration, and of patriotic pride, which is religiously visited by pilgrims from all the provinces of the Ancient Republic.51 When in 1831 the Czartoryski property was confiscated by the tsarist authorities after the fall of the November Uprising, the Puławy collection was dispersed. However, a significant part of it was secured and in the following years gradually transported to Paris, to a mansion bought by the Czartoryski family on Île Saint-Loius. Known as Hôtel Lambert, the residence became not only the new seat of the powerful family but also the centre of political and cultural life of Polish emigra- tion in France, and a house for the Puławy collection. It remained under the custody of Princess Izabela’s son, Adam Jerzy Czartoryski (1770–1861), and, after his death, her grandson Władysław Czartoryski (1828–1894). Władysław and his younger sister Izabella wrote a new chapter in the history of the Czarto- ryski collection. Closely cooperating with each other, the siblings were avid collectors of books, manuscripts and, above all, works of art. They exchanged information about works appearing on the Parisian art market and participated in major auctions and art exhibitions in the French capi- tal. They used the help of Josephine Rousset (1821–1896), a Frenchwoman associated with Hôtel Lambert, who acted as a representative of the siblings’ interests on the art market, and managed the finances and expenses of young Princess Izabella. Izabella’s husband, the aforementioned Jan Działyński from Kórnik, also joined the siblings in their collecting pursuits. The brother and sister differed greatly in their artistic interests. Izabella focused on early Re- naissance graphics from Northern Europe, artistic craftsmanship, and ancient art. She rarely pur- chased relics and artworks related to Polish history and culture. Her brother, on the other hand, paid special attention to the latter. Władysław collected Polish graphics, painting, crafts, and weap- ons and bought works of ancient art and numismatics. Władysław added the purchased works to the collections inherited from his grandmother Izabela, treating his activity as a kind of continuation of the museum in Puławy. This idea was not shared by his sister, who called her grandmother’s assembly a morgue (le charnier) when it was brought to Paris.52 As a result, the Puławy collection, expanded by Władysław, coexisted in Hôtel Lambert with Izabella’s items displayed in separate rooms. The guests who were allowed to visit the palace would describe it as a Baroque monument, deco- rated by French masters Eustache Lesuer and Charles Le Brun,53 and a place housing art collections. The guidebooks published in Paris at that time highlight the collection of old masters “avec le char- mant portrait de Raphaël gravé en tête de l’ouvrage de Passavant [...] même un paysage de Rembrandt, avec la scène du bon Samaritain en figurines”.54 While collections at the Hôtel Lambert were not ac- cessible to the general public, they were shown to a selected group of guests and presented at Paris exhibitions. Outlining the history of his family’s collections, Władysław Czartoryski wrote: 51 Foreign Review, 529. 52 Quoted after Tomasz F. de Rosset, Polskie kolekcje, 239. 53 Cf. Galignani’s New Paris Guide, 319; Guide to Paris, 50. 54 Joanne, Paris illustré, 48. 27 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 Here, despite the lack of proper arrangement and order, the collections were not entirely useless. They were often visited by foreigners, amateurs, artists, and scholars, they were also used by our compatriots [...] Many writers and publishers found in them examples of Polish art for art publications and other writing [...]. Not unlike our emigrants after 1831, who saw it as their duty to testify to the existence and life of Poland, these collections, be- ing something of exiles too, fulfilled the same task as far as possible. They were shown at various exhibitions, namely at the Retrospective Exhibition in 186555 and in the historical section of the last Great [World’s] Fair in 1878,56 where we were given separate rooms un- der the special designation “Pologne”. All this aroused an interest in our things, hitherto completely unknown, in the scientific and artistic world, and resulted in far-reaching publications in journals devoted to the subject matter.57 However, the collections of the Czartoryski siblings were accessed mostly by French research- ers, who studied them and prepared relevant publications.58 Izabella was especially concerned to have scholars working on her collections. Already as a teenager taking her first steps on the difficult art market, she used the help and services of leading professional experts associated mostly with the Louvre: Léon de Laborde, Jean de Witte, Wilhelm Froehner, and Émile Molinier. Commis- sioned by Czartoryska, they produced scientific catalogues of her collections published under the 55 Czartoryski mentions here the exhibition Union des beaux-arts appliqués à l’industrie: Deuxième exposition; Mu- sée rétrospectif, which took place in Palais de l’Industrie in Paris in 1865. Items from Czartoryski’s collections were place in the so-called Polish room (sale polonaise). The list of items presented by the family, in Rosset, Polskie kolekcje, 320–32. 56 At the 1878 World Fair, the Czartoryskis contrubited with four separate collections: of Władysław Czartoryski, his wife Małgorzata Czartoryska d᾿Orléans, Izabella Działyńska née Czartoryska, and Jan Działyński. The list of items presented by the family, in Rosset, Polskie zbiory, 341–53. See also Rosset, “Une nation de nobles.” 57 Władysław Czartoryski, Wspomnienia do historii zbiorów (Odczyt pisany ręką Lubomira Gadona), 1882, sygn. 7145 IV, k. 9, Biblioteka Czartoryskich w Krakowie, 58 Longperier, “Vases peints inédits;” Witte, Description d’Antiquités. 3. View of the castle in Gołuchow, before 1939, Voivodship Conservation Office in Poznań (© Wojewódzki Urząd Ochrony Zabytków, photo: Kazimierz Ulatowski) 28 collective title Collections du Château du Gołuchów.59 The title of this luxury publication referred to the new location of Działyńska’s collection, specifically the castle in Gołuchów in eastern Greater Poland (near the Prussian-Russian border), which had belonged to Jan Działyński. In the 1870s, after long thought and discussion, the Czartoryski siblings decided to move their collections from Hôtel Lambert to the territory of Poland. Władysław’s collection was transported to Kraków, while Izabella’s works of art were moved in the 1880s to Gołuchów. The latter was originally a Renaissance castle of the influential Polish family Leszczyński, which she renovated in the neo-Renaissance style of Francis I (fig. 3). Działyńska’s collections were made available to the public in 1893, placed in special exhibition rooms in the basement and on the ground floor: the Polish Hall, the Museum Hall, the Hall of Greek Vases and the Hall of Egyptian Antiquities. The remaining rooms of the Gołuchów Castle were used as the owner’s apartments and guest rooms for members of the Czartoryski family. Therefore, the castle became both the family’s residence and a place for storing and sharing excellent art collections. The presentation of Izabella’s collections was modelled on the exhibition she had seen in Paris and partly linked to the “romantic trend” in Polish collecting in the first half of the 19th century. The first of the rooms available to the public was the so-called Polish Hall (fig. 4). The objects pre- sented there were part of the owner’s family legacy rather than the fruit of her own pursuits. The glass cabinets in the hall contained Polish horse tacks, antique weaponry, belts, family silver of the Czartoryskis, and portraits of rulers and other Polish personages given to Izabella after her mar- riage to Jan Działyński. Thus, while the room resembled an armoury, which used to be a popular room in residences of landed gentry and aristocrats, it presented a new approach to the collection of military items. Similarly to the already mentioned Kórnik owned by Izabella’s husband, the exhibition was far from picturesque, instead focusing on a scientific presentation of old Polish craftsmanship. The remaining exhibition rooms were arranged with the help of Froehner and Molinier, previ- ously employed to study the collection when they visited Gołuchów. The Museum Hall, designed by the French architect Maurice Ouradou, housed 200 works of medieval gold smithery, faience, ceramics, Venetian glass, and above all, a fine set of the Limoges enamel, i.e., objects produced in the famous French enamelling centre in Limoges (figs. 5–6). In addition to the cabinets with valuable items, the room contained 16th-century everyday objects and Renaissance French furniture. The Mu- seum Hall in Gołuchów was designed to look like a room in a modern residence presenting original relics from one historical period, rather than an exhibition space. The collector was inspired here by the exhibition at the Musée Cluny in Paris, which also influenced other Parisian craftmanship col- lectors in the second half of the 19th century. The other rooms: the Hall of Greek Vases and the Hall of Egyptian Antiquities contained works of ancient art presented in showcases and arranged chrono- logically. The decor of the halls resembled other residential rooms of the castle. This systematic and somewhat sterile arrangement contrasted with the atmosphere created in the Museum Hall. Izabella wanted Gołuchów to be her country estate, a place to store and share the collections, and a seat of the Czartoryski family. She decided to secure all these functions financially by estab- lishing the Gołuchów family entail. The introduction to the entail statute reads: In the castle in Gołuchów, in the Pleszew province, I placed a collection of various art- works, which I had collected over many years. It is my wish that these works of art be 59 Froehner, Antiquités; Froehner, Verres chrétiens; Froehner and Molinier, Collections du Château de Gołuchów. KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL 29 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 4. The Polish Hall in the Gołuchów Castle, before 1939, Voivodship Conservation Office in Poznań (© Wojewódzki Urząd Ochrony Zabytków, photo: Kazimierz Ulatowski) 5. The Museum Hall in the Gołuchów Castle, before 1939, Voivodship Conservation Office in Poznań (© Wojewódzki Urząd Ochrony Zabytków, photo: Kazimierz Ulatowski) 6. The Museum Hall in the Gołuchów Castle, photograph, before 1939, Voivodship Conservation Office in Poznań (© Wojewódzki Urząd Ochrony Zabytków, photo: Kazimierz Ulatowski) 30 not dispersed and that the collection be forever preserved in its entirety. I expect that the collection will be of use to the general public, arousing and increasing interest in art and the sense of beauty; the collections should be available for viewing to anyone searching for sources for scientific research and help in artistic pursuits.60 The decision to establish the family entail was made by Izabella and her brother Władysław. In July 1884, the siblings decided to create two entails of Princes Czartoryski, in Sieniawa and Gołuchów, which would be inherited by the sons of Prince Władysław: Sieniawa—by Adam Jerzy Ludwik Czartoryski (1872–1937), and Gołuchów—by Władysław Kazimierz Czartoryski (1876– 1911), after Izabella’s childless death.61 While the Gołuchów entail established in 1893 ensured the integrity and financial security of Izabella’s collections, the Sieniawa entail approved by the Austro- Hungarian authorities in 189762 guaranteed the existence of the Prince Czartoryski Museum in Kraków, founded by Władysław. Establishing the museum in Krakow, the capital city of Galicia, was a great conceptual and organisational enterprise; consequently, it was completed only after its founder’s death at the be- ginning of the 20th century.63 The first step in the process of creating the museum was to find ap- propriate spaces for exhibition. In 1874, Władysław purchased a building known as Klasztorek (Monastery; fig. 7), and soon afterwards received the so-called Arsenał (Arsenal) located nearby. In the following years, three more tenement houses were purchased, and, combined, creating a third museum building called the Palace. In addition to the entirely time-consuming adaptation of the buildings, it was necessary to prepare an inventory of the collection, conserve many items, and em- ploy museum personnel: curatorial, administrative, and technical staff. Hence, in the early period 60 “Statut ordynacji,”47–48. 61 See Nowak, “Ordynacja sieniawska,”135. 62 Ustawa z dnia 16 stycznia 1897 r. o ustanowieniu powierznictwa familijnego Książąt Czartoryskich, Dziennik ustaw państwa dla królestw i krajów w Radzie państwa reprezentowanych, 1897, part XIII, pp. 343–48, 7147, Biblioteka Czartoryskich w Krakowie. 63 On the Museum, see Buczek, “Z przeszłości Biblioteki Muzeum;” Żygulski, “Zarys historii zbiorów Czartory- skich;” Rostworowski, “Kraków;” Guichard-Marneur, “Drafting Futures;” Płonka-Bałus and Koziara, Muzeum. 7. The Czartoryski Museum in Kraków, postcard, ca. 1905, National Library, Warsaw (Polona public domain) KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL 31 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 after transporting the items from Paris to Kraków, the collections were not regularly available to the public; the limited availability continued for several years, even after the official opening of the Princes Czartoryski Museum in 1877. The museum was a private institution, financed at first by the Prince’s assets, and after his death by the Sieniawa family entail income. The collections were supervised by professional scholars from the very beginning. The first director of the museum was Józef Łepkowski (1826–1894), an archaeologist and professor at the Jagiellonian University, followed by Marian Sokołowski (1839–1911), who in 1882 took the first chair of Art History in Poland at the Jagiellonian University; the first curator of the collections was Leon Bentkowski (1823–1889), succeeded by Bolesław Biskupski (1844–1922). This indicates that Władysław Czartoryski intended to treat the art collections, alongside the accompanying rich col- lection of books, not as a sentimental repository of national memorabilia in the Puławy spirit but as a modern research and teaching institution. Indeed, he called his museum a “scientific institute.” The Princes Czartoryski Museum influenced the artistic landscape of Krakow to a great ex- tent. It was the most important exhibiting institution in the city along with the National Museum and the Museum of Technology and Industry, which were established at the same time.64 Impor- tantly, while the latter two focused on developing and presenting collections of Polish art and artis- tic craftsmanship, the Princes Czartoryski Museum housed collections of high-class European art as well as Polish historical memorabilia from the Puławy collections. Conclusion Whilst Polish aristocratic collecting developed relatively late, at the end of the 18th century, with the rise of aristocracy itself, it was a key collecting phenomenon in 19th-century Poland. It involved two major trends: collections of art and collections of national memorabilia, the latter found especially in the first half of the century. The importance of this phenomena is related to the dominant posi- tion of aristocrats among collectors, their pioneering role in collecting art and historical memora- bilia, and the fact that, as time went by, an increasing number of them made their collections avail- able to the public, and finally transformed some of them into private museums. Thus, aristocratic collections played an important role in the life of a stateless nation: in the absence of state patron- age, they supplemented or sometimes even replaced public institutions, significantly enriching the otherwise modest Polish museological landscape. 64 See Prokopovych, “The City and the Museum.” 32 Bibliography Aftanazy, Roman. Dzieje rezydencji na dawnych Kresach Rzeczypospolitej. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1991. Aftanazy, Roman. Materiały do dziejów rezydencji. Vol. 7a, Dawne województwo ruskie: Ziemia Halicka i Lwowska. Warszawa: PAN. IS, 1990. Ajewski, Konrad. Zbiory artystyczne Biblioteki i Muzeum Ordynacji Krasińskich w Warszawie. Warszawa: Neriton, 2004. Aleksandrowicz, Alina. “Z problematyki nowego wieku (Wokół Świątyni Sybilli).” Wiek Oświecenia 16 (2000): 9–33. Beckett, John Vincent. The Aristocracy in England 1660–1914. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986. Beiersdorf, Zbigniew. “Rezydencje ziemiańskie Krakowa w drugiej połowie XIX wieku.” In Pałace miejskie Krakowa: Materiały sesji naukowej odbytej 18 maja 2002, 75–138. Kraków: Towarzystwo Miłośników Historii i Zabytków Krakowa, 2003. Buczek, Karol. “Z przeszłości Biblioteki Muzeum XX. Czartoryskich (w sześćdziesiątą rocznicę przeniesienia jej zbiorów do Krakowa).” Przegląd Biblioteczny 10 (1936): 181–99. Busiri Vici, Andrea. I Poniatowski e Roma. Firenze: Edam, 1971. Butterwick, Richard. The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, 1733–1795: Light and Flame. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2020. Butterwick, Richard, ed. The Polish-Lithuanian Monarchy in European Context, c. 1500–1795. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. Collection for a King: Old Master Paintings from the Dulwich Picture Gallery. London: The Governors of Dulwich Picture Gallery, 1985. Czartoryska, Izabela. Poczet pamiątek złożonych w Domu Gotyckim w Puławach. Warszawa: Drukarnia Banku Polskiego, 1828. Dobrowolski, Witold. “La collection de vases grecs de Stanisław Kostka Potocki et le Cabinet Étrusque au Palais de Wilanów.” In The Nineteenth-Century Process of ‘Musealisation’ in Hungary and Europe, edited by Ernö Marosi and Gábor Klaniczay, 165–80. Budapest: Collegium Budapest, 2006. Dolczewska, Barbara, and Zygmunt Dolczewski. “Historia zbrojowni zamkowej.” Pamiętnik Biblioteki Kórnickiej 28 (2007): 184–215. Doyle, William. Aristocracy: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: University Press, 2010. Faber, Martin. Sarmatismus: Die politische Ideologie des polnischen Adels im 16. und 17. Jahrhundert. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 2018. Fijałkowski, Wojciech. “Muzeum ‘Polskiego Winkelmana’ i jego rozwój w XIX stuleciu.” In 200 lat muzealnictwa warszawskiego: Dzieje i perspektywy, edited by Andrzej Rottermund, Andrzej Sołtan, and Marek Wrede, 103–14. Warszawa: Arx Regia, 2006. The Foreign Review, and Continental Miscellany 3 (1829). Froehner, Wilhelm. Collections du Château de Gołuchów: Antiquités. Paris: G. Fischbach, 1899. Froehner, Wilhelm. Collections du Château de Gołuchów: Verres chrétiens à figures d’or. Paris: G. Fischbach, 1899. Froehner, Wilhelm, and Émile Molinier, Collections du Château de Gołuchów: L’Orfévrerie Antique, du Moyen Age et de la Renaissance. Paris: G. Fischbach, 1897. Galignani’s New Paris Guide, for 1863. Paris: Galignani, 1863. Getka-Kenig, Mikołaj. Stanisław Kostka Potocki: Studium magnackiej kariery w dobie upadku i “wskrzeszenia” Polski. Warszawa: Muzeum Pałacu Króla Jana III w Wilanowie and Muzeum Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2021. KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL 33 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 Grusiecki, Tomasz. “Connoisseurship from Below: Art Collecting and Participatory Politics in Poland–Lithuania, 1587–1648.” Journal of the History of Collections 29, no. 2 (2017): 209–26. Grzegorzewska, Sabina. Pamiętniki Sabiny z Gostkowskich Grzegorzewskiej. Warszawa: Kronika Rodzinna, 1889. Grześkowiak-Krwawicz, Anna. Queen Liberty: The Concept of Freedom in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, translated by Daniel J. Sax. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Guichard-Marneur, Maud. “Drafting Futures: The Birth of the Museum Institution in Cracow, 1868–1939.” Centropa 12, no. 2 (2012): 113–30. Guide to Paris: The Exhibition and the Assembly. London: International Association for the Advancement of Science, Arts and Education, 1900. Gutowska-Gutek, Krystyna. “Początki muzeum w Wilanowie: Szkic o galerii malarstwa europejskiego Stanisława Kostki Potockiego.” Studia Wilanowskie 19 (2012): 136–75. Jaroszewski, Stefan. “Kilka słów o galerii Kossakowskich.” In Ars Anno Prior: Księga pamiątkowa ku czci Jana Białostockiego, edited by Juliusz A. Chrościcki, 699–704. Warszawa: PWN, 1981. Jaskanis, Paweł, and Andrzej Rottermund, eds. Grand Tour: Narodziny kolekcji Stanisława Kostki Potockiego. Warszawa: Muzeum Pałac w Wilanowie, 2006. Joanne, Adolphe. Paris illustré en 1870 et 1876: Guide de l’étranger et du Parisien. Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1876. Jurkowska, Hanna. Pamięć sentymentalna: Praktyki pamięci w kręgu Towarzystwa Warszawskiego Przyjaciół Nauk i w Puławach Izabelli Czartoryskiej. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 2014. Juszczak, Dorota, and Hanna Małachowicz. Galeria obrazów Stanisława Augusta w Łazienkach Królewskich. Katalog. Warszawa: Łazienki Królewskie, 2005. Kaiser, Uta. Sammler, Kenner, Kunstschriftsteller: Studien zur „Geschichte der neueren deutschen Kunst”(1836–1841) des Athanasius Raczyński. Hildesheim: Georg-Olms-Verlag, 2017. Kłudkiewicz, Kamila. “Aristocracy and Contemporary Art: Count Edward Aleksander Raczyński and the Question of Aristocratic Collections at the Turn of the 19th and 20th Centuries.” In Mapping Art Collecting in Europe, 1860–1940, edited by Milena Woźniak-Koch, 28–43. Leiden: Brill, 2023. https://doi.org/10.30965/9783657795437_003. Kłudkiewicz, Kamila. “Collector at the Crossroads: Jan Działyński and the Kórnik Collection of Works of Art in the Second Half of the 19th Century; An Exhibition Between the Romantic Spirit of Patriotism and a Modern Scientific Approach.” RIHA Journal (2011), 0022. https://doi. org/10.11588/riha.2011.0.69101. Kłudkiewicz, Kamila. Wybór i konieczność: Kolekcje polskiej arystokracji w Wielkopolsce na przełomie XIX i XX wieku. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UAM, 2016. Kłudkiewicz, Kamila. “Zbrojownie w XIX wieku na ziemiach polskich: Pamięć rodowa i pamięć narodowa.” In Studia o muzealnej pamięci na ziemiach dawnej Rzeczpospolitej do roku 1918, edited by Tomasz F. de Rosset, Aldona Tołysz, and Małgorzata Wawrzak, 123–56. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, 2020. https://doi.org/10.12775/978-83-231-4593-6. Kosiński, Józef. “Biblioteki fundacyjne i ordynackie w świetle przepisów prawnych,” Roczniki Biblioteczne 25 (1981): 29–39 Kossecka, Teresa. Gabinet Rycin króla Stanisława Augusta. Warszawa: Zamek Królewski w Warszawie, 1999. Labuda, Adam. “‘Ich versammelte die polnische Vergangenheit in dem Gedächtnistempel’ – Izabela Czartoryskas national-patriotische Sammlung und ihre Inszenierung in der Residenz von Puławy.” In Izabela Czartoryska: Mancherlei Gedanken über die Art und Weise, Gärten anzulegen, edited by Michael Niedermeier, 35–46. Berlin: Pückler-Gesellschaft, 2018. 34 Leszczyńska, Ewa. “Skarbnica pamiątek wielkopolskich, czyli rzecz o zbrojowni w Rogalinie.” In Edward i Atanazy Raczyńscy: Dzieła – osobowości – wybory – epoka, edited by Adam S. Labuda, Michał Mencfel, and Wojciech Suchocki, 145–62. Poznań: Muzeum Narodowe w Poznaniu, 2009. Longperier, Henri de. “Vases peints inédits à la collection Dzialynski.” Revue Archéologique 17 (1868): 345–54. Majewska-Maszkowska, Bożenna. Mecenat artystyczny Izabelli z Czartoryskich Lubomirskiej 1736–1816. Warszawa-Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 1976. Manikowska, Ewa. Sztuka – ceremoniał – dyplomacja: Studium wokół królewskich kolekcji Stanisława Augusta. Warszawa: Zamek Królewski, 2007. Manikowska, Ewa. “Zbiór obrazów i rzeźb Artura i Zofii Potockich z Krzeszowic: Ze studiów nad dziewiętnastowiecznym kolekcjonerstwem w Polsce.” Rocznik Historii Sztuki 25 (2000): 145–99. Mańkowski, Tadeusz. Rzeźby zbioru Stanisława Augusta. Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności, 1948. Mencfel, Michał. Athanasius Raczyński (1788–1874): Aristocrat, Diplomat, and Patron of the Arts. Leiden: Brill, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004508453. Mencfel, Michał. “The Theatre of Affectionate Hearts: Izabela Czartoryska’s Musée des Monuments Polonais in Puławy (1801–1831).” In The Home, Nations and Empires, and Ephemeral Exhibition Spaces 1750–1918, edited by Dominique Bauer and Camilla Murgia, 133–59. Amsterdam: University Press, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1017/9789048542925. Meyer, Arno. The Persistence of the Old Regime: Europe to the Great War. New York: Pantheon Books, 1981. Mniszech, Michał Jerzy. “Myśli względem założenia Musaeum Polonicum.” In Muzeum w kulturze pamięci na ziemiach Rzeczpospolitej Obojga Narodów: Antologia wczesnych tekstów. Vol. 1, edited by Tomasz F. de Rosset, Michał F. Woźniak, and Ewelina Bednarz Doiczmanowa, 62–70. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, 2020. Molinier, Émile. Collections du Château de Gołuchów: Objets d’Art du Moyen Age et du Renaissance. Paris, 1903. Murray, Peter. The Dulwich Picture Gallery: A Catalogue. London: Sotheby Parke Bernet, 1980. Naganowski, Tomasz. “Udostępnienie zbioru pamiątek historycznych w Kórniku w okresie zaborów.” Pamiętnik Biblioteki Kórnickiej 19 (1982): 111–59. Niemcewicz, Julian Ursyn. Pamiętniki czasów moich. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy, 1957. Les noblesses européennes au XIXe siècle: Actes du colloque de Rome; 21–23 novembre 1985, edited by Gérard Delille. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1988. Nowak, Janusz. “Ordynacja sieniawska książąt Czartoryskich: Plany – zamierzenia – realizacja.” Rocznik Biblioteki Naukowej PAU i PAN w Krakowie 45 (2000): 121–59. Ostrowska-Kębłowska, Zofia. “Siedziby-muzea: Ze studiów nad architekturą XIX w. w Wielkopolsce.” In Sztuka XIX wieku w Polsce: Naród – Miasto, edited by Halina Lisińska, 69–109. Warszawa: PWN, 1979. Ostrowski, Jan K., and Jerzy T. Petrus. Podhorce: Dzieje wnętrz pałacowych i galerii obrazów. Kraków: Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, 2001. Piniński, Leon. “Obrazy szkoły angielskiej w polskiem posiadaniu (z kolekcji Leona hr. Pinińskiego we Lwowie z tekstem wyjaśniającym danym przez właściciela zbioru).” Tygodnik Ilustrowany 5 (1926): 81–84; 6 (1926): 97–99. Płonka-Bałus, Katarzyna, and Natalia Koziara, ed. Muzeum Książąt Czartoryskich. Kraków: Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie, 2019. Prokopovych, Markian. “The City and the Museum: Cracow’s Collections and Their Publics in the Long Nineteenth Century.” Austrian History Yearbook 49 (2018): 166–86. KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL 35 THE STATELESS NATION’S ELITE: ARTISTIC COLLECTIONS OF POLISH ARISTOCRACY, 1795–1918 Przewodnik galerji obrazów hr. Raczyńskiego w Rogalinie. Poznań, 1930. Purchla, Jacek. Matecznik polski: Pozaekonomiczne czynniki rozwoju Krakowa w okresie autonomii galicyjskiej. Kraków: Znak, 1992. Rampley, Matthew, Markian Prokopovych, and Nóra Veszprémi, The Museum Age in Austria- Hungary: Art and Empire in the Long Nineteenth Century. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2020. Reif, Heinz. Adel im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert. München: De Gruyter, 2012. https://doi. org/10.1524/9783486716894. Rosset, Tomasz F. de. “By skreślić historię naszych zbiorów”: Polskie kolekcje artystyczne, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, 2021. Rosset, Tomasz F. de. Kolekcja Andrzeja Mniszcha: Od wołyńskich chrząszczy do obrazów Fransa Halsa. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, 2003. Rosset, Tomasz F. de. Polskie kolekcje i zbiory artystyczne we Francji w latach 1795–1919: Między ‘skarbnicą narodową’ a galerią sztuki. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, 2005. Rosset, Tomasz F. de. Un aspect du patrimoine parisien: Les collections polonaises (1795–1919). Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UMK, 2010. Rosset, Tomasz F. de. “Une nation de nobles: L’image de l’histoire de la Pologne aux expositions artistiques en France au XIXe siècle.” In Noblesse française et noblesse polonaise: Mémoire, identité, culture XVIe-XXe siècles, edited by Michel Figeac and Jarosław Dumanowski, 89–99. Pessac: Maison des Sciences de l’Homme d’Aquitaine, 2006. Rostworowski, Marek. “Kraków.” In Muzeum Czartoryskich: Historia i zbiory, edited by Zdzisław Żygulski Jun., 150–276. Kraków: Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie, 1998. Rottermund, Andrzej. Zamek warszawski w epoce oświecenia: Rezydencja monarsza, funkcje i treści. Warszawa: Zamek Królewski, 1989. Ryszkiewicz, Andrzej. Kolekcjonerzy i miłośnicy. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1981. Rzewuski, Henryk. Pamiątki Soplicy, edited by Zygmunt Szwykowski. Wrocław: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich, 2009. Sobecka, Anna. Obrazowanie natury w nowożytnym Gdańsku: O kulturze kolekcjonerskiej miasta. Gdańsk: Słowo/Obraz Terytoria, 2021. Sójka-Zielińska, Katarzyna. Fideikomisy familijne w prawie pruskim w XIX i pocz. w. XX. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, 1962. “Statut ordynacji książąt Czartoryskich w Gołuchowie (1893).” In Muzeum w kulturze pamięci na ziemiach Rzeczpospolitej Obojga Narodów: Antologia wczesnych tekstów. Vol. 2, 1882–1917, edited by Tomasz F. de Rosset, Michał F. Woźniak, and Ewelina Bednarz Doiczmanowa, 45–64. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe UKM, 2020. Świderska-Włodarczyk, Urszula. Homo Nobilis: Wzorzec szlachcica w Rzeczypospolitej XVI i XVII wieku. Warszawa: PWN, 2017. Tazbir, Janusz. Kultura szlachecka w Polsce: Rozkwit – upadek – relikty. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Miejskie, 2002. Whelan, Agnieszka. “Kórnik, Alhambra i romantyczny ideał: O motywach orientalnych w architekturze rezydencji Tytusa Działyńskiego.” Pamiętnik Biblioteki Kórnickiej 21 (1986): 11–33. Wienfort, Monika. Der Adel in der Moderne. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2006. Winiewicz-Wolska, Joanna. Karol Lanckoroński and his Viennese collection. Kraków: Zamek Królewski na Wawelu, 2014. Witte, Jean de. Description des Collections d’Antiquités conservées à l’Hôtel Lambert. Paris: Georges Chamerot, 1886. 36 Wyka, Ewa. “…ciekawym wiedzieć i widzieć skutki…”: Czyli dzieje i znaczenie kolekcji przyrządów naukowych Stanisława Augusta. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, 2015. Zielińska, Teresa. “Ordynacje w dawnej Polsce.” Przegląd Historyczny 68, no. 1 (1977): 17–28. Żygulski Jun., Zdzisław. “Dzieje zbiorów puławskich: Świątynia Sybilli i Dom Gotycki.” Rozprawy i Sprawozdania Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie 7 (1962): 5–265. Żygulski Jun., Zdzisław. “Nurt romantyczny w muzealnictwie polskim.” In Romantyzm: Studia nad sztuką drugiej połowy XVIII i wieku XIX, edited by Jan Białostocki, 43–55. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1967. Żygulski Jun., Zdzisław. The Princess Czartoryski Museum: A History of the Collections, translated by Adam Zamoyski. Kraków: Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie, 2001. Żygulski Jun., Zdzisław. “Zarys historii zbiorów Czartoryskich.” In Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie: Zbiory Czartoryskich; Historia i wybór zabytków, edited by Marek Rostworowski, 5–43. Warszawa: Arkady, 1978. Elita naroda brez države Umetnostne zbirke poljskega plemstva, 1795–1918 Povzetek Zbirateljstvo se je med poljskim plemstvom – v primerjavi s plemstvom drugod po Evropi – uveljavilo relativno pozno, v času njegovega družbenega vzpona ob koncu 18. stoletja. V 19. stoletju je postalo najpomembnejša praksa, s katero je poljsko plemstvo utemeljevalo svoj družbeni pomen. Osrednja tipa zbirk sta bila umetnostne zbirke in zbirke zgodovinsko pomembnih memorabilij, s katerimi je plemstvo poudarjalo svoj elitni položaj v družbi in utemeljevalo svojo pionirsko vlogo v lokalnem zbirateljstvu. Lastniki so se pri tem zavzemali za dostopnost zbirk javnosti, kar je postopoma privedlo do odprtja zasebnih muzejev. Na ozemlju Poljske, ki je bila pod oblastjo Prusije, habsburške monarhije in poljsko- litovske zveze, v 19. stoletju ni bilo nacionalnih oziroma državnih muzejev. Skupaj z mestnimi muzeji in znanstvenimi ustanovami so tako zasebne plemiške zbirke in muzeji pomembno obogatili poljsko kulturno in muzejsko krajino. KAMILA KŁUDKIEWICZ, MICHAŁ MENCFEL Abstract: The Molin Collection Between the Old and New Regime 1. 01 Original scientific article Starting from the cross-analysis of printed texts, manuscripts and works of art preserved in the city’s museums, the essay reflects on the impact that the political, social and cultural upheavals triggered by the fall of the Serenissima had on the taste of the conservative Venetian nobility. In particular, it examines the case of Girolamo Ascanio Molin (1736–1814), a politician, scholar and writer who, between the late 18th and early 19th century, built an extensive collection, whose physiognomy evolved according to the historical context, the frequentations of the senator, the opportunities provided by art markets and the self-representation strategies adopted by the patriciate in response to the New Regime. Keywords: art collecting, Republic of Venice, collective identity, Venice, Girolamo Ascanio Molin (1736–1814) Izvleček: Zbirka Molin med starim in novim režimom 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek Izhajajoč iz navzkrižne analize tiskanih besedil, rokopisov in umetniških del, hranjenih v mestnih muzejih, avtorica v članku razmišlja o vplivu političnih, družbenih in kulturnih sprememb, ki jih je sprožil padec Beneške republike, na umetnostni okus konzervativnega beneškega plemstva. Izpostavljen je primer Girolama Ascania Molina (1736– 1814), politika, učenjaka in pisatelja, ki je na prelomu iz 18. v 19. stoletje zgradil obsežno zbirko, katere sestava se je razvijala v skladu z zgodovinskim kontekstom, prisotnostjo senatorja na umetnostnem trgu in možnostmi, ki jih je ta ponujal, in s strategijami samoreprezentacije, ki so jih beneški plemiči sprejeli kot odgovor na novi režim. Ključne besede: umetnostno zbirateljstvo, Beneška republika, kolektivna identiteta, Benetke, Girolamo Ascanio Mo- lin (1736–1814) The Molin Collection Between the Old and New Regime Arianna Candeago Arianna Candeago, PhD, Ca’ Foscari University, Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage, Pal. Malcanton Marcorà, Dorsoduro 3484/D, 30123 Venice, arianna.candeago@unive.it, ORCID-ID: 0000-0002-2534-2395 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.28.2.02 ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 ∙ 2023, 37–52 37 38 ARIANNA CANDEAGO The essay aims to reflect on the collecting practices of the Venetian patriciate at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries, specifically in the peculiar period between the fall of the Serenissima and the establishment of foreign governments, which witnessed profound changes in the art markets. In particular, this study will evaluate the effects that the political, social and cultural upheavals that took place around 1797 had on the taste of the conservative members of the old nobility, most trou- bled—in both economic and identity terms—by the decline of the Old Regime, and therefore on the physiognomy of the collections handed down by previous generations. This phase, populated by multifaceted and ambiguous protagonists—poised between contrasting tendencies—was disre- garded by critics, who underestimated the implications it had on the ways of interpreting and using heritage, as well as on subsequent experiences of historicising and periodising artistic phenomena.1 Girolamo Ascanio Molin In order to begin addressing the question at the heart of the study, we first address the figure of Girolamo Ascanio Molin (1738–1814) (fig. 1), a Venetian patrician who, between the second half of the 18th century and the first decades of the 19th century, distinguished himself in vari- ous spheres of city life, becoming a politician, scholar, writer and collector of great renown among his contemporaries. The last descend- ant of the Molin di San Maurizio family,2 he manifested from a young age a sharp and ver- satile intellect, which enabled him first to re- ceive a solid education in Modena and then to embark upon an intense and illustrious po- litical career in his homeland.3 From a natural debut at the age of twenty-six as a Savio agli Ordini (executive consultant), he came sever- al times to be a member of the Signoria, the Council of Ten and the State Inquisitors, as well as magistracies with delicate juridical- economic competences, distinguished always by his strongly conservative and pro-oligarchic 1 By way of example, see Zorzi, Favaretto and Bravetti, eds., Collezioni di antichità; Favaretto, Arte antica; Aikema, Lauber and Seidel, eds., Il collezionismo a Venezia; Borean and Mason, eds., Il collezionismo d’arte. Despite the re- cent publication of some texts dedicated to the collectors of the period (see Borean, La galleria Manfrin), to which we must give credit for having raised some initial questions, there is still a lack of an organic study that considers the protagonists and market dynamics of this transitional historical moment, as well as the period immediately following. 2 Barbaro, Arbori de’ Patritii veneti, 227. 3 Gamba, Narrazione intorno alla vita, 6. 1. Angelo Zaffonato, Portrait of Girolamo Ascanio Molin from the bust by Antonio Bosa, 1835, Fondazione Musei Civici di Venezia, Venice (2023 © Archivio Fotografico, Fondazione Musei Civici di Venezia) 39 THE MOLIN COLLECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW REGIME views.4 His public appointments did not end with the collapse of the Serenissima in 1797. Despite his advanced age and profound dissent during the first Austrian domination, he was appointed General Director of Police, a role he held for a short time before retiring to private life in 1803.5 A “rigid and severe, conscientious and patriotic” man, to use the words of Filippo Nani Mocenigo (1847–1921), Molin always showed nostalgia for the glorious past of his beloved homeland and open contempt for foreign domination (especially for the French one), sentiments that were expressed in the verses of the numerous poems he wrote during those years.6 The Collection in the Palace of San Stin The biographer Bartolomeo Gamba (1766–1841) reports that, from a young age, Molin combined his political commitments with erudite studies and the accumulation of art objects, a lifelong pas- sion that turned into a systematic and all-encompassing activity (also from an economic point of view) in the 1780s–1790s and, above all, in the years following his departure from the political scene.7 Perceived as a source of consolation in the most troubled historical and personal moments, collecting was the prerogative of the last generation of the Molin family, who, in the persons of Girolamo Ascanio and, to a lesser extent, his brother Angelo (1740–1797),8 wished to give a new twist to the meagre pictorial collections inherited from their father Giovan Girolamo (1711–1784),9 also in order to showcase the restored social status of the San Maurizio branch of the family tree. The outcome comprised more than forty thousand objects, perfectly reflecting the nobleman’s di- verse areas of interest. Inside the palace in San Stin, celebrated as a “temple sacred to Minerva” in contemporary literary chronicles,10 there was a large natural history cabinet, a library, a gallery of paintings, prints and drawings, and an antiquarian and numismatic collection, in a mixture that, although following an established (if not obsolete) trend in the late 18th century—that of encyclo- paedism—, had undoubtedly original features, which will be discussed shortly. 4 For a detailed list of the offices he held during the Republic, see Gambier, “Girolamo Ascanio Molin,” 94. The case of the novatori Carlo Contarini and Giorgio Pisani, indicted for attempting to subvert the established order within the Venetian ruling class, is emblematic of Molin’s political positions. See Cozzi, Knapton, and Scarabello, La Repubblica di Venezia, 585–90. 5 Gottardi, L’Austria a Venezia, 30, 165. 6 Della Frattina, “Girolamo Ascanio Molin,” 1035–60. 7 Gamba, Narrazione intorno alla vita, 18–19. 8 To this day, there is limited information available on Angelo. We know that he was mainly active within the Qua- rantie and the Collegio dei XXV, and that he devoted himself to managing the affairs of the house together with his elder brother. Like Girolamo Ascanio, he cultivated a passion for the arts in all their forms, taking part in the debates of private academies, primarily the Accademia degli Orfei and the Accademia di Belle Arti, and shaping his own personal collection (Girardi, “Musica strumentale,” 507; Pavanello, ed., L’Accademia di Belle Arti, 1: 60). This nucleus was later acquired by Girolamo Ascanio, as evidenced by Angelo’s will (Atti Gio. Battista Erizzo, no. 125, box 365, Testamenti, Notarile, Archivio di Stato di Venezia (ASV)) and a letter sent by senator Molin to Tommaso Obizzi on 12 January 1797 (C.A. 1001e/138, Raccolta manoscritti autografi, Biblioteca Civica di Padova (BCP)). 9 For Giovan Girolamo’s will, see Atti Dell’Acqua, no. 3873, box 31e, Miscellanea testamenti notai diversi, Cancelle- ria Inferiore, ASV; for the inventory of his possessions see no. 9, box 479/144, Inventari, Giudici di Petizion, ASV. 10 Gamba, Narrazione intorno alla vita, 19. Appreciations were also made by Moschini, Della letteratura veneziana, 2: 79; Dandolo, La caduta della Repubblica di Venezia, 158–59. 40 In addition to the nearly twenty thousand items acquired by the Venetian museums from a be- quest made by Girolamo Ascanio himself,11 the post mortem inventory offers a dependable overview of the collection.12 Drawn up immediately after the patrician’s death with the purpose of quantifying his legacy, it lists, room by room, the objects found in the palace (of common use and not), providing, in the case of works of art, the artist’s name (or presumed author), the estimated value, the location and sometimes rough measurements. The register, preparatory to the property divisions, was the outcome of a meticulous procedure that lasted ten-months (May 1814 – February 1815) and involved, besides the heirs and testamentary executors, some of the most proficient art experts of the time: the antiquarian Giovanni Meneghetti, the print merchant and engraver Teodoro Viero (1740–1819), the curator of the Accademia di Belle Arti Pietro Edwards (1744–1821), the bookseller Domenico Draghi, the silversmith Andrea Zambelli, the dealer Giacomo Franchini and the jeweller Antonio Peruzzi. The two piani nobili and the mezzanine of palazzo Molin housed approximately seven hundred paintings, placed within sumptuous stucco or wooden frames, or lied on the floors of the rooms. The great masters of the 16th and early 17th century (or believed to be so) were the protagonists, displayed, as was the custom, in the gallery, the visual heart of the building. Preference was granted to the sig- nificant names of the Venetian school (Giovanni Bellini, Titian, Giorgione, Jacopo Bassano, Jacopo Tintoretto, Andrea Schiavone, Bonifacio de’ Pitati, Felice Brusasorci, etc.), alongside, albeit almost exceptionally, works by Caravaggesque and Emilian painters, and the German, Flemish and Dutch schools (Lucas Cranach, Matthijs Bril the Younger, Joseph Heintz the Elder, Jan Van Scorel, Pauwels Franck and Pieter Bruegel, for example), of which there were mainly landscapes and still lifes. The inventory mentions, among the most valuable works that can be identified today, a Madonna Enthroned with Saints Sebastian and Jerome by Bartolomeo Montagna (Gallerie dell’Accademia, inv. no. 189), from the church of San Sebastiano in Verona; a Saint Jerome by Marco Basaiti (inv. no. 140); a panel with Flying putti today attributed to Paris Bordon (inv. no. 150); a Christ among the Doctors originally assigned to Giovanni da Udine and today generically ascribed to the Venetian school of the fourth decade of the 16th century (inv. no. 216); and the Chess Players (inv. no. 124) initially attributed to Caravaggio and later to a follower. The protagonist of a second revival among Venetian collectors during the 18th century, Lucas van Leyden had a significant role among the “forestieri”, since he was present with at least two canvases on biblical themes, the Mystical Marriage of St. Catherine (inv. no. 141) and the Crucifixion (inv. no. 149), valued by Edwards at five hundred lire each, but later identi- fied as copies of excellent workmanship. Equally remarkable, finally, is an atypical group of views and scenes with farm animals, game and flowers from the Nordic school, which can be identified in the canvases now deposited at the Galleria Giorgio Franchetti alla Ca’ d’Oro, among which we find Fountain with Animals (inv. no. 154) and a Still Life with Birds by David de Coninck (inv. no. 108), two baskets with flowers painted in “stile fiammingo” (inv. no. 165 and 166), a Winning Cock and a Chioc- cia with chicks by Melchior de Hondercoeter, as well as the Landscape with Peasant Women and Herds already attributed to Nicolaes Berchem (Gallerie dell’Accademia, inv. no. 120). The Molin collection showed little interest in contemporary art, which, with the exception of a few canvases by artists working in the lagoon (such as Canaletto, Bernardo Bellotto, Sebastiano and 11 Inventario di Venezia: Eredità del fu G. A. Molin, Giusti del Giardino, Molin, Archivio di Stato di Verona (ASVr). 12 See the last paragraph. The artworks comprising Molin’s bequest remain in Venice to this day and are distributed among the Gallerie dell’Accademia, the Correr Museum, the Galleria Giorgio Franchetti alla Ca’ d’Oro, the Na- tional Archaeological Museum and the Biblioteca Marciana. For a comprehensive list of the pieces, see Candeago, “Girolamo Ascanio Molin.” ARIANNA CANDEAGO 41 Marco Ricci, Giambattista Tiepolo and his master Gregorio Lazzarini), found more space in graphics, where the 18th century dominated both quantitatively and qualitatively over earlier periods. Among the works located in the camera and cameroni that were confirmed authentic after their public acqui- sition were a Courtyard with Stairs by Michele Marieschi (Gallerie dell’Accademia, inv. no. 445), two canvases by Francesco Zuccarelli depicting respectively a Landscape with Shepherdess and Child and a Landscape with Rest in Egypt (Gallerie dell’Accademia, inv. no. 448 and 451) and, above all, two pas- tels by Rosalba Carriera portraying an elderly lady and a young gentleman (Gallerie dell’Accademia, inv. no. 484 and 489).13 An album of almost two hundred drawings by Gaspare Dizia ni, whose prov- enance remains uncertain to this day, is also of particular importance.14 However, the collection’s true essence and pride were the antiquities, appreciated by contempo- rary connoisseurs for their variety and quality, certainly comparable to those of the museums of more famous personalities such as Pietro Persico (1745–1802), Domenico Almorò Tiepolo (1763–1836), Al- morò Pisani and Leonardo Grimani.15 Scattered throughout the garden, the inner courtyard, the rooms on the mezzanine and the main floor, statues, busts, bas-reliefs, epigraphs, bronzes, ivories, gems and cameos, belonging to the Greek, Etruscan and, above all, Roman world, were intermingled alongside paintings and drawings.16 What aroused the observer’s amazement—notes Girolamo Dan- dolo (1796–1867)—was the extensive numismatic cabinet, which, in special showcases in a dedicated room, housed tens of thousands of medals and coins arranged in homogeneous series (inspired by Eckhelian principles), ranging from the Greek period to modern times.17 In fact, Girolamo Ascanio attempted to assemble a collection that would provide a comprehensive representation of the vast ar- ray of artifacts from ancient and, to a lesser extent, medieval and modern workshops, with a view to “scientifically” investigating the customs and habits of the classical world that resonated so much in cultural circles after the excavation campaigns, especially the Roman ones. Finally, on the first floor of the Molin palace, there was a small natural science cabinet, con- taining various specimens of plants, flowers, shells, stuffed animals, minerals and rarities of all sorts, accompanied on the library shelves by scientific texts that were useful for their study.18 The collection essentially had a typical profile for the time and the area to which it belonged.19 However, as anticipated, it was counterbalanced by specific peculiarities, occasionally stemming from genuine curiosity, occasionally from an early adherence to trends that would shortly become widespread. As far as the picture gallery is concerned, a glance at the inventory first reveals that it boasted an unusual selection of Venetian artists from the 14th and 15th centuries, the so-called “Primitives”. 13 A portion of the collection can be viewed in the artworks presently in the Gallerie dell’Accademia in Venice. For further information, refer to Moschini Marconi, Opere d’arte dei secoli XV e XVI; Moschini Marconi, Opere d’arte dei secoli XVI; Moschini Marconi, Opere d’arte dei secoli XVII, XVIII, XIX. 14 The drawings, now in the Correr Museum, were partly published in Dorigato, “Gaspare Diziani,” 2: 15–152, and will be the subject of the author’s forthcoming study. 15 Giornale dell’italiana letteratura, 39: 321–22; Gamba, Narrazione intorno alla vita, 19; Moschini, Della letteratura veneziana, 2: 79; Fapanni, Elenco dei Musei, 87. 16 For more details, see Candeago and Pilutti Namer, “Girolamo Ascanio Molin.” 17 Dandolo, La caduta della Repubblica, 158–59. Some specimens are published in Saccocci, “Collezione Molin,” 188–91. 18 Moschini, Della letteratura veneziana, 4: 118; Dandolo, La caduta della Repubblica, 158. 19 For a comparison with other collections of the time, see Borean and Mason, eds., Il collezionismo d’arte, and in particular Borean, “Dalla galleria al ‘museo’,” 3–47. THE MOLIN COLLECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW REGIME 42 3. Jacobello Alberegno, Triptych of the Crucifixion: Christ Crucified between the Virgin, Saint John, Saint Gregory, and Saint Jerome, after 1380, Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice (© Archivio fotografico G.A.VE, courtesy of Ministero della Cultura) 2. Stefano “plebanus” di Sant’Agnese, Coronation of the Virgin, 1381, Gallerie dell’Accademia, Venice (© Archivio fotografico G.A.VE, courtesy of Ministero della Cultura) ARIANNA CANDEAGO 43 In the Camera della Chiesetta and the adjacent room on the piano nobile, around fifty paintings by renowned personalities such as Jacobello del Fiore, Antonio di Puccio known as il Pisanello, Bernardino da Siena, Tommaso da Modena, Stefano “plebanus” di Sant’Agnese, Jacopo Alberegno, Caterina Vigri and Gentile da Fabriano stood out (figs. 2–3).20 Although some individual pieces by lesser-known artists were included, the preference was given to the Murano artists Antonio and Bartolomeo Vivarini, represented by no less than four panels; to Carlo Crivelli and Lorenzo Vene- ziano, both present with two works each; and to the Sicilian Antonello da Messina, who could boast as many as three examples. At the beginning of the 19th century, with the cult of antiquity reigning supreme, these kinds of works were not yet widely valued for their aesthetic appeal, so much so that they were appreciated only by a very small circle of individuals who approached them for a pre- dominantly historical interest, i.e. to trace the origins of the different Italian schools of painting. In the Veneto region, the historicisation of mediaeval and early Renaissance figurative experiences, to which this attraction can be associated, had been promoted since the first half of the 18th century by figures such as Carlo Lodoli (1690–1761) and abbot Jacopo Facciolati (1682–1769), and later stimu- lated by shrewd dealers and receptive collectors, including John Strange (1732–1799), Giovanni De Lazara (1744–1833) and Teodoro Correr (1750–1830).21 It is difficult to establish, due to the lacunae in Molin’s correspondence on paintings, whether this collection activity aimed to build a complete gallery of Venetian painting, capable of visually narrating the main stages of local art, along the lines of the “histories of painting” that were being published at the time; a project that perhaps would not have seemed incongruous in the broader context of the (perhaps never completed) rear- rangement of the collections undertaken by the senator between 1795 and 1806 and inspired by stricter classification criteria than in the past. Among the antiquities, however, it is worth noting that Molin’s attraction for antiquity con- templated Egypt, a region to which we can trace small canopic jars made of marble or terracotta, bronze idols, mummies and abraxas in precious stones. In fact, although this field had already been explored to some extent (albeit in a different spirit) in the previous century by figures such as Alvise Corner, Antonio Cappello (1652–1729) and Andrea Corner (1686–1730), collecting aegyptiaca at the time was really only popular with the Nani di San Trovaso and Grimani di Santa Maria For- mosa families, as well as with Girolamo Zulian (1730–1795) and Tommaso Obizzi (1750–1803).22 It was only after Napoleon’s campaigns in Egypt (1798–1801) that this trend became widespread, a factor that perhaps partly explains Girolamo Ascanio’s inability to recognise the numerous forger- ies proposed to him by his advisors from the last decade of the 18th century onwards. A parallel argument can be made for the various artefacts referring to the Etruscan civilisation, the collection of which remained an exquisite niche activity until the late 1790s. At the time, in fact, some of the volumes that would lay the foundations of future Etruscology—first and foremost the Saggio di lingua etrusca and the De’ vasi antichi dipinti vulgarmente chiamati Etruschi by abbot Luigi Lanzi (1732–1810)—had recently been published and still enjoyed little circulation and notoriety among the patriciate,23 who still preferred artworks of greater visual impact and aesthetic value. 20 Caburlotto, “Un’equivoca ‘fortuna’,” 187–209; Caburlotto, “Girolamo Ascanio Molin,” 373–76, and pages to follow. 21 Previtali, La fortuna dei primitivi, 234–35; Tormen, “Dipinti ‘sull’asse’,” 31–32. 22 D’Amicone, “Antico Egitto,” 22–26; Favaretto, “Antichità egizie,” 190–94. About the Grimani, see De Paoli, “Intor- no a Palazzo Grimani,” 419–59. About the Nani museum, see Favaretto, Arte antica, 206–20. About Zulian, see De Paoli, “Antonio Canova,” 19–36. 23 Camporeale, “Luigi Lanzi,” 19–42. THE MOLIN COLLECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW REGIME 44 Lastly, it should be noted that, alongside the pieces traditionally most coveted by the Venetian nobility (marble statues, bronze statuettes, coins, epigraphs and inscriptions from the Greek and Roman spheres), there was also a wide spectrum of everyday objects (idols, lachrymatories, balsa- maria, fibulae, cutlery, keys, coins, etc.) produced by North-Italic workshops, as well as finds from excavations then being carried out on the mainland. Such a targeted form of collecting in terms of period and provenance for instrumenta was at the time completely new to the Veneto context, where an indistinct accumulation of such materials had previously occurred.24 The coexistence of such different orientations contributed to the encyclopaedic character of the Molin collection, which, misinterpreted by critics as the senator’s lack of a definite taste,25 was actually a response (stratified over time and entirely personal) to his multifaceted acquaintances, to the cultural period poised between Enlightenment tendencies and pre-Romantic feelings, and to the market’s availability. This is supported by Girolamo Ascanio’s correspondence, which also demonstrates that the acquisition of these items (“Primitives”, aegyptiaca, Etruscan artefacts, in- strumenta and everyday objects of local provenance), rather unrelated to the prevailing trends of the time, began later than that of other types of objects, concentrating in particular in the last years of the nobleman’s life, namely around the fall of the Serenissima.26 The Context: Frequentations, Markets and Identity Research The first factor to consider when attempting to frame the manifestation of these trends is cer- tainly the frequentations that Molin was cultivating. The development of taste was in fact an activity that was done in community, through proposing, comparing and discussing. It is evident from his correspondence that the most significant encounters for the definition of his critical and therefore collecting personality took place within Venetian society, where the exercise of politi- cal duties and attendance of private academies favoured the meeting of people close to him in terms of artistic and erudite interests. Giacomo Giustinian Recanati (1757–1813)27 and Giovanni Almorò Tiepolo (1763–1836)28 certainly played a major role. Tied to Molin by a special friendship, they involved Girolamo Ascanio in the study and purchase of local antiquities from his youth, primarily instrumenta, whose value they were able to grasp in terms of identity as well as history and art. The marquis Tommaso Obizzi,29 a lively intellectual and avid collector from Padua, and per- haps, to a lesser extent, Teodoro Correr30 seem to be responsible for the curiosity about aegyptiaca. 24 Cisotto Nalon, “L’instrumentum,” 68–76. 25 Rizzi, “Girolamo Ascanio Molin,” 8–10. 26 Molin’s epistolary is largely divided between the Biblioteca Marciana (Ms. It. X, 195–97 (= 6689–91)—which pre- serves three volumes with 654 missives sent by and to Girolamo Ascanio between 1777 and 1803—the Biblioteca Civica of Padua (Raccolta manoscritti autografi, C.A. 1001) and the State Archive of Verona (Giusti del Giardino, Molin, Corrispondenza). In addition to these groups, there are about four hundred single sheets scattered in in- stitutions throughout Italy (Venice, Treviso, Verona, Bassano, Udine, Ravenna, Florence, Rome). 27 Favaretto, Arte antica, 192–93, 195; Cecchini, “Collezione Giustinian Recanati,” 274. 28 Zorzi, Collezioni di antichità, 98–99; Favaretto, Arte antica, 193, 217–18; Borean, “Giovan Domenico Almorò Tiepolo,” 310–11. 29 Coppola and Tozzi, “Pezzi egizi.” 30 Romanelli, “‘Vista cader la patria’,” 95–115. ARIANNA CANDEAGO 45 The former engaged Molin in a high-level debate and introduced the senator to the thriving market he referred to, thus giving him the opportunity to acquire materials to which he might not other- wise have had access. Under the stimulus of mutual acquaintances, this network also comprised geographically dis- tant figures, such as abbot Luigi Lanzi and the Roman cardinal Stefano Borgia (1731–1804),31 who piqued Molin’s interest in Etruscology, as well as in the “dark” ages of art. Also exemplary is the nobleman’s bond with Mauro Boni (1744–1817), a bibliophile, nu- mismatist and antiquarian expert, and author of various erudite texts, whom Molin approached through the aforementioned Giustinian Recanati. For a significant part of his career (not without its shadows), the clergyman served as an active intermediary and consultant to the senator, espe- cially in the field of “Primitives” and Venetian antiquities.32 A similar role was fulfilled by the mer- chant Giovanni Maria Sasso (c. 1735–1803), author of an unfinished history of the local art school from its origins, who brought Molin closer to the study of mediaeval painting and to the purchase of panels connected to this historical period.33 The same interest was also cultivated in Veneto at the time by Giovanni De Lazara, Pietro Brandolese (1754–1809), Bartolomeo Gamba, Giannan- tonio Moschini (1773–1840), Leopoldo Cicognara (1767–1834), Jacopo Morelli (1745–1819), Pietro Edwards and the aforementioned Obizzi, to name but a few, who were all in direct contact with Girolamo Ascanio.34 Moreover, it should not be forgotten that a large part of Molin’s collecting career took place in rather turbulent and unstable years for Venice. In fact, the socio-political upheavals that shook the Serenissima and the related military events had significant repercussions on the art and antiquar- ian markets as well. If, on the one hand, the dismemberment of the collections of the ruined promi- nent patrician families caused a massive inflow of pieces into the exchange networks,35 on the other hand, factors such as the presence of armed contingents, the pressing poverty of the nobility and the limitations of movement imposed by raids and damaged communication routes came to freeze certain market segments between the late 1790s and early 1810s. Collectors still in possession of liquidity were induced to orientate their purchases towards those materials that were more readily available,36 thus directing their taste and influencing the physiognomy of their collections. Events in fact often persuaded foreign dealers to stay away from the Serenissima, at least in those periods when the events of the war were at their harshest, precluding many possibilities for connoisseurs of the lagoons. It is clear from Girolamo Ascanio Molin’s letters how the deficiency of Roman nu- mismatic artefacts, to which he had persistently devoted great attention, contributed in large part in the very first years of the new century to shifting his focus to the finds from excavations on the Venetian mainland.37 Here, transport was less costly and problematic. The requirement for brief journeys to finalize an exchange certainly decreased risk factors (thefts were apparently almost 31 Germano and Nocca, eds., La collezione Borgia. 32 Lanzi, Lettere a Mauro Boni, 47–49. 33 Orso, “Giovanni Maria Sasso;” Borean, ed., Lettere artistiche; Borean, “L’eredità di Giovanni Maria Sasso.” 34 Tormen, “Dipinti ‘sull’asse’,” 29–30. 35 Cecchini, “Attorno al mercato,” 166–67. 36 C.A. 1001e/195, Raccolta manoscritti autografi, BCP. On the situation of the city in these years, see, for example, letters no. 73, 105, 129, 131, 132, Ms. It. X, 195 (= 6689), Biblioteca Nazionale Marciana (BNM). 37 C.A. 1001d/118, Raccolta manoscritti autografi, BCP. On the search for materials on the mainland, see also letter no. 124, Ms. It. X, 195 (= 6689), BNM. THE MOLIN COLLECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW REGIME 46 the order of the day), as did the option of utilizing reliable people for transportation rather than the now compromised public mail service.38 On the other hand, the dismantling of many churches and monasteries subse- quent to the Napoleonic decrees led to the movement of the numerous medieval pan- els that had embellished these buildings for centuries, particularly after 1809.39 Enter- ing the market at a time when there was still little fascination with “dark” periods, as we have seen, these pieces had exceptionally low valuations (often also due to their poor state of preservation), which attracted the attention of amateurs increasingly inter- ested in the reconstruction of the city’s past and its artistic manifestations.40 Their mas- sive presence in Venice—often also linked to episodes of polyptych dismemberment or falsification—may have contributed to their purchase by far-sighted buyers such as Girolamo Ascanio Molin, Teodoro Cor- rer and Tommaso Obizzi in primis.41 Furthermore, we should not disregard the impact that the dynamics of self-defini- tion and self-representation set by the old aristocratic elite in conjunction with the rise of the New Regime had on collecting activity. The collapse of the Serenissima and the concomitant establishment of foreign powers brought drastic 38 There are several letters in which Molin complains of having lost small objects sent by post and in which he de- clares his intention to use only trusted persons in transit from Venice. See for example, letter to Tommaso Obizzi, Venice, June 16, 1796, C.A. 1001a/28, Raccolta manoscritti autografi, BCP; letters no. 36, 38, 41, Ms. It. X, 195 (= 6689), BNM. 39 Spiazzi, “Dipinti demaniali di Venezia,” 69–127, in particular 70. 40 Exemplary in this regard are the estimates produced by Pietro Edwards on the “Primitive” panels donated by Mo- lin to the Accademia di Belle Arti. Despite their high quality, Edwards judged they were of little economic value (they mostly ranged from twenty to thirty lire, with some exceptions, which were valued between sixty and one hundred lire). See Legato Molin: Catalogo dei beni compresi nelle facoltà del fu N. H. Sig. E. Girolamo Ascanio Molin a favore della I. R. Accademia di Belle Arti in Venezia, giusto al di lui Testamento 24 febbraio 1813, folder 117/I, Gallerie dell’Accademia, Doni e lasciti (1815–1900), 2/2, Archivio Storico del Polo Museale del Veneto (ASPMV); Inventario di Venezia: Eredità del fu G. A. Molin, Giusti del Giardino, Molin, ASVr. 41 Exemplary is the case of a Saint Catherine (Gallerie dell’Accademia, inv. no. 179) and a Saint Barbara (Correr Mu- seum, Cl. I no. 155) by Giusto d’Alemagna, today exhibited in the Correr Museum. Parts of a dismembered polyp- tych, the two panels were sold to Molin and Correr respectively with a false attribution to Tommaso da Modena, in order to maximise profit. See Caburlotto, Girolamo Ascanio Molin, 374–76. On the forgery of signatures in the paintings of the “Primitives”, see De Marchi, Falsi Primitivi, 105–06. 4. Bartolomeo Bon, Head of Doge Francesco Foscari, Palazzo Ducale, Venice (© Archivio Fotografico - Fondazione Musei Civici di Venezia) ARIANNA CANDEAGO 47 changes not only to government structures and legislation but also to the value system on which so- ciety was based. Deprived of its prerogatives and bewildered by a reality often perceived as foreign, oppressive and degraded, the patriciate was thus forced to confront its own history and reassess its relationship with the past.42 Various elements reveal how the end of the Old Regime called into question the bond that Venice had cultivated with antiquity since the Renaissance, giving a new direction to studies and taste. Strong political and identity connotations then began to characterise above all the antiquarian research of the more conservative patriciate, who worked to defend its memory in an anti-Napoleonic function, namely to construct a strong and coherent identity to oppose the invader.43 This was an attempt that resulted in the collection of precise types of objects and the publication of booklets to valorise these pieces in their specificity, certainly prodromal to a process of historicising the city’s experience.44 In the light of these considerations, we should certainly read the interest of Molin and his circle (which can be assimilated to a cenacle in the strict sense of the word) in instrumenta, excavated materials from the Venetian mainland and “Primitives”, which appeared in their eyes as irreplaceable testimonies to Venice’s golden past (even daily life) and the existence of a common collective history.45 The rearrangement of the water en- trance to Palazzo Molin, carried out by Girolamo Ascanio by 1806, is probative of the anti-French ideology that underpinned the erudite studies of such cenacles. Indeed, it does not appear to be a coincidence that the senator chose to place a series of ancient bas-reliefs and modern busts at the main entrance, on which a group of doge portraits—first and foremost the head of Doge Foscari detached in 1797 from the Porta della Carta in the Doge’s Palace (fig. 4)—stood out.46 The Bequest to the City of Venice The education of the new generations in the history of Venice and, at the same time, in the arts, was the main reason behind Girolamo Ascanio’s decision to donate a large part of the family collections 42 On the vicissitudes of the patriciate in the context of the end of the Republic, see Davis, The decline; Derosas, “Dal patriziato alla nobiltà;” Del Negro, “La memoria dei vinti;” Derosas, “Aspetti economici;” Hunecke, Il patriziato veneziano; Dal Cin, Il mondo nuovo. 43 Candeago, “Erudizione antiquaria.” 44 Guarnieri Ottoni, Dissertazione. The text, published after the author’s death at Molin’s behest, discussed the pos- sible route of the road that crossed a large part of the territories later subjected to the Serenissima, starting from an ancient inscription reported by canon Lucio Doglioni (1730–1803) in the church of Santa Maria in Cesiom- aggiore and later in the Tauro collection in Centenere (Belluno). The introduction to the second edition, which remained handwritten (Corrispondenza, Giusti del Giardino, Molin, ASVr), emphasised the importance of these “remarkable monuments” with a view to reconstructing the past of the Serenissima and above all to rediscovering the identity that was now felt to have been lost. 45 It is possible—although not verifiable in the current state of research—that this strong interest in city history also originated from the (direct or epistolary) contact with the numerous academies that, during that time, were increasingly devoting themselves to a reliable reconstruction of their own past, free of false beliefs and based on reliable documents, as in the case of the Accademia degli Operosi or Accademia dei Risorti in Capodistria, see Žitko, “Carlijevo delovanje;” Seražin, “Plemiško javno umetnostno naročništvo.” Although devoid of politicising connotations, the search for the “vero storico” promoted by these societies probably encouraged Molin and his circle towards an “objective” and direct approach to sources, almost unanimously considered indispensable to fully valorise the testimonies of the past. It will be worth investigating this topic in more detail, starting with the papers and documents produced by the academies to which the patrician and his friends were affiliated. 46 Letters no. 202–05, C.A. 1001e, Raccolta manoscritti autografi, BCP. On the acquisition of Doge Foscari’s head, see C.A. 1001e/148 and C.A. 1001f/153, Raccolta manoscritti autografi, BCP. THE MOLIN COLLECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW REGIME 48 to the city after his death. In fact, in February 1813, the former senator, drawing up his will, estab- lished a bequest in favour of some of Venice’s main cultural institutions (Accademia di Belle Arti (Academy of Fine Arts), Biblioteca Reale di San Marco (Royal Library of Saint Mark) and Liceo Santa Caterina (Lyceum of Saint Catherine)) with the explicit request that the works he owned be made available to the public and especially to young scholars of the arts to facilitate a solid education.47 In assessing events, we should certainly not underestimate the nobleman’s desire to indissolubly bind the name of the Molin family to the city, in accordance with a practice rooted in the Serenissima since the 16th century. But Girolamo Ascanio surely put the educational purpose first, which meant that he was even willing to set aside his differences with the foreign authority to which these institutions referred. This choice was also facilitated by his deep friendship with figures such as Pietro Edwards, Jacopo Morelli and Antonio Maria Traversi (1765–1842), who were respectively leading members of the Accademia di Belle Arti, the Biblioteca Reale di San Marco and the Liceo Santa Caterina. However, Molin’s project did not have the desired results, at least in the short term. Once the collections entered the city’s museums (between August 1816 and August 1819), they were in fact largely relegated to storage and excluded from any form of study in order to satisfy the exhibition requirements of the moment. A fate common to many other bequests of the time. Consider, for example, the paintings that were assigned to the Accademia: with the exception of the “Primitive” panels or those by a few 16th-century masters, the Molin’s pieces were ill-suited for inclusion in the rooms, thought to give students a very broad overview of the different Italian and foreign schools. Created mostly by the most popular Venetian painters and often of poor quality—19th century mu- seum guides reveal—they were discarded in favour of paintings belonging to areas less represented in the Veneto region, to other genres considered “minor” or to works of greater value.48 In the case of antiquities, volumes and graphics, a complex legal diatribe regarding the ownership of the be- quest also proved counterproductive in this sense. For approximately thirteen years (1873–1880), ownership was disputed between the Biblioteca Reale di San Marco and the newly founded Correr Museum, with consequent continual changes of location.49 It would be necessary to wait until the most recent layouts to see the situation partially change,50 without, however, ever achieving the degree of accessibility desired by Molin. 47 Pietro Occioni, no. 1985, box 289, Notarile, II serie, ASV (the document was published and transcribed by Linda Borean, in Borean, ed., Il collezionismo, 363–66). More than 20.000 items were bequeathed, including 9,570 coins and medals, 4,000 volumes, 3,835 prints, 408 drawings, 292 bronzes, 136 maps, 118 paintings, 97 cameos, 89 terracottas, 73 marbles, 36 ivories, 29 pieces of antique glass and 122 assorted objects. Furthermore, the complete natural history cabinet was added. See Legato Molin: Rilevazione oggetti affidati alla Biblioteca di S. Marco. Og- getti in marmo, metallo ed altre materie. Cammei e pietre incise, Archivio della Direzione, Biblioteca del Museo Correr (BMC); Legato Molin: Rilevazione oggetti affidati alla Biblioteca di S. Marco. Stampe, incisioni. Disegni a penna, ad acquerello ed a colori, Archivio della Direzione, BMC; Legato Molin: Rilevazione oggetti affidati alla Biblioteca di S. Marco. Numismatica, Archivio della Direzione, BMC; Legato Molin: Catalogo dei beni compresi nelle facoltà del fu N. H. Sig. E. Girolamo Ascanio Molin a favore della I. R. Accademia di Belle Arti in Venezia, giusto al di lui Testamento 24 febbraio 1813, folder 117/I, Gallerie dell’Accademia, Doni e lasciti (1815–1900), 2/2, ASPMV. 48 Guida per la R. Accademia. 49 Gambier, Girolamo Ascanio Molin, 93–94. 50 Zanotto, Guida per l’Imp. Reg. Accademia; Moschini Marconi, Opere d’arte dei secoli XV e XVI, XXVI; Manieri Elia, “Note sulla storia,” 14–15. ARIANNA CANDEAGO 49 Bibliography Aikema, Bernard, Rosella Lauber, and Max Seidel, eds. Il collezionismo a Venezia e nel Veneto ai tempi della Serenissima. Venezia: Marsilio, 2005. Borean, Linda. “Dalla galleria al ‘museo’: Un viaggio attraverso pitture, disegni e stampe nel collezionismo veneziano del Settecento.” In Il collezionismo d’arte a Venezia: Il Settecento, edited by Linda Borean and Stefania Mason, 3–47. Venezia: Marsilio, 2009. Borean, Linda. “Giovan Domenico Almorò Tiepolo.” In Il collezionismo d’arte a Venezia: Il Settecento, edited by Linda Borean and Stefania Mason, 310–11. Venezia: Marsilio, 2009. Borean, Linda. “L’eredità di Giovanni Maria Sasso.” Artibus et Historiae 81 (2020): 281–89. Borean, Linda. La galleria Manfrin: L’ultima collezione d’arte della Serenissima. Udine: Forum, 2018. Borean, Linda, ed. Lettere artistiche del Settecento veneziano: Il carteggio Abraham Hume-Giovanni Maria Sasso. Sommacampagna: Cierre Edizioni, 2004. Borean, Linda, and Stefania Mason, eds. Il collezionismo d’arte a Venezia: Il Settecento. Venezia: Marsilio, 2009. Caburlotto, Luca. “Girolamo Ascanio Molin.” In La fortuna dei primitivi: Tesori d’arte delle collezioni italiane fra Sette e Ottocento, edited by Angelo Tartuferi and Gianluca Tormen, 373–76. Firenze: Giunti, 2014. Caburlotto, Luca. “Un’equivoca ‘fortuna’: I primitivi nelle collezioni Correr e Molin.” Arte Veneta 59 (2002): 187–209. Camporeale, Giovannangelo. “Luigi Lanzi e l’etruscologia tra il Settecento e i primi dell’Ottocento.” In Luigi Lanzi e l’archeologia, edited by Gianfranco Paci, 19–42. Macerata: EUM, 2008. Candeago, Arianna. “Erudizione antiquaria e costruzione identitaria al tramonto della Serenissima: Il cenacolo del senatore Girolamo Ascanio Molin (1738–1814).” In Le stagioni dell’erudizione e le generazioni degli eruditi, edited by Jean Boutier and Fabio Forner. Bologna: CLUEB, forthcoming. Candeago, Arianna. “Girolamo Ascanio Molin nel suo ‘tempio sacro a Minerva’: Collezionismo e dibattito erudito a Venezia tra Sette e Ottocento.” PhD diss., Ca’ Foscari University, 2021. Candeago, Arianna, and Myriam Pilutti Namer. “Girolamo Ascanio Molin: La collezione, la rete di relazioni, le sculture a Palazzo Giusti a Verona.” In Collezionisti e collezioni di antichità e di numismatica a Venezia nel Settecento, edited by Andrea Gariboldi, 1–35. Trieste: EUT, 2022. Cecchini, Isabella. “Attorno al mercato, 1750–1815.” In Il collezionismo d’arte a Venezia: Il Settecento, edited by Linda Borean and Stefania Mason, 151–71. Venezia: Marsilio, 2009. Cecchini, Isabella. “Giustinian (Zustinian) Recanati, collezione.” In Il collezionismo d’arte a Venezia: Il Settecento, edited by Linda Borean and Stefania Mason, 274. Venezia: Marsilio, 2009. Cisotto Nalon, Mirella. “L’instrumentum nella cultura antiquaria veneziana tra il ‘600 e il ‘700.” In Venezia e l’archeologia: Un importante capitolo nella storia del gusto dell’antico nella cultura artistica veneziana, edited by Gustavo Traversari, 68–76. Roma: G. Bretschneider, 1990. Coppola, Alessandra, and Giulia Tozzi. “Pezzi egizi o all’egiziana.” In Gli Obizzi e la collezione di antichità al Catajo, edited by Alessandra Coppola, 324–42. Padova: CLEUP, 2017. Cozzi, Gaetano, Michael Knapton, and Giovanni Scarabello. La Repubblica di Venezia nell’età moderna: Dal 1517 alla fine della Repubblica. Torino: UTET, 1992. D’Amicone, Elvira. “Antico Egitto e collezionismo veneto e veneziano.” In Venezia e l’archeologia: Un importante capitolo nella storia del gusto dell’antico nella cultura artistica veneziana, edited by Gustavo Traversari, 22–26. Roma: G. Bretschneider, 1990. Dal Cin, Valentina. Il mondo nuovo: L’élite veneta fra rivoluzione e restaurazione (1797–1815). Venezia: Cà Foscari-Digital Publishing, 2019. THE MOLIN COLLECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW REGIME 50 Dandolo, Girolamo. La caduta della Repubblica di Venezia ed i suoi ultimi cinquant’anni. Venezia, 1855. Davis, James Cushman. The decline of the Venetian nobility as a ruling class. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962. De Marchi, Andrea. Falsi Primitivi: Prospettive critiche e metodi di esecuzione. Torino: Allemandi, 2001. De Paoli, Marcella. “Antonio Canova e il ‘museo’ Zulian: Vicende di una collezione veneziana della seconda metà del Settecento.” Ricerche di Storia dell’Arte 66 (1998): 19–36. De Paoli, Marcella. “Intorno a Palazzo Grimani e alle sue raccolte di antichità: Le sculture del cortile, i vasi e i bronzi del primo piano.” Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 165 (2007): 419–59. Del Negro, Piero. “La memoria dei vinti: Il patriziato veneziano e la caduta della Serenissima.” In L’eredità dell’Ottantanove e l’Italia, edited by Renzo Zorzi, 351–70. Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1992. Della Frattina, Erminia. “Girolamo Ascanio Molin e la fine dell’antico regime.” Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti: Classe di Scienze Morali, Lettere ed Arti 151, no. 132 (1993): 1035–60. Derosas, Renzo. “Aspetti economici della crisi del patriziato veneziano tra fine Settecento e primo Ottocento.” In Veneto e Lombardia tra rivoluzione giacobina ed età napoleonica: Economia, territorio, istituzioni, edited by Giovanni Luigi Fontana and Antonio Lazzarini, 80–132. Milano: Cariplo; Laterza, 1992. Derosas, Renzo. “Dal patriziato alla nobiltà: Aspetti della crisi dell’aristocrazia veneziana nell’Ottocento.” In Les noblesses européennes aux XIXe siècle: Actes du colloque de Rome; 21–23 novembre 1985, edited by Gérard Delille, 333–63. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1988. Dorigato, Attilia. “Gaspare Diziani.” In Disegni antichi del Museo Correr di Venezia. Vol. 2, edited by Terisio Pignatti, 15–152. Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1981. Favaretto, Irene. “Antichità egizie nelle collezioni veneziane: Alcuni spunti di riflessione.” In Venezia e l’Egitto, edited by Enrico Maria Dal Pozzolo, Rosella Dorigo, and Maria Pia Pedani, 190–04. Milano: Skira, 2011. Favaretto, Irene. Arte antica e cultura antiquaria nelle collezioni venete al tempo della Serenissima. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 1990. Gamba, Bartolomeo. Narrazione intorno alla vita e alle opere di G.A. Molin. Venezia, 1815. Gambier, Madile. “Girolamo Ascanio Molin.” In Una città e il suo museo: Un secolo e mezzo di collezioni civiche veneziane, edited by Madile Gambier, 91–94. Venezia: Museo Correr, 1988. Germano, Anna, and Marco Nocca, eds. La collezione Borgia: Curiosità e tesori da ogni parte del mondo. Napoli: Electa, 2001. Giornale dell’italiana letteratura compilato da una società di letterati italiani sotto la direzione ed a spese delli signori Niccolò e Girolamo fratelli Da Rio. Vol. 39. Padova, 1814. Girardi, Maria. “Musica strumentale e fortuna degli autori classici nell’editoria veneziana fra Sette e Ottocento.” In La musica strumentale nel Veneto fra Settecento ed Ottocento, edited by Lucia Boscolo and Sergio Durante, 479–526. Padova: CLEUP, 2000. Gottardi, Michele. L’Austria a Venezia: Società e istituzioni nella prima dominazione austriaca; 1798–1806. Milano: F. Angeli, 1993. Guarnieri Ottoni, Aurelio. Dissertazione del conte Aurelio Guarnieri Ottoni, patrizio osimano, intorno al corso dell’antica Via Claudia dalla città di Altino sino al fiume Danubio: Pubblicata dopo la morte dell’autore. Bassano, 1789. Guida per la R. Accademia delle Belle Arti in Venezia con alcune notizie riguardanti detto Stabilimento. Venezia, 1828. Hunecke, Volker. Il patriziato veneziano alla fine della Repubblica, 1646–1797: Demografia, famiglia, ménage. Roma: Jouvence, 1997. ARIANNA CANDEAGO 51 Lanzi, Luigi. Lettere a Mauro Boni, 1791–1809, edited by Paolo Pastres. Udine: Forum, 2009. Moschini, Giannantonio. Della letteratura veneziana del secolo XVIII fino a’ nostri giorni. Vol. 2. Venezia, 1806. Moschini, Giannantonio. Della letteratura veneziana del secolo XVIII fino a’ nostri giorni. Vol. 4. Venezia, 1808. Manieri Elia, Giulio. “Note sulla storia espositiva delle Gallerie: Da collezione accademica a museo contemporaneo.” In Verso le grandi Gallerie: Le sale dell’ala palladiana, edited by Roberta Battaglia and Giulio Manieri Elia, 13–19. Venezia: Accademia di Belle Arti, 2016. Moschini Marconi, Sandra. Gallerie dell’Accademia di Venezia. Opere d’arte dei secoli XV e XVI. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato; Libreria dello Stato, 1955. Moschini Marconi, Sandra. Gallerie dell’Accademia di Venezia: Opere d’arte dei secoli XVII, XVIII, XIX. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato; Libreria dello Stato, 1970. Moschini Marconi, Sandra. Gallerie dell’Accademia di Venezia. Opere d’arte del secolo XVI. Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato; Libreria dello Stato, 1962. Nocca, Marco, ed. Le quattro voci del mondo: Arte, culture e saperi nella collezione di Stefano Borgia (1731–1804). Napoli: Electa, 2001. Orso, Michela. “Giovanni Maria Sasso mercante, collezionista e scrittore d’arte della fine del Settecento a Venezia.” Atti dell’Istituto Veneto di Lettere, Scienze ed Arti: Classe di Scienze Morali, Lettere ed Arti 144, no. 86 (1986): 37–55. Pavanello, Giuseppe, ed. L’Accademia di Belle Arti di Venezia: Il Settecento. Vol. 1. Crocetta del Montello: Antiga, 2015. Previtali, Giovanni. La fortuna dei primitivi: Dal Vasari ai neoclassici. Torino: Einaudi, 1989. Rizzi, Laura. “Girolamo Ascanio Molin: Un collezionista veneziano tra Sette e Ottocento.” Master’s thesis, Ca’ Foscari University, 1991–1992. Romanelli, Giandomenico. “‘Vista cader la patria…’: Teodoro Correr tra ‘pietas’ civile e collezionismo erudito.” In Una città e il suo museo: Un secolo e mezzo di collezioni civiche veneziane, edited by Madile Gambier, 95–115. Venezia: Museo Correr, 1988. Saccocci, Andrea. “Collezione Molin.” In Una città e il suo museo: Un secolo e mezzo di collezioni civiche veneziane, edited by Madile Gambier, 188–91. Venezia: Museo Correr, 1988. Seražin, Helena. “Plemiško javno umetnostno naročništvo v Kopru: Vloga mestnega urada prokuratorjev in nekdanjih študentov univerze v Padovi pri gradnji koprske stolnice.” Acta historiae artis Slovenica 27, no. 2 (2022): 45–79. https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.27.2.03. Spiazzi, Anna Maria. “Dipinti demaniali di Venezia e del Veneto nella prima metà del secolo XIX: Vicende e recuperi.” Bollettino d’arte 68, no. 20 (1983): 69–127. Tormen, Gianluca. “Dipinti ‘sull’asse in campo d’oro’: I primitivi nelle collezioni italiane tra Sette e Ottocento; Un itinerario.” In La fortuna dei primitivi: Tesori d’arte dalle collezioni italiane fra Sette e Ottocento, edited by Angelo Tartuferi and Gianluca Tormen, 17–37. Firenze: Giunti Editore, 2014. Zanotto, Francesco. Guida per l’Imp. Reg. Accademia delle Belle Arti in Venezia. Venezia, 1845. Zorzi, Marino, Irene Favaretto, and Patrizia Bravetti, eds. Collezioni di antichità a Venezia nei secoli della Repubblica, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico dello Stato, 1988. Žitko, Salvator. “Carlijevo delovanje v koprskih akademijah 18. stoletja.” Acta Histriae 5 (1997): 59–78. Accessed September 20, 2023, https://www.dlib.si/stream/URN:NBN:SI:DOC-BJUY07S1/ f6bf87db-507b-4e5b-a073-1b220b6faec3/PDF. THE MOLIN COLLECTION BETWEEN THE OLD AND NEW REGIME 52 Zbirka Molin med starim in novim režimom Povzetek Avtorica se v članku osredotoča na beneškega senatorja Girolama Ascania Molina (1738–1814), ki je na prelomu iz 18. v 19. stoletje postal ugleden zbiralec zaradi enciklopedično zbrane zbirke več kot štirideset tisoč starih in sodobnih predmetov, ki odsevajo doslej še neraziskan in nekontektualiziran interes, ki za to obdobje ni bil značilen. Z upoštevanjem tiskanih in rokopisnih virov – gre za neobjavljene dokumente iz družinskih arhivov, notarske fonde in zbirke pisem – sledi razvoju zbirke tako, da evidentira posledice, ki sta jih imela padec Beneške republike in vzpostavitev novega režima na podedovano zbirko, ki se je v družini prenašala iz roda v rod. Namen članka je pokazati, kako se je okus beneškega plemiča spremenil pod vplivom političnih, družbenih in kulturnih sprememb, ki so se zgodile okoli leta 1797, saj se je njegov zbirateljski okus premaknil v sfero predmetov, ki so najbolje pričali o zlati dobi Benetk: predmeti iz vsakdanjega življenja, najdbe z beneškega podeželja in “ljudsko slikarstvo”. Gre za primer poskusa obsežnejše in prezrte gradnje kolektivne identitete s strani konservativnega in izobraženega beneškega plemstva kot odgovor na dezorientacijo, nastalo zaradi novega/francoskega režima, ki so ga dojemali kot tujega in zatiralskega. Hkrati sta v članku raziskana prisotnost senatorja Molina na umetnostnem trgu, in umetnostni trg sam, ki se je občasno ohladil zaradi oborožene vojske, vse večje revščine nekdanjega plemstva in omejitev gibanja zaradi roparskih napadov in poškodovanih poti. Članek se konča z razmislekom, ali so vsi našteti dejavniki spodbudili prenos Molinove in drugih zbirk v mesto, in to kljub spreminjajočemu se položaju med donatorjem in oblastmi. To odločitev so lastniki zbirk sprejeli z namenom, da bodo prihodnje generacije meščanov poučili o beneški zgodovini in umetnosti, vendar pa Molinova donacija ni prinesla želenih rezultatov, saj so bila umetniška dela iz njegove zapuščine po njegovi smrti prestavljena v muzejsko hrambo in niso bila dostopna javnosti. ARIANNA CANDEAGO DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.28.2.03 53 ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 ∙ 2023, 53–75 Abstract: Ca’ Rezzonico in the 19th Century: The Dispersal of its Collections and the New Uses of the Palace 1. 01 Original scientific article In the wider phenomenon of the reception and readaptation of aristocratic architectural heritage in post-revolu- tionary Europe, the repurposing of former aristocratic palaces in Venice after the Fall of the Serenissima in 1797 constitutes a preeminent example. The paper takes as a case study Ca’ Rezzonico, one of the most splendid palaces along the Grand Canal, which has housed, since 1936, the illustrious Museum of 18th-century Venice (Museo del Set- tecento veneziano). After the Rezzonico family died out in 1810, the palace was gradually stripped of its art historical treasures and has served the most diverse purposes. From being the seat of the Austrian Tobacco Administration to housing dealers’ galleries, from hosting the ateliers of stage designers and international painters to being the home of renowned intellectuals and aesthetes, Ca’ Rezzonico’s rooms and walls have witnessed the profound changes in art, taste, and culture that rang through Europe during the long 19th century. The paper offers a comprehensive recon- struction of the palace’s 19th-century history, drawing from both published and unpublished sources. Keywords: nobility, bourgeoisie, architectural heritage, collecting, display, art market, Venice, Ca’ Rezzonico, 19th century, artists’ ateliers Izvleček: Ca’ Rezzonico v 19. stoletju. Usoda zbirke in nove namembnosti palače 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek Prenove in nove ureditve opreme plemiških palač v Benetkah po padcu Beneške republike leta 1797 predstavljajo poseben vidik raziskav recepcije in novih funkcij plemiške arhitekturne dediščine v postrevolucionarni Evropi. V prispevku je kot študija primera analizirana usoda Ca’ Rezzonica, ene najlepših palač ob Velikem kanalu, v kateri so leta 1936 uredili znameniti Muzej beneške umetnosti 18. stoletja (Museo del Settecento veneziano). Na podlagi ana- lize arhivskih virov in literature je podrobno rekonstruiran historiat preureditev in sprememb njene namembnosti. Po izumrtju rodbine Rezzonico leta 1810 so iz palače odpeljali domala vse umetnine in opremo, njene namembnosti pa so bile zelo raznolike, med drugim je bila sedež avstro-ogrske tobačne uprave, v njej so uredili prostore trgovcev z umetninami in ateljeje tujih slikarjev in oblikovalcev gledaliških kulis ter domovanja intelektualcev. Palača Ca’ Rez- zonico je izkusila izrazite spremembe v umetnostni opremi, okusu in meščanski bivalni kulturi dolgega 19. stoletja. Ključne besede: plemstvo, meščanstvo, arhitekturna dediščina, zbirateljstvo, razstavljanje, umetnostni trg, Benetke, Ca Rezzonico, 19. stoletje, umetniški ateljeji Ca’ Rezzonico in the 19th Century The Dispersal of its Collections and the New Uses of the Palace Valeria Paruzzo Valeria Paruzzo, PhD, University of Trento, Department of Humanities, Via Tommaso Gar 14, 38122 Trento, valeria.paruzzo@unitn.it, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-8454-5168 54 VALERIA PARUZZO The Early History of the Palace and the Rise of the Rezzonico Family Around 1662 the architect Baldassare Longhena (1597–1682), the leading proponent of the Baroque architectural style in Venice, received the commission to design and build a monumental palace for the Bon family on the grounds of two pre-existing properties situated where the Rio di San Barnaba meets the Canal Grande. Longhena’s design for the Bon Palace—in which he re-employed the mon- umental style of the new Procuratie in Piazza San Marco—foresaw a three-storey edifice with two piani nobili of similar height, a water façade punctuated by a continuum of arched windows, and an attic with elliptical openings (fig. 1). To the more traditional structure of the Venetian 16th-century palazzo, grouped around the portego (the longitudinal room overlooking the Canal Grande), Long- hena added a courtyard and a mainland entrance through a grand staircase.1 However, the archi- tect’s death in 1682 and the precarious financial situation of the Bon family impeded the completion of the palace, which remained incomplete for seven decades, as depicted in Canaletto’s View of the Grand Canal from Palazzo Rezzonico to palazzo Balbi (Woburn Abbey) from the early 1730s.2 Only in 1751 did the Bon family manage to sell the unfinished palace to Giovanbattista Rez- zonico (1671–1756), a member of a wealthy family originally from Como, ennobled in the Venetian patriziato in 1687 by virtue of its immense financial fortune.3 Carlo Rezzonico (1693–1769), Giovan- battista’s second eldest son, had been named Cardinal and Bishop of Padua, and the family, striving for social recognition as new members of the nobility, needed a more representative property in the city in addition to the palazzi (Fontana and Sagredo) they were renting.4 Thus, Giovanbattista com- missioned architect Giorgio Massari (1687–1766), who had restored the family’s villa in Bassano del Grappa,5 to finish Longhena’s project. Massari kept the original design, but substantially changed the orientation of the palazzo: he demolished the ceiling in the west wing and redesigned the palace’s monumental staircase, so that it would lead into a new, two-storey high ballroom (figs. 2–3).6 The sumptuous hall, a rarity in Venice, replaced the more traditional portego as the representative space of the palace—in line with the gradual functional and structural changes that Venetian palaces had experienced since the second half of the 17th century.7 The ballroom also stands out for the quality of 1 The palace’s history and the museum display have been the subject of several studies, all subsequently re-edited: Lorenzetti, Ca’ Rezzonico; Pignatti, Tesori di Ca’ Rezzonico; Mariacher, Ca’ Rezzonico; Romanelli, Ca’ Rezzonico; more recently: Pedrocco, Ca’ Rezzonico. For the architecture of the palace, see Bassi, Palazzi di Venezia, 114–22, and the additions in Goldhahn, Von der Kunst, 136–60. For Longhena’s design for Palazzo Bon, see Frank, Baldassarre Lon- ghena, 242–49; Hopkins, Baldassare Longhena 1597–1682, 208–19; Hopkins, Baldassare Longhena, 192–204. 2 The palace had been elevated up until the first floor and covered by means of a temporary wooden roof. The same construction state is visible in a later view by Bernardo Bellotto, painted ca. 1736–1740 (Musée des Beaux-Arts, Lyon), based upon his uncle’s original, as well as in further contemporary paintings and etchings. 3 Because the literature on the Rezzonico family history is extensive, see (with further bibliography) the proceed- ings in Nante, Cavalli, and Gios, Carlo Rezzonico, and the accurate reconstruction in Goldhahn, Von der Kunst, who also explored the members’ activity as collectors and maecenases. 4 Goldhahn, Von der Kunst, 145. 5 For the Villa Rezzonico in Bassano, see Noè, “Rezzonicorum cineres,” 192–201, 222–32; Goldhahn, Von der Kunst, 88–113. 6 For a detailed discussion of Massari’s additions, see Massari, Giorgio Massari, 100–07, and the addendae by Gold- hahn, Von der Kunst, 153–57. 7 For a discussion of this progressive shift in architecture and interior decoration, and for further examples, see Fontana, “Dal portego al salone,” 115–23; Fontana, “Scaloni e sale,” 103–22; Frank, “From Ephemeral to Perma- nent,” 119–38; Frank, “Der Funktionswandel,” 74–78. 55 CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE its fresco decoration, executed by Giambattista Crosato and the quadraturista Girolamo Mengozzi Colonna. The wedding of Ludovico Rezzonico (1726–1787) to Faustina Savorgnan in 1757 presented an occasion to commission further exquisite fresco decorations for the ceilings of the piano nobile facing south, executed by the most acclaimed frescanti at the time: Gaspare Diziani, Jacopo Guarana with Piero Visconti, and, of course, Giambattista Tiepolo with Crosato.8 Carlo Rezzonico’s election to the papal throne as Clement XIII in 1758 sealed the incredibly rapid economic, social and political rise of the family. Seven years later, in 1765, his nephew Abbon- dio Rezzonico (1742–1810) was appointed to the princely office of Senator of Rome.9 Although both of them resided in Rome, the opulent palazzo in the lagoon city became the physical representation of the family’s power, where the aforementioned Ludovico (now Procuratore di San Marco) and Faustina welcomed members of European aristocratic and royal families for celebrations, banquets and concerts. Over the years, the family enriched the palace with paintings, statues, and refined furniture, although we have access to little information concerning their display. The first art collec- tion had been assembled in the second half of the 17th century by Aurelio (1609–1682), the first Rez- zonico in the lagoon, in Palazzo Sagredo. This gallery, consisting in particular of contemporary, 17th- century pictures, had been further expanded by Aurelio’s nephew Quintiliano (1651–1727). After the acquisition and renovation of Palazzo Bon (later Rezzonico), the paintings were relocated there; however, after Senator Abbondio’s appointment in Rome, many of them, along with drawings, jewels 8 On the palace’s fresco decorations, see, among others, Gemin and Pedrocco, Giambattista Tiepolo, 179, 451; Ton, Giambattista Crosato, 113–17, 341–54; Goldhahn, Von der Kunst, 161–74. 9 Carlo Rezzonico was repeatedly portrayed by Anton Raphael Mengs, while Abbondio is depicted an exquisite portrait by Pompeo Batoni, acquired in 2016 by the Italian State for the Gallerie Nazionali di Arte Antica (Palazzo Barberini) in Rome. 1. Ca’ Rezzonico, water façade on the Canal Grande (photo: © Didier Descouens) 56 VALERIA PARUZZO 2. Ca’ Rezzonico, monumental staircase (photo: © Derbrauni) 3. Ca’ Rezzonico, ballroom (photo: © Eliana Intruglio) 57 CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE and other precious objects, were transferred to his lodgings in Campidoglio.10 Ludovico was left with few works from the original nucleus of the collection, as evidenced by the inventory compiled after his death—although there are notable exceptions, as we will see shortly. The Dispersal of the Collections: The Widmann and Pindemonte Families As quickly as the success of the Rezzonico family had escalated over the course of relatively few generations, just as rapidly came its disappearance. In 1810, Abbondio Rezzonico passed away childless, and the family died out. His brother-in-law Ludovico Widmann, husband of his sister Quintilia (1722–1784), and later their son Antonio Widmann Rezzonico inherited his estate, which included the Venetian palace. The transfer of ownership from the Rezzonico to the Widmann- Rezzonico took place during the profound crisis that hit the Venetian patriziato after 1797. The Fall of the Serenissima and the Napoleonic and Habsburg rules over Venice (1797–1866) disrupted the—already precarious—status of the old Venetian nobility. After Napoleon, and later the Aus- trian Emperors, abolished the privileges of the old patriziato, their widespread decline took differ- ent forms: political, due to their gradual, de facto exclusion from political life (whereas previously they were the only ones who could access it); social, with their equalization to the mainland nobil- ity; economic, mainly due to the long-standing indebtedness of numerous families and the rulers’ harsh fiscal policies.11 Napoleon’s definitive abolition of the fideicommissum, while allowing some families to remedy a situation of indebtedness through the division of assets, caused, in many cases, the dispersion of important estates and art collections formed in Venice through centuries of meticulous assemblage.12 This was also the case for the Widmanns, who split their collection of paintings from 1808 onwards.13 Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that, when Antonio Widmann Rezzonico inherited the large palace in 1810, the family’s dire need for liquidity, along with the ownership of other prop- erties, induced them to rent out the palace rather than inhabit it. During the Serenissima, it was not uncommon for patrizi to rent out or lease for themselves palaces or individual floors therein;14 the Rezzonico themselves had done it. Also the French and Austrian administrations consigned several secularized buildings to administrative purposes, but were also well aware that more than a few palaces on the Canal Grande were slowly falling into disrepair and could be rented, or even bought, for little sums.15 Hence, it is not surprising that, as early as September 30, 1814, Widmann 10 It is not possible to retrace here the entire history of the family collections and commissions. For an overview, see Noè, “Rezzonicorum cineres;” Pavanello, “I Rezzonico,” 86–111; Cecchini, “Aurelio Rezzonico,” 308; Goldhahn, Von der Kunst. 11 On this matter, see Davis, The Decline; Derosas, “Dal patriziato,” 333–63; Derosas, “Aspetti economici,” 80–132; Hunecke, Il patriziato veneziano; more recently Dal Cin, Il mondo nuovo. 12 On the abolition of the fideicommissum, see Derosas, “Aspetti economici.” On the fideicommissum during the Serenissima, see Lanaro, “Fidecommesso” (with bibliography); Lanaro, “Les stratégies patrimoniales;” Woolf, “L’Ottocento,” 11. 13 Magani, “Il collezionismo;” Pavanello, Gli inventari, 166–67. 14 See Megna, “Comportamenti abitativi.” 15 For example, in 1818, searching for extra storehouses for the paintings from the newly opened Pinacoteca Ac- cademica, the Viennese administration described Venice as a city in which „über 4000 Häuser Eigenthum des Staats sind, und wo die prächtigsten Paläste um eine weit geringere Summe erkauft werden können“ quoted from: Baumgartner, “Riflessioni,” 70, n. 11. 58 leased the palace to Johann Baron Waldstätten, counsellor to the Austrian emperor Francis I, as a seat for the General Tobacco Revenue Administration (Amministrazione Generale della Finanza Tabacchi).16 This can be deduced from a contract in the Pindemonte-Rezzonico family archival fond, which preserves numerous rental agreements for the Rezzonico Palace, stipulated between 1814 and 1857. Such contracts are useful not only because they provide information about the pal- ace’s tenants, but also by virtue of the attached consignment states (stati di consegna), which often describe in great detail the appearance of the palace’s rooms, as well as the furniture and artworks within. For instance, the above-mentioned contract from 1814 specifies that the rooms could be freely repurposed as offices, but that the owner planned to gather and collect “tutti i mobili […], quadri, spec[c]hi, statue, fornimenti, tappezzerie”. To this end the “sala grande”—possibly the ball- room— remained for Widmann’s private use, in order to “ponervi dentro tutti quei mobili che cre- desse opportuno di raccogliere, e custodire.”17 This suggests that Ca’ Rezzonico was still completely furnished at that point. A few months later, Waldstätten issued a public notice that on February 1, 1815, an auction selling Albanian tobacco would be taking place in the palace.18 Although a duration of twenty years had been proposed, the lease with the Amministrazione Generale della Finanza Tabacchi only lasted one year, as per the decision of the administration in Vienna.19 After Antonio’s passing in 1816, an inventory of the palace was drawn up in 1817.20 While it still describes a number of valuable furnishings in the rooms (mirrors, tables, armchairs, etc.), only very few paintings are listed. However, the inventory does not include a description of the ball- room, where, as we have seen, Antonio intended to gather all the “precious things.” After the death of his brother Francesco Widmann Rezzonico (1753–1825) in 1825, the Rezzonico assets passed onto their nephew Carlo Pindemonte Rezzonico (1790–1834), son of Vittoria Maria Widmann Rez- zonico and Giovanni Pindemonte.21 Carlo, who lived in Verona, must have had precise intentions for the inherited estate: it does not seem accidental that, in September 1825, a sale of the Rezzonico painting collection is reported. It is mentioned in two letters written by Giovanni Querci della Ro- vere, an art dealer active in Venice at the time, whom we will meet again later.22 Querci della Rovere was well-informed on the matter, not only thanks to his profession, but possibly also because he had been in contact in his youth with a branch of the Widmann Rezzonico family in Verona.23 In an hitherto unpublished letter from October 1825, Querci della Rovere, outraged, described to 16 The lease contract between Antonio Widmann Rezzonico and Johann Waldstätten, September 30, 1814, fond Pindemonte-Rezzonico, b. 11, Archivio di Stato di Verona (ASVr). The archival collection is well-known to the studies, although the 19th-century documents have received somewhat less scholarly attention than the older ones. 17 The contract between Antonio Widmann Rezzonico and Johann Waldstätten, September 30, 1814, fond Pinde- monte-Rezzonico, b. 11, ASVr. 18 Collezione di leggi, 1: 18. 19 See the note by Baron Waldstätten, January 15, 1815, fond Pindemonte-Rezzonico, b. 11, ASVr. 20 The inventory was published and transcribed, along with two undated inventories of paintings from the villa in Bassano, in Foscari Widmann Rezzonico, “Beni mobili.” 21 See Pavanello, “I Rezzonico,” 104, n. 70. 22 For Querci della Rovere, see Paruzzo, “Giovanni Querci della Rovere;” Paruzzo, “Tra Venezia e Brescia.” 23 Some twenty years later, in 1841, Querci della Rovere wrote to Marquise Lucrezia Giovanelli, wife of Carlo Pinde- monte Rezzonico, from whom he rented the second floor of the palace, that “sono 40 e più anni che frequentavo costì in Verona la sua famiglia,” reminding her that when he moved to Venice, countess Vittoria Widmann Rezzo- nico (1763–1823) introduced him to her sister-in-law Elisabetta Duodo Widmann, wife of her brother Giovanni (1748–1805). See letter of Giovanni Querci della Rovere to Lucrezia Giovanelli, July 23, 1841, fond Pindemon- te-Rezzonico, b. 59, ASVr. VALERIA PARUZZO 59 collector Paolo Tosio the picture gallery’s alienation a month prior by Carlo—who, according to him, “did not need the daily lunch”—as a “solemn bestiality:” Un mese fa certo Sig. Marchese Pindemonte di Verona erede della Galleria Rezzonico, senza aver bisogno del pranzo giornaliero, fece la solenne bestialità di vendere la sua gal- leria copiosa, che dei soli scarti, qui in parte venduti a dei negozianti hanno ricavato la somma dei 12000 franchi che importò la totalità di detta vendita. Le restano dodici capi d’opera, che a conti fatti verificheranno centomila franchi almeno. Fu acquistata da certo Monsieur Scevrin [Sivry] qui di Venezia, e da Antonio Sanquirico di Milano.24 The description as “galleria copiosa” does not seem to coincide with the picture of the half- empty palace inventoried in 1817. Either the paintings were really stored in the ballroom, or they had been moved out of the palazzo to another property of the Widmann family. Either way, ac- cording to the dealer, not all pictures were sold on this occasion. Among the “twelve masterpieces” kept by the family there might have been the handsome Portrait of Nikolaus Körbler by Paris Bor- don (Liechtenstein Princely Collections, Vienna-Vaduz), one of the few artworks that belonged with certainty to Aurelio Rezzonico’s original collection and that, as late as 1872, was bought from Countess Adriana Widmann Rezzonico by Prince Johann II of Liechtenstein.25 The two dealers mentioned, “Monsieur Scevrin”, that is, Auguste-Louis de Sivry, and Antonio Sanquirico, were two of the most successful dealers in the lagoon at that time. The formulation seems to suggest that the sale of the pictures had been handled privately, not as a public auction. This seems to be confirmed by the fact that, one year later, an uninformed Giovanni Widmann Rezzonico wrote to Querci della Rovere, inquiring about the collection of his ancestors: the merchant, after judging the sale prices to be too low, provided further names of the fellow art dealers involved, informing the count that some of the paintings had been sent for sale to Milan and London: […] sono a confermar Le quanto L’espressi a voce sulla vendila dei quadri del fu Princi- pe Rezzonico e d’altri oggetti preziosissimi di mosaici, etc., venduti al più vil prezzo del mondo, tanto gli uni che gli altri. Avendo inteso che cinque dei più distinti quadri furono spediti da certo signor Alvise Albrizzi a Londra che furono colà venduti per tremila Zec- chini. Altri simili quadri furono venduti a Milano per grosse somme, ed uno solo del celebre Sasso Ferrato di cinque figure che fu venduto da certo Monsieur Luigi di Scevrin [Sivry] ai due fratelli Barbini negozianti di quadri per quattromila svanziche, come è noto a tutta Venezia, ricercando al presente il prezzo di mille zecchini del anzi detto quadro.26 The dispersion of the galleria after the sale in September 1825, or perhaps even Alvise Albriz- zi’s shipping to the British capital, might be related to the subsequent sale at Williams in London, in June 1827, of a group of paintings, among which six were described as “formerly the property of Cardinal Rezzonico”: a small landscape on copper by Paul Bril, a pair by Michiel Sweerts (an Interior and a Painter’s Study), a David Pointing to Goliath’s Head attributed to Guercino, and two small landscapes by Salvator Rosa.27 24 Letter from Giovanni Querci della Rovere to Paolo Tosio, October 4, 1825, b. 57, fasc. 66, nr. 9, fond Avogadro del Giglio-Tosio, Archivio di Stato di Brescia (ASBs). 25 See Noè, “Rezzonicorum cineres,” 181. 26 The letter dated December 10, 1826, was published in Rezzonico, “Beni mobili e quadri,” 75–76. 27 See Collection of Capital Pictures, lots. 5, 7, 9, 16, 21–22. Sweert’s Artist’s Studio (Detroit Institute of Arts) and CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE 60 Seven years later, on June 4, 1832, the Pindemonte-Rezzonico organized a volun- tary public auction to sell off, it seems, all the furnishings that remained in the pal- ace (fig. 4).28 The lots included antiquities, sculptures, and, notably, eight bas-reliefs by Antonio Canova, 27 drawings by Gio- vanni Battista Piranesi for the new choir in the Basilica of San Giovanni in Laterano (commissioned by pope Rezzonico), and 42 drawings by the architect Giacomo Quarenghi.29 Indeed, the aforementioned Abbondio Rezzonico had been a collec- tor, art enthusiast, and patron in Rome of various Italian and foreign artists, such as Piranesi, from whom he commissioned drawings and designs for interiors and furniture, and was, in turn, also deeply in- fluenced by the artist’s taste.30 In 1777 Ab- bondio asked Quarenghi to design a Sala della Musica in Campidoglio, inaugurated in 1779, and some years later, when the architect was already in Saint Petersburg, the Senator invited him to present designs (never executed) for a city theatre in Bas- sano.31 Abbondio’s closest relationship was with Antonio Canova, whom he had met and befriended in 1778, and to whom, along with his brothers, he had entrusted the execution of the funerary monument (1787–1792) for his uncle Clemens XIII in Saint Peter’s Basilica. Possibly during this commission, the sculptor began to work for Abbondio on a series of thirteen plaster bas-reliefs, depicting personified allegories, and episodes inspired from the Iliad, the Odyssey, Socrates’ Phaedo, as well as two scenes of Mercy (today Fondazione Cariplo) (fig. 5).32 They all entered the villa in Bassano between 1793 and 1795, and, as already mentioned, at least the Interior (now titled Old Man and Boy by a Brazier or Allegory of Winter, private collection) were recorded in an 1808 inventory of paintings belonging to Antonio Widmann, see Detroit Institute of Arts, accessed January 15, 2023, https://dia.org/collection/studio-63102 (with bibliography). It is not possible to determine at present whether the Guercino is the one now in the collections of the Museum Boijmans Van Beuningen in Rotterdam. 28 See Noè, “Rezzonicorum Cineres,” 288–89. 29 For Quarenghi’s drawings see Noè, “Rezzonicorum cineres,” 285. 30 See Noè, “Rezzonicorum cineres,” 241–48; Pasquali, “Roma veneziana?” 55–57 (with bibliography). 31 See Corradini, “Giacomo Quarenghi.” 32 For the series, today displayed in Milan, Gallerie d’Italia-Piazza Scala, see Pavanello, “Antonio Canova;” Mazzoc- ca, Antonio Canova. VALERIA PARUZZO 4. Public notice for a voluntary auction of artworks in Palazzo Rezzonico, May 1832, Archivio di Stato di Verona (© Ministero della Cultura, Archivio di Stato di Verona) 61 eight of them were listed as lots in the 1832 auction held in Venice. We know that in 1836 all thirteen reliefs were in the possession of a Paduan collector, the lawyer Antonio Piazza,33 so it is possible that he, or an intermediary, acquired them at this auction. A newspaper article from 1931 by the art critic Ugo Ojetti, on the occasion of the acquisition of the Rezzonico Palace by the municipality, recalls also a previous auction, supposedly held in 1831 in San Teodoro.34 It was not possible, however, to glean any further information on this first sale. It may have taken place at the former Scuola Grande di San Teodoro, which at that time housed the commercial enterprise of the art dealer Antonio Sanquirico, who, as we have seen, had already been involved in the acquisition of the paintings from the Rezzonico gallery in 1825 and whose catalogue of lithographs illustrated, among others, also ancient Roman busts pertaining to the Museo Rezzonico in Venice.35 Not incidentally, from 1834 onwards, when—after Carlo Pindemonte Rezzonico’s death, the administration of the family’s estate passed onto his wife, Marquise Lucrezia Giovanelli Pinde- monte—we find an uninterrupted sequence of lease contracts between the marchesa and various individuals, who mostly rented one floor of the building. From 1834 to 1836, perhaps even later, the piano nobile and the mezzanino were leased to the British Colonel and architect Robert Smith (1787–1873), who had spent many years in India in the employ of the East India Company, be- fore returning to Europe and settling for a time in Venice.36 From the accurate description of the 33 After being in the possession of Piazza (1772–1844), who displayed them in his home, the bas-reliefs passed onto the counts of San Bonifacio, before entering the collection of the Cassa di Risparmio delle Provincie Lombarde in 1991. 34 Ojetti, “Il palazzo Rezzonico,” 3. 35 See Perry, “Antonio Sanquirico,” 72–73. 36 See the lease contract between Lucrezia Giovanelli Pindemonte and Robert Smith, November 6, 1834, and the additional contract for the mezzanino from October 20, 1836, fond Pindemonte-Rezzonico, b. 11, ASVr. Not CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE 5. Antonio Canova: The Dance of the Sons of Alcinous, 1790/92, Gallerie d᾿Italia, Milan (© Archivio Patrimonio Artistico Intesa Sanpaolo) 62 furnishings in the consignment state, one infers that various artworks were still in the palace. Be- sides a few unspecified paintings in the “small room” of the first floor, for which Giovanelli reserved the right to have inspected and to take measures for their preservation37 or the two Telamoni by Alessandro Vittoria (still in the palace today), particularly noteworthy are four oil paintings attrib- uted to Luca Giordano in the portego of the first floor. The subjects are described as: “1. S. Andrea in croce - 2. La Morte di Archimede - 3. Teseo che scuopre la Testa di Medusa - 4. Centauro ferito in atto di rapire una donzella.” The first and second painting measured, after conversion, ca. 255 x 301 cm, whereas the third and fourth painting ca. 255 x 356 cm.38 It should be noted that two paintings attributed to Luca Giordano hung in 1682 in the por- tego of Palazzo Sagredo after Aurelio Rezzonico’s death, whose testament registers a “Sant’Andrea morto levato di Croce da Manigoldi” and an “Archimede ucciso da Soldati.”39 In the inventory recently uncovered by Almut Goldhahn from 1686, we know that Quintiliano enriched the uncle’s quadreria and hung in the same portego two further paintings by Giordano, possibly even com- missioned by himself: a “Guerra de Lapeti” and a “Testa di Medusa con Perseo.”40 We find the same four paintings described in the portego of Palazzo Rezzonico (probably transferred from Palazzo Sagredo once the new residence was completed) in the inventory of 1767 (1766 more veneto), drawn up after Abbondio’s move to Rome,41 and also in the one from 1786, after Ludovico Rezzonico’s death.42 Indeed, as noted by Pavanello, the Giordano were not among the paintings chosen by Ab- bondio to be moved to Rome because they were framed in the portego walls by plaster moldings.43 It is meaningful that, possibly for the same reason—and in spite of the transfers, auctions and sales—we find them still in the portego in 1834, at least until 1853, when the legal representative of the Marquise Giovanelli Pindemonte in Venice wrote to her about an offer made for the acquisition of the four paintings.44 The subjects of the first two are to be understood as the Deposition of Saint Andrew From the Cross and Archimedes’ Death. Their identical measurements, as well as the common death theme, much was known about Robert Smith’s time in Venice. See James, “A Fairy Palace,” 286. Smith and his wife must have remained in the lagoon for about a decade because in the Seminario Patriarcale, in the second cloister on the left, Contarini, Lapidi sepolcrali, 269, listed a tombstone with a commemorative inscription for the tragic death of their three children in 1843: “A memoria di Giovanni – Edoardo – Maria Smith vaghi e graziosi bambini che di soli pochi mesi morte ne rapì all’amore degli affettuosi genitori Roberto Smith Colonnello di S. M. Brittanica Cav. dell’illustr. Ordine del Bagno d’Inghilterra, ecc. ecc. e Giulietta nob. Vitton dolenti i congiunti questa posero il V. maggio MDCCCXLIII.” 37 See the lease contract cited above, n. 36. 38 The measurements in Venetian piedi and once for the first two are 7 feet and 4 inches high x 8 feet and 8 inches wide; the other two were 7 feet and 4 inches high x 10 feet and 3 inches wide. 39 See Noè, “Rezzonicorum cineres,” 176. 40 See Goldhahn, Von der Kunst, 61. 41 In 1766 they are described in the first Portico: “Quattro quadri grandi incassati con stucchi nel muro formano quattro facciate, uno rapresenta la morte di Archimede in Siracusa; l’altro la morte di S. Andrea Appostolo; il terzo la Favola di Perseo con la testa di Medusa; il quarto un rato di Cintauri: tutti quattro di Luca Giordano.” See Pavanello, “I Rezzonico,” Doc. A., nr. 5. 42 In 1786 they are listed, along with a few other paintings from Aurelio’s original collection, once again in the por- tego of the first floor as “Quattro quadri grandi incassati nelli stucchi di Luca Giordano.” See Noè, “Rezzonicorum cineres,” 257. 43 Pavanello, “I Rezzonico,” 96, n. 19. 44 See the letter of Marco Pellini to Lucrezia Giovanelli Pindemonte, October 5, 1853, fond Pindemonte-Rezzonico, b. 59, ASVr. VALERIA PARUZZO 63 CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE do speak for their conception as pendants. The same could be said for the third and the fourth paint- ing, considering the subjects derived from Greek mythology: Perseus Beheading Medusa, and the Battle Between the Lapiths and Centaurs (indeed, the “wounded centaur” could be Eurytion, and the “damsel” the abducted Hippodamia). Hence, the tradition according to which Luca Giordano’s four paintings in Ca’ Rezzonico in the 19th century were of religious subject45 is only partly correct, since one depicted a historic subject and two of them mythological ones. Also, even though they bear the same authorship in the inventories, they were two distinct pairs, and entered the collection at different times. Although these themes are present in Giordano’s oeuvre,46 no certain associa- tion can be drawn with known paintings by the Neapolitan master, nor painters of similar style. Nevertheless, the newly found measurements in the contract’s consignment state—which were not specified in any of the collections’ inventories—along with their presence in the palace until 1853 offer valuable indications for possible future identifications and may rule out some of the sugges- tions proposed so far.47 Meanwhile, in the same period, from 1836 onwards, Lucrezia Giovanelli was renting out the third (and last) floor of the palace (the so-called camerini) and two rooms on the second floor to the young Giuseppe Bertoja (1803–1873).48 A student of Francesco Bagnara, Bertoja would go on to become, along with his son Pietro, one of the most celebrated set designers in Venice. He mainly worked for the Fenice and for other Venetian theatres—notably designing the sets for the premieres of several operas by Giuseppe Verdi—but produced designs also for the Royal Theatre in Turin and the Scala in Milan.49 Because the Venetian Guida Commerciale of 1846 lists his studio in “Palazzo Rezzonico,”50 he must have resided there for at least a decade. Thus, Bertoja was surely acquainted with another tenant in Ca’ Rezzonico: Giovanni Querci della Rovere (1770–1865), the art dealer, who, as we have already seen, some fifteen years prior was well-informed about the sale of the Rez- zonico collection. In 1841, he managed to persuade Lucrezia Giovanelli, not without difficulty, to let him rent the second floor of the palace.51 Intending to remain in Venice permanently—after years of travelling from Venice to royal courts, museums, fairs and collectors’ houses throughout Europe—the art dealer, probably making use of the capital he had accumulated and helped by his first-born Federico, was looking for the right location for his commercial gallery, as well as for a new house for his large family.52 In the splendid setting of the portego of the second floor, 45 See, for example, Pedrocco, Ca’ Rezzonico, 42. 46 See Ferrari and Scavizzi, Luca Giordano. 47 For instance, the long-standing identification of one of the four pictures with the Death of Archimedes by Giovan Battista Langetti (private collection), first suggested by Giuseppe Fiocco (see Noè, “Rezzonicorum cineres,” 184– 85), seems less convincing. Not only do the measurements not seem to coincide, but, even though Langetti’s painting bears a provenance from Palazzo Widmann Foscari, the four canvasses, as mentioned earlier, remained until 1854—and perhaps even later—in the Rezzonico Palace, at a time when it was no longer owned by the Wid- manns, but had already passed onto the Pindemonte. 48 See the lease contract between Lucrezia Giovanelli Pindemonte and Giuseppe Bertoja, September 10, 1836, fond Pindemonte-Rezzonico, b. 11, ASVr. 49 For Bertoja, see Muraro and Biggi, Giuseppe e Pietro Bertoja. 50 Guida Commerciale, 304. 51 See lease contracts between Lucrezia Giovanelli Pindemonte and Giovanni Querci della Rovere, September 14, 1841, and August 24, 1843, in b. 11, as well as their extensive correspondence in b. 59, fond Pindemonte-Rezzon- ico, ASVr. 52 See Paruzzo, “Giovanni Querci della Rovere,” 28–29. 64 overlooking the Grand Canal, Giovanni and Federico displayed their paintings, just like in a true aristocratic gallery (fig. 6). The Della Rovere collection was acclaimed in several guidebooks and newspaper articles described the numerous, precious paintings displayed.53 One could try to trace his Guercino, Caravaggio, Carracci, Tiepolo, Canaletto, Veronese and Titian, but it is impossible, for example, he owned the paintings Gianjacopo Fontana described as coming from the Magistrato del Sale or the Chiesa dei Servi.54 The provenance information and the attributions, in all probabil- ity relayed to the authors by the dealer himself, should thus be taken cum grano salis. According to Fontana, Giovanni and Federico’s gallery also contained paintings that were once in the Rezzonico villa in Bassano.55 Again, there is no data to substantiate this claim.56 The dealers’ desire to embellish the provenance of their paintings goes hand in hand with the popular custom, in Austrian Venice, of renting palaces floors to display commercial galleries. Such venues were probably aimed at ennobling the antiquarians’ collections. Socially, politically, and culturally characterized places, which had once been the physical representation of the social prestige and political power of their former aristocratic owners (such as the Rezzonico) and of the lost Serenissima, the settings were able to legitimize the collections of the tenants on a par with the many, scattered collections of the patriziato.57 Whatever Querci della Rovere’s intentions might have been, the presence of his gallery, along with Giuseppe Bertoja’s studio, anticipated the type of artistic settings Ca’ Rezzonico would host in the second half of the century particularly. But the ateliers needed to wait. In fact, all tenants, not long after, had to leave the palace. From 1847 until 1858, Marquise Giovanelli rented the building to Duke Francesco V of Modena (1819–1875) through the intermediation of Taddeo Wiel, the Estense 53 See, among others, Lecomte, Venise, 293; Binzer, Venedig, 366; Pulissi, “Pinacoteca,” 181–82. 54 As rightly pointed out by the editor in Fontana, Venezia monumentale, 36, n. 7. Fontana’s original edition was written in the 1840s. 55 Fontana, Venezia monumentale, 33–36. 56 There seems to be no overlapping so far between the paintings described or recorded in their possession with the ones registered in the Bassano inventories of 1817. 57 On the subject, see Paruzzo, “Antiquari e gallerie” (forthcoming). VALERIA PARUZZO 6. Ca’ Rezzonico, Venice, the portego on the second floor where Querci della Rovere displayed his commercial gallery from 1841 (photo: © Sailko) 65 Consul in the lagoon city.58 Over the years, in the Rezzonico Palace—though sporadically—his sister Maria Beatrice d’Austria-Este (1824–1906) resided, with her husband Juan Carlos de Borbon (1822–1887), and their son Carlos. The Sale to Zieliński in 1857 and the Artists’ Studios In 1857 (not 1837),59 Lucrezia Giovanelli Pindemonte sold the palace to “Ladislao Zelenski,” prob- ably to identify with the Polish nobleman Władysław Zieliński (1836–1895).60 A native of Lviv, Zieliński, after a youth spent in the army, dedicated himself to the study of literature, historiog- raphy and heraldry.61 According to his autobiography, which tellingly opens with the exclamation “Wenecya!” (“Venice!”), Zieliński visited the lagoon city for the first time in 1853, at the age of 17, and instantly fell in love with it.62 When he volunteered to fight as a cadet in the Imperial army, he took part in the Italian campaigns in the 1850s and the acquisition of the palace might date back to this period, though one must note the relatively young age of the count in 1857. Equally puzzling is how Zieliński seems to have never lived in the palace: he travelled to the lagoon city more than once during his life, but in the long and detailed descriptions of Venice, its attractions (churches, palaces, Piazza San Marco), its history, and traditions, contained in his memoirs Ze wspomnień żołnierza (“Memories of a Soldier”), Ca’ Rezzonico is never once mentioned, nor does he ever re- count even seeing it or being there.63 Nevertheless, we know by now it was not uncommon to rent out a palace and never reside there, as the Widmann and Pindemonte families’ habits have shown. After Zieliński’s acquisition, the rooms of Palazzo Rezzonico seem to have been leased to sev- eral artists to be employed as ateliers. Indeed, it was not uncommon for artists in Venice during Austrian rule to buy or rent floors or rooms of former aristocratic palaces to host their studios for both short and long periods of time. Many examples could be mentioned: Francesco Hayez’ and Ludovico Lipparini’s studios in Palazzo Moro Lin, Natale and Felice Schiavoni’s in Palazzo Gius- tiniani dei Vescovi, or Friedrich Nerly’s, among many others, in Palazzo Pisani in Santo Stefano, which, after the tragic suicide of the painter Léopold Robert in 1835, had become a sort of “Roman- tic pilgrimage site” in Venice.64 This phenomenon seems to have increased after Venice’s annexa- tion to the newly founded Kingdom of Italy in 1866, which coincided with an increased presence of foreign—especially American—artists, travellers, collectors, and residents in the city. While not all rooms in Venetian palaces were particularly luminous, as one still sees today, they probably pro- vided more light than the ground floors in the maze of narrow calli, and the much needed physical 58 See the lease contract between Lucrezia Giovanelli Pindemonte and Taddeo Wiel, April 11, 1847, fond Pindemon- te-Rezzonico, b. 11, ASVr. 59 A mistake probably caused by a lapsus calami at some point, but still repeated in much literature concerning Ca’ Rezzonico. 60 On April 22, 1857; see papers in fond Pindemonte-Rezzonico, b. 11, ASVr. Zieliński first had to provide a settle- ment of 75.000 Austrian lire to the Jesuits, so they would renounce their rights over the palace conceded to them by Antonio Widmann Rezzonico’s will of 1816. 61 See Buonocore, “Witold Władysław Kornelius Zieliński,” 162–65. 62 See Zieliński, Ze wspomnień żołnierza. 63 See Zieliński, Ze wspomnień żołnierza. 64 The definition is by Myssok, “Friedrich Nerly”, 55 (with bibliography). For Schiavoni’s studio, see Stringa, “Un palazzo.” CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE 66 VALERIA PARUZZO 7. John Singer Sargent: Venetian Women in the Palazzo Rezzonico, ca. 1880/81, private collection (© private collection) 8. Noè Bordignon: A model, 1883, private collection (© private collection) 67 CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE space and room height that artists needed and which were somewhat scarce in Venice. Particularly, Ca’ Rezzonico offered the advantage of a courtyard that illuminated the portego from the west side as well, so that the windows on the Canal Grande were not its only source of light. In a recent essay, Vittorio Pajusco has excellently reconstructed Ca’ Rezzonico’s history of tenancy in the 1870s–1880s, discussing the presence of ateliers of international and Italian paint- ers, and publishing known, as well as previously unpublished, paintings and historic photographs reproducing its interiors.65 As early as the 1870s, the German painters Anselm Feuerbach and Leo- pold Carl Müller’s ateliers are documented in the palace.66 From 1879 to 1882 also James Abbott McNeill Whistler, Giovanni Boldini, and John Singer Sargent rented rooms to host their studi- os.67 Particularly, Sargent’s Venetian Women in the Palazzo Rezzonico (ca. 1880/81), depicting the women modelling for the artists during a break, offers a view of the portego on the second floor (fig. 7). As Pajusco rightly noted, the hall looks completely stripped of its furnishings at this point. On the contrary, the room north of the portego (today’s “Sala del Parlatorio”), in which the painter Noè Bordignon a couple of years later sets another depiction of a model (fig. 8),68 stands out for its warmth: the flowers, the carpet, the furniture, the drapes hanging by a thread on the background wall, and the girl sprawled limply in an armchair convey an air of bohemian tranquillity. Her fan and light dress, the windows opened to let the bright, warm light enter the room, convey how a serene spring or summer day in the ateliers of Ca’ Rezzonico may have felt. Bordignon established his studio in the palace in 1883, followed shortly after by Pietro Fragiacomo. In the following years, during the 1880s, Emanuele Brugnoli, Luigi Cima, Vittorio Tessari, Paul Tilton and Fausto Zonaro also joined them, establishing somewhat of a small serene colony in the palace, around which gravitated painters who also resided in the vicinity.69 The Sale to Barrett Browning (1888) and Hierschel de Minerbi (1906) In 1888 the palace was acquired and restored by Robert Barrett Browning (son of the poets Robert Browning and Elizabeth Barrett) and his wife, the American Fannie Coddington, heir to a large fortune.70 Italy had been a life-long source of inspiration for his parents and Barrett Browning, himself a painter, was probably fascinated with the atelier-like setting of the Venetian palace at that time. So much so, that some of the furnishings remained the same: as Pajusco pointed out, in a previously unpublished photograph we see the same sofa (and even carpet!) that Bordignon had painted a few years prior (fig. 9).71 The spacious room featured artworks and mixed furniture from various eras, but still retained some surviving pieces of the palace’s original 18th-century decor, 65 Pajusco, “Bordignon a Venezia,” 30–32, 35. 66 See Pajusco, “Bordignon a Venezia,” 43, n. 6. 67 Pajusco, “Bordignon a Venezia,” 30 (with the bibliography cited in n. 8–10). 68 This painting is also published and discussed in Pajusco, “Bordignon a Venezia,” 30–31. 69 Pajusco, “Bordignon a Venezia,” 32, and n. 16–18. 70 See, for example, Pedrocco, Ca’Rezzonico, 11. The bibliography on the Barrett Brownings is, again, too extensive. It will suffice to refer to the well-documented Ryals, “Robert Browning.” 71 Pajusco, “Bordignon a Venezia,” 30. The photograph is kept by Wellesley College Library, Special Collections, MS Browning H231, portfolio donated by Fannie Coddington Browning, ca. 1888. I wish to thank Mariana Oller, associate curator of special collections at Wellesley College, for her kind assistance. 68 VALERIA PARUZZO 9. Interior of today’s “Sala del Parlatorio”, ca. 1888, Wellesley College Library, Wellesley (© Reproduction courtesy of Wellesley College Library, Special Collections) 10. Interior view of today’s “Sala del Trono”, ca. 1888, Wellesley College Library, Wellesley (© Reproduction courtesy of Wellesley College Library, Special Collections) 69 CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE particularly the handsome and imposing flap dresser with mirrored, two-door riser on the left.72 Similarly, another photograph from the same portfolio shows the late 19th-century appearance of today’s “Sala del Trono” on the first floor (fig. 10). Here, too, we can see how, under Tiepolo’s fresco, the Barrett Brownings had juxtaposed to the exquisite 18th-century carved tables, the flap bureaus with riser, and the fine chinoiserie laquered door (one of the four which originally separated the rooms of Ludovico Rezzonico and Faustina Savorgnan’s apartment on the first floor73) also 19th- century pieces, chief among them a portrait by Robert Barrett Browning of his famous father, executed in May 1889 and now displayed in the Armstrong Browning Library & Museum at Baylor University in Texas. Indeed, Robert Browning, who visited his son and daughter-in-law in Venice repeatedly, died in the palace in December 1889, shortly after composing his last work, Asolando. Ignoring Emperor Wilhelm II of Germany’s offer to purchase the palace, Barrett Browning, hav- ing settled in Asolo on the mainland, sold the palace in 1906 to count Lionello von Hierschel de Minerbi. A nobleman of Jewish origins, Minerbi was an eclectic character: tennis and soccer cham- pion, majored in engineering, he was also a real estate and agriculture entrepreneur, a Member of Par- liament in Rome from 1909 to 1919, and an art dealer. During his thirty-year-long stay at Ca’ Rezzon- ico, he refurbished the palace, in line with his unique taste, holding masquerade parties, nocturnal receptions, and belle époque serenades by torchlight; “signorilità elegante e sfarzo opulento e grossier si scontravano violentemente sotto i celebri affreschi di Giambattista Tiepolo”, as noted by Filippo Pe- drocco.74 I do not believe, however, Hierschel de Minerbi’s activity, especially as a marchand-amateur, has received sufficient scholarly attention, and it is hoped this will one day be remedied. Along with the palace, it should be noted that he also owned pieces of furniture, as well as a few artworks from the original Rezzonico collection. For instance, The Consecration of Cardinal Rezzonico in the Church of S.S. Apostoli, a large canvas attributed to Giovanni Paolo Panini, was still in the palace in 1929, but later somehow came onto the art market.75 Research on Hierschel de Minerbi’s activity may thus provide further insight into the last phase of the dispersion of the Rezzonico art treasures. In the early 1930s, Minerbi, due to financial difficulties and the harsh political climate, began to discuss the sale of the palace with the Venetian municipality. After five-year-long negotiations, in 1935 Ca’ Rezzonico was acquired by the Municipality, in order to exhibit its illustrious and large 18th-century collection of paintings, detached frescoes, sculptures, furniture, and objects of applied 72 The dresser (ca. 1740/60) is still in the collection of the Musei Civici, see Fondazione Musei Civici, accessed Au- gust 3, 2023, https://www.archiviodellacomunicazione.it/sicap/OpereArte/7533/?WEB=MuseiVE. 73 The refined doors—possibly designed by Giambattista or Giandomenico Tiepolo in the late 1750s in connection with the apartment's fresco decoration—were evidently still in situ in the 1880s. They were sold by Hierschel de Minerbi (see below) to Adolph Loewi before the palace was transferred to the Municipality in 1935. Loewi donated one to the Gallerie dell'Accademia, today exhibited in Ca' Rezzonico. See Santini, Mille mobili veneti, 3: 320–23 (with bibliography). The three remaining doors are scattered today in various international collections. The one shown in this photograph was split by Loewi, who sold the shutter visible here—featuring a European rider in the upper panel and a Chinese gentleman below—to the architect and collector John Yeon. It was lastly exhibited at Quest for Beauty: The Architecture, Landscapes, and Collections of John Yeon, Portland Art Museum, May 13 – September 3, 2017. Loewi offered the other shutter to The Art Institute of Chicago (inv. 1953.461). I thank Mairead Horton for her fundamental help in retracing the object's history. 74 Pedrocco, Ca’ Rezzonico, 11. 75 For the painting, first published by Vittorio Moschini in 1929, see now Finocchi Ghersi’s catalogue entry in Nante, Cavalli, and Pasquali, Clemente XIII Rezzonico, 79–81 (with bibliography). Cf. also the annotations in scheda nr. 62811, Fototeca Federico Zeri, Università di Bologna. The canvas was in London with Chaucer Fine Arts by 2003, was auctioned at Sotheby’s in 2021 (Old Masters Day Sale, July 8, 2021, lot 186), and is currently (2023) with the Cesare Lampronti Art Gallery. 70 VALERIA PARUZZO arts originally pertaining to Ca’ Rezzonico, as well as to other Venetian palaces. The Museo del Settecento veneziano, with a display curated by Nino Barbantini and Giulio Lorenzetti, opened to the public in July 1936. Various historic photographs by the Giacomelli agency document the duo’s original museographic concept (figs. 11–14).76 The museum’s opening took place in the context of the critical revaluation of 18th-century art and culture. Indeed, a few years prior, Barbantini and Lorenzetti had jointly set up the influential exhibition Il Settecento italiano (1929) in the Biennale’s premises and would go on to organize in Ca’ Rezzonico, between 1936 and 1939, a series of yearly exhibitions dedicated to Venetian 18th-century applied arts.77 76 The Fondo Archivio Fotografico Giacomelli, which consists of photographic material belonging to Reale Fo- tografia Giacomelli, one of the most important Italian photographic agencies of the 20th century, is owned by the Municipality of Venice. 77 See Tomasella, “Venezia 1929.” 11. Barbantini and Lorenzetti’s display in the portego of the first floor of Ca’ Rezzonico after the inauguration of the Museo del Settecento, 1936 (© Archivio fotografico del Comune di Venezia) 12. Barbantini and Lorenzetti’s display in the “Sala dei Pastelli” of Ca’ Rezzonico, 1935 (© Archivio fotografico del Comune di Venezia) 71 • ․ • Today, Ca’ Rezzonico contains rare ensembles (such as Giandomenico Tiepolo’s frescoes for the villa in Zianigo) and has been enriched by subsequent donations, among which Ferruccio Mestrovich’s and Egidio Martini’s art collections are displayed in the palace in especially dedicated rooms. Due to the municipality’s careful refurbishment, the building bears few signs of its tumultuous 19th-century vicissitudes, but instead offers today a glimpse into the life of aristocratic Venice in the 18th-century and the splendour of the epoch in which the Rezzonico family once flourished.78 78 The author wishes to thank the conference organizers for providing a fruitful opportunity to encounter and ex- change views in Ljubljana, as well as Vittorio Pajusco and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on an earlier draft of this article. CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE 13. Barbantini and Lorenzetti’s display in the “Sala del Trono” of Ca’ Rezzonico, 1935 (© Archivio fotografico del Comune di Venezia) 14. Barbantini and Lorenzetti’s display in the “Portego dei Dipinti” on the second floor of Ca’ Rezzonico, 1936 (© Archivio fotografico del Comune di Venezia) 72 VALERIA PARUZZO Bibliography Bassi, Elena. Palazzi di Venezia: Admiranda urbis Venetae. Venezia: La stamperia di Venezia, 1976. Baumgartner, Eva Maria. “Riflessioni sulle vicende conservative di opere d’arte a Venezia durante la seconda dominazione austriaca.” In La cultura del restauro: Modelli di ricezione per la museologia e la storia dell’arte, edted by Maria Beatrice Failla, Susanna Adina Meyer, Chira Piva, and Stefania Ventra, 61–72. Roma: Campisano, 2013. Binzer, August. Venedig im Jahre 1844. Pesth, 1845. Buonocore, Marco. “Witold Władysław Kornelius Zieliński (1836–1895) e Francesco Foucalt di Daugnon (1836–1920): In margine alle relazioni italo-polacche di fine Ottocento.” In Un intellettuale polacco sulle strade d’Europa: Studi in onore di Jan Władysław Woś, edited by Antonello Biagini and Francesco Dante, 147–65. Roma: Edizioni Nuova Cultura, 2010. Cecchini, Isabella. “Aurelio Rezzonico.” In Il collezionismo d’arte a Venezia: Il Seicento, edited by Linda Borean and Stefania Mason, 308. Venezia: Marsilio, 2007. Collection of Capital Pictures: The Genuine Property of a Gentleman Going Abroad. June 2, 1827. London 1829. Collezione di leggi, avvisi, sentenze, notificazioni, vendite, acquisti, offerte, progetti, aste e di tutte le altre carte derivanti dalle autorità di questa centrale e suo dipartimento cominciante dal primo gennajo di quest’anno 1815. Vol. 1. Venezia, 1815. Contarini, Giovanni Battista. Lapidi sepolcrali erette nel nostro secolo a’ morti. Venezia, 1844. Corradini, Corrado. “Giacomo Quarenghi: La Sala della musica in Campidoglio.” Studi romani 3–4 (2004): 463–74. Davis, James Cushman. The Decline of the Venetian Nobility as a Ruling Class. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1962. Dal Cin, Valentina. Il mondo nuovo: L’élite veneta fra rivoluzione e restaurazione (1797–1815). Venezia: Edizioni Ca’ Foscari – Digital Publishing, 2019. http://doi.org/10.30687/978-88-6969- 313-7. Derosas, Renzo. “Aspetti economici della crisi del patriziato veneziano tra fine Settecento e primo Ottocento.” In Veneto e Lombardia tra rivoluzione giacobina ed età napoleonica: Economia, territorio, istituzioni, edited by Giovanni Luigi Fontana and Antonio Lazzarini, 80–132. Milano: Cariplo, 1992. Derosas, Renzo. “Dal patriziato alla nobiltà: Aspetti della crisi dell’aristocrazia veneziana nell’Ottocento.” In Les noblesses européennes aux XIXe siècle: Actes du colloque de Rome; 21–23 novembre 1985, edited by Gérard Delille, 333–63. Rome: École Française de Rome, 1988. Ferrari, Oreste, and Giuseppe Scavizzi. Luca Giordano: L’opera completa. Napoli: Electa, 1997. Fontana, Gianjacopo. Venezia monumentale: I palazzi. Venezia: Filippi, 1967. Fontana, Vincenzo. “Dal portego al salone: Proporzioni e armonie dell’architettura civile veneziana fra Sei e Settecento.” In Giambattista Tiepolo nel terzo centenario dalla nascita: Atti del convegno internazionale di studi; Venezia, Vicenza, Udine, Parigi, 1996, edited by Lionello Puppi, vol. 1, 115–23. Padova: Il Poligrafo, 1998. Fontana, Vincenzo. “Scaloni e sale da musica, alcove e ridotti: Il rinnovamento dei palazzi veneziani fra il Sei e il Settecento.” In Atlante tematico del Barocco in Italia: Il sistema delle residenze nobiliary; Italia settentrionale, edited by Marcello Fagiolo, 103–22. Roma: De Luca, 2009. Foscari Widmann Rezzonico, Antonio. “Beni mobili e quadri delle raccolte Rezzonico pervenuti per successione nelle raccolte Widmann.” Notiziario degli amici dei musei e dei monumenti di Bassano del Grappa 22–23 (2000): 70–84. Frank, Martina. Baldassarre Longhena. Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 2004. 73 Frank, Martina. “Der Funktionswandel venezianischer Palazzi um 1700.” In Deckenmalerei um 1700 in Europa: Höfe und Residenzen, edited by Stephan Hoppe, Heiko Lass, and Herbert Karner, 68–81. München: Hirmer, 2020. Frank, Martina. “From Ephemeral to Permanent Architecture: The Venetian Palazzo in the Second Half of the Seventeenth Century.” In Architectures of Festival in Early Modern Europe: Fashioning and Re-fashioning Urban and Courtly Space, edited by J. Ronnie Mulryne, Krista De Jonge, Pieter Martens, and Richard L. M. Morris, 119–38. London: Routledge, 2018. Gemin, Massimo, and Filippo Pedrocco. Giambattista Tiepolo: I dipinti; Opera completa. Venezia: Arsenale, 1993. Goldhahn, Almut. Von der Kunst des sozialen Aufstiegs: Statusaffirmation und Kunstpatronage der venezianischen Papstfamilie Rezzonico. Köln: Böhlau, 2017. Guida Commerciale di Venezia per l’anno 1846. Venezia: Coi Tipi di Francesco Andreola, 1846. Hopkins, Andrew. Baldassare Longhena: 1597–1682. Milano: Electa, 2006. Hopkins, Andrew. Baldassare Longhena and Venetian Baroque Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012. Hunecke, Volker. Il patriziato veneziano alla fine della Repubblica: 1646–1797; Demografia, famiglia, ménage. Roma: Jouvence, 1997. James, Diane. “A Fairy Palace in Devon: Redcliffe Towers Built by Colonel Robert Smith (1787–1873), Bengal Engineers.” In The East India Company at Home: 1757–1857, edited by Margot Finn and Kate Smith, 277–97. London: UCL Press, 2018. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt21c4tfn.23. Lanaro, Paola. “Fidecommesso, doti, famiglia: La trasmissione della ricchezza nella Repubblica di Venezia (XV–XVIII secolo); Un approccio economico.” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome: Italie et Méditerranée 124 (2012): 519–31. Lanaro, Paola. “Les stratégies patrimoniales familiales de l’élite vénitienne au XVIIIe siècle.”  Annales de démographie historique 134, no. 2 (2017): 151–72. Lecomte, Jules. Venise ou Coup-d’Oeil. Paris: Hippolyte Souverain, 1844. Lorenzetti, Giulio. Ca’ Rezzonico. Venezia: Ferrari, 1936. Magani, Fabrizio. Il collezionismo e la committenza artistica della famiglia Widmann, patrizi veneziani, dal Seicento all’Ottocento. Venezia: Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti, 1989. Mariacher, Giovanni. Ca’ Rezzonico: Guida illustrata. Venezia: Alfieri, 1966. Massari, Antonio. Giorgio Massari architetto veneziano del Settecento. Vicenza: Neri Pozza, 1971. Mazzocca, Fernando. Antonio Canova e i bassorilievi della collezione Rezzonico. Milano: Cariplo, 1993. Megna, Laura. “Comportamenti abitativi del patriziato veneziano (1582–1740).” Studi Veneziani 22 (1992): 253–324. Muraro, Maria Teresa, and Maria Ida Biggi. Giuseppe e Pietro Bertoja scenografi alla Fenice, 1840–1902: L̓ immagine e la scena. Venezia: Marsilio, 1998. Myssok, Johannes. “Friedrich Nerly in Venedig.” MDCCC 1800 1 (2012): 55–66. Nante, Andrea, Carlo Cavalli, and Pierantonio Gios, eds. Carlo Rezzonico: La famiglia, l e̓piscopato padovano, il pontificato; Atti della giornata di studi. Padova: Istituto per la Storia Ecclesiastica Padovana, 2013. Nante, Andrea, Carlo Cavalli, and Susanna Pasquali, eds. Clemente XIII Rezzonico: Un papa veneto nella Roma di metà Settecento. Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 2008. Noè, Enrico. “Rezzonicorum cineres: Ricerche sulla collezione Rezzonico.” Rivista dell’Istituto Nazionale di Archeologia e Storia dell’Arte 3 (1980): 173–306. Ojetti, Ugo. “Il palazzo Rezzonico è del Comune di Venezia.” Corriere della Sera, November 14, 1931. Pajusco, Vittorio. “Bordignon a Venezia: Da Ca̓ Rezzonico alle prime Biennali (barbaramente respinto).” In Noè Bordignon 1841–1920: Dal Realismo al Simbolismo, edited by Fernando Mazzocca, Elena Catra, and Vittorio Pajusco, 30–45. Genova: SAGEP, 2021. CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE 74 Paruzzo, Valeria. “Antiquari e gallerie commerciali nella Venezia asburgica.” Predella: Journal of Visual Arts 54 (2023, forthcoming). Paruzzo, Valeria. “Giovanni Querci della Rovere (1770–1865): Dealer of Old Masters in and beyond Austrian Venice.” In Beyond Borders: The Key for Art Market Power, edited by Vera Mariz and Léa Saint-Raymond, 13–34. Lisboa: Caleidoscópio (forthcoming). Paruzzo, Valeria. “Tra Venezia e Brescia: Questioni di gusto e collezionismo nella corrispondenza tra Giovanni Querci della Rovere e Paolo Tosio.” In Arte e carte nella Brescia dell’Ottocento: Fonti per il collezionismo e il mecenatismo, edited by Sara Tonni, 57–90. Brescia: Archivio di Stato di Brescia, 2022. Pasquali, Susanna. “Roma veneziana? La città, il pontificato Rezzonico e Giovanni Battista Piranesi.” In Clemente XIII Rezzonico: Un papa veneto nella Roma di metà Settecento, edited by Andrea Nante, Carlo Cavalli, and Susanna Pasquali, 53–59. Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale, 2008. Pavanello, Giuseppe. “Antonio Canova: I gessi ῾Rezzonico .̓” Bollettino del Museo Civico di Padova 73 (1984): 145–62. Pavanello, Giuseppe. “I Rezzonico: Committenza e collezionismo fra Venezia e Roma.” Arte Veneta 52 (1998): 86–111. Pavanello, Giuseppe, ed. Gli inventari di Pietro Edwards nella Biblioteca del Seminario Patriarcale di Venezia. Sommacampagna: Cierre, 2006. Pedrocco, Filippo. Ca’ Rezzonico: Museo del Settecento veneziano. Venezia: Marsilio, 2001. Perry, Marilyn. “Antonio Sanquirico, Art Merchant of Venice.” Labyrinthos 1–2 (1982): 67–111. Pignatti, Terisio. Tesori di Ca’ Rezzonico. Milano: Martello Editore, 1965. Pulissi, Domenico. “Pinacoteca Querci della Rovere.” Il Vaglio, June 8, 1844, 181–82. Romanelli, Giandomenico. Ca’ Rezzonico. Milano: Electa, 1986. Ryals, Clyde de L. “Robert Browning (1812–1889).” In Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, 2004. Accessed October 3, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/3714. Santini, Clara. Mille mobili veneti: L’arredo domestico in Veneto dal sec. XV al sec. XIX; Vol. 3, Venezia. Modena: Artioli, 2002. Stringa, Nico. “Un palazzo per artisti nella Venezia dell’Ottocento: Natale e Felice Schiavoni a Ca’ Giustinian dei Vescovi.” In Ca’ Foscari: Palazzo Giustinian; Uno sguardo sul cortile, edited by Francesca Bisutti and Guido Biscontin, 47–59. Crocetta del Montello: Terra Ferma, 2012. Tomasella, Giuliana. “Venezia 1929: La Mostra del Settecento italiano.” In Il cielo, o qualcosa di più: Scritti per Adriano Mariuz, edited by Elisabetta Saccomani, 220–28. Padova: Bertoncello Artigrafiche, 2007. Ton, Denis. Giambattista Crosato: Pittore del Rococò europeo. Venezia: Fondazione Giorgio Cini; Verona: Scripta, 2012. Woolf, Stuart. “L’Ottocento: 1797–1918; Introduzione.” In Storia di Venezia: L’Ottocento e il Novecento, edited by Mario Isnenghi and Stuart Woolf, 1–41. Roma: Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2002. Zieliński, Władysław K. Ze wspomnień żołnierza. Warszawa: Naklad Filipa Sulimierskiego, 1880. VALERIA PARUZZO 75 Ca’ Rezzonico v 19. stoletju Usoda zbirke in nove namembnosti palače Povzetek Prispevek na podlagi objavljenih in arhivskih virov analizira historiat zbirke v Ca’ Rezzonico, eni najimpozantnejših palač ob beneškem Velikem kanalu. Spremembe v namembnosti historičnih palač starejšega plemstva v Benetkah po padcu Serenissime leta 1797 predstavljajo poseben vidik pri raziskavah recepcije in novih funkcij plemiške arhitekturne dediščine v postrevolucionarni Evropi. Rezzonico, ena najuglednejših beneških plemiških rodbin, je z izvolitvijo Carla Rezzonica na papeški prestol kot Klemna XIII, je – čeprav so bili poplemeniteni relativno pozno – prišla do izjemnega političnega vpliva tako v Benetkah kot v Rimu. Njihovo palačo na obrežju Velikega kanala je zasnoval arhitekt Baldassare Longhena, dokončal pa jo je Giorgio Massari. Z impozantno, s freskami okrašeno slavnostno dvorano in izbrano razkošno opremo je bila utelešenje rodbinskega uspeha in moči. Po izumrtju rodbine Rezzonico leta 1810, je Ca’ Rezzonico podedovala rodbina Widmann-Rezzonico, za njo pa Rezzonico-Pindemonte, ki sta stavbo postopoma izpraznili, prostore pa oddali različnim najemnikom. Leta 1857 je palačo kupil poljski grof Władysław Zieliński, leta 1888 slikar Robert Barret Browning, 1906 pa je njen lastnik postal podjetnik Lionello Hierschel De Minerbi. Stavba je v tem obdobju služila različnim namenom; bila je sedež Avstrijske tobačne uprave, v njej so bili urejeni umetniški ateljeji in prodajne galerije umetnin, ateljeji scenografov, pa tudi stanovanja uglednih intelektualcev in estetov. Sobane in stene Ca Rezzonico so bile priča korenitim transformacijam evropske umetnosti, okusa in kulture v dolgem 19. stoletju. Leta 1935 je palačo od Minerbija kupila beneške mestna občina, v njem uredila muzej beneške umetnosti 18. stoletja (Museo del Settecento veneziano) in razstavila zbirko umetnin, umetnoobrtnih izdelkov in pohištva 18. stoletja, katerih historiat je povezan konkretno s Ca Rezzonicom in z drugimi beneškimi plemiškimi palačami. S skrbno prenovo stavbe je občina uspešno izbrisala sledove sekundarnih posegov v burnem 19. stoletju in poskrbela za rekonstrukcijo njene podobe v poznobaročnem obdobju, v času vrhunca moči in blišča rodbine Rezzonico. CA’ REZZONICO IN THE 19TH CENTURY: THE DISPERSAL OF ITS COLLECTIONS AND THE NEW USES OF THE PALACE 77 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.28.2.04 ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 ∙ 2023, 77–100 Abstract: The Role and Activities of Custodians of Aristocratic Collections in Bohemia in the 19th Century and First Half of the 20th Century: Selected Examples 1. 01 Original scientific article In a number of European countries, entrusting the care of the extensive sets of collections owned by aristocrats to a special employee or employees had been customary since the Renaissance. The focus of this study is the period from the beginning of the 19th century to the end of the Second World War. Selected individuals who together represent approximately one hundred and fifty years of care for collections located in aristocratic residences are presented. The academy-trained painter František Horčička, the former town executioner Carl Huss and the husband-and-wife team Wilhelmina and Karl Vincenz Auersperg devoted themselves to collections in the 19th century, while professor Josef Schmoranz and lawyer Josef Polák did so in the first half of the 20th century. Keywords: aristocratic collections, custodians of aristocratic collections, inventories of art collections, Klemens Wenzel Metternich, the Auersperg family, František Horčička, Carl Huss, Wilhelmina and Karl Vincenz Auersperg, Josef Schmoranz, Josef Polák, Rudolf Josef Colloredo-Mannsfeld Izvleček: Vloga in delovanje skrbnikov plemiških zbirk na Češkem v 19. stoletju in prvi polovici 20. stoletja. Izbrani primeri 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek V številnih evropskih državah je bilo od renesanse naprej običajno, da so skrb za obsežne zbirke v lasti plemičev zaupali posebnim uslužbencem. Pričujoča študija se osredotoča na obdobje od začetka 19. stoletja do konca dru- ge svetovne vojne. Posamezniki, izbrani za analizo, skupaj predstavljajo približno sto petdeset let skrbi za zbirke v plemiških rezidencah. Akademski slikar František Horčička, nekdanji mestni rabelj Carl Huss ter zakonca Wil- helmina in Karl Vincenz Auersperg so se zbirkam posvečali v 19. stoletju, profesor Josef Schmoranz in odvetnik Josef Polák pa v prvi polovici 20. stoletja. Ključne besede: plemiške zbirke, skrbniki plemiških zbirk, inventarji umetnostnih zbirk, Klemens Wenzel Metter- nich, rodbina Auersperg, František Horčička, Carl Huss, Wilhelmina in Karl Vincenz Auersperg, Josef Schmoranz, Josef Polák, Rudolf Josef Colloredo-Mannsfeld The Role and Activities of Custodians of Aristocratic Collections in Bohemia in the 19th Century and First Half of the 20th Century: Selected Examples Šárka Radostová Šárka Radostová, PhD, National Heritage Institute, Directorate General, Valdštejnské nám. 3/162, 118 01 Prague 1, radostova.sarka@npu.cz, ORCID: 0000-0002-1978-5464  Kristina Uhlíková Kristina Uhlíková, PhD, Institute of Art History of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Documentation Department, Husova 4, 110 00 Prague 1, uhlikova@udu.cas.cz, ORCID-ID: 0000-0001-5491-2636 78 ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ In a number of European countries, entrusting the care of the extensive sets of collections owned by aristocrats to a special employee or employees had been customary since the Renaissance.1 The focus of this study is the period—so far examined only minimally with regard to this question— from the beginning of the 19th century to the end of the Second World War. The need for a deeper understanding of the role managers played in shaping collections crystallized in a detailed study of the collections and extant sources on them. The written sources include numerous archival docu- ments, especially inventories of collections,2 correspondence and receipts for purchases, transfers, sales, contracts, etc. Publications from the period are unquestionably important too, especially the abundant topographically oriented literature, the first printed guides to individual aristocratic residences and the volumes on the art-history topography of the Czech lands that began to be pub- lished in the 1890s.3 Testimony to the historical form of the collections is also provided by period drawings and photographs of the interiors of chateaux and palaces. The collections themselves are also a vital source of information on the nature of the activities of individual managers in terms of their struc- ture, the typology of objects, their condition, the method of restoration or other modifications as well as the spaces chosen for presentation. The individual properties and the collections amassed within them were linked to various types of noble owners. We can make comparisons between the approach of the lower and upper nobility, or even the imperial family. A separate category is formed by the approach of the state, which took over the property of the Habsburg-Lorraine imperial family following the creation of the Czechoslovak Republic after the end of the First World War. The owner or owners of ancestral properties had a characteristic influence on the way the manager’s role was defined. The range of competences entrusted to him varied primarily according to the degree of personal enthusiasm and involvement from the owner, who could but did not necessarily have to be the main builder of the collection. Often it was only a question of responsible stewardship for the collection as part of a legacy. Another major factor that had a far-reaching influence was undoubtedly the state of the family finances. The period in question was characterized by an increase in financial resources in connection with the release from serfdom in 18484 and conversely after 1918 by a significant decrease in finances as a result of the forced cession of most land holdings during land reform.5 The key aspects that influenced the approach a manager took to the role entrusted to him were his personality, education, ambition and life experience. Different types of collections required specific abilities and erudition on the part of the administrator (painter, dealer, expert). 1 In relation to the Czech lands, this issue has primarily been dealt with by Lubomír Slavíček. See Slavíček, “Sobě, umění, přátelům;” Slavíček, Artis pictoriae amatores; Roháček and Slavíček, Hortus inventariorum. 2 An exhaustive study of inventories of art collections in the Czech lands is provided by Slavíček, “Bludiště seznamů” (including an extensive list of literature). 3 Soupis památek historických a uměleckých v království Českém (in German Topographie der Historischen und Kunst- Denkmale im Königreiche Böhmen, later Soupis památek historických a uměleckých v Republice československé). 4 Serfdom was abolished in the western part of the Austrian monarchy by a patent from September 7, 1848, and the compensation for land and labour enabled many aristocratic owners to make large-scale investments—not only into building work, but especially into business ventures. Auersperg himself very much welcomed this step. The prince summed up his support for the release of land in the political brochure Brief eines österreichischen Edelmannes, where, among other things, he stated: “We do not need any privileges: If we faithfully stand by our inherited land and our people, then the people will also stand by us, in the name of God, the king and the law.” See Auersperg, Erinnerungen, 90. 5 See Uhlíková, Šlechtická sídla. 79 THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... The aristocratic collections—many of which had only newly been transferred to the Czech lands in the 19th century—represented various motivations on the part of collectors; these were possessions amassed for the purpose of presenting the family’s history in order to demonstrate its personal power and status. As the 19th century progressed, they increasingly became a reflection of a personal passion for history, typically the Middle Ages, in the spirit of Romanticism. At the end of the 19th and into the 20th century, the prevailing theme was the voluntary assumption of responsibility for the artworks of the past accumulated by generations, a responsibility which was seen as being more towards the public, i.e. the “nation”, than towards future generations of the family. The main type of aristocratic collections were picture galleries, and it was also common to find mixed museum-type collections that followed in the tradition of the cabinet of curiosities or Kunstkammer, which incorporated all manner of objects and natural specimens. Most of these sets of items reflected the cosmopolitan orientation of their aristocratic owners and were characterized by the absence of a more specific tie to the region in which they were concentrated, or even more generally to the territory of the Czech lands—works of Bohemian origin were often entirely missing. Under the influence of growing patriotic sentiments, the period from the end of the 18th century onwards saw the founding of public collections in the Czech lands on the territorial principle (Gallery of the Society of Patriotic Friends of Art, 1796; Silesian Provincial Museum, 1814; Moravian Provincial Museum, i.e. Francis Museum, 1817; Museum of the Kingdom of Bohemia, originally Patriotic Museum, 1818; and gradually also smaller regional museums).6 Even the conservation of monuments in situ received new impulses and became a state matter from the mid-19th century. However, opening up aristocratic collections to the public only became the norm at the close of that century and until then was more of an exception. In contrast, after the creation of Czechoslovakia, this was often required by the state even in the case of private collections. In the following part of the text, we will present selected individuals who together represent approximately one hundred and fifty years of care for collections located in aristocratic residences. The academy-trained painter František Horčička, the former town executioner Carl Huss and the husband-and-wife team Wilhelmina and Karl Vincenz Auersperg devoted themselves to collec- tions in the 19th century, while the professor Josef Schmoranz and the lawyer Josef Polák did so in the first half of the 20th century; all of them are key professional and social types. Each of them also represents a certain type of collection and its status: the first is the collection of a prominent political figure in Austria, Chancellor Klemens Lothar von Metternich; the second collection is the family picture gallery of the Colloredo-Mansfelds, part of the fideikomis entailed estate. The third type is the Auersperg family museum at Žleby Chateau, and the fourth type is the d’Este collection of Crown Prince Franz Ferdinand, following its nationalization on the basis of the Saint Germain peace treaty. Another, more substantial part of the nobles’ property was nationalized in Czechoslovakia after the Second World War on the basis of presidential decrees issued in 1945 and subsequently, after the Communist Party’s seizure of power and the establishment of a totalitarian state, after 1948. Our research was exclusively concerned with collections which were nationalized but not returned to their former owners in the restitution that followed the Velvet Revolution in 1989. However, let us return to the administrators of aristocratic collections and look at the phenomena distinguishing and characterizing individuals in the role of collections manager. 6 See Slavíček, “Obrazárna Společnosti;” Slavíček, “Sběratelé.” 80 ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ The Academy-trained Painter and Restorer—Inspector of Collections Following the practice of aristocratic collectors from the previous centuries, in 1808, Imperial Prince Rudolf Josef of Colloredo-Mannsfeld (1772–1843)7 appointed the academy-trained painter František Horčička (or Franz Horcziczka, Prague, June 29, 1776 – April 5, 1856) first as restorer of the family picture gallery in Opočno (Opotschno) and then from 1811 as manager of the ancestral gallery in Prague (fig. 1). This “inspector well versed in art”, as he later described himself,8 then a thirty-three-year-old graduate of the Prague Academy with a reputation as a portrait painter, restorer, teacher and theoretician, was a remarkable but controversial figure. It was mainly under his direction that the family’s collection of paintings from the ancestral seats in Vienna, Döbling, Udine, Dobříš (Doberschisch) and Opočno was concentrated in the Colloredo-Mansfeld palace in Prague in 1808. As early as January of the following year, Prince Rudolf Colloredo-Mannsfeld announced that the gallery was to be opened to the public.9 This was done both on a visitor basis, where “entry was free every hour”, and on a practical basis for the purpose of studying and copying the paintings.10 When it comes to the operation of the gallery, we have the testimony of Horčička himself from the foreword to an inventory from 1829.11 The first ten years were dedicated to “polishing” and restoration. František Horčička was a recognized expert in the field of restoration, but he gradually progressed towards what was from today’s perspective a highly unconventional approach, often bordering on forgery.12 Horčička intervened in paintings and fabricated their context. In the case of a painting of the Madonna by Lorenzo di Credi, the painter cast himself in the role of a Raphaelesque artist, as is documented by the findings of the restorer Petr Bareš, who removed softening overpainting of the face in the style of Raphael which had been added by Horčička.13 This type of modification was fairly common in the past, but Horčička also attributed the painting to the famous master in the catalogue of the collection. Modern restoration also revealed Horčič ka’s creativity in a monumental painting of a battle scene from the history of the House of Gonzaga.14 Horčička repaired the badly damaged painting, which had already been overpainted in the 16th century, by artfully joining together the lower and 7 He spelt his name with a double “n”. For the Colloredo-Mansfeld family, see Řivnáč, Josef Colloredo-Mannsfeld; Horčička and Županič, Šlechta na křižovatce; Lobenwein et al., Herrschaft. 8 He studied philosophy and law and from 1800 also studied at the Prague Academy under Josef Bergler (1753– 1829); in 1801, during his studies, he was repeatedly praised for his skills as a copyist and he was awarded a schol- arship. From 1811 he participated in art exhibitions in Prague. See Neumann, “Malíř František Horčička;” Jirák, “Mezi teorií a prací;” Prahl and Machalíková, “Od restaurování.” 9 The founder of the picture gallery is believed to have been Franz de Paula Gundakar, Imperial Prince of Colloredo-Mannsfeld (1731–1807). 10 Jirák and Buroň, František Horčička, 34–35. 11 The German manuscript inventory from 1829 was compiled by Horčička under the title Verzeichniss der Gemälde in der Gallerie … (Index of the Paintings in the Gallery…) deposited at the state-owned chateau of Opočno, inv. no. OP09169. For an edited version with a Czech translation, see Jirák and Buroň, František Horčička. 12 For other cases where the name of the supposed scribe or illuminator was written into medieval manuscripts, see Prahl and Machalíková, “Od restaurování.” 13 Lorenzo di Credi, (Giovanni di Benedetto Cianfanini): Madonna with Child, circa 1500, state-owned chateau of Opočno, inv. no. OP02522, restored by Petr Bareš (1976) and the restorers Alena and Vlastimil Berger (1980). 14 Teodoro Ghisi (1536–1601), Francesco Borgani (1557–1624): Federico II Gonzaga at the Defence of Pavia, oil on canvas, 169 x 681.5 cm, state-owned chateau of Opočno, inv. no. OP02553. 81 upper motifs and filling in the missing parts using his imagination.15 He later worked in a similar way as a restorer outside of the Colloredo-Mansfeld collections too.16 After the picture gallery was expand- ed by a set of paintings from the Salz- burg estate of Bishop Hieronymus Franz Colloredo Waldsee (1732–1812) in 1820, the collection numbered approximately 500 items and Horčička prepared a careful inventory. The inventory lists the paint- ings in the order in which they were dis- played in the Prague picture gallery and also gives the order by the year of acqui- sition, while in a separate column it indi- cates the paintings tied to the fideikomis, paintings from Opočno and later acqui- sitions. It also registers the subject of the painting, dimensions, material and “pur- ported” author, and the inventory is enli- vened with comments and interesting facts (fig. 2).17 However, some of them were undoubtedly Horčička’s own invention. This can be concluded from a comparison with older inventories, where the information is entirely absent. What František Horčička added to the inventory was primarily a contextual link to the Colloredo-Mansfeld dynasty. Thus, we can see how in a portrait of the founders of the Heiligenberg hermitage, a depiction of Heiligenberg Castle, held by the Fürstenbergs, becomes the oldest seat of 15 According to the findings of the restorers Alena and Vlastimil Berger from 1974–1975, the painting bore two earlier versions of the same subject matter which differed only slightly from each other. As part of the restoration of the painting, Horčička linked them together and freely painted in the missing head of one of the warriors. See the restoration report deposited in the personal archive of the Berger restorers. 16 He also seems to have intervened in the form of paintings from the Gallery of the Society of Patriotic Friends of Art in Bohemia (SPVU) as the co-author of authorial attributions together with Josef Burda and Václav Mar- kovský. In 1832, he supplemented a proposal for restoration work with a preliminary budget, and the work on approximately 210 paintings took two years. He also repeatedly proposed the restoration of medieval paintings by Master Theodoric at Karlštejn Castle, operating under the belief that Theodoric had been trained in Constanti- nople and used the technique of encaustic painting. For more, see Neumann, “Malíř František Horčička,” 112–13. 17 Gielis Panhedel: Twelve-year-old Jesus in the Temple, circa 1550, dimensions 77.5 x 60.4 cm, state-owned chateau of Opočno, inv. no. OP02631. The following note is attached to this painting, which in the catalogue is attribut- ed to Hieronymus Bosch: “Von jedem Besitzer dieses Gemähldes wurde dem nachfolgenden mit ausgedrückter Bedeutung die Tradition mitgetheilt, der Mahler dieses Bildes, welcher Satyren auf den damal lebenden Clerus verfertigte, sey wegen diesen beyzeichneten Gemälde mit dem Leben verunglückt. Die Karikaturen der falschen Schriftgelehrten scheinen Bildnisse der damals lebenden Theologen zu seyn, der ihnen beygefügte Schmetterling bedeutet die Flatterhaftigkeit. Ein artiges Kompliment für diese Herren.” See Jirák and Buroň, František Horčička, 34–35; Radostová, Ad unicum, 291–96 (catalogue entry no. 50 by Šárka Radostová). THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... 1. Josef Mánes: Portrait of František Horčička, 1841, National Gallery, Prague (© Národní galerie Praha) 82 ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ the Mansfeld family in Germany;18 similarly, Horčička linked an unidentified husband and wife with the Trčka of Lípa family, i.e. the family that had previously owned the Colloredo-Mansfeld estate of Opočno.19 He intervened more dramatically in a portrait recently attributed to Hans Krell.20 The young man, apparently a bridegroom with the attribute of a pomegranate, was second- arily identified as Zdeněk Kostka of Postupice by a text on the reverse of the panel and antedated to the year 1422 in the painting itself. In this case, Horčička stylized the text into a form imitating an old-fashioned script that was more difficult to decipher.21 18 Anonymous, Germany: Portrait of the Founders of the Hermitage in Heiligenberg, 1520–1529, 71.5 x 108, state- owned chateau of Opočno, inv. no. OP11805. See Radostová, Ad unicum, 241–46 (catalogue entry no. 43 by Šárka Radostová). 19 Anonymous, Germany – Hans Brosamer (?): Putative Portrait of Trčka of Lípa Couple, 1516, oil painting on wood- en panel, dimensions 29.2 x 41 cm, state-owned chateau of Žleby, inv. no. ZL5479, stolen in 1974. See Radostová, Ad unicum, 181–86 (catalogue entry no. 31 by Šárka Radostová). 20 Circle of Hans Krell, Central Europe: Portrait of a Nobleman, 1530–1540, tempera painting on wooden (lime or pine?) panel, dimensions 54.60 x 40.70 cm, MF Opočno, inv. no. OP02619. See Radostová, Ad unicum, 267–72 (catalogue entry no. 46 by Blanka Kubíková). 21 Radostová, Hlušičková and Chmel, “The case of dual identity,” 115–18. 2. František Horčička, page from the inventory, 1829, National Heritage Institute, Prague (© Národní památkový ústav) 83 For the sake of completeness, we should mention that Horčička is also believed to be respon- sible for forgeries of medieval manuscripts,22 where he worked in collaboration with other patrioti- cally motivated Czech artists, employing historical methods and materials in a very convincing way. So it comes as little surprise that in the inventory for the Colloredo-Mansfeld collection, he also included a work of his own, painted in the spirit of the Ferrara Renaissance, for which he used an older panel with a different preparatory drawing.23 By Horčička’s own account, the workshop in the Prague palace was also used for copying paintings from the collection;24 one such copy of the aforementioned painting of the founders is recorded in Hermína Srbová’s First Republic collection in Prague.25 Horčička notes that “128 copies in various formats” were created of a painting of the Madonna by Carlo Dolci.26 There is no doubt that František Horčička took proper care of the paint- ings, kept careful records and focused attention on the collection thanks to highborn visitors and also thanks to the link to students. He probably derived no financial gain from his efforts. At the same time, his forgeries, interpretations and misleading additions and modifications, which altered the material essence and distorted the context of the works, were in keeping with the patriotic attempts of the time to provide evidence of the historical significance, antiquity and maturity of the Czech nation and its art to meet the needs of the National Revival. The Cheb Collector and Town Executioner—the First kustoss In contrast, the Revivalist current did not impinge upon the Metternich collections at Kynžvart Castle, where, on the basis of a contract concluded in 1827 with Chancellor Klemens Wenzel Nepomuk Lothar von Metternich,27 the first kustoss, as he sometimes proudly called himself, was Carl Huss (Brüx, January 3, 1761 – Königswart, December 19, 1836), former executioner in the town of Cheb (Eger) (figs. 3–4).28 Carl Huss was granted the position of custodian in exchange for his collection of coins, which by his own account had taken him thirty years to amass. The administrator’s post came with a salary, board and lodging, and heating—and all of this for life.29 However, the acquisition of Huss’s collection did not mark the beginning of Chancellor Metternich’s activities as a collector. He already possessed objects of a diverse nature dating from antiquity to the present, and the systematic scope of the collection, which conformed in type to a cabinet of 22 These were the so-called Dvůr Králové and Zelená Hora manuscripts, which were considered to be the crowning achievement of the early period of Czech literature and were an important source of inspiration for many artists during the National Revival. The dispute over their authenticity became one of the biggest scandals in Czech cultural life in the late 19th and early 20th century. 23 Madonna with Jesus, St Elizabeth and the Young John the Baptist (inv. no. OP02469), see Jirák and Buroň, František Horčička, 82–90. 24 Jirák and Buroň, František Horčička, 34–35. 25 Radostová, “Věčná památka,” 233, fig. 133. 26 Jirák and Buroň, František Horčička, 34–35. 27 For Klemens Metternich and the Metternich family, see Siemann, Metternich. See below, n. 28. 28 Šedivý, “Kynžvart;” Říha, “Metternichův kabinet.” 29 Employment contract of Carl Huss, written in German, 14 September 1827, inv. no. KY34375, National Heritage Institute, Prague (Národní památkový ústav – NPÚ). In his notes (inv. no. KY35125), Huss specifies that he has surrendered his collection of coins to Prince Metternich without charge in return for a lifetime annuity amoun- ting to 300 florins, 6 cords of wood and lodgings. THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... 84 ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ curiosities, was also exceptional.30 Indeed, Carl Huss himself represented one such curiosity along with his collection, which in addition to coins also included antiquities, executioner’s tools and minerals. The fact that it was located in the Cheb executioner’s house, the way it was installed in the cramped premises, and the occupation and undoubtedly remarkable personality of this man, who was the town executioner and chronicler in one, attracted the attention of visitors to the nearby spa. This was reflected in the high visitor numbers and the nobility of the guests, a list of whom is supplied by the visitor book Huss established after the collection was opened up in 1811 (fig. 5). The fame of the collection also grew thanks to Johann Wolfgang Goethe, an admirer of the collection and supporter of the executioner.31 Huss built up his own collection by purchasing items at auction as well as directly from owners, and he also made acquisitions through exchanges with prominent European collectors and specialists. He continued to do so even after taking up the role of mana- ger. The surviving correspondence shows not only Huss’s good knowledge of European collections but also the systematic approach he took to adding to the collection. In doing so, he maintained 30 For example, the Chancellor received purchases of work from the defunct Cistercian monastery in Waldsassen. The Benedictine monastery in Ochsenhausen, abolished in 1803, was acquired in 1805 by the Chancellor’s father, Franz Georg von Metternich, as compensation for his destroyed property in the Rhineland. A number of objects are located at Kynžvart Chateau, including many of the manuscripts and early printed books from the monastery’s library. 31 Goethe visited the executioner’s house a total of six times, and his relationship with Huss is also documented by correspondence, see Říha, “Metternichův cabinet,” 96. 3. Portrait of Carl Huss, 1798, National Heritage Institute, Prague (© Národní památkový ústav) 4. Employment contract of Carl Huss, 1827, National Heritage Institute, Prague (© Národní památkový ústav) 85 a lively correspondence.32 However, Chancellor Metternich ably assisted his custodian by sending him notifications of upcoming auctions with detailed instructions from his diplomatic trips. This is documented, for example, by a personal letter from Klemens Metternich to Carl Huss written in German regarding a collection of coins from the estate of Immanuel Christian Leberecht von Ampach (1772–1831), canon in Naumburg, dean of the monastic chapter in Wurzen, numismatist, collector and patron, whose collection was for sale in Berlin in 1834.33 In his letter, the Chancellor asks Huss to contact his man in Berlin and authorizes him to purchase 58 coins. The relevant amount of 198 florins and 35 kreuzers will be advanced to Huss by the prince through a bank in Berlin. The correspondence also confirms Metternich’s shipments of coins to Huss with instructions enclosed.34 The careful inventories of Huss’s collection became the model for the Metternich collection. He kept records of the collections in around 36 notebooks (over time the numismatic collection came to encompass 11,000 items), with Huss combining the viewpoints of provenance, subject and chronology. He paid special attention to the aesthetic aspect and the notebooks were uniformly provided with a cut-out paper label with an ink-and-wash drawing in his own hand and a handwritten title. Inside the notebook, the pages were simply lined and each coin was listed with a reference number, a description and its value in florins and kreuzers.35 The notebooks also contain 32 The correspondence is part of the collections of furnishings at the state-owned chateau of Kynžvart. 33 Letter from K. Metternich to C. Huss, inv. no. KY35228, NPÚ. 34 Letter from K. Metternich to C. Huss, 1833, inv. no. KY35238, NPÚ, concerns a consignment of 47 coins and medals, and the prince asks that they be signed for. 35 For example, one notebook is a handwritten list of a collection of coins from North American states, East and West India and the cities of Hamburg and Bremen (inv. no. KY35500, NPÚ). These coins were collected over a period of 25 years. The label bears a dating of 1835. THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... 5. Sign marking the entrance to the Huss’s museum, National Heritage Institute, Prague (© Národní památkový ústav) 86 ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ colour renderings of coats-of-arms and other coloured drawings. The letters show the contribution Huss made to assembling a collection of high-quality Renaissance medal work from the mining town of Jáchymov (Sankt Joachimsthal) in the Ore Mountains, which was founded by Štěpán Šlik in 1520. In 1828, Huss listed 1,641 objects classified by material.36 He was also involved in preparing items for display. One of the more curious assemblages consists of ashes from the tomb of Achilles, deposited in a glass container on a wooden plinth with the inscription “Asche aus dem im Jahre 1802 eröfneten Achilles Tumalus bei Troja”. The plinth also bears two small male heads in clay and alabaster, which were acquired separately as Achilles and Socrates and on the plinth were labelled as Achilles and Patroclus (fig. 6).37 Under Huss’s direction, rooms were set aside for the collections with a separate entrance for visitors to enter the museum, as this part of the chateau was called. Following Huss’s death, the cabinet of curiosities was further expanded, and after the death of Klemens Lothar Metternich, his son Rudolf had his father’s death mask incorporated into the museum’s collections along with the glass from which the dying chancellor had last drunk. In doing so, he was consciously continuing to build the collection in accordance with the approach taken by his father and his first kustoss. 36 Verzeichniss aller in dem Hochfürstlich von Metternich’schen Mineralien, Waffen- und Kunst-Cabinet vorfindlichen Gegenstände, manuscript by Carl Huss from 1828, call no. 28-C-9 (18746), library of the state-owned Kynžvart Chateau. 37 Prague, National Heritage Institute, inv. no. KY02104. According to a note inside the glass container, the ashes were a gift from Marie-Gabriel-Florent-Auguste de Choiseul-Gouffier (1752–1817), French ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, who was an expert on ancient Greece and also carried out excavations: “Asche aus dem Kruge, welcher in dem Grabhügel Achylls auf der Ebene bei Troja gefunden wurde. Mir Ao 1802 von dem Gr. Choisseul Gouffier, ehem. kön. franz. Bottschafter in Constat. gegeben, welcher diese Nachgrabung anstellte.” 6. Glass container with the ashes from the tomb of Achilles on a wooden plinth with an inscription, National Heritage Institute, Prague (© Národní památkový ústav) 87 The Aristocratic Family as Creator and Manager of the Collection Žleby (Schleb, Zleb) Chateau (originally a medieval castle), situated a hundred kilo- metres east of Prague, belonged to the eminent family of the Princes of Auersperg from the 18th century onward (fig. 7).38 In the third quarter of the 19th century, the predominantly baroque property under- went a major reconstruction in the spirit of Romantic historicism, which was initi- ated by its owner at the time, Vincenz Karl Auersperg (1812–1867).39 The young prince began the reconstruction only a few years after 1845, when he took over from his mother, Maria Gabriela Eleonora, née Lob- kowicz (1793–1863), the management of the large estates he had inherited from his great-uncle, Karl Auersperg-Trautson. The key aspect that enabled or at least expedited work on the extensive reconstruction was the freeing up of substantial financial resources as a result of the release of his lands from serfdom. The young prince admired the world of medieval chivalry, but at the same time he was also a sup- porter of social and economic reforms and the revival of the Czech language.40 In 1856, he became a founding member of the Viennese society Alterthumsverein,41 whose aim was to preserve his- torical sources and monuments and which was instrumental in early conservation efforts within the Austrian monarchy. He found an outlet for his own artistic leanings in verse and prose,42 and Žleby Chateau—which he consistently referred to as a castle—was to become in all respects the embodiment of his notions of an “ancient seat”. However, he shared these interests with a num- ber of representatives of prominent Austrian aristocratic families of the time, for example Georg Johann Buquoy (1814–1882), Kamil Josef Rohan (1800–1892), Johann Adolf II of Schwarzenberg (1799–1888), Karl II of Schwarzenberg (1802–1858), Franz Ernst Harrach (1799–1884) and Alois II Liechtenstein (1896–1858), who were also the initiators of new buildings or reconstructions of their aristocratic seats in the spirit of Romantic historicism.43 Most of them were primarily 38 Auersperg is an Austrian dynasty—its princely branch had a seat in Bohemia, and this branch was divided into two lines: the older Vlašim one and the younger Žleby one. For more detail, see Preinfalk, Auersperg; Nohel, Auerspergové. 39 The majority of the reconstruction work took place between 1849 and 1867. See, for example, the chapter about Žleby Chateau, in Kuthan, Aristokratická sídla, 76–90. 40 He liked to sign himself Čeněk, and he also issued various proclamations to the inhabitants of Žleby and the surrounding area in Czech. 41 “Verzeichniss.” 42 His son Franz Josef Auersperg later published some of his works. See Auersperg, Erinnerungen. 43 For more detail, see Kuthan, Aristokratická sídla; Horyna, “Architektura romantického;” Trnková, Krajina, sídlo, obraz. THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... 7. Žleby Chateau, Archive of the Institute of Art History, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague (© Ústav dějin umění Akademie věd České Republiky) 88 ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ inspired by the contemporary English mansions which they became thoroughly familiar with during their trips to England.44 In the case of Vincenz Karl Auersperg, both his mother Gabriela and his wife Wilhelmina (née Colloredo-Mannsfeld, 1826–1898) became fully fledged partners in these interests. The reconstruction of Žleby Chateau, headed by builder Benedikt Škvor (1805–1865), who was assisted by a later prominent representative of historicizing architecture in Bohemia, František Schmoranz (1814–1902), was in terms of ideas the work of all three members of the princely family.45 The contribution of both of these artistically gifted women is clearly demonstrated by their sketchbooks46 with designs for architectural details or assemblages of them, their main source of inspiration being a pictorial publication by the English architect Joseph Nash (1809–1878).47 The newly furnished interiors of the chateau were also primarily intended to evoke an atmosphere of antiquity (Alterthums), and here too Nash’s book with its depictions of Renaissance English aristocratic seats was the main inspiration. Some of the rooms actually imitate specific interiors portrayed there (the identical location of windows and fireplaces, the decoration of the walls and ceilings and the placement of objects of the same type). The contribution made by Vincenz Karl Auersperg’s mother and wife to the conception and the choice of individual objects is indisputable. The prince, who gradually became a very prominent figure in Viennese court politics and social life, regularly spent the warmer part of the year at the chateau with his family. To them the summer residence represented the embodiment of idealistic notions about the chivalric past, a prestigious ancestral monument and a private refuge from the “big” world. All of these motifs come together in the furnishing of the individual rooms. They were kitted out with stylistically appropriate furniture from other properties belonging to the family, with the most significant enrichment being the inheritance from Wilhelmina’s father, Franz II of Colloredo-Mannsfeld (1802–1852). There were also numerous gifts from relatives and friends as well as objects brought back from trips around Europe or purchased from other aristocrats or antique dealers, especially in Munich and Vienna. Some of the furniture was also made according to historical prototypes.48 The aristocratic owners became not only the creators but for many years also the managers and caretakers of this extensive collection of “antiquities”, as they themselves called it. Both of the princesses recorded it in detailed watercolour paintings of the individual rooms (fig. 8).49 Here the more talented Wilhelmina often worked with her Viennese drawing teacher, Amalie von Peter 44 All of those named had visited England, and often for a lengthy period of time. During the period in question, cultural ties were also bolstered by the political alliance between Austria and Victorian Britain. 45 See Trnková, “Knights, Pilgrims,” 267: “In the period of Romantic historicism, cooperation between the owner of the property, the architect and the individual creators of decor and furnishings during the modification or building of aristocratic residences was more a matter of course than an exception. The noble clients were naturally interested in ensuring they had adequate supervision of the building work and its decoration—all the more so because the outcome of these processes was, on the one hand, the shaping of their private environment and, on the other hand, the presentation of their ancestral traditions and history.” 46 These are now kept in Prague, National Heritage Institute, Žleby Chateau depositary, inv. no. ZL893–926, ZL2133. 47 Nash, The Mansions. An edition of this work in several volumes by the pupil of Augustus Pugin and favourite architect of King George IV, is still preserved in the library of Žleby Chateau. However, they undoubtedly made use of other sources of inspiration as well—e.g. Ungewitter, Entwürfe. 48 The interiors of other chateaux rebuilt in the spirit of Romantic historicism—the Buquoys’ Rožmberk, the Schwarzenbergs’ Hluboká or the Harrachs’ Hrádek u Nechanic—were furnished in a similar way. 49 Křížová, Šlechtický interiér; Letošníková, “Anglický romantismus;” Pospíšilová, “Historizující zámecký interiér.” 89 (1807–1953). Rudolf Alt (1812–1905), a popular professional painter specializing in capturing aris- tocratic interiors, was also invited to the chateau.50 From the turn of the 1850s and 1860s, a manuscript inventory of the furnishings of the indi- vidual spaces was gradually created, with its main authors probably being the husband and wife Karl Vincenz and Wilhelmina. The inventory of antiquities at Žleby Chateau51 is very different from the standard inventories of art collections or the furnishings of chateaux and other stately homes from the time, whose creation was motivated by legal or economic reasons, or even by 50 In the 1870s—i.e. not until after the death of Vincenz Karl—the interiors of the chateau were also photographical- ly documented; however, the identity of the photographer is unknown. See Collection of Historical Photographs, Department of Documentation, Institute of Art History of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague (Ústav dějin umění Akademie věd České Republiky – ÚDU). At the time, documenting aristocratic interiors (including col- lections) using this modern reproductive technology was becoming a trend. 51 Manuscript 1, inv. no. 8, Family Archives of the Auerspergs, Žleby and Slatiňany, Státní okresní archiv v Hradci Králové (SokA). The inventory is recorded on 103 pages close to A4 format in size and is bound in a solid brown cover decorated with gilding. It lists the furnishings of individual rooms, the order of which is largely random, and some of the rooms are missing entirely. Within each room, a description of the furniture is given first, followed by the paintings and finally smaller objects (precioza). THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... 8. Wilhelmina and Vincenz Auersperg in the library of Žleby Chateau, 1845, watercolour, National Heritage Institute, Prague (© Národní památkový ústav) 90 ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ interest from the professional art-history community. In contrast, its individual entries were meant to capture the relationship of the family of owners to the object in question. Its formal characterization (material, dimensions) as well as the professional art-history viewpoint (time of creation, stylistic classification, authorship or country of origin) are played down. On the contrary, we are told which of the relations or friends donated it to the family (“schöner, großer eingelegter Tisch von Vater Colloredo”, “von meiner geliebten Gattin Wilhelmine Auersperg”) or which fam- ily residence it was transferred from. We often find a subjective aesthetic evaluation or a reference to the exceptional impression of antiquity it makes (“Heiligenbild in Holz auf Goldgrund, uralt”). There are very valuable notes on the sources of inspiration for the furnishing of the rooms (“(d)ieses Zimmer ist eingerichtet in dem Stile der Salzburgeren Schlosses (anno 1504)”) and purchases of objects (“(d)eutsche renaissance Truhe. 1848 samt einer Schüssel um 25 fl. gekauft”). The intimate nature of the inventory suggests that it was primarily intended for the actual family and its future generations rather than visitors to the castle or even their guides from among the staff. This demonstrates, among other things, that for the prince and his family the chateau largely represented a private retreat in the idealized world of a heroic past. Nevertheless, it seems that from the beginning, the intention was also to present this carefully constructed world outwardly, not only to the family’s visitors but also to the wider public visiting this region, which was being quite heavily exploited by tourists at the time. The chateau’s main social spaces were thus opened to visitors, accompanied by the castellan, very shortly after the greater part of the reconstruction was completed in the 1860s. The interest in the property is documented by the publication of a detailed, high-quality guidebook in 1888, which quickly sold out and had to be reprinted in 1890.52 How- ever, by that time, Žleby Chateau’s role as an “aristocratic apartment” was coming to an end, and it remained primarily an ancestral monument and a space for storing and presenting collections. The family of its new owner, Franz Josef (1856–1938), the oldest son of Vincenz Karl, who took pos- session of the property after the death of his father in 1867,53 gradually moved its main residence to the less ostentatious nearby former hunting chateau of Slatiňany. The Former Prince’s Manager at the Time of the Republic At the end of the 19th century, Žleby began to be viewed by its owners more as a museum; the histo- ry it presented was already ceasing to be part of life. From the end of the 19th century and especially in the 20th century, the trend of earmarking a single property for the concentration and presenta- tion of historical collections can also be seen in a large number of other aristocratic families which owned a number of chateaux and extensive land holdings in the Czech lands, e.g. the Czernins (the chateau of Jindřichův Hradec/ Neuhaus), the Hluboká branch of the Schwarzenbergs (the chateau of Český Krumlov/Böhmisch Krummau) and the Waldsteins (the chateau of Mnichovo Hradiště / Münchengrätz). Usually, this was the oldest, most architecturally interesting or most prestigious property, but one which was difficult to adapt to modern living requirements—not only for purely practical reasons but also with regard to its conservation value. The owner’s family would then use a smaller and newer property to live in, often surrounded by an extensive landscaped park, where 52 Hendrich, Hrad Žleby. 53 Initially, the property was managed by his mother. 91 they had more privacy and which they could adapt to their needs unhindered. In contrast, in the “museumized” property, they tried to ensure adequate care for the family’s historical collections, whose open- ing up to the public was by then becoming the norm. Another aspect which fits neatly into this trend is the occupation of the expert who was newly appointed to oversee the Žleby collections. In 1915, Josef Schmoranz (1855–1938),54 one of the sons of the archi- tect responsible for the reconstruction of Žleby Chateau in the 1850s and 1860s, was asked to take on this role by Franz Josef Auersperg.55 After studying painting at the Academy of Fine Arts in Vienna, Josef Schmoranz had undertaken a number of study trips to European countries, including Italy and Belgium. Subsequently, he became a teacher of art subjects at the renowned Industrial School for Woodworking in Chrudim in East Bohemia. However, he popularized visual art even outside of this school and published several books on artistic styles, historical weapons and folk art.56 He only took over the role of manager (custodian) of Žleby’s collections and library after his retirement (fig. 9). Franz Josef Auersperg had known Josef Schmoranz practically since he was born,57 and from his point of view he represented the ideal person to manage his collections—absolutely trustworthy with the right professional grounding.58 Schmoranz certainly did not disappoint him, devoting himself to the collection entrusted to him in a comprehensive way. He moved to Žleby and took over the role of guide to the chateau from the castellan. In addition, he soon prepared and in 1921 published a 63-page printed description of 54 Šulc, “Josef Schmoranz.” 55 All of the sons took an active interest in the visual arts, especially architecture. The eldest, František Schmoranz Jr., became the founder and first director of the School of Applied Arts in Prague. 56 Schmoranz and Adámek, Lidový nábytek; Schmoranz, Nauka o tvarech. 57 His father worked intensively with him over a long period on the reconstruction of the chateau in Slatiňany and was also behind most of the other building enterprises on his estate; what’s more, the family also lived in Slatiňany. In 1928, Franz Josef wrote of him that “seit längeren Jahren, in alter Freundschaft die Stelle eines Custos der dortigen Sammlungen zu ersetzen [...]”. See Letter from F. J. Auersperg to T. G. Masaryk (draft), 1928, inv. no. 101, box 5, Family Archive of the Auerspergs, Žleby and Slatiňany, SokA. 58 Here a role may also have been played by the small financial demands Schmoranz made as a result of holding a state pension. THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... 9. Josef Schmoranz at Žleby Chateau, 1920s, Archive of the Institute of Art History, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague (© Ústav dějin umění Akademie věd České Republiky) 92 ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ artistic objects kept at the castle.59 At the time, he saw the main reason for presenting the collections to the public in these terms: they have [...] a highly significant ideal purpose: to awaken and stimulate an interest in and appreciation of beauty. The earlier an interest in and appreciation of everything beautiful is awakened, the more comfortingly and powerfully a love of art and respect for old monu- ments develops, and without these two factors a perfect education can never be attained.”60 To a large extent, the guidebook corresponds to the demands placed on a specialist publication at the time. At Žleby, Schmoranz is also supposed to have prepared the now lost manuscript Studie zbraní všech věků (Study of the Weapons of All the Ages), and indeed his deep interest in arms and armour is also attested by the space devoted to them and the erudite descriptions of them in the aforementioned guidebook. Another of Schmoranz’s advantages soon became apparent: the fact that he was of Czech nationality. After the creation of the Czechoslovak Republic in 1918, the aristocracy completely lost their power and to a large extent their social status; titles were abolished by law and their use was even prohibited. Large-scale land ownership—the main source of income for most of them—was reduced on average to a quarter of its original extent by land reform. The new republic made it abundantly clear to the aristocrats that their services were not required.61 Most of them—partly as a protest against this situation—declared themselves German nationals, but this made their position even worse in a country explicitly presenting itself as the state of the Czechoslovak nation. The last two Auerspergs, Vincenz Karl and Franz Josef, were traditionally regarded as more “pro-Czech” by aristocratic society, but Franz Josef did not agree with the young republic’s approach to his social class, and this was probably the main reason why during the official population census the otherwise cosmopolitan nobleman claimed German nationality. By employing Czechs, he was able to partially compensate for his complicated situation, both in relation to the state administration and, in a predominantly Czech-speaking area like the vicinity of Žleby Chateau, in relation to the public as well. Thus, for example, Josef Schmoranz was delegated by his employer to act as guide to the Presi- dent of the Republic, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, during his visit to Žleby in 1928, as we learn from the surviving draft of a letter from Franz Josef Auersperg to Masaryk.62 In it he puts the chateau entirely at the president’s disposal but openly explains to him that he will not personally take on the role of guide due to his disagreement with the attitude of the Czechoslovak Republic towards the nobility, or rather towards the owners of large estates. Practically the only sphere in which the young republic had no scruples about employing the services of noblemen was the care of cultural assets. In almost all cases these were left to them during the implementation of the land reforms, but in return the state insisted that they were properly maintained and often opened to the public or at least to researchers as well. For the most part, the nobles discharged this role very responsibly; after all, that was the most effective strategy for encouraging the state administration to take a more benevolent approach during 59 Schmoranz, Hrad Žleby. 60 Schmoranz, Hrad Žleby, 3. 61 On the position of the nobility in the First Czechoslovak Republic, see Glassheim, Noble nationalists; Uhlíková, Konfiskované osudy. 62 Letter from F. J. Auersperg to T. G. Masaryk (draft), 1928, inv. no. 101, box 5, Family Archive of the Auerspergs, Žleby and Slatiňany, SokA. 93 the expropriation of their other landed property.63 It is also within this context that we can view the open approach to detailed research into Žleby Chateau and especially its collections in the 1920s as part of a project mapping the art-history topography of Czechoslovakia organized by the Archaeological Commission of the Czech Academy of Science and the Arts and the Gesellschaft zur Förderung deutscher Wissenschaft, Kunst und Literatur in Böhmen. The description of the chateau by the art historian Alžběta Birnbaumová forms a large part of the volume published in 1929 and dedicated to the Čáslav district.64 Managers in the Service of the State Even after the implementation of land re- form in the 1920s, most of the historical aristocratic residences in Czechoslovakia remained the private property of the origi- nal owners. However, properties owned by members of the ruling House of Habsburg- Lorraine were an exception. According to the Treaty of Saint Germain, all of their property in Czechoslovakia was ceded to the state.65 In addition to extensive land holdings, this comprised 17 stately homes and one castle.66 The state’s primary inter- est was in agricultural land, which is why the administration of all this property was entrusted to the Ministry of Agriculture, or rather to an enterprise newly established by it: State Forests and Estates. Stately homes, including their rich collections, remained of peripheral interest for a long time, preserved in the condition their original owners had left them in. To a large extent, state support for culture was regarded by the representa- tives of the Czechoslovak state as a super- structural matter, and this was reflected in the extremely makeshift provision of staff- ing and finances in the state cultural sphere, 63 Uhlíková, Šlechtická sídla; Radostová and Uhlíková, “The history of furnishings.” 64 Birnbaumová and Jansová, Soupis památek historických. 65 Act No. 354/1921, collection of acts and regulations from August 12, 1921, on the takeover of estates and property newly belonging to the Czechoslovak state on the basis of the peace treaties. 66 Chateaus in Bohemia: Brandýs nad Labem, Chlum u Třeboně, Koleč, Konopiště, Ostrov nad Ohří, Ploskovice, Přerov nad Labem, Smiřice and Zákupy; in Moravia: Ivanovice na Hané, Hodonín and Židlochovice; in Silesia: Frýdek; and in Slovakia: Holič, Skýcov, Šaštín, Topolčianky and the castle of Vigláš. THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... 10. Josef Polák (right) with Zdeněk Wirth and Hugo Kretschmer in Ukraine, 1930s, Archive of the Institute of Art History, Czech Academy of Sciences, Prague (© Ústav dějin umění Akademie věd České Republiky) 94 ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ managed by the National Enlightenment department of the Ministry of Education and National En- lightenment. Under the pressure of external circumstances, its civil servants—under the leadership of the head of this department, the art historian and heritage conservationist Zdeněk Wirth (1878–1961) —eventually arrived at a rather convoluted solution in an attempt to ensure at least some form of professional care for the former Habsburg-Lorraine collections. They entrusted this to the director of the East Slovak Museum in Košice (Kaschau), Josef Polák (1886–1945),67 who, through a combination of circumstances, was the only qualified manager of art collections within the jurisdiction of the department at the time. Polák was a Prague-born lawyer of Jewish descent who had taken a systematic interest in art since his studies at the Czech university in Prague at the beginning of the 20th century. He and Zdeněk Wirth knew each other from the milieu of the Club “For Old Prague”, the most important and most active non-state entity focusing on heritage conservation in the pre-war period (fig. 10). With his excellent organizational, professional and linguistic skills, the extremely hard-working Polák was certainly a very suitable person for the post of manager of the former Habsburg-Lorraine collections, and Wirth had complete confidence in his professional and managerial abilities. However, Košice was a long way from Bohemia, where most of the properties were located. For this reason, Polák had to carry out the inventorization of the collections—which was to become the basis for their professional administration—during his summer holiday, which was extended by the Ministry of Education and National Enlightenment on an ad hoc basis. Surprisingly, this unusual arrangement remained in operation until 1938. By that time Polák had primarily managed to inventorize the largest and most valuable collections from Konopiště Chateau, which had been gathered there over many years by the heir to the Austro- Hungarian throne, Franz Ferdinand d’Este. Until recently, Polák’s inventory in the form of a card index was still being used by the National Heritage Institute, the current administrator of the chateau,68 although its origins had long been forgotten. We know that, in addition to Konopiště, Polák inspected the furniture of the chateaux in Brandýs nad Labem (Brandeis an der Elbe), Zákupy (Reichstadt) and Ploskovice (Ploschkowitz), and he informed Zdeněk Wirth about the situation at the properties and the course of the work in detail in correspondence which is still extant. For example, in a letter from November 13, 1928, he writes indignantly about the chateau in Brandýs nad Labem: Brandýs is dreadful! I found an el Greco among the junk, propped against the corner of a bench, standing on the ground—no one in all of Europe would believe it! I also unearthed a beautiful Füger, a wonderful antique bronze (head) and many other things. I am rescu- ing them by having everything transferred to Konopiště for the time being. I took the Greco there myself (by car) and it is already standing in the gallery (3rd floor) on a steplad- der. It is a divine thing, fully signed.69 In the 1930s, Polák also published several articles presenting more in-depth research into the most interesting exhibits from these collections.70 At this time, he also designed the conception of the future permanent exhibition at Konopiště Chateau, so far opened to the public only on a provisional basis. However, according to the department of agriculture’s ideas, this was to be realized only after 67 On Polák, see Veselská, Muž, který. 68 After the Second World War, the chateau was taken over by the Czechoslovak heritage authorities. 69 Letter from J. Polák to Z. Wirth, 13 November 1928, box W-A-251, vol. 1, fonds Z. Wirth, ÚDU. 70 Polák, “Busta Lorenza de Medici;” Polák, “Konopišťské gobelíny;” Polák,“Činnost umělecké.” 95 the complete inventorization of the collections from all the Habsburg-Lorraine chateaus, and a selection of their most valuable artefacts was to be presented. However, he was unable to realize this ambitious project, for which there were minimal financial resources and Polák could not count on any other experts besides himself. In 1938, Josef Polák, like most of the Czechs working in Slovakia, was forced to return to Prague.71 After the occupation of the rest of the Czech lands by Nazi Germany, he went to work as a specialist at the Central Jewish Museum newly created by the Reich authorities.72 At that time, he was also used by the Protectorate and Reich authorities as the foremost authority on the collec- tions originating from the Habsburg-Lorraine estate, for example during the selection of objects for Hitler’s museum in Linz. It was probably also thanks to him that in the end a relatively small number of objects was taken from these chateaux for this purpose. Despite the great danger Josef Polák faced because of his Jewish origins, he actively participated in the anti-Nazi resistance.73 He was arrested in 1944 and died in Auschwitz in 1945. Conclusion Within this study we have presented the key figures whose activities testify to the increasing attention paid to the professional care of aristocratic collections. The time frame includes the reverberation of the encyclopaedic movement, which is exemplified by Carl Huss and his employer Klemens Lothar Metternich and the collections they built up together, which in its diversity of artefacts corresponded to a cabinet of curiosities and a Kunstkammer in one. At the same time, this was a period characterized by the rise of patriotic sentiments and nascent Czech nationalism, as is clearly illustrated by the example of František Horčička’s work with the Colloredo-Mansfeld collection. As a result, Romanticism and the Auersperg seat built in that spirit represented a single integrated monument evoking the gravitas, age and importance of this international dynasty. The period of the First Czechoslovak Republic, received by the nobles with a certain bitterness, which was a response to the way in which the new state threatened and encroached on their property and status, is encapsulated in a private letter from Franz Josef Auersperg to the President of the Czechoslovak Republic, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk. The story of Josef Polák testifies to how difficult it was to instigate and enforce state care of expropriated cultural properties. All of them shared a willingness and readiness to give over the relevant part of their profes- sional and personal life to the collection entrusted to them. Responsibility for the collections and the need to present them further apparently triggered a shift towards more detailed, structured inventories of the collections, which in view of their significant financial value were usually pro- tected by fideikomis status. If we compare the aforementioned inventories, we will see that each of them was designed in a completely original and independent way, with the chosen structure basi- cally corresponding to the initiative of the manager, his education, original profession and previous 71 Most of the Czech employees were forced to leave Slovakia by the end of 1938. 72 The Central Jewish Museum thus became the storage place for liturgical objects, books and archival materials from the Jewish communities in the Protectorate for the period after the war and for selected objects from the property of Jews deported from Prague and the surrounding area to concentration and extermination camps. See Veselská, Židovské muzeum. 73 Veselská, Muž, který, 111. THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... 96 ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ experience. Generally, the owner did not devote a great deal of attention to them, the exception obviously being the inventory of antiquities at Žleby Chateau by the Auersperg couple. All of the collections were opened to the public and, apart from the only state-run one installed at Konopiště, also presented within more or less specialist publications. However, their publication was only tolerated, not initiated, by the owners of the collections and was given minimal financial support. The most thorough approach to making the collection accessible was the establishment of the Metternich museum, which had a separate entrance and a planned visitor route. First, as early as 1808, the Colloredo-Mansfeld picture gallery in the Prague palace was opened to the public, and important visitors were recorded there too. The Auersperg chateau of Žleby finally arrived at a similar approach after being transformed into a family museum in the 1870s. Those engaged to manage the collections were experts whom the owners usually knew well on a personal level and trusted. Two of them only devoted themselves to these activities after they retired, which may also have been related to their lower financial demands. Until now, the central role in creating and determining the further direction of aristocratic collections has been attributed almost exclusively to their owners. However, our research to date has come to a rather different conclusion. Even though they were often invisible actors operating in the background, the managers of the collections were of much greater significance than previously assumed. They were influential in many respects, from acquisitions, through the presentation and registration of artworks, to methods of conservation and restoration. It is our belief that in further research into historical collections and collecting, it will always be necessary to carefully consider the role of the manager, not only in terms of the contribution they made to a particular collection but also as part of a more general examination of collections and how they evolved over time.74 74 Translated by Suzanne Dibble. Part of this study came about as a specific objective of Výzkum druhových skupin předmětů na objektech ve správě Národního památkového ústavu, výzkumná oblast Movité památky (Research into Typological Groups of Objects at Sites Managed by the National Heritage Institute, research area: Movable Monuments), as part of the project Umělecká díla antiky, středověku, renesance a manýrismu v mobiliárních fondech ve správě Národ- ního památkového ústavu (Ancient, Medieval, Renaissance and Mannerist Artworks in the Furnishings Collections Managed by the National Heritage Institute), financed through the Ministry of Culture’s Institutional Support for the Long-term Conceptual Development of the Research Organization (DKRVO 99H3010130). The Ad unicum project edition now encompasses a total of five volumes, and within the individual monographs, emphasis is also placed on presenting the results of provenance research and the history of collecting. For the English-language publication, see Radostová, Ad unicum. 97 Bibliography Auersperg, Franz Josef, ed. Erinnerungen an meinen Vater Vincenz Carl Auersperg. Wien: Franz Josef Auersperg, 1906. Birnbaumová, Alžběta, and Libuše Jansová. Soupis památek historických a uměleckých v království Českém od pravěku do počátku XIX. století. XLIV, Politický okres Čáslavský. Praha: Archaeologická komise při ČAVU, 1929. Glassheim, Eagle. Noble nationalists: The transformation of the Bohemian aristocracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2005. Hendrich, Jan. Hrad Žleby ve východních Čechách: Jeho majitelé, děje a památnosti; Též popis kostela, hrobky a města Žleb, jakož i filialních kostelů v Markovicích. Čáslav: J. Hendrich, 1888–1890. Horčička, Václav, and Jan Županič. Šlechta na křižovatce: Lichtenštejnové, Schwarzenbergové a Colloredo-Mannsfeldové v 1. polovině 20. století. Praha: Agentura Pankrác, 2017. Horyna, Mojmír. “Architektura romantického historismu.” In Dějiny českého výtvarného umění. Vol. 3, 1780/1890, edited by Taťána Petrasová and Helena Lorencová, 261–77. Praha: Academia, 2001. Jirák, Matouš. “Mezi teorií a prací: František Horčička a Opočno.” Zprávy památkové péče 77 (2017): 82–90. Jirák, Matouš, and Miloš Buroň, eds. František Horčička – katalog Colloredo-Mansfeldské obrazárny: Kritický katalog. Praha: Národní památkový ústav, 2018. Křížová, Květa. Šlechtický interiér 19. století: V dobových zobrazeních ze zámeckých sbírek. Praha: Panorama, 1993. Kuthan, Jiří. Aristokratická sídla období romantismu a historismu. Praha: Akropolis, 2001. Letošníková, Ludiše. “Anglický romantismus na zámku Žleby: Poznámky k reinstalaci.” Památková péče 3 (1969): 129–49. Lobenwein, Elisabeth, Jutta Baumgartner, Gerhard Ammerer, and Thomas Mitterecker, eds. Herrschaft in Zeiten des Umbruchs: Fürsterzbischof Hieronymus Graf Colloredo (1732–1812) im mitteleuropäischen Kontext. Salzburg: Anton Pustet, 2016. Nash, Joseph. The Mansions of England in the Olden Time. [London]: T. M’Lean, 1839–1848. Neumann, Jaromír. “Malíř František Horčička a Hankova falza.” In Milan Hlavačka, Jaroslav Čechura, Jana Čechurová, and Marie Koldinská. Falza a podvody české historie, 108–27. Akropolis: Praha, 2001. Nohel, Roland. Auerspergové v Čechách. Kutná Hora: OKC, 1997. Polák, Josef. “Busta Lorenza de Medici z českosl. státního majetku.” Umění 7 (1934): 69–81. Polák, Josef. “Činnost umělecké družiny Josefa Navrátila v Zákupech a Ploskovicích v letech 1850– 1853.” Umění 11 (1938): 414–38. Polák, Josef. “Konopišťské gobelíny s historií o Donu Quijotovi.” Umění 8 (1935): 17–27. Pospíšilová, Marie. “Historizující zámecký interiér 19. století v Čechách.” Umění 27, no. 4 (1979): 296–319. Prahl, Roman, and Pavla Machalíková. “Od restaurování k padělání, od padělání k inspirované Tvorbě: František Horčička.” In Historické fikce a mystifikace v české kultuře 19. století: Sborník příspěvků z 33. ročníku Sympozia k problematice 19. století; Plzeň, 21–23. února 2013, edited by Martin Hrdina and Kateřina Piorecká, 79–92. Praha: Academia, 2014. Preinfalk, Miha. Auersperg: Geschichte einer europäischen Familie. Graz: Stocker, 2006. Radostová, Šárka, ed. Ad unicum: Selected works of Gothic, Renaissance and Mannerist Art from the National Heritage Institute, Czech Republic. Prague: National Heritage Institute, 2020. Radostová, Šárka, and Kristina Uhlíková. “The history of furnishings collections from the standpoint of provenance research in the Czech Republic.” In Ad unicum: Selected works of Gothic, THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... Renaissance and Mannerist art from the National Heritage Institute, Czech Republic, edited by Šárka Radostová, 13–43. Prague: National Heritage Institute, 2020. Radostová, Šárka. “Věčná památka dávno zapomenutých.” In Uprostřed Koruny České: Kolektivní monografie NAKI II, edited by Ivo Hlobil and Milan Dospěl, 227–39. Oberon: Prostějov, 2020. Radostová, Šárka, Pavla Hlušičková, and Radovan Chmel. “The case of dual identity.” In Acta Artis Academica 2017: Painting as a story; Proceedings of the 6th Interdisciplinary ALMA Conference, edited by Janka Hradilová and David Hradil, 113–24. Prague, Academy of Fine Arts in Prague 2017. Říha, Miloš. “Metternichův kabinet kuriozit na zámku Kynžvart.” In Metternich a jeho doba: Sborník příspěvků z konference uskutečněné v Plzni ve dnech 23. a 24. dubna 2009, edited by Ivo Budil, 95–105. Plzeň: Fakulta filozofická Západočeské univerzity, 2009. Řivnáč, František, ed. Josef Colloredo-Mannsfeld: Sborník statí k sedmdesátým narozeninám: 17. II. 1866 – 17. II. 1936. [Praha]: Úřednictvo colloredo-mannsfeldských velkostatků, 1936. Roháček, Jiří, and Lubomír Slavíček, eds. Hortus inventariorum: Statě k problematice inventářů pro dějiny umění. Praha: Artefactum, 2018. Schmoranz, Josef. Hrad Žleby u Čáslavě: Popis uměleckých věcí chovaných na hradě. Žleby, 1921. Schmoranz, Josef. Nauka o tvarech uměleckých. Praha: Státní ústav pro učebné pomůcky škol průmyslových a odborných, 1923. Schmoranz, Josef, and Karel Václav Adámek, eds. Lidový nábytek východočeský. Chrudim: Průmyslové museum, 1907–1908. Siemann, Wolfram. Metternich: Stratege und Visionär; Eine Biografie. München: C. H. Beck, 2017. Slavíček, Lubomír. “Bludiště seznamů. Inventáře jako pramen k dějinám sběratelství v Čechách a na Moravě v 17. a 19. století.” In Hortus inventariorum: Statě k problematice inventářů pro dějiny umění, edited by Jiří Roháček and Lubomír Slavíček, 53–91. Praha: Artefactum, 2018. Slavíček, Lubomír. “Obrazárna Společnosti vlasteneckých přátel umění a počátky institucionálního sběratelství v Čechách.” In „Sobě, umění, přátelům“: Kapitoly z dějin sběratelství v Čechách a na Moravě 1650–1939, edited by Lubomír Slavíček, 151–68. Brno: Společnost pro odbornou literaturu – Barrister & Principal, 2007. Slavíček, Lubomír. “Sběratelé, přátelé umění, mecenáši a veřejná muzea v českých zemích 1800–1939.” In „Sobě, umění, přátelům“: Kapitoly z dějin sběratelství v Čechách a na Moravě 1650–1939, edited by Lubomír Slavíček, 193–206. Brno: Společnost pro odbornou literaturu; Barrister & Principal, 2007. Slavíček, Lubomír. „Sobě, umění, přátelům“: Kapitoly z dějin sběratelství v Čechách a na Moravě 1650–1939. Brno: Společnost pro odbornou literaturu – Barrister & Principal, 2007. Slavíček, Lubomír, ed. Artis pictoriae amatores: Evropa v zrcadle pražského barokního sběratelství. Praha: Národní galerie, 1993. Šedivý, Miroslav. “Kynžvart of Chancellor Metternich.” In The Nobility of the Czech Lands on the Chessboard of European Diplomacy, edited by Petr Pavelec, Martin Gaži, and Milena Hajná, 524–43. České Budějovice: National Heritage Institute, 2022. Šulc, Ivo. “Josef Schmoranz.” In František Schmoranz st. a rod Schmoranzů ze Slatiňan, edited by Ivo Šulc, Jan Uhlík and Kristina Uhlíková, 285–300. Praha: Artefactum, 2020. Trnková, Petra, ed. Krajina, sídlo, obraz: Romantický řád Jiřího Jana Buquoye / Landscape, Residence, Image. Georg Johann Buquoy’s Order. Praha: Artefactum, Ústav dějin umění AV ČR, 2015. Trnková, Petra. “Knights, Pilgrims, Tourists, Archaeologists and Antiquaries at Rožmerk.” In Krajina, sídlo, obraz: Romantický řád Jiřího Jana Buquoye / Landscape, Residence, Image: Georg Johann Buquoý s Order, edited by Petra Trnková, 244–63. Praha: Artefactum, Ústav dějin umění AV ČR, 2015. Uhlíková, Kristina, ed. Konfiskované osudy: Umělecké památky z německého majetku získaného československým státem a jejich severočeští majitelé / Konfiszierte Schicksale: Kunstdenkmäler aus deutschem Besitz, erworben durch den tschechoslowakischen Staat, und ihre nordböhmischen Besitzer. Praha: Artefactum, 2019. ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ 98 99 Uhlíková, Kristina, ed. Šlechtická sídla ve stínu prezidentských dekretů. Praha: Artefactum, 2017. Ungewitter, Georg Gottlob. Entwürfe zu gothischen Möbeln. Glogau: Flemmeing, [1854]. “Verzeichniss der Mitglieder des Alterthumsvereins zu Wien.” Berichte und Mitteilungen des Altertums-Vereines zu Wien 1 (1856): 12. Veselská, Magda. Muž, který si nedal pokoj: Příběh Josefa Poláka (1886–1945) / The man who never gave up: The story of Josef Polák (1886–1945). Praha: Židovské muzeum v Praze, 2005. Veselská, Magda. Židovské muzeum v Praze. Praha: Academia, 2012. Vloga in delovanje skrbnikov plemiških zbirk na Češkem v 19. stoletju in prvi polovici 20. stoletja. Izbrani primeri Povzetek V številnih evropskih državah je bilo od renesanse naprej običajno, da so skrb za obsežne zbirke v la- sti plemičev zaupali posebnim uslužbencem. Pričujoča študija se osredotoča na obdobje od začetka 19. stoletja do konca druge svetovne vojne, ki je bilo v zvezi s tem vprašanjem doslej le zelo malo obrav- navano. Potreba po poglobljenem razumevanju vloge, ki so jo imeli skrbniki pri oblikovanju zbirk, se je izkristalizirala v podrobni študiji zbirk in ohranjenih virov o njih. Med pisnimi viri so številni arhivski dokumenti, zlasti popisi zbirk, korespondenca in potrdila o nakupih, prenosih in prodajah, pogodbe itd. Nedvomno so pomembne tudi publikacije iz tega obdobja, zlasti bogata topografsko usmerjena literatu- ra, npr. zvezki o umetnostnozgodovinski topografiji čeških dežel, ki so začeli izhajati v devetdesetih letih 19. stoletja, kot tudi prvi tiskani vodniki po posameznih plemiških rezidencah. O historični podobi zbirk pričajo tudi sočasne risbe in fotografije notranjosti gradov in palač. Tudi same zbirke so pomemben vir informacij o naravi dejavnosti posameznih skrbnikov z vidika njihove strukture, tipologije predmetov, njihovega stanja, načina restavriranja ali drugih predelav ter izbranih prostorov za predstavitev. Posamezne nepremičnine in zbirke, zbrane v njih, so bile povezane z lastniki, ki so bili plemiči raz- ličnih stopenj. Primerjamo lahko pristop nižjega in višjega plemstva ali celo cesarske družine. Posebno kategorijo tvori pristop države, ki je po ustanovitvi Češkoslovaške republike po koncu prve svetovne vojne prevzela premoženje habsburško-lotarinške cesarske družine. Lastnik ali lastniki rodbinskih nepremičnin so imeli značilen vpliv na način opredelitve vloge skrb- nika. Obseg pristojnosti, ki so mu bile zaupane, se je razlikoval predvsem glede na stopnjo osebnega navdušenja in vključenosti lastnika, ki je bil lahko, vendar ne nujno, glavni graditelj zbirke. Pogosto je šlo le za odgovorno skrbništvo nad zbirko kot del zapuščine. Drugi pomemben dejavnik, ki je imel daljnose- žen vpliv, je bilo stanje družinskih financ. Za obravnavano obdobje je bilo značilno povečanje finančnih sredstev v povezavi z odpravo podložništva leta 1848, po letu 1918 pa, nasprotno, znatno zmanjšanje finančnih sredstev zaradi prisilne oddaje večine zemljiških posesti v okviru zemljiške reforme. Ključni vidiki, ki so vplivali na to, kako je skrbnik pristopil k zaupani mu vlogi, so bili njegova osebnost, izo- brazba, ambicije in življenjske izkušnje. Različne vrste zbirk so od skrbnika (slikarja, trgovca, izvedenca) zahtevale posebne sposobnosti in erudicijo. THE ROLE AND ACTIVITIES OF CUSTODIANS OF ARISTOCRATIC COLLECTIONS IN BOHEMIA IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND FIRST HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY... 100 Plemiške zbirke – mnoge od njih so bile v češke dežele prenesene na novo šele v 19. stoletju – so pred- stavljale različne motivacije zbiralcev; šlo je za premoženje, zbrano zato, da se predstavi zgodovina družine, da bi se pokazala njena osebna moč in status. V 19. stoletju so zbirke vse bolj postajale odraz osebne strasti do zgodovine, običajno do srednjega veka, v duhu romantike. Ob koncu 19. in v 20. stoletju je prevladoval motiv prostovoljnega prevzemanja odgovornosti za umetnine preteklosti, ki so jih zbirale generacije, pri čemer je ta odgovornost veljala bolj za javnost, tj. »narod«, kot za prihodnje družinske generacije. Posamezniki, izbrani za analizo, skupaj predstavljajo približno sto petdeset let skrbi za zbirke v ple- miških rezidencah. Akademski slikar František Horčička, nekdanji mestni rabelj Carl Huss ter zakonca Wilhelmina in Karl Vincenz Auersperg so se zbirkam posvečali v 19. stoletju, profesor Josef Schmoranz in odvetnik Josef Polák pa v prvi polovici 20. stoletja; vsi so bili ključni predstavniki posameznih strok in družbenih slojev. Vsak od njih predstavlja tudi določen tip zbirke in njen status: prva je zbirka po- membnega avstrijskega politika, kanclerja Klemensa Lotharja von Metternicha (dvorec Kynžvart), druga je družinska galerija slik Colloredo-Mansfeldov (dvorec Opočno), del fidejkomisnega posestva, tretji tip je družinski muzej Auerspergov na gradu Žleby, četrti pa zbirka prestolonaslednika Franca Ferdinanda (grad Konopiště), ki je bila nacionalizirana na podlagi Saintgermainske mirovne pogodbe. ŠÁRKA RADOSTOVÁ, KRISTINA UHLÍKOVÁ 101 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.28.2.05 ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 ∙ 2023, 101–121 Abstract: The New Life of Baroque Castles in North-Western Croatia: The Renovation of the Erdödy and Vranyczány Families’ Castles at the End of the 19th and Beginning of the 20th Centuries 1. 01 Original scientific article The article examines the furnishing of country residences, the collecting practises and art patronage of members of two families of the old and new nobility, the Erdödy and the Vranyczány-Dobrinović, who played an important role in Croatian society and politics. The Erdödy furnished their castles in Jastrebarsko, Novi Marof and Bajnski dvori with Historicist furniture and decorated them with their collections, which consisted mainly of works of art by Old Masters. The Vranyczány followed the trend of Historicist interior decoration and expressed their personal taste more strongly, which was reflected in their estates of Mirkovec and Gornje Oroslavje, which became the centre of social gatherings of the modern Croatian art scene. Keywords: Baroque Castles, renovation, Erdödy Family, Vranyczány Family, Collections, Landscape architecture, furnishing, Oroslavje, Bajnski dvori Izvleček: Novo življenje baročnih gradov v severozahodni Hrvaški. Prenova gradov rodbin Erdödy in Vranyczány konec 19. in v začetku 20. stoletja 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek V članku so predstavljeni oprema podeželskih rezidenc, zbirateljstvo in umetnostno naročništvo članov rodbin Erdödy in Vranyczány-Dobrinović, predstavnikov starega in novega plemstva, ki so imeli pomembno vlogo v družbenem in političnem življenju Hrvaške. Člani rodbine Erdödy so svoje gradove Jastrebarsko, Novi Marof in Bajnski dvori prenovili skladno z novimi trendi in jih opremili s historicističnim pohištvom in likovnimi deli veči noma starih mojstrov. Člani rodbine Vranyczány pa so sledili modi historicistične notranje opreme z močno izraženim osebnim okusom, vidnim predvsem na posestih Markovec in Gornje Oroslavje, ki sta postali srečevališče tedanje hrvaške umetniške srenje. Ključne besede: baročni gradovi, prenova, rodbina Erdödy, rodbina Vranyczány, zbirke, krajinska arhitektura, opre- ma, Oroslavje, Bajnski dvori The New Life of Baroque Castles in North-Western Croatia The Renovation of the Erdödy and Vranyczány Families’ Castles at the End of the 19th and Beginning of the 20th Centuries Dubravka Botica Prof. Dubravka Botica, PhD, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, Ul. Ivana Lučića 3, 10000, Zagreb, dbotica@ffzg.hr, ORCID-ID: 0000-0001-7698-0904 102 DUBRAVKA BOTICA Introduction Up until the dissolution of the Habsburg monarchy, the role of artistic trendsetters, promotors of new artistic styles and patrons in Croatia was indisputably held by the nobility. However, the cir- cumstances of the nobility’s patronage, various actors, artists and patrons, as well as the popularity and prestige of different artistic media changed over time. The artistic and architectural heritage of the nobility and its members’ everyday lives was not a commonly studied subject of art history in Croatia in the 20th century, a rare exception being the exhibition From Everyday to Holidays: The Baroque in Croatia held in the Museum of Arts and Crafts in Zagreb in 1993.1 It seems that the subject and content of this exhibition was based on a study by Josip Matasović of the culture of 18th- century daily life published back in 1921.2 Artistic patronage is mostly commonly researched in the case of religious art, particularly altars and votive offerings donated to churches by the nobility.3 Interest in this topic has increased during the last few decades, encouraged by more comprehensive research4 and exhibitions. Some of the most significant exhibitions include The Magnificent Vrany- czánys (Zagreb, 2016),5 Ars et Virtus: Croatia – Hungary; 800 Years of Common Heritage (Zagreb/ Budapest, 2020/2021),6 which focused on Hungarian and Croatian nobility, and The Art of the Sla- vonian Nobility: Masterpieces of European Heritage (Zagreb, 2021).7 This paper and the associated presentation at the conference Artistic and Architectural Heritage of the Nobility delve into the activities of the nobility in the 19th and first decades of the 20th centuries in North-western Croatia: their everyday life in their city and country residences, the furnishing of their country properties and the surrounding grounds, with a particular focus on the artistic patronage, interests and commissions shared by both the old and the new nobility using the examples of two noble families which had important roles in the social and political life of Croatia. The nobles in question are the Erdödy and the Vranyczány families. The Erdödy family was one of the oldest and most significant noble families in the historical territory of Hungary and Croatia and, even though its reputation and power started to wane during this period, it still retained an important social and cultural role. The Vranyczány family, on the other hand, was a new noble family with a distinguished role in the social and cultural life of Croatia at the time. These two families have been chosen as a case study for research into patronage by the nobility in north-western Croatia for several reasons. First and foremost, the archival materials relating to these two families, especially photographic collections and photo albums, are extensive and well preserved, which provides an insight into the furnishing of their country residences as well as their everyday lives. Furthermore, these families are representative of two dominant groups within the 1 Maleković, Od svagdana do blagdana. 2 Matasović, Iz galantnog stoljeća; Matasović, Iz galantnog stoljeća, kulturnohistorijski fragmenti. 3 See the newest exhibition held in the Museum of the Veliki Tabor Castle opened November 4, 2022, “Izložba Rattkayi Velikotaborski i Crkva,” Veliki Tabor, accessed September 18, 2023, https://www.veliki-tabor.hr/novosti- -i-najave/pregled/izlozba-rattkayi-velikotaborski-i-crkva. 4 Two research projects are interesting in this context, Visual Arts and Communication of Power in the Early Modern Period (1450–1800): Historical Croatian Regions at the Crossroads of Central Europe and the Mediterranean (PI Milan Pelc, Institute of Art History, 2014–2018) and ET TIBI DABO: Commissions and Donors in Istria, Croatian Littoral and North Dalmatia from 1300 to 1800 (PI Nina Kudiš, University of Rijeka, 2017–2021). 5 Bagarić, Veličanstveni Vranyczányjevi. 6 Damjanović et al., Ars et Virtus. 7 Najcer Sabljak, Lučevnjak, and Galović, Umjetnost slavonskog plemstva. 103 THE NEW LIFE OF BAROQUE CASTLES IN NORTH-WESTERN CROATIA: THE RENOVATION OF THE ERDÖDY AND VRANYCZÁNY FAMILIES’ CASTLES... nobility at the time. The Erdödys serve as an example of the old Croatian-Hungarian nobility, that is as a large and extended family with blood and marriage relations to all of the most important “old” noble and landed families in both Croatia and Hungary. Even though the Vranyczány are actually old nobility from Dalmatia, they only received the noble title of baron in Croatia as late as 1862 and therefore, within this context, represent new nobility. Members of both families had important roles in the social, political and public life of Croatia in accordance with their status: the Erdödy family were viceroys, hereditary prefects of the district of Varaždin, the larger part of the territory of north-western Croatia, and were also generals in the Ottoman wars. The Vranyczánys were patrons of younger generations of distinguished artists of the period and cultural institutions that championed the national revival and played a key role in the formation of modern Croatian society, such as Matica hrvatska.8 Like other noble families, both the Erdödys and the Vranyczánys were interested in art. The Erdödys held significant art collections mostly of Old Masters in their estates (see further about their stately home Bajnski dvori below), while the Vranyczány hosted the most renowned painters of Croatian Modernism at their country residence in Gornje Oroslavje (as discussed below), which seems to support the hypothesis that the new nobility leaned towards and promoted new artistic tendencies. However, these two social groups shared a number of other aspects of cultural life. For example, both the new and the old nobles furnished their interiors with Historicist furniture and took an active interest in the new artistic medium of photography. The family albums and photograph collections belonging to both families are filled with pictures of family members hunting, enjoying their country estates, as well as the parks and gardens surrounding their stately homes. This paper will, based on photographs and archival documents, discuss the two families’ relationships to their Baroque castles in their properties, which they used as their country residences. Both the Erdödys and the Vranyczánys spent a lot of time in their castles and transformed them into comfortable residences and sites for social gatherings. The Erdödys added new elements to their properties, while the Vranyczánys purchased Baroque castles and adapted them to the new conditions and demands of contemporary life, turning them into country houses and grand estates. Castles owned by these families present an important part of the catalogue of monumental secular Baroque architecture of north-western Croatia. Most Baroque castles in mainland Croatia were constructed in the 18th century. Their decline, however, started as soon as the 19th century as a result of new social and political circumstances: tectonic shifts such as the abolition of feudalism, new tax policies and the extinction of noble families. In the final decades of the 18th century and the turn of the 19th century, some estates are renovated by new owners, as can be seen in the case of the Vranyczány family. This short timespan represents a final period of splendour for Baroque residenc- es in Croatia—their swan song. The process of deterioration of their buildings intensified during the inter-war period due to agrarian reform. Finally, the changes to the social order brought about by the post-war communist Yugoslav regime dealt the final blow to these castles and their furnishing. 8 Matica hrvatska is Croatian national cultural institution, founded in 1842, during the Croatian National Revival (1835–1874). Its main goals are to promote Croatian national and cultural identity in the fields of art, science, spiritual creativity, economics and public life as well as to support the social development of Croatia (“O Matici hrvatskoj,” Matica hrvatska, accessed September 18, 2023, https://www.matica.hr/omatici/). 104 DUBRAVKA BOTICA The Life of the Nobility at the End of the 19th and the Beginning of the 20th Centuries As in other countries of the Austro-Hungari- an monarchy until its dissolution, the nobility in Croatia was a relatively homogenous social group that sought to preserve its exclusive social status.9 The nobility lead a rich social life typi- fied by close contact and frequent companion- ship with members of numerous other extended noble families.10 The aesthetics of both the old and new nobility’s everyday life was character- ised by forms executed in Historicist neo-styles which were ubiquitous at the time. As a style that manifested itself in all fields, including everyday life, Historicism is one of the key characteristics of the Gründerzeit, also known as “the found- ers’ period”.11 As such, it replaced the previously widespread Biedermeier style of interior fur- nishing.12 During this period, the nobility began to follow the trend of restoring the style of the Monarchy introduced by the Habsburg Court in the 19th century. Interiors were fashioned as His- toricist scenes for staging the events of everyday life, equipped with neo-style furniture.13 In the artistic centres of the Monarchy, Neo-Baroque and Neo-Rococo styles were especially popu- lar.14 This is exemplified by the Babočaj-Gvozdanović Palace in Zagreb owned by nobleman Dragu- tin Gvozdanović (1851–1926) and his wife Anka Gvozdanović, nee Busch (1887–1968). As the best preserved example of Zagreb residential architecture owned by the nobility, this two-storey palace situated at the periphery of the former city walls is furnished with various Neo-historicist styles of furniture. Its interior consists of the “Blue Parlour” decorated in Rococo and Louis XVI style (fig. 1), the “Red Parlour” in the early Empire style, the “Black Parlour” in the late Empire style, the “Green Parlour” with Neo-Baroque furnishings and a bedroom decorated with Pompeian motifs.15 9 Stekl, “Zwischen Machtverlust und Selbstbehauptung,” 16. 10 For the everyday life and culture of Zagreb nobility, see Iveljić, Očevi i sinovi, 347, and the following pages. 11 Widespread Historicism in all fields of life, including the everyday, is one of the key aspects of the Gründerzeit, not only in Wilhelm II’s Germany, but in other countries as well, see Hermand, “Grandeur, High Life und innerer Adel,” 193, 195. 12 Muraj, “Svakodnevni život u 19. stoljeću,” 318. 13 Stalla, “… Mit dem Lächeln des Rokoko …,” 228. 14 Krause, “Baukunst,” 182. 15 The Gvozdanović Collection is part of the Museum of Arts and Crafts (see “Zbirka Anke Gvozdanović,” Museum of Arts and Crafts, accessed December 15, 2022, https://www.muo.hr/zbirka-anke-gvozdanovic/). 1. Blue Parlour, Gvozdanović Palace (© Muzej za umjetnost i obrt, Zagreb) 105 In addition to adopting a “royal” monumental visual framework and interior decoration, the nobility also modelled all other aspects of their everyday lives on the ruling families. Thus, the hobbies cultivated by members of the ruling Habsburg family and the upper echelons of the aristocracy also became widespread among the nobility and upper class more generally. Following the example of Emperor Francis II (I), the nobility adopted botany as one of their favourite hobbies. As a result, they constructed orangeries, nursery-gardens and arboretums within their estates and built late Romantic and Historicist architectural constructions in the gardens surrounding their stately homes, modelled on Laxenburg park and the Romantic Franzensburg lake estate (Hetzendorf von Hohenberg from 1801).16 The nobility’s interest in as well as knowledge and patronage of art and artists, one of their key activities, was a significant factor in their image and prominence, as well as being a means of self-affirmation and reinforcement of their status. Along with traditional artistic media, an interest in photography, a new artistic medium, became commonplace amongst the nobility. Even though the ways of life and modes of visual representation of the old and new nobility became increasingly entwined in the “bourgeoisie period”, some differences between these groups can still be discerned. The rich and often ennobled citizenry looked to established modes of visual representation in order to affirm their new position and social standing, while still expressing their personal interests and tastes as patrons. The old nobility, on the other hand, turned to family his- tory and emphasized their lineage. These contrasts are also visible between the Erdödy and the Vra- nyczány families, especially in their patronage and commissioning practices. Aside from botany and art, a passion for photography is present among both the old and the new nobility, with the personal predilections of individual patrons playing a key role. The Stately Homes of the Erdödy Family: Jastrebarsko, Novi Marof and Bajnski dvori As one of the most important noble families on the territory of north-western Croatia, the Erdödy played a significant role in the politics, culture and artistic production of this area from the 16th up to the beginning of the 20th century. The family, whose original name was Bakač (Bakacs/Bakolcz), originates from the village of Ardud in what is today Romania. The family’s rise to nobility began with Toma Bakač (Tamás Bakócz) (1435–1521), who, as the archbishop of Esztergom, a member of the royal council under Vladislaus II and the bishop of Zagreb (1511–1518), acquired numerous estates in Croatia. The family became counts in 1565 and soon became one of the most significant noble families in north-western Croatia. As many as five members of the Erdödy family served as viceroys,17 and from 1607 to 1845, they were the hereditary prefects of the District of Varaždin. The family came into possession of numerous estates during the course of the 16th century, the most important of which were Cesargrad (Novi Dvori), Jastrebarsko, Kerestinec, Klanjec, Moslavina, Okić and Varaždin (Stari grad). Until 1703, the Jastrebarsko estate was their main residence.18 The 16 Krause, “Baukunst,” 180–81. 17 Viceroys from the Erdödy family were Petar II (1557–1567) and Toma (1584–1595), whose tombstones with family coats of arms were placed in the Zagreb Cathedral, and Žigmund (1627–1639), Nikola (1680–1693) and Ivan (1790–1806). 18 In the 19th century, their properties included Moslavina, Jastrebarsko, Negovec, Kuzminec, Oborovo, Glogovec, Stari grad Varaždin, Novi Marof, Bajnski dvori, Bela, Cerje, Cesargrad, Glogovec, Ivanec, Jurketinec, Kuzminec, Luka, Novi dvori zaprešićki, Štakorovec, Želin, and the Hungarian estates Rothenburg, Körmend, Vörösvar. Up until 1945, they owned Vep, Somlovar and Galgocz in Slovakia. Today they own the Austrian estates Monyorókerék (Eberau) and the Kohfidisch and Luising castles. THE NEW LIFE OF BAROQUE CASTLES IN NORTH-WESTERN CROATIA: THE RENOVATION OF THE ERDÖDY AND VRANYCZÁNY FAMILIES’ CASTLES... 106 DUBRAVKA BOTICA Erdödys divided their estates between the Hungarian and the Croatian side of the family on a number of occasions.19 As patrons, the Erdödys are responsible for some of the most significant Baroque commissions in north-western Croatia. They were very active as patrons of religious art and notable support- ers of the Franciscan and Pauline orders, furnishing numerous parish churches. As a result, most churches in this part of Croatia, from Jastrebarsko to Zagreb and Varaždin, contain altars or, at the very least, stone panels with the Erdödy coat of arms.20 One of the most interesting works are the exceptional sarcophagi used for the burial of Mirko/Emerik (1620–1690) and Žigmund/Sigismund I Erdödy (1596–1639), originally placed in the crypt of the Franciscan monastery in Klanjec as their patrons, and today part of the monastery’s art collection.21 The Erdödy family made significant commissions in profane architecture as well, making a major contribution to the spreading and acceptance of new styles. It could be said that their castles blazed the trail for the widespread use of the Baroque style in the architecture of north-western Croatia. At the beginning of the 17th cen- tury, the family built grand stately homes in Jastrebarsko and Kerestinec, as well as the Novi Dvori Klanječki Castle. In the 18th century, another Erdödy Castle was built in Popovača. The Erdödy built four-wing castles with arcaded corridors in their residential wings and circular corner towers, which became a prototype for monumental stately home architecture in the family’s other impor- tant estates.22 The Hungarian nobility also constructed similarly designed fortified castles on the territories affected by the war with the Ottomans.23 By building castles with fortification elements, the owners materialized the heritage of their ancestors and vaunted their family’s lineage. This is one of the models of historicizing, a phenomenon which was permanently present in the lives of European noble families for as long as their members still lived on family estates. At the end of the 19th century, the old nobility of the Hungarian part of the Monarchy, as well as elsewhere in Europe, adapted to the “period of the bourgeoisie”, which gained political power and set trends in various spheres of life,24 including artistic patronage. The old nobility like the Erdödys increasingly turned towards its past. Instead of executing new extensive construction projects, members of this large and powerful family lived in the residences they had bought and built in the previous centuries, with refurbished interiors. The exception to this rule was the more extensive rebuilding done on the Bajnski dvori Castle. Owing to some of the Erdödy family members’ interest 19 The family branch originating from Vladislaus II Erdödy (1693–1747) which owned the estates of Galgocz, Pöstyen, Vep and Szöllos in Hungary split from the rest of the Erdödys in the 18th century and still exists to this day. The Croatian side, descendants of Vladislaus’ brother Ljudevit I (1694–1753), came into possession of the Croatian properties of Novi Marof, Jastrebarsko and Vidovec. 20 The Erdödys were especially connected to the Franciscan order; Petar I Erdödy invited them to the estate of Cesargrad (Klanjec) and Kotari, and Petar II to Jastrebarsko. Various other members of the family supported the Franciscans in Klanjec, Kotari near Samobor, Krapina, Samobor, Kostajnica, Trsat, Remetinec, Karlovac, Varaždin and Volavje. 21 The monastery was built in 1632 near the castle Novi Dvori Klanječki erected in 1603. The family’s coat of arms and the inscription “Fundatores” can be seen above the entrance. The tin sarcophagus of Mirko Erdödy with four figures of kneeling deer is especially interesting. Its formal elements are reminiscent of the Habsburgs’ sarcophagi in the Capuchin crypt in Vienna, attributed to Viennese artist Johann Philipp Stumpf. Nela Tarbuk, “Sarcopha- gus of Count Emerik Erdödy,” Museum With No Frontiers: Discover Baroque Art, accessed December 15, 2022, http://www.discoverbaroqueart.org/database_item.php?id=object;BAR;hr;Mus11_A;45;en. 22 Bagarić, Botica and Dundović, “Likovna baština,” 187. 23 Voit, Der Barock in Ungarn, 57–58. 24 Sisa, Motherland and Progress, 18. 107 in the new artistic medium of photography, well-preserved collections of photographs provide valuable insight into the everyday lives of the members of the family on their estates. Three Erdödy properties will be further discussed in this paper—Jastrebarsko, Novi Marof and Bajnski dvori— based on the surviving photographic documentation and the furnishing of the residences. Jastrebarsko was one of the most important Erdödy estates, owned by them from 1519 up until 1922. It was originally a one-tower castle of the Wasserburg type which was transformed into a four- wing manor house with arcaded corridors enclosing an inner courtyard and, later, large circular corner towers were added. The castle of Jastrebarsko resembles the Stari grad of Varaždin, which had also been the property of the Erdödy for four centuries.25 Both castles were originally Renais- sance fortifications, important for the defence of the properties against the Ottomans, and were later transformed into residences. In order to turn Jastrebarsko into a residential estate, the Erdödys created a park around the castle and built a mill, a granary, a menagerie, a garden as well as a house for the estate manager. The surviving photographs and inventory lists of moveable property dating from 1828, the time of Juraj Erdödy, show that the castle provided comfortable living conditions for its residents: it included a smaller and a larger “palace” (hall) and a steam bath, which was originally located by one of the towers. Part of the castle’s original furniture is kept in the Town Museum of Jastrebarsko.26 Most photographs of the castle were taken by Stjepan IV Erdödy (1848–1922).27 This nobleman left an important and still insufficiently researched oeuvre of almost 400 photographs taken between 1891 and 1911, now in Museum of Arts and Crafts in Zagreb. This large collection in- cludes some of the first photomontages and photographs of suspended movement. His photographs of the family estates have exceptional cultural and historical value as they document the appearance of the castles of Jastrebarsko, Novi Marof, Szilvás, Stari grad of Varaždin and the ruins of Gornja Rijeka. In addition to photography, Stjepan IV Erdödy was also passionate about hunting. Accord- ingly, he arranged a natural museum dedicated to hunting on the first floor of the Jastrebarsko Castle. There are numerous photographs from his collection depicting hunting trophies mounted on the walls of the castle, his friends hunting and portraits of hunters with their catch (figs. 2–3). The more detailed photographs of the animals show that his interests were of a scientific nature in addi- tion to a hobby. Photographs of the castle interior, however, are quite rare. It is usually seen only in the backgrounds of portraits and group photographs taken with friends and guests in parlours. An especially interesting photograph was taken of Viceroy Khuen-Héderváry, a frequent guest of the family who can be seen in multiple photographs from Stjepan IV Erdödy’s albums. On this occasion, 25 The medieval fortification Stari grad Varaždin, “the door of Styria”, was renovated in the Renaissance period (the project by Domenico dell’Alio from 1544), and later on and permanently inhabited by the family, thus affirming their status as prefects of the Varaždin district. The property was brought into the family by Ana Ungnad in 1585 as a result of her marriage to Toma Erdödy. It remained in the family up until 1925. The Gothic tower surrounded by palisades and ditches forms the centre of the construction, around which towers and walls were built with typi- cal Renaissance biforas. During the time of the Erdödys, a hallway with a balustrade was added to the building. The residential rooms and the chapel of St. Lawrence were renovated and an Erdödy and Rakoczy coat of arms was placed above the entrance, dating to 1705. Obad Šćitaroci, Dvorci i perivoji, 274–77. 26 Dobronić, “Dvor Jastrebarsko,” 156–57. 27 Count Stjepan IV Erdödy, a politician, naturalist and passionate hunter, was the last owner of the castle. Emperor Franz Joseph I awarded him the title of count and took him on as his secret advisor. He died in 1922 and was buri- ed in Jastrebarsko. The estate, along with its castle and hunting-ground, was bought by industrialist A. Ehrmann. See Tatjana Radauš, “Erdödy,” in Hrvatski biografski leksikon, accessed December 15, 2022, https://hbl.lzmk.hr/ clanak.aspx?id=5717. THE NEW LIFE OF BAROQUE CASTLES IN NORTH-WESTERN CROATIA: THE RENOVATION OF THE ERDÖDY AND VRANYCZÁNY FAMILIES’ CASTLES... 108 he was photographed sleeping on an ottoman in the Jastrebarsko residence.28 The picture also shows that parts of the castle’s interior were decorated with Bosnian rugs, a fashionable addition to interior furnishing in the period that followed the annexation of Bosnia. Other photographs depict people dressed in Turkish clothing, girls with turbans as well as group and individual portraits of people dressed alla turca—a description written on the backs of these photographs. The Novi Marof estate became an Erdödy property as a result of Elizabeta Batthyany’s and Juraj Erdödy’s marriage in the middle of the 17th century. Ljudevit I Erdödy had a new stately home built there in 1776 and it remained a property of the family until 1927. The most interesting aspect of this two-storey manor house containing elements of late Baroque and Neoclassical architecture is its façade with a prominent portico of four Ionic columns and a gable (fig. 4). It is a classic exam- ple of the Hungarian nobility’s widespread adoption of early Neoclassicism as a visual symbol of resistance to the Habsburg court, which was synonymous with Baroque revival architecture at the time.29 It is interesting to note that the early Neoclassical style was brought to Croatia precisely by the Hungarian nobility, exemplified by the Janković Castle in Daruvar and the Esterházy Castle in Darda. Information about the life of Erdödy nobles at the estate can be deduced from the partially preserved interior furnishing of the castle: the stucco decorations in some of the rooms, stoves and 28 Inv. no. MUO-044557/261, Old Photographs Collection, Museum of Arts and Crafts, Zagreb. 29 Sisa, “Neoclassicism,” 145. DUBRAVKA BOTICA 2. Stjepan IV Erdödy: Self-portrait with an eagle, 1907, Museum of Arts and Crafts, Zagreb (© Muzej za umjetnost i obrt) 3. Stjepan IV Erdödy: Hunting trophies in Jastrebarsko Castle, 1902, Museum of Arts and Crafts, Zagreb (© Muzej za umjetnost i obrt) 109 the oak-panelled study of the count. The layout of the grounds is interesting as well. The estate in- cludes a parterre which used to be decorated with an ancient statue of Minerva brought by Rudolf Erdödy from an ancient roman bridge built above the river Bednja. The statue was later transferred to the Varaždinske Toplice Museum. In terms of its art collection and patronage, the Bajnski dvori estate is one of the most prominent among the Erdödy residences, as it was home to one of the most extensive art collections in 19th-century mainland Croatia. This manorial estate was established in 1610 by Hungarian nobles Both de Bajna and the counts Batthány became the subsequent own- ers through marriage. The estate was purchased in 1864 by Ivan Nepomuk Erdödy (1794–1879), who was prefect of the Varaždin district at the time, and his wife Terezija Raczyńska (1820–1909), a Polish noblewoman.30 This simple Baroque castle was modified and its new elements—a small circular tower, an oriel window and a quadrangular tower—were designed and constructed in the styles of the Gothic and Romanesque revivals (fig. 5). With the design of the circular corner tower, this stately home is in keeping with the style of other Erdödy properties from earlier periods. 31 The estate became the property of the Festetics family in 1909. In 1919 it was sacked and burnt down during the peasants’ and miners’ uprising, which resulted in the destruction of most of its contents. 30 Belošević, Županija Varaždinska, 106–08; Obad Šćitaroci, Dvorci i perivoji, 34–37, 88–89. 31 The castles of Novi dvori klanječki, Kerestinec, Gornja Rijeka, Jastrebarsko, Popovača and Stari grad in Varaždin all have corner towers. For more on corner towers in castle architecture and its symbolic meaning in Croatia, see Marković, “O baroknim dvorcima,” 143–57; Botica, “Utjecaj i interpretacija tradicije,” 46–47. 4. Stjepan IV Erdödy: Novi Marof Castle, Museum of Arts and Crafts, Zagreb (© Muzej za umjetnost i obrt) THE NEW LIFE OF BAROQUE CASTLES IN NORTH-WESTERN CROATIA: THE RENOVATION OF THE ERDÖDY AND VRANYCZÁNY FAMILIES’ CASTLES... 110 It was used as a hospital of the Varaždin Medical Centre after World War II.32 Some of its interior and the appearance of the surrounding grounds can be seen in Stjepan IV Erdödy’s photographs. Additional information about the interior furnishing is offered in a book by Stjepan Belošević, the mayor of Varaždin and advisor to the viceroy who visited the stately home in the final years of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. He noted that the residence held a collection of paintings, including works by Murillo, Van Dyck, Rubens, Rembrandt, Dürer, Kaulbach, Lenbach and “a few talented Polish painters”,33 as well as expensive furniture made from exotic wood, oriental rugs, Venetian chandeliers and porcelain from Sèvres and Vienna. The chapel adjacent to the castle was embellished with a maiolica relief executed in the style of the della Robbia workshop and, accord- ing to legend, a votive painting from the 15th century depicting the Madonna of the Wheat. The Erdödy nobles did not conduct extensive renovation projects on their properties, as the above examples have shown. When it comes to interior furnishing, on the other hand, they tended to follow the models and fashions of old European nobility. These nobles associated with members of other noble families politically oriented towards Hungary, such as Viceroy Khuen Héderváry, who frequently visited them at their Croatian estates. When it comes to castle furnishing and eve- ryday life, the Erdödys tended to express their personal interests such as hunting and photography. It is important to note two exceptional female artists who came from this family:34 the opera singer 32 Pascuttini-Juraga, “Kulturna baština,” 88–89. 33 Artworks were brought here from the estate of Moslavina/Monoszló owned by the Erdödy from 1493 to 1887, with a break during the rule of the Ottomans. 34 Bagarić, Botica, and Dundović, “Likovna baština,” 196–97. DUBRAVKA BOTICA 5. Stjepan IV Erdödy: Bajnski dvori Castle, Museum of Arts and Crafts, Zagreb (© Muzej za umjetnost i obrt) 111 Sidonija Erdödy nee Rubido (1819–1884) and the painter Julijana Erdödy Drašković (1847–1901), who executed numerous copies of Old Masters as well as a significant number of original works. She also shared an interest in photography with other members of the Erdödy family. The Properties of the Vranyczány Family: The Swan Song of Residential Baroque Stately Homes The Vranyczánys were one of the most distinguished new noble families in Croatia, important ac- tors in its social, political and cultural life as well as prominent patrons of modern Croatian artists. Numerous aspects of their lives were researched and presented at the exhibition The Magnificent Vranyczánys held at the Museum of Arts and Crafts in Zagreb in 2016 and in the published exhibi- tion catalogue. This paper focuses on the refurbishing of older Baroque castles purchased by the Vranyczánys and transformed into country residences. Numerous photographs from their family albums provide an insight into their lives at country estates as well as their frequent social activities and parties. The Vranyczánys, originally an old noble family from Bosnia, more precisely Dalma- tia, moved to Habsburg territory in the 19th century. Ambroz Vranyczány-Dobrinović (1801–1870) received a noble title in 1822. Later, in 1862, brothers Ambroz, Juraj, Matija, Nikola and Ivan Antun Vranyczány-Dobrinović received baronetcy.35 Many members of the family held prominent cul- tural, social and political roles, such as Ambroz Vranyczány-Dobrinović, one of the leaders of the Illyrian movement in Croatia. This nobleman was the president of Matica hrvatska (established in 1842 as Matica ilirska) from 1851 to 1858 and bequeathed funds for the establishment of the Yugo- slav Academy of Sciences and Arts founded by Bishop Josip Juraj Strossmayer in 1861. This paper discusses the furnishing of older Baroque castles in the northern Croatian region Hrvatsko zagorje bought by the Vranyczánys. Their castles in Bedekovčina, Sv. Križ Začretje, Mirkovec and Oroslavje fulfilled important economic functions in addition to residential ones. Photographs from family albums, stories from the family members, especially diplomat Janko Vranyczány-Dobrinović (1920–2015) and his friends, and archival documents provide an insight into the lives of Vranyczány nobles. The short period of just a few decades during which the family owned these estates represent the swan song of the nobility’s countryside lifestyle in north-western Croatia. The predominant styles of 19th-century interior furnishing of the nobility are Historicist and represent the restoration of the style of the Monarchy. The Vranyczánys followed these trends and, indeed went a step further, acquiring their furniture directly from Hoflieferanten (Purveyors to the Imperial and Royal Court) such as Johann Klöpfer, and their silverware from Christofle & Co, as is revealed by purchase receipts found in the Sv. Križ Začretje stately home.36 The nobility’s tastes were marked by a revival of the past, which was also reflected in their costumed parties, most often hosted by Lujo Vranyczány-Dobrinović, owner of the Gornje Oroslavje stately home. They dedicated special attention to developing their grounds in the style of English landscape gardens or Landschaftsgarten, which always included artificial lakes. 35 In 1822, the Senj-Severin branch of the family received Austrian and Hungarian noble titles in 1827. The name Vranyczány-Dobrinović is used by members of the Rijeka-Karlovac branch, that is, the barons of the family. For more about the family’s history, see Regan, “Barunska obitelj Vranyczány-Dobrinović,” 11–51. 36 Botica, “Dvorci Vranyczányjevih,” 130–32. THE NEW LIFE OF BAROQUE CASTLES IN NORTH-WESTERN CROATIA: THE RENOVATION OF THE ERDÖDY AND VRANYCZÁNY FAMILIES’ CASTLES... 112 The Bedekovčina Castle is a notable example of Baroque architectural heritage in mainland Croatia. Erected in the middle of the 18th century, this stately home is one of the most cohesive executions of one-wing manor-houses arranged around a T-shaped stairway (fig. 6). Its construc- tion is attributed to the workshop of Joseph Hoffer (1696–1762) from Maribor.37 It was bought by Viktor Vranyczány-Dobrinović (1860–1887) in 1887 and inherited by his son Ambroz (1886–1940). As the third generation residing on this estate, Janko (1920–2015), Ambroz’s son, grew up in the Bedekovčina Castle. A cadastral map from 1897 shows the Vranyczánys’ interventions in the layout of the grounds, a newly constructed avenue for accessing the residence, a garden pavilion, a bowl- ing alley, a Neo-classical orangery which is still preserved to this day, as well as a tennis court and a lake. As can be seen in family photographs taken inside the castle, its owners adapted it to turn it into a comfortable residential building and decorated the interior with numerous hunting trophies and a maiolica relief entitled Madonna della Robbia. They also refurbished the former chapel on the upper floor and turned it into a small parlour.38 The Vranyczány Castle in Sv. Križ Začretje, situated above a valley with an artificial lake, was constructed following a specific design consisting of two wings attached at an obtuse angle that form a central projecting block with a prominent tower. As such, it is one of the most prominent examples of Baroque castles in Croatia. Janko Vranyczány (1858–1933) bought the manor house and estate in 1887, where he held a horse-farm. The castle was 37 Marković, Barokni dvori, 8. 38 Originally, it was two floors high and divided. The kitchen was built on the ground floor and a drawing room on the first floor. There was a guest room and an office on the ground floor next to the kitchen and a children’s room, a drawing room, a parlour, a large hall, the owners’ bedrooms and a bathroom on the first floor. DUBRAVKA BOTICA 6. Ambroz Vranyczány: Interior of Bedekovčina Castle, Museum of Arts and Crafts, Zagreb (© Private collection) 113 purchased by the Sava Banovina from Janko’s widow in 1937 and later on used to house an agricul- tural school until 2001, when it became a private property. A sketch of the layout made by Tihomil Stahuljak contains information on the function of individual rooms in the castle. The sketch is based on the memories of Elizabeta Vranyczány from Mirkovec, the owner’s niece.39 The family resided on the ground floor of the new part of the manor house in the winters and on the first floor in the summers. The ground floor included the “aunt’s or Fanny’s room”, a drawing room, an en- trance hall, a silverware vault, a circular Speiszimmer (dining room), a Gastzimmer (guest house) and an elongated room, while the first floor contained another Speiszimmer, an entrance hall and drawing room, with the addition of the aunt’s and uncle’s bedroom, a Turmzimmer (tower room) for guests, a kitchen and a Wirtschaftsräume (housekeeping room). The interior was furnished with dark-toned wallpapers and numerous paintings decorated the walls. The drawing rooms and bedrooms were fitted with suites of chairs and mostly altdeutsch (old German) furniture. The castle was furnished by the Hoflieferant (court supplier) Johann Klopfer, a tableware set produced by the company Christofle & Co (fig. 7) and merchants from Vienna, Varaždin and Prague. 40 The castle also had a stairway with a balustrade leading from the lake to its tower. It has been only partially preserved today, but it can clearly be recognized on a cadastral map from 1895. The family’s favour- ite photographic motif was the castle’s reflection on the surface of the lake. There are numerous photographs of this exact motif in the Album of Real Estate in the Croatian State Archives, as well as photographs of horses from Janko Vranyczány-Dobrinović’s horse-farm. Members of the Vra- nyczány family lived a comfortable life in the Sv. Križ Začretje Castle, which is well-documented by their portraits taken in the estate park. There are records of numerous family celebrations on the estate and visits from notable guests. King Alexander I, for example, visited this Vranyczány 39 The private collection of Tihomil Stahuljak, Zagreb. 40 Inv. no. 970, Receipt book, State Archives in Varaždin (HR-DAVŽ-SCKR). 7. Receipt from Cristofle & Co, Croatian State Archives, Varaždin (© Hrvatski državni arhiv) THE NEW LIFE OF BAROQUE CASTLES IN NORTH-WESTERN CROATIA: THE RENOVATION OF THE ERDÖDY AND VRANYCZÁNY FAMILIES’ CASTLES... 114 property on June 5, 1931 (fig. 8). This important visit was mentioned in an article entitled “A Christ- mas Report from an Old Castle in Hrvatsko Zagorje” published in the magazine Svijet.41 The Mirko- vec Castle was bought by Ernest Vranyczány (1854–1918) in 1892 and sold by his wife and daughter in 1940. Ernest Vranyczány brought a collection of art and furniture to Mirkovec from Kremsegg Castle near Linz.42 The most famous piece from this collection is a Rococo stove which he kept in the drawing room on the first floor, currently on permanent display in the Museum of Arts and Crafts in Zagreb. Ernest Vranyczány’s collection of 17th-century closets and chests, a tabernacle and 18th-century wardrobes are just some of the numerous examples that testify to his “love of old furniture”, as Tihomil Stahuljak noted. According to Elizabeta Vranyczány-Dobrinović, a sketch of the interior arrangement of the castle with markings symbolising the position of the furniture was made in September 1967, showing the opulent furnishing of the castle.43 As a large, richly furnished castle with an ornate park, the Gornje Oroslavje estate is defi- nitely the most significant of the Vranyczány’s properties. Most records and photographs that have been preserved relate to this estate. The building belonged to the Sermage family from 1755, when it was transformed into a four-wing castle with circular corner towers and a projecting block on its main façade. Ljudevit (Lujo) Vranyczány (1840–1922) bought the castle in 1885, along with the surrounding land including a forest, an orchard and a mill. He made numerous changes to the castle and its surroundings, creating a park and an artificial lake on the estate, as well as laying down wooden flooring in the interior. He also installed running water and enlarged the windows. His biggest intervention was, however, the addition of a Neo-Baroque eight-column altana in front of the façade of main wing which was executed in 1904 by Zagreb architect Ignjat Fischer (1870–1948) (fig. 9). The industrialist Milan Prpić bought the castle and all its contents in 41 “Božićna reportaža” (A Christmas Report from an Old Castle in Hrvatsko Zagorje). 42 Paintings depicting scenes from antiquity in the Mirkovec Castle can be seen on photographs from Schneider’s archive in HAZU, see Tomić, “Umjetnine starijih povijesnih razdoblja,” 147–48. 43 The private collection of Tihomil Stahuljak, Zagreb. DUBRAVKA BOTICA 8. Visit of King Alexander I in Začretje, 1931, photograph from Vranyczány-Dobrinović Collection, Croatian State Archives, Zagreb (© Hrvatski državni arhiv) 115 1921.44 The function of the castle’s rooms can be deduced based on the ground plan sketch made by Ljudevit’s son Milan Vranyczány (1888–1968). The ground floor was used by servants and in- cluded the housekeeping room, an office, a pantry and storage rooms. The first floor consisted of 22 rooms and a big “palace” or salon used by the whole family. The front of the western wing included parlours, a library and a large Speisezimmer or dining hall connected to the altana which was used for family gatherings. Another rare photograph depicting the robust Neo-Renaissance furniture in the castle’s interior indicates the widespread trend of Historicist furnishing of stately residences. A detailed inventory of the castle and its belongings from September 21, 1921 reveals the lavishness of the interior. 45 As a passionate botanist, Lujo Vranyczány put considerable effort into the development of the Oroslavje grounds. The appearance of the castle’s surroundings is recorded by numerous pho- tographs of the estate, along with pictures of family members and guests taken in the park and around the lake. Following Romantic and Historicist models of landscaping, a mound or artificial elevation was made in the park in front of the castle complete with an urn and exotic plants. A ter- race with a balustrade led from the castle to the lake behind it, along with a wide stairway. A circu- lar white temple dedicated to the goddess Flora (known as the Tempietto) was built by the lake, as well as a Swiss chalet-style house, ruins and an artificial grotto (fig. 10). In the photographs of the park and landscape around the castle, these added elements are reflected on the surface of the lake, 44 For more on construction phases, see Žmegač and Vojtić, “Dvorac Gornje Oroslavje,” 247–50. The castle burned down in 1947. 45 Inventory of the Oroslavje property, September 21, 1921, Private collection, Zagreb 9. Ljudevit Vranyczány: Façade of Oroslavje Castle, photograph from Vranyczány-Dobrinović Collection, Croatian State Archives, Zagreb (© Hrvatski državni arhiv) THE NEW LIFE OF BAROQUE CASTLES IN NORTH-WESTERN CROATIA: THE RENOVATION OF THE ERDÖDY AND VRANYCZÁNY FAMILIES’ CASTLES... 116 DUBRAVKA BOTICA contributing to the rich and exotic appearance of the park. In addition to the elements mentioned above, all of which are taken from the rich repertoire of forms commonly applied in Historicist landscaping, the Vranyczánys also created Neo-Baroque spiral-pattern boxwood parterres which they planted around a fountain in front of the castle. The Neo-Baroque decoration of the park culminates in a monumental portal with an ornate wrought iron enclosure and two Baroque stat- ues depicting Flora and a Satyr brought over from a nearby Baroque castle. The park in Oroslavje was developed in Barockromantisch style, which had dominated the landscape architecture of the Monarchy since the 1870s. This style, which increasingly began to spread due to the renovation of parks surrounding baroque castles, combines elements of Romanticism with those typical of for- mal French Baroque gardens.46 In his letters, Janko Vranyczány-Dobrinović writes that the park in Oroslavje was modelled on the “style and tastes of that period (late Napoleon III and the transition of the Ringstrassen-Epoche into Jugendstil), and the parterres of Laxenburg and Schönbrunn served as primary role models”.47 The owner’s interest in botany is also shown by a large orangery containing rare plants built beside the estate’s farm buildings. The orangery was on occasion visited by students and professors 46 Hajós, “Garten-, Park- und Landschaftskunst,” 253. 47 Letter by Janko Vranyczány-Dobrinović, in Obad Šćitaroci, Dvorci i perivoji, 219. 10. Ljudevit Vranyczány: Lake and Park of Oroslavje Castle, photograph from Vranyczány-Dobrinović Collection, Croatian State Archives, Zagreb (© Hrvatski državni arhiv) 117 from the University of Zagreb.48 However, Lujo Vranyczány’s main passion was art collection. In a report from 1913, the castle is described as a “storehouse of artworks”.49 This nobleman was known to be one of the most important patrons of modern painters, hosting numerous artists in his castle. His Gästebuch or book of guests (kept from 1897 to 1925, later in possession of his daughter Ada) contains drawings and written dedications by the most renowned artists of the Croatian art scene of the period. 50 His relationship with painter Vlaho Bukovac (1855–1922) is especially interesting as the artist executed numerous portraits of the Vranyczány family members, including Ljudevit Vranyczány himself. In 2022, these works were exhibited at the Klovićevi dvori Gallery.51 The Vra- nyczány’s rich social life took place at the Oroslavje estate, with plenty of photographs recording opulent family celebrations and masquerades directed by nobleman Stjepan Miletić: [...] masqueraded harlequins climbed the façade of Oroslavje and shouted out during the annual costumed festivities of the Zagorje aristocracy. These events were attended by counts and barons of the Erdödy, Vojkffy, Bombelles, Rauch, Kulmer, Vranyczány, Hellenbach, Drašković, Oršić, Bedeković, Matačić families and other ‘noble lords’. Multi- coloured fireworks exploded alongside the gleaming illumination of the castle and the park, piercing the warm evening air and the night sky.52 In addition to masquerade parties, the owner’s name-day celebrations with festivities and dances in the estate gardens were held every year on August 25. With these gatherings, the baroque world of opulent garden celebrations in Lujo Vranyczány’s Oroslavje was revived one final time. By refurbishing old castles and adopting them into comfortable residences on prosperous estates or country residences near the city of Zagreb, the noble family Vranyczány-Dobrinović gave their Baroque castles a new lease of life in the 19th century. They furnished them in the style and fashions of Historicism, giving expression to a greater variety of decorative solutions than the Erdödy family. The owners brought over their own furniture and artworks from other residences— the owner of the Bedekovčina estate, for example, brought artworks from her family villa in Vo- losko, while Ernest Vranyczány-Dobrinović transferred furniture he collected from various parts of the Monarchy to his Mirkovec estate. Considering the contrast between Ernest’s impassioned collection of old furniture and Lujo’s decision to furnish his most luxurious estate with merely average furniture, it could be said that the Vranyczány treated their interiors as expressions of per- sonal tastes.53 Lujo, for example, cared much more about the appearance of his park and his large painting collections of both Old Masters and modern artists, as is shown by his gallery-like Zagreb 48 The orangery was visited by Dr Antun Heinz (1861–1919), university professor at the Department of Mathema- tics and Science of the University in Zagreb and the founder of the Botanical Garden in Zagreb. 49 Report on this visit to the Oroslavje castle in “O posjetu ‘Zmajevaca Oroslavju’,” 181–82. 50 Drawings and dedications were made by Vlaho Bukovac, Viktor Kovačić, Ivan Meštrović, Bela Čikoš Sesija, Oton Iveković, Robret Frangeš, Robert Auer, Nikola Mašić, Tomislav Krizman and others. 51 An interesting piece of evidence of the relationship of the Vranyczány’s to Bukovac is a photograph showing Bukovac while the portrait of Ljudevit Vranyczány-Dobrinović was painted. On more about the nobleman's rela- tionship with the painter, see Damjanović and Iveljić, “Vlaho Bukovac,” 142–45, 150–52. 52 Blašković, “Hrvatsko zagorje,” 38. 53 Contemporaries described the furniture in Oroslavje as “low-quality furniture from the second half of the 19th century”, highlighting only the “sets made from horns of Hungarian oxen” as a curiosity. Folder Oroslavje, Private collection of Tihomil Stahuljak, Zagreb. THE NEW LIFE OF BAROQUE CASTLES IN NORTH-WESTERN CROATIA: THE RENOVATION OF THE ERDÖDY AND VRANYCZÁNY FAMILIES’ CASTLES... 118 DUBRAVKA BOTICA palace.54 The Vranyczány family paid a lot of attention to botany and built orangeries by each of their castles, such as the functional orangery used as a plant hotbed in Začretje and the exotic plant orangery in Oroslavje. In conclusion, the new nobility adapted their residences to their personal affinities and tastes noticeably more than the old nobility. Both of these groups, however, expressed an interest in photography, influenced by what an Italian contemporary of theirs called “photomania”.55 With photography, the Erdödy and Vranyc- zány nobility recorded their everyday lives and family gatherings, taking more pictures outside due to the technical limitations of the new medium. Stjepan Erdödy showed an interest in the estates themselves and his family history, photographing villagers from Jastrebarsko as well. The photo al- bums from the collections of the Vranyczány-Dobrinović abound with shots of castle interiors, the furnishings and especially their parks and lakes. A documentary-style approach can be discerned in the photographs of Ambroz Vranyczány-Dobrinović of Bedekovčina, who took pictures of a va- riety of social groups. An interesting example is his photograph of villagers at mass in Bedekovčina with the inscription “bei meinen Croaten” (“with my Croats”). Ljudevit Vranyczány-Dobrinović, on the other hand, enjoyed shooting dynamic diagonal compositions of the Oroslavje park, as well as photomontages.56 In conclusion, the old and the new nobility, exemplified by the Erdödy and the Vranyczány- Dobrinović families, furnished their castles and shaped their lives at the end of the 19th century following Historicist trends in interior decoration and lifestyle. Both families affirmed their social standing through their interest in and patronage of art, a cultural domain where the Erdödy were more active in the earlier periods. The Vranyczány-Dobrinović family, on the other hand, actively partook in the art world of the 19th century, leaning towards new artistic tendencies. This family also expressed a wider range of interests in their photography and a more developed sense of per- sonal taste in their interior decoration. Whether inherited from other parts of the family or newly acquired, these Baroque castles were adapted for residential purposes, thus undergoing one final revival of their original function. The inter-war and post-war decades that followed soon after this prosperous period resulted in the extinction of the castles’ original functions and, more often than not, the irreparable destruction of these valuable properties. 54 Tomić, “Umjetnine starijih povijesnih razdoblja,” 148–51. 55 Tonković, “Theatrum mundi,” 245. 56 Photographs taken by Ljudevit Vranyczány-Dobrinović stand out from others in the family albums due to their high quality. He participated as one of 10 photographers in the Trade fair in Zagreb in 1864, see Tonković, “Theatrum mundi,” 244, 250. 119 Bibliography Bagarić, Marina, ed. Veličanstveni Vranyczányjevi: Umjetnički, povijesni i politički okvir života jedne plemićke obitelji. Zagreb: Muzej za umjetnost i obrt; Matica hrvatska, 2016. Bagarić, Marina, Dubravka Botica, and Boris Dundović. “Likovna baština ugarskoga plemstva u Hrvatskoj.” In Ars et Virtus: Hrvatska - Mađarska; 800 godina zajedničke kulturne baštine, edited by Marina Bagarić, Dragan Damjanović, Iva Sudec Andreis, and Petra Vugrinec, 182–211. Zagreb: Galerija Klovićevi dvori, 2020. Belošević, Stjepan. Županija Varaždinska i slob. kralj. grad Varaždin. Zagreb: Belošević, 1926. Blašković, Vladimir. “Hrvatsko zagorje: Predgovor ili pregršt oznaka Hrvatskog zagorja.” In Gjuro Szabo. Kroz Hrvatsko zagorje, 29–45. Zagreb: Spektar, 1974. Botica, Dubravka. “Dvorci Vranyczányjevih – plemstvo modernoga doba u ambijentima baroka.” In Veličanstveni Vranyczányjevi: Umjetnički, povijesni i politički okvir života jedne plemićke obitelji, edited by Marina Bagarić, 124–45. Zagreb: Muzej za umjetnost i obrt; Matica hrvatska, 2016. Botica, Dubravka. “Utjecaj i interpretacija tradicije u arhitekturi 17. i 18. stoljeća u sjeverozapadnoj Hrvatskoj na odabranim primjerima – oblikovanje zvonika i ugaonih kula.” In Arhitekturna zgodovina. Vol. 2, edited by Renata Novak Klemenčič and Martina Malešič, 40–49. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, 2014. “Božićna reportaža iz jednog starodrevnog dvorca u Hrvatskom zagorju.” Svijet, December 23 1937. Damjanović, Dragan, and Iskra Iveljić. “Vlaho Bukovac u Zagrebu kraja 19. stoljeća – naručitelji i djela.” In Korijeni i krila: Vlaho Bukovac u Zagrebu, Cavtatu i Beču; 1893.-1903., edited by Petra Vugrinec, Iva Sudec Andreis, and Irena Kraševac, 121–56. Zagreb: Galerija Klovićevi dvori, 2022. Damjanović, Dragan, Petra Vugrinec, Iva Sudec Andreis, and Marina Bagarić, eds. Ars et Virtus: Croatia – Hungary; 800 Years of Common Heritage. Zagreb: Galerija Klovićevi dvori; Hungarian National Museum, 2020. Dobronić, Lelja. “Dvor Jastrebarsko.” Kaj: Časopis za književnost, umjetnost, kulturu 8, no. 1–2 (1975): 149–59. Hajós, Géza. “Garten-, Park- und Landschaftskunst: 1770–1914.” In 19. Jahrhundert: Geschichte der bildenden Kunst in Österreich, edited by Gerbert Frodl, 240–56. München: Prestl Verlag, 2002. Hermand, Jost. “Grandeur, High Life und innerer Adel: ‘Gründerzeit’ im europäischen Kontext.” Monatshefte 69, no. 2 (1977): 189–206. Iveljić, Iskra. Očevi i sinovi: Privredna elita Zagreba u drugoj polovici 19. stoljeća. Zagreb: Leykam, 2007. Krause, Walter. “Baukunst.” In 19. Jahrhundert: Geschichte der bildenden Kunst in Österreich, edited by Gerbert Frodl, 179–239. München: Prestl Verlag, 2002. Maleković, Vladimir, ed. Od svagdana do blagdana: Barok u Hrvatskoj. Zagreb: Muzej za umjetnost i obrt, 1993. Marković, Vladimir. Barokni dvori Hrvatskog zagorja. Zagreb: Nacionalna i sveučilišna biblioteka, 1995. Marković, Vladimir. “O baroknim dvorcima u Hrvatskoj (dvije skice).” Radovi Instituta za povijest umjetnosti 11 (1987): 143–57. Matasović, Josip. Iz galantnog stoljeća. Zagreb: Stjepan Kugli, 1921. Matasović, Josip. Iz galantnog stoljeća: Kulturnohistorijski fragmenti. 2nd extended edition. Zagreb: Dora Krupićeva, 2008. Muraj, Aleksandra. “Svakodnevni život u 19. stoljeću.” In Temelji moderne Hrvatske: Hrvatske zemlje u “dugom” 19. stoljeću, edited by Vlasta Švoger and Jasna Turkalj, 309–48. Zagreb: Matica hrvatska, 2016. Najcer Sabljak, Jasminka, Silvija Lučevnjak, and Valentina Galović, eds. Umjetnost slavonskog plemstva – vrhunska djela europske baštine. Zagreb: Galerija Klovićevi dvori, 2021. THE NEW LIFE OF BAROQUE CASTLES IN NORTH-WESTERN CROATIA: THE RENOVATION OF THE ERDÖDY AND VRANYCZÁNY FAMILIES’ CASTLES... 120 “O posjetu ‘Zmajevaca Oroslavju’ dne 27. VII. 1913.” Hrvatska: Glasilo stranke prava, July 31, 1913. Obad Šćitaroci, Mladen. Dvorci i perivoji Hrvatskog zagorja. Zagreb: Školska knjiga, 1991. Pascuttini-Juraga, Vesna. “Kulturna baština općine Vinica – sudjelovanje u projektu ‘Ruralna detoksikacija upoznavanjem bogatstva kulturne baštine DETOX SLO-HR 98’ u okviru programa prekogranične suradnje ‘INTERREG V-A SLOVENIJA - HRVATSKA 2014–2020’.” Kaj: Časopis za književnost, umjetnost, kulturu 51, no. 5–6 (2018): 83–96. Accessed December 15, 2022, https://doi.org/10.32004/k.51.5-6.1. Regan, Krešimir. “Barunska obitelj Vranyczány-Dobrinović i plemićka obitelj Vranyczány: Prilog poznavanju rodoslova plemićkog roda Dobrinović.” In Veličanstveni Vranyczányjevi: Umjetnički, povijesni i politički okvir života jedne plemićke obitelji, edited by Marina Bagarić, 11–51. Zagreb: Muzej za umjetnost i obrt; Matica hrvatska, 2016. Sisa, Jószef. Motherland and Progress: Hungarian architecture and Design 1800-1900. Basel: Birkhauser, 2016. Sisa, József. “Neoclassicism and the Age of Reform: 1800–1848.” In The Architecture of Historic Hungary, edited by Dora Wiebenson and József Sisa, 145–71. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press, 1998. Stalla, Robert. “ ‘… Mit dem Lächeln des Rokoko …’: Neurokoko im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert.” In Der Traum von Glück: Kunst des Historismus in Europa, edited by Hermann Fillitz, 220–37. Wien: Brandstätter Verlag, 1997. Stekl, Hannes. “Zwischen Machtverlust und Selbstbehauptung: Österreichische Hocharistokratie vom 18. bis ins 20. Jahrhundert.” In Adel und Bürgertum in der Habsburgermonarchie 18. bis 20. Jahrhundert, edited by Ernst Bruckmüller, Franz Eder, and Andrea Schnöller, 14–34. Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2004. Tomić, Radoslav. “Umjetnine starijih povijesnih razdoblja u posjedu obitelji Vranyczány-Dobrinović.“ In Veličanstveni Vranyczányjevi: Umjetnički, povijesni i politički okvir života jedne plemićke obitelji, edited by Marina Bagarić, 146–51. Zagreb: Muzej za umjetnost i obrt; Matica hrvatska, 2016. Tonković, Marija. “Theatrum mundi ili fotografska saga obitelji Vranyczány.” In Veličanstveni Vranyczányjevi: Umjetnički, povijesni i politički okvir života jedne plemićke obitelji, edited by Marina Bagarić, 239–63. Zagreb: Muzej za umjetnost i obrt; Matica hrvatska, 2016. Voit, Pál. Der Barock in Ungarn. Budapest: Corvina Helicon, 1971. Žmegač, Andrej, and Marijana Vojtić. “Dvorac Gornje Oroslavje.” Peristil 56 (2013): 247–54. DUBRAVKA BOTICA 121 Novo življenje baročnih gradov v severozahodni Hrvaški Prenova gradov rodbin Erdödy in Vranyczány konec 19. in v začetku 20. stoletja Povzetek V članku so predstavljeni oprema podeželskih rezidenc, zbirateljstvo in umetnostno naročništvo članov rodbin Erdödy in Vranyczány-Dobrinović, predstavnikov starega in novega plemstva, ki so imeli pomembno vlogo v družbenem in političnem življenju Hrvaške. Erdödyji so bili ena najstarejših in najpomembnejših plemiških rodbin, ki je imela posesti na historičnem teritoriju Madžarske in Hrvaške. Pripadniki mlajšega plemstva, rodbina Vranyczány-Dobrinović, so bili pokrovitelji vidnejših umetnikov 19. stoletja in podporniki kulturnih ustanov, ki so širile ilirsko gibanje. Člani rodbine Erdödy so svoje gradove Jastrebarsko, Novi Marof in Bajnski dvori prenovili skladno z novimi trendi in jih opremili s historicističnim pohištvom in likovnimi deli večinoma starih mojstrov. Člani rodbine Vranyczány- Dobrinović pa so svoje gradove konec 19. stoletja spremenili v udobne rezidence – v cvetoče posesti ali pa v podeželska bivališča v bližini Zagreba, tako kot npr. Oroslavje. Njihova oprema sledi modi historicističnega okusa s celo vrsto dekorativnih rešitev, ob tem pa v primerjavi z opremo rodbine Erdödy močneje izraža osebni okus posameznih članov rodbine. Ernest Vranyczány je svoj grad Mirkovec opremil z visoko kakovostnim baročnim in rokokojskim pohištvom, Ljudevit Vranyczány pa se je bolj posvečal neobaročnemu in romantičnemu parku na posesti v Gornjem Oroslavju, ki je postala srečevališče tedanje hrvaške umetniške srenje. V svojem navdušenju za botaniko so člani rodbine Vranyczány-Dobrinović na svojih posestih v krajih Bedekovčina, Mirkovec in Oroslavje zgradili oranžerije za eksotične rastline, na posestvu Začretje pa rastlinjake, ki so imeli tudi gospodarsko in kmetijsko funkcijo. Obe rodbini sta se zanimali za nov umetnostni medij – fotografijo. Njihovi fotografski albumi in zbirke so polni portretov, posnetih v vrtovih in na lovu. Stjepan IV. Erdödy se je posvetil dolgi rodbinski zgodovini in dokumentiral vse rodbinske posesti, v prostem času pa je hodil na lov in proučeval živali. V fotografskih albumih rodbine Vranyczány so po drugi strani zajete dinamične kompozicije parka v Oroslavju s številnimi gosti, odsev romantičnega parka na gladini jezera, pa tudi vsakdanje življenje vaščanov, ki jih je skozi objektiv ujel Ljudevit Vranyczány. Ne glede na to, ali so bili ti baročni gradovi podedovani ali kupljeni pred nedavnim, so bili prenovljeni v rezidenčne namene, s tem pa jim je bila še zadnjič dana njihova prvotna funkcija. Medvojna leta in prva desetletja po drugi svetovni vojni, ki so sledila temu razcvetu, so tem gradovom prinesla povsem nove funkcije in v večini primerov nepopravljivo uničenje dragocenih posesti. THE NEW LIFE OF BAROQUE CASTLES IN NORTH-WESTERN CROATIA: THE RENOVATION OF THE ERDÖDY AND VRANYCZÁNY FAMILIES’ CASTLES... 123 Abstract: The Restoration and Refunctionalisation of Medieval Fortified Manor Houses by the Portuguese Dictatorial Regime (1926–1974) 1. 01 Original scientific article In the Modern Age, most fortified manor houses in Portugal fell into ruin, due to the lack of dignified living condi- tions, the obsolescence of defensive structures, and the decline decay of aristocratic families. However, between 1933 and 1974, many ruined fortified manor houses were restored by the Portuguese dictatorial regime. The nationalist dictatorship of Estado Novo used heritage as an ideological instrument of propaganda. This proposal aims to analyse the context of the ideological restoration of medieval fortified manor houses by the dictatorial regime, addressing symbolisms, restoration actions, and the contextualisation of fortified manor houses in Portugal by focusing on particular case studies. Keywords: Portugal; medieval fortified manor houses; heritage rehabilitation; Estado Novo dictatorship; ideological propaganda Izvleček: Obnova srednjeveških utrdb v času portugalskega diktatorskega režima (1926–1974) 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek V novem veku je večina srednjeveških gradov na Portugalskem propadla zaradi premajhnega udobja, zastarelosti obrambnih struktur in izumiranja plemiških družin. V letih od 1933– 1974 je portugalski diktatorski režim številne porušene gradove obnovil. Nacionalistična diktatura Estado Novo je kulturno dediščino uporabljala kot ideološki in- strument propagande. Namen članka je analizirati kontekst ideološke obnove srednjeveških gradov v času diktator- skega režima, pri čemer so obravnavani simbolika, ukrepi pri obnovah in kontekstualizacija gradov na Portugalskem s poudarkom na študijah posameznih primerov Ključne besede: Portugalska, srednjeveški gradovi, restavriranje kulturne dediščine, diktatura Estado Novo, ideološka propaganda The Restoration and Refunctionalisation of Medieval Fortified Manor Houses by the Portuguese Dictatorial Regime (1926–1974) Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos, PhD, University of Lisbon, Faculty of Arts and Humanities, Alameda da Universidade, 1600-214 Lisbon, joaquimr.santos@gmail.com, ORCID ID: 0000-0003-4036-9868 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.28.2.06 ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 ∙ 2023, 123–145 124 JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS Preamble: Medieval Fortified Manor Houses in Portugal The formation of Portugal as an independent country took place, in the first instance, with the pro- cess of territorial expansion from north to south, as the result of the Christian Reconquest of the Iberian Peninsula from the Muslims by the Christian kingdoms of the north; after that, a process of defence and consolidation was followed vi-à-vis the neighbouring kingdoms—first Leon, then Castile, and later Spain. Portugal’s independence was achieved in 1139 by King Afonso Henriques (c.1109–1185), who while consolidating his authority in the northern and eastern frontier territo- ries, continued the territorial expansion to the south, taking advantage of the disintegration of the Almoravid territories. The Portuguese southern frontier was then established on the line of the River Tagus, and it was only with the decadence of the Almohads, around a century later, that the Christian conquerors’ advance took on a new impetus, culminating in the conquest of Silves in 1249 by King Afonso III (1210–1279), and the transfer of the Portuguese court to Lisbon in 1255. Once the Muslim lands on the western part of the Iberian Peninsula were completely conquered, it was necessary to delimit the frontier between the kingdoms of Portugal and Castile, a mission undertaken by King Dinis (1261–1325). After a short period of war with the powerful neighbouring kingdom, taking advantage of its weaknesses, the Treaty of Alcanizes was signed in 1297, defining the frontier between the two countries. The inexistence of significant landforms that could help delimit the frontier between Portugal and Castile led to the adoption of a peculiar policy of territo- rial organisation. Dinis used a policy of fortifying the border, where the castles became gigantic boundary stones delimiting the territory. The concept of a frontier was not a virtual line but rather a succession of points functioning as identifying elements. Whoever possessed the castle also pos- sessed the surrounding lands and communities and, for this reason, the monarch bestowed the administration of the frontier castles as a counterweight to the homage paid to his royal authority.1 The castles thus played a fundamental part in defining the Portuguese territory and maintaining its integrity and independence. From the outset, the Portuguese Crown proceeded to establish lands throughout Portugal’s territory, whose administration was granted to elements of the lower nobility as counterweight to the homage paid to the royal authority, thus seeking to counterbalance the power of the greater no- bility. However, within a short space of time this system became problematic, with the command- ers increasingly demanding more military, judicial and fiscal power, more lands and also social promotion. The construction of strong houses (domus fortis)2 by lesser nobles was often abusive, seizing estates and seeking to ascend socially with the constitution of honras3 (possessions of the greater nobility).4 According to Mário Barroca, King Sancho I (1154–1211) proceeded to take actions to destroy the strong houses that were not authorised by the monarch, attempting to control their proliferation and its respective consequences. His son, King Afonso II (1185–1223), followed the policy of cen- tralising power, and only when King Afonso III (1210–1279) ascended the throne was the situation controlled, through the recovery of royal possessions and the tearing down of strong houses that 1 Gomes, “A construção das fronteiras,” 370–80. 2 On aristocratic residences in Portugal, see Carita, A casa senhorial; Silva, Paços medievais; Gomes, “Monarquia e território;” Barroca, “Torres;” Azevedo, Solares Portugueses. 3 Honra is a Portuguese feudal term that refers to a named set of manors and other lands. 4 Mattoso, Identificação de um país, 1: 95. 125 THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) had been built unlawfully.5 King Dinis’s actions made it possible to consolidate royal power vis-à-vis the aristocracy, abolishing the system of landholdings in favour of julgados, that is, independently administered villages that were more civil in character; this provided the conditions for the insti- tution of the juridical principle of ius crenelandi, the right to the “crenelation” (which refers to the crowning with battlements)6 and the strengthening of the royal monopoly to construct fortifica- tions, that would last until the reign of King Duarte (1392–1438). The ius crenelandi was reflected in tight control of the building of fortified residences; only in some particular cases was the construc- tion of strong houses authorised by the king.7 While in many European countries the nobility could generally own fortifications, in Portugal the castles were exclusive to the royal domain, and their administration was carried out by captains appointed by the king. They could not carry out private residential works in these structures, which generally maintained their military profile. Initially, the Portuguese strong houses followed the towered model from the second half of the 12th century, adopting configurations inspired by castle keeps;8 these tower houses were implanted predominantly in accessible places with no concerns about their defence. Mário Barroca states that in the Middle Ages it was not the towered form that gave the fortified aspect to the build- ing, but rather the existence of battlements crowning the buildings: this led to the association of an enormous symbolic load with the battlements, considered synonymous with noble distinction. The limited dimensions and habitability of the towers evolved progressively into the emergence of residential annexes built against the towers.9 Custódio da Silva states that the strong symbolism and prestige associated with the Muslim alcazars had encouraged the Portuguese kings to adopt as privileged royal residences those that were associated with castles,10 thus reasserting their power.11 The centralisation of royal power and the decline of the older aristocratic houses, exchanged for new feudal houses (as a consequence of the political juncture provoked by the independence crisis of 1383–1385),12 set up the conditions for the construction of new royal and aristocratic manor houses (residences of the monarchy and high nobil- ity or clergy). These new, more imposing manor houses—some of them fortified13—were promoted by 5 Barroca, “Torres,” 45–85. 6 Licence to crenellate means the granting of a royal licence, giving permission to the holder to build a fortification or to fortify an existing structure, such as a manor house. 7 Barroca, “D. Dinis,” 804–07. 8 Some strong houses (dating from various eras) are the tower houses of Refóios (Ponte de Lima), Dornelas (Am- ares), Oriz in Santa Marinha (Vila Verde), Vasconcelos in Ferreiros (Amares) and the later tower houses of Giela (Arcos de Valdevez) and Quintela in Vila Marim (Vila Real). 9 Barroca, “Torres,” 57–72. 10 The manor houses inside the castles of Montemor-o-Velho, Óbidos, Lamego, Alenquer, Estremoz, Coimbra and Lisbon were royal residences. 11 Silva, Paços medievais, 25. 12 Because the great noble families supported Castilian pretensions to the Portuguese throne, they lost their privi- leges to the lesser nobility that had remained on the side of the Portuguese pretender. 13 The royal manor house of Leiria was built by King João I (1357–1433) within the castle, showing affinities with Palatine civil architecture; the fortified manor house of the Dukes of Braganza in Guimarães, begun c.1420, shows similarities with certain French aristocratic fortified buildings (the first Duke of Braganza, promotor of the con- struction, was in that country as a diplomat); the fortified manor house of the Dukes of Braganza in Barcelos, built by the second Duke of Braganza, had a fortified configuration due to the symbolism, and because there was no castle in the city; the fortified manor house of Ourém, located next to the old castle, was begun c.1440 by a son of the first Duke of Braganza after returning from Italy as a diplomat (the building had affinities with some 126 persons directly related to the Royal House: the House of Avis, linked to the Portuguese royal dynas- ty, and the powerful House of Braganza.14 The reformulation or construction of some captains’ houses situated inside castles was also permitted under royal license;15 very occasionally, the construction of fortified manor houses was also allowed.16 Advances provided by firearms made the battlements irrelevant and they were progressively replaced by the gigantic merlons adapted to gunpowder artillery. Useless for defence, this took away from the battlements the symbolic value intimately related to aristocratic distinction, enhanced through the ius crenelandi; as such, their use became more liberalised from the beginning of the 15th century, first in the residences of the high nobility, then in the lower nobility, and finally among peo- ple of wealth who did not have any aristocratic title. Due to their powerful symbolism, the surviving medieval tower houses began to be preserved, recovered and integrated into new manor houses that were added to the old towers (when these did not exist, new towers were built, copying old models).17 The use (at times whimsical) of battlements gave them the appearance of a manor house; they were also used during the Baroque period, above all in manor houses in the north of Portugal. Ideological Instrumentalisation of Heritage by the Portuguese Dictatorial Regime The tumultuous period of political, economic and social instability of the First Republic (1910– 1926), which also resulted from World War I, culminated in the Coup d’État of 1926, which put in place an authoritarian dictatorial military model of government. The year of 1933 saw the en- thronement of António de Oliveira Salazar (1889–1970), who took on leadership of the country as President of the Council of Ministers in the recently established Estado Novo (New State) dictator- ship. The ideological programme of the new regime was developed with an axiology character- ised by traditional Catholic, nationalist and colonialist conservatism. The political ideology of the Estado Novo attributed an important role to national monuments, which transmitted enormous symbolism related to the national identity. It was therefore in the regime’s interest to exploit herit- age to its own advantage.18 Reflecting the strongly nationalistic component of the Estado Novo, the classified medieval sets were clearly favoured by the interventions of the regime, given that they were considered wit- nesses of the national origins and that they translated emblematic events of the nation’s history, Italian roccas); the same promotor raised the fortified manor house of Porto de Mós on the old castle, which was a mixture of fortification and civil palace; the fortified manor house of Évoramonte was built by the fourth Duke of Braganza, who partially replaced the ancient keep destroyed by an earthquake in 1531. 14 The House of Braganza was founded through the marriage of a son of King João I to the daughter of Constable Nun’Álvares Pereira (1360–1431), one of the persons most involved in preserving Portugal’s independence. 15 For example in the castles of Valhelhas, Longroiva, Belmonte and Idanha-a-Nova. 16 For example the fortified manor houses of Alvito, Feira (Santa Maria da Feira) and Penedono, these last buildings built on the primitive castles. 17 Examples of reuse and enlargement of tower houses as residential buildings from the 15th century: the manor houses of Giela (Arcos de Valdevez), Barbosa (Penafiel), Ribafria (Sintra) and Vasconcelos in Santiago da Guarda (Ansião). Examples of the construction of new towers in manorial buildings: the manor houses of Pinheiros (Bar- celos), Águias in Brotas (Mora) and Carvalhal (Montemor-o-Novo), see Silva, Paços medievais, 168–80. 18 On the ideological instrumentalisation of national monuments for propaganda purposes by the Portuguese dic- tatorship, see Martins, “History, Nation and Politics;” Tomé, Património; Neto, Memória; Cunha, A Nação. JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS 127 facilitating the retention of collective ideological messages. The regime considered that medieval monuments should be easily understood by the people and immediately identified with the char- acters or events that they were setting out to exalt, because of which the constructed elements that obstructed or deformed this reading would have to be eliminated. The intention of returning their primitive purity to the monuments drove the realisation of architectural “reintegrations” with the sacrifice of those contributions added on down the ages, above all those that came after the 16th century, from epochs associated with periods of national decadence. Just as it rewrote history according to its ideology, the regime also rewrote the symbolic mes- sages transmitted by the monuments. The regime imposed its own political agenda as the driver for increasing the activity of heritage recovery, considering architectural heritage to be a funda- mental element at the level of propaganda and the physical ideological support of a symbolism it intended to recover and promote. The people would acquire the message intended by the political system more easily if constantly attaching privileged historical moments to architectural monu- ments: the medieval military sets clearly matched the regime’s propagandistic aims, not only be- cause of their inherent symbolism, but also because of their generally ruined state at the moment when the Estado Novo was created. In an interview granted to António Ferro (1895–1956), the man in charge of the regime’s propaganda service, Salazar denounced precisely the abandonment of Portugal’s monumental heritage and proclaimed the need to restore it, as a national patriotic imperative.19 In 1929, the General Bureau of National Buildings and Monuments (Direcção-Geral dos Ed- ifícios e Monumentos Nacionais, Portuguese acronym DGEMN) was established,20 which brought together the state service for building and developing public works as well as heritage works. The DGEMN was directed by Henrique Gomes da Silva (1890–1969), a military engineer appointed by the military junta that governed the country. Gomes da Silva remained in the DGEMN until his retirement in 1960, and was a constant presence during the first thirty years of the institution. He articulated the principles which would (theoretically) be followed in the DGEMN’s interventions in architectural heritage, in a communication presented in 1934 during the I Congress of the National Union; ideals of pristine reintegration of the monuments should be followed, where restored sets of buildings should be integrated in their primitive beauty, “expurgating later excrescences” and “repairing the mutilations” suffered through the actions of men or time.21 Gomes da Silva, reflecting a concept of intervention shared with the ideology of the Estado Novo, advocated restoring the pristine forms of monuments that had been ruined or transmuted over time. Considering the ruins and architectural deformations as the most visible effects of Portu- gal’s periods of decadence (moral, financial, political, religious, etc.) before the establishment of the Estado Novo, the regime’s messianic imperative as a regenerator of glories of the homeland demand- ed the restoration of monuments to rescue the forms that had existed in the glorious ancestral eras. As medieval castles were symbols favoured by the regime, it was inevitable that restorative interven- tions would be carried out with the aim of re-establishing their pristine form, as in the Middle Ages. 19 Ferro, Salazar, 123–24. 20 Decree-Law nr. 16791 of April 30, 1929. On heritage legislation, the functional organisation of Portuguese her- itage institutions and their actions during the dictatorial regime, see Neto, Memória, 203–80. See also Custódio, 100 anos; Rodrigues, “A Direcção-Geral.” 21 Silva, “Monumentos Nacionais,” 56–57. THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) 128 In 1936, Salazar delivered a speech during the inauguration of the exposition held to com- memorate the “10th Year of the National Revolution”. It was markedly propagandistic, entitled Era of Restoration, Era of Aggrandizement. Interventions made on national monuments by the DGEMN were extolled, justifying the application of the motto “material restoration, moral restoration, na- tional restoration”—formulated in 1940 during the speech inaugurating the Public Library and District Archive of Braga, installed in the recently restored old Archiepiscopal Palace of Braga.22 In 1938 Salazar decided to celebrate the Double Centenary of the Foundation and the Resto- ration of Portugal’s Independence, associating the regime with the two glorious historical events and mythifying the Estado Novo and its leader.23 Through precepts established by Salazar, it was decided to grant greater funding to restore the most emblematic sets of monuments related to these two memorable moments of the national historical centenary, preparing them for the magnificent festive programme. Among the monuments chosen for the restoration work to be carried out by the DGEMN was the Fortified Manor House of the Dukes of Braganza, in Guimarães, the city considered to be the cradle of Portuguese nationality. In order to distribute the ideological message more effectively, it was decided that the monu- ments should recover the supposed pristine physiognomy they would have had when the events be- ing celebrated took place. In other words, the guidelines issued presupposed that the monuments undergoing interventions should take on a purified medieval aspect, facilitating their identification by the people with the alleged “glorious Past” generally located in the Middle Ages or beginning of the Modern Age. The visual impact was decisive in the options to intervene: during the beginning of Gomes da Silva’s mandate, the use of new technologies and materials was often rejected, preference being given to the use of ancestral technologies that would ensure greater legitimacy; later on, how- ever, the advantages of reinforced concrete (durability, resistance to stress and ease of use) and steel as elements for structural reinforcement were recognised. Little by little their use was increased from the mid-1930s, although in a dissimulated way, in order to maintain the archaic appearance. The Restoration of Medieval Fortified Manor Houses as Ideological Propaganda in Europe The restoration and reconstruction—or even reinvention—of medieval fortifications (including fortified manor houses) for propaganda purposes was an old practice that gained new impetus with the advent of Romanticism and 19th-century nationalism. The restoration/reconstruction works were paradigmatic, ideologically motivated by Germanic castellated palaces during the 19th century. For example, the Rhine Valley region, considered a symbol of pan-German unity against foreign invaders at the time, motivated the reconstruction of medieval fortifications, which were associated with homeland defence and the medieval roots of the German nation.24 The restoration works carried out on the ruined Stolzenfels Castle by Johann Claudius von Lassaulx (1781–1848), Karl Friedrich Schinkel (1781–1841) and Friedrich August Stüler (1800–1865) from 1834 onwards can be considered a typical example of such heritage interventions. 22 Salazar, “Era de restauração,” 2: 145–49. 23 Salazar, “Comemorações Centenárias,” 3: 41–58. 24 On the nationalist mythification of the Rhine region, the reconstruction of Rhenish castles and their symbolism, see, among others, Taylor, The Castles. On heritage interventions in German-influenced regions, see also Liessem, “Castles of the 19th Century;” Zeune, “The Perception;” Rathke, Preuβische Burgenromantik. JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS 129 In the Swabian enclave, which was reintegrated into Prussia in 1851, Hohenzollern Castle (Hech- ingen) was restored between 1851 and 1867, led by Friedrich August Stüler, as a way of affirming the Prussian Hohenzollern dynasty. In Eisenach (Thuringia), Wartburg Castle was rebuilt by Josef Maria Hugo von Ritgen (1811–1889) between 1838 and 1890 due to its various literary and symbolic connotations. It was one of the main sites of German poetry and, in 1207, it was used for the leg- endary Sängerkrieg—a competition of minstrels that would influence Wagner to write the famous opera Tannhäuser und der Sängerkrieg auf Wartburg (Tannhäuser and the Minnesängers’ Contest at Wartburg). Saint Elizabeth of Hungary (1207–1231) also lived and died in this castle, and Martin Luther (1483–1546) transcribed the New Testament into German there. In addition, in 1817, during the celebration of victory over the Napoleonic army, a significant appeal for German unity was made from this castle. As a way of proclaiming German dominance over East Prussia, a territory that came un- der Prussian rule after the first partition of Poland in 1772, the former Ordensburg Marienburg (Malbork), built by the Teutonic Order—of Germanic origin—in the Middle Ages, underwent several restoration works25 from 1882 to 1922 under Conrad Steinbrecht (1849–1923) and Ber- nard Schmid (1872–1947). While Ordensburg Marienburg marked the eastern edge of the German Empire, Hohkönigsburg26 (Orschwiller), located in the former French territory of Alsace, marked its western edge and was restored between 1900 and 1908 under the direction of Bodo Ebhardt (1865–1945). There were other notable reconstructions of castellated palaces of symbolic importance to the sovereigns of several countries. For example, to declare possession of the border territories of South Tyrol, Austro-Hungarian Emperor Franz Joseph I (1830–1916) ordered the restoration of the Castle of Runkelstein27 (Bozen/Bolzano), which was carried out between 1884 and 1888 under Friedrich Wilhelm von Schmidt (1825–1891), and the claim of Austro-Hungarian possession over the territo- ries of Bohemia resulted in the restoration of the Castle of Karlstein28 (Karlštejn) between 1870 and 1899, led by Friedrich Wilhelm von Schmidt and Josef Mocker (1835–1899). In France, the Castle of Pierrefonds was rebuilt between 1857 and 1885 under Eugène Viollet- le-Duc (1814–1879), Maurice-Augustin-Gabriel Ouradou (1822–1884) and Jean Juste Lisch (1828– 1910). This fortified manor house was to serve as the summer residence of Emperor Napoleon III (1808–1873), who needed to be recognised as the ruler of France. Interestingly, the king’s consort, Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1819–1861), married to the British Queen Victoria (1819–1901), and his right-hand cousin, Ferdinand II of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (1816–1885), married to the Portuguese Queen Maria II (1819–1853), carried out work on pre-existing buildings, transforming them into castellated palaces. In addition to the cultural issues associated with Romanticism and the influences coming from Ferdinand and Albert’s Ger- manic family, the argument for emphasising their royal houses in the eyes of their subjects was also evident in the choice of the architectural language for their palaces, alluding to medieval castles.29 25 Between 1817 and 1855, at the behest of Frederick William III (1770–1840) of Prussia, reconstruction was carried out by Karl August Gersdorff (1788–1855), under the supervision of Karl Schinkel. 26 Today, it is known as the Castle of Haut-Kœnigsbourg. 27 It is also called the Castle of Roncolo. 28 It is now known as Hrad Karlštejn. 29 Santos, O castelo português, 173–92. THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) 130 In the 20th century, several medieval fortifications were restored following nationalist ideo- logical assumptions. For example, Ferdinando Forlati (1882–1975) restored the Castle of Gorizia between 1934 and 1937, which had been extensively damaged by bombing during the World War I; the decision to restore it was therefore also an ideological affirmation of territorial possession and national reconstruction. At the time, Italy was under the fascist dictatorship of Benito Mussolini (1883–1945), whose authoritarian regime was nationalist and imperialist in nature. In this sense, and as was the case with other nationalist dictatorial regimes, architectural heritage was seen as a privileged medium for ideological propaganda. Restorative interventions were therefore seen as an effective means of disseminating propaganda messages directly from the regime to the people.30 During the Mussolini regime, interventions were in fact carried out on several castles, such as the Castle of Gradara, under Umberto Zanvettori (†1928), in the 1920s; the Castle of Monte in An- dria, under the direction of Quintino Quagliati (1869–1932) in 1928; or the New Castle in Naples, also called Maschio Angioino, under Gino Chierici (1877–1961) and Giorgio Rosi (1904–1974), in the late 1930s. However, medieval castles were not the main focus of the restorations promoted by the Italian dictatorial regime: the interest was mainly centred on the monuments of Classical An- tiquity from the Roman imperial period, of which the regime considered itself the heir. In Spain, which was under the nationalist dictatorships of Miguel Primo de Rivera (1870–1930) from 1923 to 1930 and Francisco Franco (1892–1975) from 1939 to 1978, the propagandistic nature attributed to architectural heritage also motivated heritage interventions on Spanish monuments.31 Medieval castles did not have as strong a connotation in Spain as they did in Portugal, but several interventions occurred, such as the Castle of Loarre, restored between 1930 and 1950; the Castle of Coca, restored between 1956 and 1958; or the Castle of Mota, in Medina del Campo, restored from 1942. Looking at the catalogue of the 1958 exhibition in Madrid dedicated to monumental restora- tions from the 1940s and 1950s, one can clearly see that fewer castles were the subject of interven- tion than religious monuments, for instance.32 Restoration of Medieval Fortified Manor Houses by the Estado Novo In the first years of the DGEMN, the procedures and actions begun in previous decades during the First Republic were continued in various monuments, including the palace of the Castle of Leiria, the keep of the Castle of the Feira, and the Fortified Manor House of the Dukes of Braganza, in Barcelos.33 All of them continued the prerogatives with which they had previously been linked: essentially interventions to consolidate, repair and restore as and when needed, with rebuilding both sporadically and in specific situations, through anastylosis or the incorporation of new elements, 30 On heritage interventions during the Mussolini regime, see, among others, Arthurs, “The Excavatory Interven- tion;” Bellini, “Note sul restauro;” Lamberini, Teorie e storia. 31 See, for instance, Chapapría and Pinazo, Bajo; Chapapría, La conservación; Díez, Historia. 32 Ministerio de Fomento, Veinte años. 33 The primary sources of the interventions carried out by DGEMN can now be consulted online, through the following website http://www.monumentos.gov.pt. However, the 131 issues of the Boletim da DGEMN, published between 1935 and 1990, are also a valuable source of information to understand the DGEMN’s policies and proceedings regarding its interventions in Portuguese national monuments and, in this case, the restoration and rehabilitation of fortified manor houses. The analysis of these primary sources made it possible to systematise the actions of the DGEMN during the Estado Novo period, as described below. JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS 131 generally made of differentiated materials such as cement. The ruins were stabilised in order to make possible the global perception of these structures, and at the same time increasing the picturesque sense of landscape associated with the ancient archaeological vestiges, as poetic wit- nesses of the “glorious Past”.34 However, the gradual instrumentalisation of the monuments and the increasing spend- ing in public works by the DGEMN gave rise to a growing number of interventions: from the most common to the less usual, the operations were distributed among: structural consolida- tion, often with the shoring up of buildings with unstable structures, followed by their re- construction using the same materials and, in some cases, introducing hidden concrete re- inforcements; removal of rubble and debris in order to lower the ground to its original level; demolition of structures considered to be spu- rious, frequently of elements dating from eras later than the Middle Ages; repair and partial replacement of demolished architectural struc- tures, preferably by anastylosis, making use of the materials available; recomposition of archi- tectural elements by formal and constructive analogy; and finally, the broadest reconstruction.35 The excavations made it possible to discover foundations, but also to recover the original building materials of fallen structures, in order to rebuild them by means of anastylosis, or find other materials which due to their patina could be incorporated into the reconstructions with less of a visual impact than new materials. The intention of preserving the marks of time on the ma- terials was a constant preoccupation: as well bestowing an abstract sense of authenticity on the buildings that underwent interventions, the materials with their natural patina made possible to harmonise picturesque values associated with the environment in which they were found; but they also showed the robustness and Spartan sobriety demanded from medieval structures that contin- ued to resist the struggle against time and people. The interventions in the fortified manor houses of Leiria, Porto de Mós, Évoramonte and Flor da Rosa (in Crato) presented additional challenges, since they were complex sets whose structures were partially demolished. The partial reconstruction of the fortifications of Évoramonte (figs. 1–2) 34 On the restoration of medieval castles during the Estado Novo dictatorship in Portugal, see Santos, “Anamnesis;” Correia, Castelos; Fernandes, “La restauración.” 35 Miguel Tomé mentioned very well, although briefly, the modus operandi of the DGEMN in the medieval forti- fications in the 1930s to 1950s, whose reference should be consulted, Tomé, Património, 59–70. See also Santos, Anamnesis, 1: 395–435. 1. Fortified manor house of Évoramonte, before and after the restoration works (© Direção-Geral do Património Cultural - SIPA (above); photo: Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos (below)) THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) 132 2. Empty hall of the fortified manor house of Évoramonte, after the restoration (photo: Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos) 3. Royal manor house inside the Castle of Leiria, before and after the restoration works (© Direção-Geral do Património Cultural - SIPA (above); photo: Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos (below)). and Flor da Rosa, although extensive in character, was carried out through the formal analogous recourse to the symmetry of the buildings, supported by analysis of architectural vestiges and his- toriographical and castellological data. The means used in the Évoramonte and Crato interventions were not, despite everything, applicable to the Leiria (figs. 3–4) and Porto de Mós (fig. 5) fortified manor houses, the extent of JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS 133 whose ruin was greater. In addition to this, as singular structures in Portugal, they made formal analogies with other similar structures to be impossible. Although architectural and archaeologi- cal vestiges still existing would allow a specific reconstruction by anastylosis or the reproduction of certain elements, the remaining archaeological evidence and the inexistence of iconographical documentation rendered the data that would make possible a global reconstruction insufficient. For this reason, any reconstruction would have to possess a strong inventive component, a practice that the DGEMN condemned, in the belief that it falsified the values associated with the monu- ments. Those structures with the possibility of being reconstructed by anastylosis or formal repro- duction were partially rebuilt, like certain outside walls, inner walls, staircases and floors. However, the main façades of both fortified manor houses constitute powerful iconic images, dominating the respective urban sets where they were found. Furthermore, as they were largely constituted by galleries, the façades could be easily reproduced from a single arch. The DGEMN technicians reconstructed the galleries with arches, reproducing the existing vestiges quite simply, completing the remaining parietal elements on the basis of formal and constructive deduction based on the actual reconstructed gallery and on remaining vestiges. 4. Rear façade of the royal manor house inside the Castle of Leiria, after the restoration works (© Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos) 5. Fortified manor house of Porto de Mós, before and after the restoration works (© Direção-Geral do Património Cultural - SIPA (left); photo: Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos (right)) THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) 134 6. Fortified manor house the Dukes of Braganza in Guimarães, before and after the restoration works (© Direção-Geral do Património Cultural - SIPA (left); Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos (right)) 7. Hall of the fortified manor house of the Dukes of Braganza in Guimarães, after furnished by the Commission for the Acquisition of Furniture (photo: Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos) The importance of the façades that dominated the cities would drive the exceptionality of specific creative reconstructions. The most visible example is that of the spirelets above the lateral towers of the gallery of the fortified manor house of Porto de Mós: accepting the specificity of the fortification that lacks similarities with other Portuguese buildings, the reconstruction was based on presuppositions based on eventual Italian influences in order to reconstruct the roofs (using reinforced concrete), without clear evidence about the slopes or the original materials. The notable iconic evidence of the main façades, which motivated their exceptional reconstruction, is obvious when the remaining façades are observed which, considered to have no iconic importance, under- went far lesser reconstructions and remained with the image of a consolidated ruin. The recovery of idealised stylistic models was only carried out in very specific interventions made in structures endowed with a strong symbolic character, which for this reason granted the intervention a sense of exceptionality. The most paradigmatic example was that carried out in the Fortified Manor House of the Dukes of Braganza, in Guimarães (figs. 6–7). The DGEMN’s interven- tion, which would continue until the 1960s, begun under the direction of Rogério Azevedo (1898– 1983) in 1936, later becoming part of the programme outlined for Guimarães in the context of the celebrations of the double centenary in 1940. The aim of the ambitious operation was to recover one of the emblematic seats of the House of Braganza, located in the city considered to be the cradle JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS 135 of the Portuguese nation. The building, in complete ruins, would be restored and con- verted into the presidential residence, dem- onstrating the importance of Guimarães for the nationalist ideology of the Estado Novo: the Portuguese President’s Palace in the north of the country would be located in the cradle-city of the nation, where the first Portuguese king was born. For this reason, the intervention could not be limited to the mere recovery of the pristine form of the manor house, which in addition to being impossible due to the scant philological bases, would not be con- stituted as an official residence worthy of the President of the Portuguese Republic. In these circumstances, along with the arguments directly associated with herit- age values, functional values would have to exist (official residence with conditions of habitability and modern comfort) and symbolic values (of representativity). Ro- gério de Azevedo, from philological studies based on prospections made in the building and in historical documentation, and in the formal and functional analysis comparing similar buildings, placed the construction of the manor house in the 15th century, based on influences typologically affiliated to Italy, with French and Catalan contributions: however, according to Custódio da Silva, the main influences were in fact essentially French, though they underwent a process of insertion into the Portuguese reality.36 Bearing in mind the assumptions that he had made about the manor house in Guimarães, Rogério de Azevedo created a supposed historical reality based on his personal convictions sup- ported on the analysis made in conjunction with the new functions he wished to attribute to the manor house (fig. 8). The guidelines with which he directed the intervention were intended on the one hand to valorise the historical characteristics of the building, achieving a presumed pristine stylistic unity, and on the other hand, to respond to the new pretensions, seeking to harmonise the architecture of the Past with the demands of the Present. The circumstances linked Rogério de Azevedo’s action in the Guimarães manor house to Viollet-le-Duc’s thinking for the intervention in the fortified manor house of Pierrefonds.37 Rogério de Azevedo was not concerned with the rigour of the physical construction in its plenitude, but rather with the memorial reconstruction of a symbolic medieval edifice. New demands drove the somehow whimsical improvement of the building, which did however maintain its would- be medieval character. Such a fact resulted in the alteration of the integrity of the monument through 36 Silva, Paços Medievais, 139–41. See also Azevedo, O Paço. 37 Brito, “Alguns vetores,” 74–87. See also Brito, “Metamorfoses.” 8. Drawing by Rogério de Azevedo for the restoration of the fortified manor house of the Dukes of Braganza in Guimarães (© Direção-Geral do Património Cultural – SIPA) THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) 136 the mutilation and distortion of its history and architecture. It received a form that in some respects it had never possessed, forced on it by the Italian influence attributed by Rogério de Azevedo. The errors were articulated by Custódio da Silva, mainly about the courtyard surrounded by galleries, the enormous central staircase, the various functional changes and the symmetry that had been imposed.38 Refunctionalisation of Medieval Fortified Manor Houses The provision of conditions suitable for the recently restored medieval Fortified Manor House of the Dukes of Braganza, in Guimarães, to receive a very highly placed official led to the creation of a Commission for the Acquisition of Furniture, charged with furnishing the manor house accord- ing to a stereotyped, almost museological taste (fig. 9).39 However, the President of the Portuguese Republic, Óscar Carmona (1869–1951), refused to exchange the cosmopolitan life of the current capital for provincial life of the first Portuguese capital; thus, instead of taking up residence in the medieval manor house of Guimarães, he preferred to remain in the Palace of Belém, which in addi- tion had more amenities (and a privileged view of the River Tagus). This came to create a dilemma for the regime: what to do with a monument that has been restored and appropriately furnished, on which they spent so many funds and which in the end would not be put to any use? The problems related to the possible fate of the Fortified Manor House of the Dukes of Bra- ganza (or even before, the manor house of Castle of Leiria), once the restoration had been com- pleted, gave rise to the debate on its maintenance, given that it was regular use that would assure its conservation. Initially, a castle was restored “to be a castle”, and being its own museum involved housing collections of weapons or assets related to ways of life associated with the fortifications (of the military, the aristocrats or the nearby communities). If some broader fortified structures (captain houses of castles, fortified manor houses) had the capacity to receive significant museum nuclei, in the generality of medieval military sets the exhibitions were reduced, consisting of simple collections with a military or ethnographical theme installed in the keeps that were greater in size that the other towers—in 1936, after its restoration, a museum nucleus had already been installed in the keep of the Castle of Braganza, originally a fortified manor house. Driven by influences deriving from Spain, the conceptualisation of rehabilitation of monu- ments for luxury hotel units was recovered in the second quarter of the 20th century, bringing together the supposed formal safeguarding of the monumental structure and the cultural tourism industry, with their respective financial benefits.40 The Spanish policy of rehabilitating architec- tural monuments to function as hotels41 had a strong impact on the upper echelons of the Es- tado Novo and on various sectors of Portuguese society, with successive requirements for adapting 38 Silva, Paços Medievais, 141–44. 39 PC-40, Cx. 622, pt. 7, Arquivo Salazar, Criação de uma Administração Geral do Mobiliário Nacional (1954), Arquivo Nacional da Torre do Tombo. See also Martins, ed., Mobiliário. 40 After the restoration of the Paço dos Alcaides, inside the Castle of Óbidos, the DGEMN bulletin mentions that “[…] at a certain moment, when the works in the citadel were almost at their final stage, an idea occurred to take advantage of this remarkable building (previously doomed to remain empty and useless until it could be trans- formed into a regional museum or other similar establishment) to install an ‘luxury hotel’ that would attract a great number of national and foreign visitors […]” (Castro, “Antes da restauração,” 21.) 41 On the rehabilitation of Spanish castles to function as hotels, see Núñez-Herrador and Espinosa, “Los castillos.” JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS 137 monuments to these functions. More than economic interests, the requests frequently constituted a way of guaranteeing state support for carrying out restorative interventions and to guarantee their maintenance through constant use of these monuments adapted for use as hotels. Another important factor emerged when António Ferro (1895–1956), director of the National Propaganda Secretariat, decided in the 1930s that internal tourism would be an important factor in stimulating knowledge of the country, promoting patriotic values at the heart of Portuguese society.42 In this context, the first Pousadas de Portugal43 were created in 1939, by the initiative of António Ferro and Duarte Pacheco (1900–1943), Minister of Public Works and Communications. The medieval fortified manor houses, whose original function had long since been lost, were the first considered for the installation of pousadas,44 with the works remaining under the control of the DGEMN. The inauguration of the Pousada do Castelo in 1950, located in the captain house inside the Castle of Óbidos, emerged precisely from the need to find a use for the numerous monu- ments restored by the DGEMN through the functional installation of luxury hotels that would as- sure the maintenance through functional usage and the creation of economic values.45 The growing importance of quality tourism installed in privileged places was thus taken on board, at the same time as the luxury hotels in historical monuments were used as political instruments to house high foreign dignitaries. The Paço dos Alcaides, located inside the Castle of Óbidos (fig. 10), was found in an advanced state of ruin, although walls remained in two of its wings. The manor house would be configured in four wings around a central patio, supported outside on the castle walls. As it had done with other castles, the DGEMN decided on the reconstruction of this captain house within the possible limits, following increasingly cautious lines of action. For this reason the intervention only involved the 42 On the Estado Novo’s ideological discourse about the Portuguese culture, see Melo, Salazarismo; Leal, Etnografias portuguesas; Ó, Os anos de Ferro. 43 Pousadas de Portugal is a chain of luxury, traditional or historical hotels in Portugal. 44 A pousada means a luxury hotel in Portuguese. 45 Lobo, Pousadas de Portugal, 115. Susana Lobo’s work is fundamental to understanding the rehabilitation of Por- tuguese monuments to remodel them for luxury hotels. See also Barreto, “Pousadas de Portugal.” 9. Military museum nucleus inside the keep of the Castle of Braganza (photo: Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos) THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) 138 two remaining ruined wings, respecting the remaining vestiges and in some cases demonstrating synchrony with the philo- logical precepts of restoration: for example, on reconstructing the stone frames of the Manueline windows on the upper floor of the courtyard, it was decided to opt to fol- low stylised lines inspired directly by the Manueline style, instead of mimicking it. The adaptation of the Paço dos Al- caides (fig. 11) began in 1948 under the direction of João Vaz Martins (1910–1988), and was considered a conservative inter- vention that attempted to respect the mon- ument as a spiritual element and bearer of native values, reflecting the ideology that evoked the exaltation of the nation. A spe- cific work of reintegration and consolida- tion of the built structures was carried out, and was reduced to the adaptation of a mere rational organisation of the spaces resulting from the compartmentalization produced by the restoration. The monu- mental integrity of the castle took prec- edence over the functional aspect, thus the projects to adapt the castle to function as a hotel were no more than simple actions of interior decoration, intended to recreate historicist atmospheres with revivalist furniture and décor.46 However, the luxury hotel did introduce a new use for the ancient medieval fortification that compelled alterations and readjustments due to the new needs. Among those that were indispen- sable for fitting out a luxury hotel were the redefinition of areas (services, sanitary installations, bedrooms), the infrastructure networks (sanitation, electricity, telecommunications), high require- ments for habitability (comfort, hygiene, salubriousness, safety, aesthetics), leisure sectors (lounges, games rooms, bar, swimming pool), accessibility (for the disabled, lifts) and other concepts that did not exist in medieval fortifications. In the last years of the Estado Novo, another rehabilitation was undertaken in a fortified man- or house with the aim of transforming it into a touristic luxury hotel. In 1970, the Pousada Santa Isabel was inaugurated in Estremoz, included in an ancient royal medieval manor house that King João V (1689–1750) had ordered to be rebuilt in the 18th century, inside the Castle of Estremoz. The project, drawn up by Rui Ângelo do Couto (1917–1998), followed the line of intervention of the Óbidos luxury hotel, trying to harmonise the hotel programme respectfully with the pre-existing 46 Fernandes, “Pousadas de Portugal.” 10. Paço dos Alcaides inside the Castle of Óbidos, before and after the restoration works (© Direção-Geral do Património Cultural - SIPA (above); photo: Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos (below)) JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS 139 monument so that this could maintain the architectural characteristics and symbolical values as- sociated with them. The atmosphere recreated in the luxury hotel, by valuing the ancient architec- ture and the decoration with its markedly historicist character, sought to involve the tourists in a memorial aura of the Past that it set out to evoke. Aftermath: Contemporary Uses of Fortified Manor Houses The heritage intervention practices regarding medieval fortifications undertaken by the Estado Novo regime were generally accepted and defended by most of the personalities associated with the dictatorship. The censorship that prevailed in the media precluded gauging the sensitivity of the general public to the interventions carried out on architectural heritage. However, the population appeared to accept these interventions, because the monuments could partially recover from their decay, or, at least, people silently ignored them. Yet among some cultural elites, there were more or less veiled criticisms of the reintegrations carried out during the DGEMN’s first phase: for example, Raul Lino da Silva (1879–1974), a senior technician at the DGEMN, implicitly criticised the principles set out by Gomes da Silva in 1941 by vehemently condemning the theories of stylistic unity preconized by Viollet-le-Duc.47 Later, when the regime’s censorship briefly eased due to the elections for the Presidency of the Portu- guese Republic in 1949, Deputy Manuel Mendes (1906–1969), following a rally in support of the opposition’s presidential candidate, ironized about the DGEMN’s interventions on medieval for- tifications. Here Mendes drew a parallel between the DGEMN’s operations to replace battlements in medieval fortifications and “composing battlements in castles like teeth in dentures”.48 The art historian Adriano de Gusmão (1908–1989) also criticised the DGEMN’s work, saying that it often employed principles of stylistic unity or, in some cases, inventive principles.49 47 Lino, “A propósito.” 48 Mendes, “Explicações necessárias,” 1. 49 Gusmão, “Ainda o Restauro,” 1, 6. 11. Hall of the Pousada do Castelo, in the Paço dos Alcaides, inside the Castle of Óbidos (photo: Joaquim Rodrigues dos Santos) THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) 140 Gomes da Silva felt the criticisms and strongly contested them, arguing that the DGEMN did not follow the criteria proposed by Viollet-le-Duc, since it was not possible to impose a sin- gle criterion for the reintegration of architectural monuments; even so, the criteria followed by the DGEMN for restorative interventions aimed to reintegrate architectural monuments into their original beauty, cleaning them of excrescences with no artistic value that had been added, while also seeking to repair the mutilations suffered over time by human or natural actions. The example Gomes da Silva chose to illustrate the DGEMN’s action was the Castle of Saint George (Castelo de São Jorge) in Lisbon: more than “a constructive toy or a new building”, Gomes da Silva repeat- edly stated that the castle had always been there, but submerged by other built structures, so the DGEMN’s intervention had essentially been to clear the medieval castle by demolishing the para- sitic structures with no artistic value.50 At the end of the 1940s, the departure of Baltazar da Silva Castro (1891–1967), a senior tech- nician at the DGEMN and the main executor of Gomes da Silva’s ideas, and the replacement of Gomes da Silva by José Pena Pereira da Silva (b.1906) as the DGEMN’s head, opened up possibili- ties for new ideas and procedures. This was visible particularly in the renewal of the technical staff and the progressive adoption of lines of action closer to the criteria set internationally for safe- guarding heritage—namely, in the International Charter for the Conservation and Restoration of Monuments and Sites, generally known as the Venice Charter (1964). The fall of the Estado Novo in 1974, with the consequent shift to a democratic regime, led to less effective action by the governmental institutions during the post-revolutionary period. While they attempted to manage the adaptation of the government structures inherited from the previ- ous regime to connect them to the democratic reality, there was also an attempt to resolve serious social situations. The difficulties were reflected in cultural policies, which before the framework of the institutional crisis and the consequent priorities that were established, gave rise to a period of indecisiveness. The change of mentality and ideas in the realm of heritage inevitably had repercus- sions in the entities responsible for Portuguese heritage policies. The opening up of heritage policies to Portuguese society favoured a multiplication of safe- guarding actions carried out on the one hand by different civic associations, mainly in local or regional initiatives, and on the other hand, through private operators who through the later man- agement of the heritage that underwent interventions added greatly to the commercialisation of cultural heritage as a source for generating financial dividends, though not always having the main objective of preserving it. The rehabilitation of monuments to function as hotels, which since the creation of the Na- tional Tourism Company (Portuguese acronym: ENATUR), in 1976, had increased significantly, is illustrative. ENATUR was charged with managing state-owned properties linked to the luxury hotel industry; in 2003 around half of its capital was privatised, with the commercial exploitation being handed over to the Pestana Pousadas Group. The new interventions in fortified manor hous- es involved a presumably respectful matching of the pre-existing ones to the new hotel functions, attempting to harmonise the demands of the hotels with veneration for the architectural monu- ment. Nevertheless, alterations were frequently made in the structure of the buildings with the intention of meeting the actual demands of the new hotel function, with the demolition of interior halls that were then reconstructed differently, or the programmatic attribution of functions that 50 Silva, “A reintegração;” Silva, “Com a obra realizada.” See also Direcção-Geral, Obras em Monumentos Nacionais. JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS 141 did not blend respectfully with the characteristics of the monument, giving rise to misrepresenta- tions in its reading.51 But the cultural aspect has also achieved increasing preponderance, with various fortified manor houses and captains’ houses inside castles rehabilitated for museum or multicultural func- tions driven by the municipalities. In these cases, freer from private commercial constraints, the new functions sought to adapt to the pre-existing buildings, with the introduction of assumedly new and often reversible structures. Reference should also be made to the minimalist requalifica- tion programmes,52 which consist of the consolidation of the remaining structures of the medieval manor houses (often just ruins) and the provision of conditions for visitors, with the introduction of illumination, guard rails, paving, etc., having it in mind to valorise the monuments.53 51 Lobo, Pousadas, 93–152. 52 Santos, Anamnesis, 1: 395–435. 53 This essay was developed within a contract funded by the FCT – Foundation for the Science and the Technology, under the Decree Law nº. 57/2016 and the Law nº. 57/2017; it also had the FCT support through the ARTIS-IHA- FLUL (ref. UIDB/04189/2020). THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) 142 Bibliography Alçada, Margarida, and Maria Teles Grilo, eds. Caminhos do Património. Lisbon: Direcção-Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacionais; Livros Horizonte, 1999. Arthurs, Joshua. “The Excavatory Intervention: Archaeology and the Chronopolitics of Roman Antiquity in Fascist Italy.” Journal of Modern European History / Zeitschrift Für Moderne Europäische Geschichte / Revue d’Histoire Européenne Contemporaine 13, no. 1 (2015): 44–58. Azevedo, Carlos. Solares Portugueses. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte, 1988. Azevedo, Rogério. O Paço dos Duques de Bragança (Preâmbulo à memória do projecto de restauro). Oporto: Marânus, 1942. Barreto, Pedro. “Pousadas de Portugal: Elixir para anchietações.” Jornal dos Arquitectos 197 (2000): 49–54. Barroca, Mário. “D. Dinis e a arquitectura militar portuguesa.” História: Revista da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto 15, no. 1 (1998): 801–22. Barroca, Mário. “Torres, casas-torres ou casas-fortes: A concepção do espaço de habitação da pequena e média nobreza na Baixa Idade Média (Sécs. XII–XV).” Revista de História das Ideais 19 (1997): 39–103. Bellini, Amedeo. “Note sul restauro dei monumenti nel periodo fascista.” In Bajo el Signo de la Victoria: La Conservación del Patrimonio durante el Primer Franquismo (1936–1958), edited by Julián Esteban Chapapría and José Casar Pinazo, 111–34. Valencia: Pentagraf Editorial, 2008. Brito, Maria Mónica. “Paço dos Duques de Bragança em Guimarães: Alguns vetores de leitura.” Monumentos 33 (2013): 74–87. Brito, Maria Mónica. “Paço dos Duques de Bragança em Guimarães: Metamorfoses da imagem na época contemporânea.” M.A. thesis, University of Lisbon, 2003. Carita, Hélder. A casa senhorial em Portugal: Modelos, tipologias, programas interiores e equipamentos. Alfragide: Leya, 2015. Castro, João de. “Antes da restauração.” Boletim da DGEMN 68–69 (1952): 16–23. Chapapría, Julián Esteban. La conservación del patrimonio español durante la II República (1931–1939). Barcelona: Edición Fundación Caja de Arquitectos, 2007. Chapapría, Julián Esteban, and José Casar Pinazo, eds. Bajo el Signo de la Victoria: La conservación del patrimonio durante el Primer Franquismo (1936–1958). Valencia: Pentagraf Editorial, 2008. Correia, Luís Miguel. Castelos em Portugal: Retrato do seu perfil arquitectónico (1509–1949). Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade, 2011. Cunha, Luís Manuel. A Nação nas malhas da sua identidade: O Estado Novo e a construção da identidade nacional. Oporto: Edições Afrontamento, 2001. Custódio, Jorge Raimundo, ed. 100 anos de património: Memória e identidade (Portugal 1910–2010). Lisbon: Instituto de Gestão do Património Arquitectónico e Arqueológico, 2010. D’Anniballe, Maria. “Recreating the Past: The controversies surrounding the refashioning of the medieval castle of Castelvecchio in Verona under the Fascist regime.” Athanor 28 (2010): 75–83. Díez, Isabel Ordieres. Historia de la restauración monumental en España (1835–1936). Madrid: Instituto de Conservación y Restauración de Bienes Culturales, 1995. Direcção-Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacionais. Boletim da DGEMN 1–131 (1935–90). Direcção-Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacionais. Obras em Monumentos Nacionais. Lisbon: Direcção-Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacionais; Ministério das Obras Públicas, 1949. Fernandes, Isabel Cristina. “La restauración de los castillos de Portugal (años 30–60 del siglo XX).” In Arquitectura fortificada: Conservación, restauración y uso de los castillos, edited by Edward Cooper, 157–94. Valladolid: Fundación del Patrimonio Histórico de Castilla y León, 2006. JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS 143 Fernandes, José Manuel. “Pousadas de Portugal: Obras de raíz e em monumentos.” In Caminhos do Património, edited by Margarida Alçada and Maria Teles Grilo, 159–77. Lisbon: Direcção-Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacionais; Livros Horizonte, 1999. Ferro, António. Salazar. Aveiro: Edições do Templo, 1978. Gomes, Rita Costa. “A construção das fronteiras.” In A memória da nação, edited by Francisco Bethencourt and Diogo Ramada Curto, 370–80. Lisbon: Livraria Sá da Costa Editora, 1991. Gomes, Rita Costa. “Monarquia e território: Residências reais portuguesas – Séculos XIV a XVI.” In Lugares de poder: Europa séculos XV a XX, edited by Rita Costa Gomes and Gérard Sabatier, 84–105. Lisbon: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian, 1998. Gusmão, Adriano de. “Ainda o Restauro dos Monumentos Nacionais.” República, March 13, 1949. Lamberini, Daniela. Teorie e storia del restauro architettonico. Florence: Polistampa, 2003. Leal, João. Etnografias portuguesas (1870–1970): Cultura popular e identidade nacional. Lisbon: Publicações Dom Quixote, 2000. Liessem, Udo. “Castles of the 19th Century in the Upper Middle Rhine Valley.” Europa Nostra Bulletin 61 (2007): 7–14. Lino, Raul. “A propósito da Sé do Funchal: A restauração de monumentos.” Boletim da Academia Nacional de Belas-Artes 9 (1941): 5–15. Lobo, Susana. Pousadas de Portugal: Reflexos da arquitectura portuguesa do século XX. Coimbra: Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, 2006. Martins, João Paulo, ed. Mobiliário para edifícios públicos: Portugal 1934/1974. Lisbon: Caleidoscópio, 2015. Martins, Pedro. “History, Nation and Politics: The Middle Ages in Modern Portugal (1890–1947).” PhD diss., New University of Lisbon, 2016. Mattoso, José. Identificação de um país: Ensaio sobre as origens de Portugal (1096–1325). 2 vols. Lisbon: Editorial Estampa, 1995. Melo, Daniel. Salazarismo e cultura popular (1933–1958). Lisbon: Instituto de Ciências Sociais da Universidade de Lisboa, 2001. Mendes, Manuel. “Explicações necessárias, em resposta ao Senhor Ministro das Obras Públicas.” República, January 13, 1949. Neto, Maria João. Memória, propaganda e poder: O restauro dos monumentos nacionais (1929–1960). Oporto: FAUP Publicações, 2001. Núñez-Herrador, Esther Almarcha, and Rafael Villena Espinosa. “Los castillos, ¿destino turístico?.” In De Marco Polo al low cost: Perfiles del turismo contemporáneo, edited by Héctor Martínez Sánchez-Mateos and María Rubio Martin, 69–90. Madrid: Catarata, 2020. Núñez-Herrador, Esther Almarcha, and Rafael Villena Espinosa. “Una nación de castillos: Su restauración, imagen fotográfica y significado en el segundo franquismo.” Vinculos de Historia 11 (2022): 189–212. Ó, Jorge Ramos do. Os anos de Ferro: O dispositivo cultural durante a “Política do Espírito” (1933–1949). Lisbon: Editorial Estampa, 1999. Rathke, Ursula. Preuβische Burgenromantik am Rhein: Studien zum Wiederaufbau von Rheinstein, Stolzenfels und Sooneck (1823–1860). Munich: Prestel, 1979. Rodrigues, Jorge. “A Direcção-Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacionais e o restauro dos monumentos medievais durante o Estado Novo.” In Caminhos do Património, edited by Margarida Alçada and Maria Teles Grilo, 69–82. Lisbon: Livros Horizonte, 1999. Salazar, António de Oliveira. Discursos e notas políticas (1938–1943). 6 vols. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 1928–1967. Salazar, António de Oliveira. “Comemorações Centenárias.” In Discursos e Notas Políticas (1938– 1943). Vol. 3, 41–58. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 1959. THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) 144 Salazar, António de Oliveira. “‘Era de restauração, Era de engrandecimento’ – Discurso na exposição do ano X da Revolução Nacional, em 28 de Maio.” In Discursos e Notas Políticas (1938–1943). Vol. 2, 145–49. Coimbra: Coimbra Editora, 1946. Santos, Joaquim Rodrigues dos. “Anamnesis del Castillo como Bien Patrimonial: Construcción de la imagen, forma y (re)funcionalización en la rehabilitación de fortificaciones medievales en Portugal.” PhD diss., University of Alcalá, 2012. Santos, Joaquim Rodrigues dos. O castelo português: Criação de uma imagética cultural. Lisboa: Caleidoscópio, 2022. Silva, Henrique Gomes da. “A reintegração dos monumentos.” Boletim da DGEMN 24 (1941): I–XIV. Silva, Henrique Gomes da. “Com a obra realizada nos Monumentos Nacionais elevou-se muito alto o nivel da nossa cultura.” Diário Popular 2275 (1949): 1, 5. Silva, Henrique Gomes da. “Monumentos Nacionais - Orientação técnica a seguir no seu restauro.” In I Congresso da União Nacional - Discursos, Teses e Comunicações, 56–57. Lisbon: Edição da União Nacional, 1935. Silva, José Custódio Vieira da. Paços Medievais Portugueses. Lisbon: IPPAR, 2002. Taylor, Robert R. The Castles of the Rhine: Recreating the Middle Ages in Modern Germany. Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1998. Tomé, Miguel. Património e restauro em Portugal (1920–1995). Oporto: FAUP Publicações, 2002. Zeune, Joachim. “The Perception of the Medieval Castle in the 18th and 19th Centuries in Germany: Some Remarks on the Genuine Medieval Style.” Europa Nostra Bulletin 61 (2007): 15–20. JOAQUIM RODRIGUES DOS SANTOS 145 Obnova srednjeveških utrdb v času portugalskega diktatorskega režima (1926–1974) Povzetek V primerjavi z drugimi evropskimi deželami je bila gradnja gradov na Portugalskem v srednjem veku povsem odvisna od portugalskih vladarjev. Vsi portugalski gradovi so bili kraljeva last, grajske poveljnike pa sta imenovala kralj osebno ali oseba s kraljevimi pooblastili, ki je pred tem vladarju morala priseči zvestobo. Brez dovoljenja kralja tako ni bilo mogoče zgraditi nobene utrdbe: prepovedana je bila celo gradnja dvorcev in palač z obzidjem ali drugimi obrambnimi elementi, četudi bi bili ti zgolj dekorativne narave. Večina gradov na Portugalskem je pripadala najvišjemu plemstvu, ki je bilo navadno sorodstveno povezano s portugalsko kraljevo družino. Skoraj vsi gradovi so sčasoma propadli, ker so bili neudobni za bivanje in od renesanse dalje premalo razkošni za potrebe portugalskega plemstva, s pojavom artilerije in novega strelnega orožja so obrambne strukture gradov zastarele, nekateri pa so propadli tudi zaradi izumrtja nekaterih plemiških družin. Kljub temu je diktatorski režim, ki je bil na Portugalskem na oblasti v letih od 1926 do 1974, mnoge porušene gradove v času od tridesetih do šestdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja obnovil. Nacionalistično in konservativno naravnana diktatorska oblast Estado Novo je portugalsko kulturno dediščino izkoristila kot instrument ideološke propagande, vanjo pa je vključila tudi nekdanje gradove. Za vse posege v portugalsko nepremično kulturno dediščino je bila zadolžena državna ustanova Direcção-Geral dos Edifícios e Monumentos Nacional (DGEMN). Namen tega članka je analizirati obnovo srednjeveških portugalskih gradov v ideološkem kontekstu v času diktatorskega režima. V ta namen bodo obravnavani simbolika, obnova z ukrepi DGEMN in umeščanje gradov v portugalski kontekst s poudarkom na izbranih študijah primerov. THE RESTORATION AND REFUNCTIONALISATION OF MEDIEVAL FORTIFIED MANOR HOUSES BY THE PORTUGUESE DICTATORIAL REGIME (1926–1974) 147 Abstract: “In the Appropriate Setting”: Continuity and Context in the Alba Collection in Liria Palace (1931–1957) 1. 01 Original scientific article This paper presents a comparison of the exhibition of art in the Duke of Alba’s original Liria Palace in 1931, which was destroyed in the Spanish Civil War in 1936, with a later exhibition in the reconstructed Liria Palace in 1957. It examines what is known of the original Liria Palace’s exhibition of art, as well as the history of those spaces, and compare it with the reconstructed Liria Palace. It also reflects on the significance of the role the art collection played in the reconstruction process. The exhibition of the Alba collection in the reconstructed Liria Palace formed part of the Duke’s strategies for perpetuating social distinction in the 20th century by preserving collective family memory, manifesting continuity, and imbuing the collection with unique meaning through the contextualization in this pri- vate setting. Keywords: art collecting, museography, musealization, nobility, 19th century, 20th century, Spain, Alba, private col- lection, Prado Museum Izvleček: »Primerno umeščena«. Kontinuiteta in kontekst zbirke vojvod Alba v palači Liria v Madridu (1931–1957) 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek Prispevek podaja primerjalno analizo prvotne stalne postavitve v palači Liria, madridski rezidenci vojvod Alba, ki je bila leta 1936 uničena v španski državljanski vojni. Avtorica prvotno postavitev primerja s povojno postavitvijo, ki so jo leta 1957 uredili v prenovljeni palači. Na podlagi arhivskih inventarjev v zasebnem arhivu vojvod Alba poglablja vedenje o obeh posravitvah zbirke umetnin in o vlogi, ki jo je imela rodbinska zbirka pri rekonstrukciji med vojno uničene palače. Postavitev zbirke Alba je nastala pod izrazitim vplivom lastnikovih teženj po ohranitvi oziroma poudarjanju družbene razslojenosti v 20. stoletju s poudarjanjem kolektivnega rodbinskega spomina, po ponazarjanju kontinuitete in utemeljevanju pomena zbirke s kontekstualiziranjem v njenem prvotnem okolju. Ključne besede: zbirateljstvo, muzeografija, muzealizacija, plemstvo, 19. stoletje, 20. stoletje, Španija, vojvode Alba, zasebne zbirke, Prado “In the Appropriate Setting” Continuity and Context in the Alba Collection in Liria Palace (1931–1957) Whitney Dennis Whitney Dennis, M. A., National University of Distance Education (UNED), Faculty of Geography and History, P.º de la Senda del Rey, 7, 28040 Madrid, wdennis@geo.uned.es, ORCID ID: 0000-0002-1355-1237 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.28.2.07 ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 ∙ 2023, 147–176 148 WHITNEY DENNIS Introduction and Remarks on Methodology and Sources To speak of the Dukes of Alba is to speak of one of the most ancient and prestigious noble families in Spain, and in Europe, whose wealth, social glamour, and outstanding art collection has made the family the quintessence of the old nobility in Spain for centuries. Aside from notoriety as one of the top landowners in Spain, and the multitude of ancient noble titles they reunite, much of the mythical allure of the family is thanks to its legendary art collection, mostly concentrated in their principal residence in the Liria Palace in Madrid (fig. 1). Despite appearances however, the palace is not the original Liria Palace, which was destroyed in the Spanish Civil War in 1936; it is a recon- struction by Edwin Lutyens and Manuel Cabanyes completed in 1956 and inaugurated in 1957. In his recent article on the reconstruction of the Liria Palace, Iñigo Basarrate studies the architectural modifications applied to the new building.1 This paper will provide a history of the treatment of the art collection in that process. Before beginning it is important to mention a few details on chronology and the archival sources available for this research. The original Liria Palace was constructed around 1767–1785 and destroyed by incendiary bombs in 1936 in the Spanish Civil War although the vast majority of the art collection was saved.2 The last known description of the decoration of the original palace comes from a detailed notebook, now in the Archive of the House of Alba (Archivo de los duques de Alba), that describes the location of paintings in different rooms in 1931.3 Following the end of the war in 1939, a large part of the collection was deposited in the Prado Museum and temporarily displayed from the end of 1942 until 1947.4 This exhibit was photographed and described in corre- spondence between its organizer, the sub-director of the Prado, Francisco Javier Sánchez Cantón and 17th Duke of Alba, Jacobo Fitz-James Stuart (1878–1953), as well as in the Prado Museum Board meeting minutes. In 1947 it was moved to a long-term, but temporary residence, the Museíllo. The Museíllo (little museum) was the name given to the flat where Alba lived with his daughter and dis- played their art collection from 1947 until 1956, while the palace was in the process of being recon- structed. The inauguration of the Museíllo was accompanied by the publication of a guide, which provides an account of the display of the collection in 1947.5 Liria Palace was finally inaugurated in 1956, under the auspices of the 18th Duchess of Alba, Cayetana Fitz-James Stuart (1926–2018) and her husband Luis Martínez de Irujo (1919–1972).6 The inauguration of the palace once again included the publication of a guide to the collections, and the description it provides is the most complete source to date for the original decoration of the reconstructed palace.7 Based on these principal sources, articles in the press and personal correspondence, and in- ventories, this paper reconstructs the arrangement of the collection and the narratives it generated, and their evolution; this ultimately allows for a comparison of the discourses created by the art 1 Basarrate, “Edwin Lutyens,” 309. 2 The exact dates of construction are unknown. On the destruction of the palace, see Valme and Rubio, “La historia recuperada,”105–39; see also the recent study on the bombing of Liria Palace, García Hernan, Jacobo, 250–51, 272–82. 3 Cuaderno de Salas, Fondo artístico, Archivo de los duques de Alba (ADA). 4 93/15.24/1–3; 93/15.24/4; AMP 407/11.237/1–1, El Archivo del Museo del Prado (AMP). 5 Sánchez Cantón, Guía. 6 Hernández Barral, Luis Martínez de Irujo. 7 Pita Andrade, El palacio de Liria. 149 ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) collection in the original palace with those in the reconstructed Liria Palace. Although this re- search has involved the arduous task of tracking the movement of individual objects, rearrange- ments of this level of detail cannot be reproduced in their entirety here and will be limited to only the most necessary examples. 1931: The Closing of a Chapter In 1928, Álvaro Alcalá Galiano, writer and literary critic, wrote an illuminating essay about the social life of Madrid, painting a picture of a withering noble class and the palatial life that went along with it—but the Duke of Alba and Liria Palace stood out among the rest. While many noble families and palaces were in decline, selling off collections, even selling property itself, the Liria Palace was a beacon for the old nobility’s aspirations of endurance. In the first third of the 20th century, Liria Palace already stood as a symbol of perseverance of the lifestyle of another time that had all but faded in the 20th century: the palatial life and its unique blend of honor, purpose and glamour. He wrote: Liria Palace is, as everyone knows, the brightest star of the aristocratic houses in Madrid today. It signifies the epitome of chic and it is the coveted Mecca of snobbery. But it isn’t for such a futile reason that I have dedicated a comment to it, but rather because its cur- rent owner symbolizes a rare aristocratic specimen. Because of him, no Memoirs of our contemporary society can be written without citing what the sumptuous Liria Palace was and still is for artists, the most prominent figures of science and arts, or the illustrious foreigners that pass through Madrid.8 8 Alcalá Galiano, Entre dos mundos, 128. I thank José Miguel Hernández Barral for all of his generous conversations on the social and economic situation of the old nobility in the beginning of the 20th century in Spain. 1. Liria Palace, Madrid (© Fundación Casa de Alba) 150 Just a few years later, the scene in Liria Palace would be quite different. The social and political implications that came in 1931—with the end of Primo de Rivera’s dictatorship, the end of King Alfonso XIII’s reign in Spain and the arrival of Second Spanish Republic—moved the Duke of Alba to take precautionary measures with his collection.9 Alba stored the most important paintings in the basement of the Banco de España, and others in the British Embassy in Madrid.10 When Edwin Lutyens stayed in Liria during a visit to Madrid, he noted how the palace was “dark, with the curtains drawn and the shutters closed out of fear,” and that the “best paintings were stored somewhere, which left the walls of the with strange gaps”.11 Although the original palace remained intact until 1936, its appearance was already changing. For this reason, the notebook dated 1931, the year that saw the exile of Alfonso XIII and the establishment of the Republican government, is very likely the last display of the original Liria Palace. In 1931, the paintings were almost entirely displayed on the first floor in these spaces:12 Main Floor: Vitrine Gallery Grand Duke Room Main Stairway Bonaparte Room Goya Room Duke’s Small Bedroom (Empress Eugénie’s Bedroom) * Duchess’ Bedroom* Duchess’ Cabinet* Gobelins Room (drawings by Boucher) Stuart Room Dining Room Zuloaga Room Duchess Mother’s Room* Chinese Room* Duke’s Office* Duke’s Bedroom* Duke’s Dressing Room* Stairway near Elevator* 9 This is not the first time that paintings were hidden for safekeeping from a democratic uprising. In 1868, during the Glorious Revolution that would end in the First Spanish Republic, the best paintings were also placed in storage. For the 1868 inventory of “best paintings”, see 197.21, ADA. Another note in the archive of Liria Palace refers to their hiding: “Tasación hecha por Isidoro Brun de los mejores cuadros en número de 67 que se ocultaron cuando la revolución”, with the total sum of 2.879.000 reales, the same as the 1868 appraisal (209.5, ADA). See Dennis, “Collecting and Recollecting;” Dennis, “Reading between the Lines.” 10 Siruela, “Family Sketches,” 55; Basarrate, “Edwin Lutyens,” 312; Stuart y Silva, Yo, Cayetana, 37; García Hernán, Jacobo, 189–90, 219, 225, 236, 259. 11 Basarrate, “Edwin Lutyens,” 312. These quotations appear in Spanish in the article by Basarrate, and are translated here to English by the author. The original in English may differ slightly from the English translation provided here. 12 Cuaderno de Salas, Fondo artístico, ADA. The rooms listed on the second floor were private and contained over fifty paintings, but will not be addressed here so as to concentrate on the most representative exhibition spaces. The original chapel on the ground floor also featured an important series of murals by José María Sert although they were not included in the 1931 notebook because they were completed and installed later, just before the destruction of the palace in the Civil War. Several canvases were able to be extensively restored and decorate the chapel of the Liria Palace today. WHITNEY DENNIS 151 The Social/Public Spaces The rooms marked with an asterisk (by the author) are the most private in nature, which leaves the remainder as the more important spaces for sociability, and therefore of strategies of self-projec- tion. That being so, in 1931, one could say that the exhibition scheme with regard to the collection of paintings in spaces “of sociability” in Liria Palace revolved around rooms dedicated to family memory (Main Stairway, Grand Duke Room, Bonaparte Room, Stuart Room) and others to the tradition of artistic patronage (Goya Room and Zuloaga Room), with one unique space that was a mixture of both (the Vitrine Gallery).13 The Stairway The main stairwell visually evoked the origins of the Berwick lineage, with portraits of Charles II and Jacob II of England by an artist in the circle of Peter Lely. The Bewick-Alba union, personified in the 7th Duke of Berwick and 14th of Alba, Carlos Miguel, is also seen in the sculptures by Antonio Solá representative of the 14th Duke’s famed art collecting, as well as the portrait of Ferdinand of Austria, Infante-Cardinal of Spain by Gaspar de Crayer, inherited from Carlos Miguel’s aunt, the 13th Duchess of Alba.14 As early as 1855, this space had a very similar appearance (fig. 2).15 13 Throughout the article these spaces will be referred to alternately as spaces of sociability or public spaces because although they were not accessible to the general public, they were the most knowable because of the nature of these rooms for receiving guests, and their appearance in articles in the press. These were the unofficial “face” of the collection. Furthermore, these very spaces would constitute the accessible section of the palace in the museum visit after its opening to the public in 2019. It must also be clarified that the “Chinese Room” in spite of its name, was in fact part of the Duke’s private quarters. 14 Cuaderno de Salas, Fondo artístico, ADA. The portrait of Ferdinand of Austria was part of the surprisingly small inheritance of 32 paintings that the 14th Duke of Alba Carlos Miguel inherited from his aunt, the 13th Duchess of Alba. On the law suit following the inheritance, see Urquízar-Herrera, “Las obras de arte;” Redín, “El XIV Duque de Alba.” 15 This photograph comes from a series of images that can be dated to around 1855. See Dennis, “Collecting and Recollecting.” 2. Liria Palace, main stairway seen from the first floor (© Archivo de los duques de Alba) ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 152 The Antesala Although the Antesala is not described in the 1931 notebook, a 1920 newspaper article and 1919 photograph provide an account of the appearance of the room in the original palace which was decorated with paintings of hunting scenes by Paul De Vos and complemented in the 20th century with the 17th Duke’s hunting trophies.16 The De Vos paintings had been displayed as a group since at least 1835 if we are to judge by the earliest inventories and catalogues of the palace.17 A photograph from 1919 shows the Antesala, along with other spaces, with decoration that matches the 1920 de- scription with the De Vos paintings and hunting trophies.18 The Grand Duke’s Room The first reference to one of the palace’s most recognizable features, the Grand Duke Room is in 1893, in the form of a dated photograph in the archive of Liria Palace (fig. 3).19 This fact, together with Rosario’s research interest in the Grand Duke, and her father’s rescue of the Grand Duke’s Battles tapestries from sale in an auction in Paris in 1877, makes it likely that she is responsible for the design of this space as well.20 In this room, everything is meant to evoke the memory of the Gran Duque, the 3rd Duke of Alba, don Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, with the marble bust of Charles V by Juan Bautista Monegro and three magnificent tapestries, woven in wool, silk and gold by Pannemaker in Brussels reliving the Grand Duke’s military glories.21 In 1931, this space had a very similar appearance to its original conception. The Bonaparte Room Eugénie de Montijo, Empress of the French through her marriage to Napoleon III, was the sister of María Francisca de Sales y Portocarrero (1825–1860), the 15th Duchess of Alba, making the Empress Eugénie de Montijo a great-aunt of the 17th duke of Alba.22 Eugénie was very close with the Alba family and Liria Palace is full of her and her husband’s memory, as well as an important part of her collection, as she left the contents of her last home, Villa Cyrnos in Cap Martin to her great-nephew, the 17th the Duke of Alba.23 In 1931 this room held: Sèvres vases, gifts from Napoleon III and the 16 Serna, “Mansiones españolas.” The De Vos paintings were also part of the 32 paintings that the 14th Duke of Alba Carlos Miguel inherited from the 13th Duchess of Alba. On the inheritance, see Urquízar-Herrera, “Las obras de arte.” 17 Caja 157, nº 45–46, ADA: “Nota. De los cuadros existentes colocados por su orden numérico en la Galería del Excmo. Sr. Duque de Berwick y de Alba.” The majority of paintings in 1835 were separated between Sala 1 and Sala 2, but the De Vos paintings were displayed together in a hallway. 18 Medina, “Casas señoriales españolas;” Serna, “Mansiones españolas.” 19 Fondo gráfico, ADA. 20 Dennis, “Collecting and Recollecting;” Dennis, “Reading between the Lines.” 21 Pita Andrade, El palacio de Liria, 31–32; Redín Michaus, Nobleza y coleccionismo, 65. 22 On her relationship with the Alba family, see Badetz, “Duquesa de Alba,” 105–11. 23 McQueen, Empress Eugénie, 320. Will and Testament of Eugénie 1928 (written 1916), ADA: “I bequeath to my nephew the Duke of Alba the whole of the furniture, objects of art, etc etc as an extra share which may be in the Villa Cyrnos Cap Martin at my death excepting those which I have disposed of by other legacies.” WHITNEY DENNIS 153 Empress; a painting by Winterhalter of the 15th Duchess of Alba; a portrait of the Prince Imperial, Louis-Napoléon by Jean-Louis Canon and another by Francesca Sindici; several portraits of Stuart pretenders and other members of the Sobieski family; and an engraving of the Empress Eugénie on horseback and wearing traditional Andalusian attire.24 The Stuart Room The Dukes of Alba also hold the title of Berwick, as descendants of James Fitz-James, the son of King James II of England and Arabella Churchill. In the original palace there was also a room dedicat- ed to the memory of the title of Berwick and the family’s relation to the Jacobite line of succession through the Stuart descendants of James II. This room seems to have been created between 1906 and 1931.25 This is not at all surprising given the well-known Anglophilia of the 17th Duke, who felt very 24 Cuaderno de Salas, Fondo Artístico, ADA. Francesca Sindici was a daughter of the Count of Galve, the 15th Duke of Alba’s brother, making Sindici also a relative of the Empress, who was further linked to her for her interest in supporting women artists. Sindici gave this painting to the Duke of Alba as a gift in 1924. See Redín Michaus, “El príncipe imperial,” 318. One of the Sobieski portraits, of Henry Benedict, Cardinal of York, was a gift from the Empress Eugénie to the 16th duke of Alba and his wife. 25 It does not appear on a list of rooms in the palace in a 1906 inventory, 24.3, ADA. 3. Liria Palace, Grand Duke Room, 1893 (© Archivo de los duques de Alba) ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 154 connected to his British ancestry, and lived for many years in England.26 It held: two anonymous paintings of the Knight of St. George; a Marina by Simón Vlieger; Philip V placing the Collar of the Golden Fleece on the Marshal Berwick by Jacques Dominique Ingres along with a preparatory sketch (both purchased by the 17th Duke Jacobo in 1924); a portrait of Catalina Ventura Colón Portugal by Jean Nattier; and another of the Prince Eugene of Savoy by an anonymous artist.27 The Vitrine Gallery The Vitrine Gallery was a unique library and exhibition space that was conceived by the 16th Duch- ess Rosario, with the help of Remón Zarco del Valle, Antonio Paz y Meliá, and Ángel María Barcia, her consejillo (council) of erudite advisors, experts in history and in art history.28 In this room, historic documents were displayed in vitrines, and the walls were lined with over fifty paintings. The paintings show no coherent narrative of a theme of family memory, aside from their occasion- al relation to the documents on display, which in turn demonstrate the family’s role in Spanish history. The paintings are mostly selections from an 1868 inventory of the “best paintings” in the Alba collection.29 The paintings that were not taken from the inventory are principally personal gifts from close (and illustrious) family members, or acquisitions by the 16th Duke and Duchess.30 The exhibition is a prime example of the trend of musealizing palaces in the 19th century, as the old nobility began to reorder collections incorporating the legitimating narrative of fine arts into exhi- bition spaces, complementing painting’s inherent function of genealogical representation.31 26 The Duke of Alba attended Beaumont College; was a founding member of the Anglo-Hispanic Committee of the Residencia de Estudiantes (a cultural institution in Spain which fomented the cultural exchange between Spain and the United Kingdom); oversaw an exhibit of Spanish art at the Royal Academy of Art in London in 1920 and would serve as Ambassador in London from 1939–1945; and hired Edwin Lutyens to reconstruct Liria Palace in 1942—to name just a few examples of his affinity for British culture. He also worked to strengthen the collaboration between the Prado Museum and the National Gallery, and hoped that the end of the Second World War would bring circumstances that would permit mutual temporary deposits between the museums, to have the opportunity to exhibit English painting to the Spanish public and vice versa; Acta 408, nº3, December 14, 1945, 19–15, 1380, AMP. See also García Hernan, Jacobo, 26–29, 118, 128–29, 242; Barón Borràs, “Exposición de Pintu- ra Española;” Ribagorda, “El Comité Hispano-Inglés,” 273–91; Avilés Farré, “La misión,” 55–80. 27 The painting by Ingres and its preparatory sketch were purchased by the 17th Duke of Alba in 1924 for 10.000 francs from the heirs of the Countess of Fitz-James in 1924, recovering a commission ordered by his predecessor, the 14th Duke, Carlos Miguel, which was never delivered due to insufficient payment. The drawing was given by the artist to the 14th Duke’s secretary, Poublon, at the time of commission. Fondo artístico Ingres, ADA; Fitz-James Stuart, Discurso de ingreso, 17; Dennis, “Collecting and Recollecting.” 28 On the Vitrine Gallery, see Dennis, “Collecting and Recollecting.” On the consejíllo, see Calderón, “Doña Rosario Falcó y Osorio,” 1–30; Calderón Ortega, “El Archivo de la Casa de Alba,” 86–88. 29 For the 1868 inventory see 197.21, ADA. Another note in the archive of Liria Palace refers to their hiding “Tasación hecha por Isidoro Brun de los mejores cuadros en número de 67 que se ocultaron cuando la revolución”, with the total sum of 2.879.000 reales, the same as the 1868 appraisal. 209 nº 5, ADA; see also Dennis, “Collecting and Recollecting.” 30 Such as the Christ Child with Lamb by Bernardo Luini (then attributed to Leonardo da Vinci), given to Rosario by her father; The Old Man and the Maid by David Teniers, a gift from the Eugénie de Montijo, or the Anunciation with the supposed portrait of the 1st Count of Alba, purchased by the 16th Duke of Alba. See Fondo artístico, ADA; Barcia y Pavón, Catálogo de la colección, 2–7, 140. Several of the paintings had also been rescued from a sale of the collection in 1877 in the Hotel Drouot in Paris, such as Portrait of Juan Antonio Ramírez de Miranda by Murillo, and the Way to the Market by Rubens. See Dennis, “Collecting and Recollecting;” Dennis, “Reading between the Lines.” 31 On this trend, see Urquízar-Herrera, “Memory and Taste,” 181–209; Urquízar-Herrera and Vigara Zafra, “La nobleza española,” 257–74. WHITNEY DENNIS 155 The Zuloaga Room The Zuloaga Room would necessarily have been a more recent creation, named so for the por- traits of the 17th Duke and Duchess, Jacobo (fig. 4) and María del Rosario, painted by the Basque artist, Ignacio Zuloaga (1870–1945) in 1918 and 1921. Although in 1930 he also painted a portrait of the young Cayetana, the future 18th Duchess of Alba at age five, it does not seem to have been hung in this room, which is under- standable as Cayetana’s bright, lively juvenile portrait would have clashed with the serious tone of the portraits by Anton Raphael Mengs of the Marquis of Santa Cruz, of the 12th Duke of Alba, the Duchess of Arcos, as well as the art- ist’s self-portrait; and the Marina by Van Der Velde and landscape by Van Goyen which were also displayed here.32 According to a recreation by Iñigo Basarrate of the floorplan of the origi- nal palace, the Zuloaga Room would have been in what was previously a Billiards Room.33 In 1906 the Billiards Room held many of the same paintings as the Zuloaga Room in 1931, mean- ing this space probably transitioned over time, from a gathering of portraits and landscapes, to a more coherent discourse of the Duke of Alba as a supporter of contemporary arts, part of his noble duties.34 The Zuloaga room represented the role of the Duke of Alba as an important art pa- tron, friend and protector of a great Spanish contemporary artist. Its position on the western half of the palace reiterates its association with the living Duke of Alba, whose quarters were also situated there. This would provide balance to the narrative of the Duchess of Alba as muse and patron of Goya, which, as we will now see, was present in the Goya Room nearest the Duchess’ quarters. The Goya Room Pride of place in the Alba Collection today is reserved for a portrait by Goya, the 13th Duchess of Alba in White painted for Goya’s known muse, friend and patron, María Teresa Cayetana de Silva 32 Fondo artístico, Cuaderno de Salas, ADA (for the 1931 inventory); 197.21, ADA (for the 1882 inventory); 24.3, ADA (for the 1906 inventory). 33 Basarrate, “English Architect in Spain,” 482. In 1906 the Billiards Room held 16 paintings, including the Mengs portraits, Marina and Landscape by Van de Velde and Van Goyen, that remained there in 1931, as well as other portraits; 24.3, ADA. 34 Fitz-James Stuart, Discurso de ingreso, 146–49. 4. Ignacio Zuloaga: Portrait of Jacob Fitz-James Stuart, 17th Duke of Alba, 1918, Liria Palace, Madrid (© Fundación Casa de Alba) ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 156 y Álvarez de Toledo. This painting is related to another, the Duchess of Alba in Black, in the Hispan- ic Society in New York. The opportunity to purchase this painting was offered to the 17th Duke by Archer Huntington, the famous hispanist and art collector, before finalizing his own acquisition of the painting. Jacobo reluctantly had to turn down the offer for its price, but remembered Hunting- ton’s gentlemanly gesture with affection and respect.35 In 1931, portrait of the 13th Duchess hung with another by Goya, of the Marchioness of Lazán, an ancestor of the Empress Eugénie, who gave this painting to her grand-nephew, the Duke of Alba before 1907.36 In 1882, both The Duchess of Alba in White and The Marchioness of Lazán hung in a “Portrait Room” which no longer existed in 1931.37 This places the creation of the Goya Room sometime between 1882 and 1906.38 Until at least 1915 another painting then attributed to Goya was also on display in this room: the portrait of the Countess of Montijo and her four daughters, although by 1931 it had been removed.39 Even in its beginnings in 1906 the room was predominantly decorated with images of women, with five paintings of men and seven of women.40 However, in 1931, the room would be exclusively dedicated to female protagonists in the fam- ily.41 Alongside the two magnificent Goya portraits of the Duchess of Alba and the Marchioness of Lazán, were another nine other images of female protagonists in the history of the family, such as: two portraits of the Duchess of Santoña; a bust of the 14th Duchess of Alba, Rosalía Ventimiglia; or another of Elisa Bonaparte. Presiding over the room was the impressive portrait of the Empress Eugénie by Winterhalter, the Gallorum Imperatrix. The collection of miniatures was also displayed here, an art form described as “analogous with the qualities of women” in a catalogue of the Alba miniatures published in 1924, for its beauty and also its underestimated value.42 Furthermore, it was Jacobo’s mother, Rosario, who took an interest in the miniatures and proposed to Joaquín 35 Memorias, Fondo Don Jacobo, 266, ADA: “He always kept a rule of not acquiring anything in Spain, and he re- peated this exemplary trait in Paris when my mother was ill, and [he] did not want to acquire the famous portrait of the Duchess Cayetana with a black mantilla by Goya, without first assuring that we didn’t intend to buy it. We lost the opportunity, but it was inevitable.” 36 It was already on display in the Goya Room as early as 1907. Mascarilla, “Concierto en el palacio.” 37 197.21, ADA. An earlier catalogue from 1882 describes a “Portrait Room” that no longer existed in 1931, featur- ing 11 portraits by Murillo, Mengs, Van Loo, Goya, Parrocel and Richard, and Menéndez. Five portraits were of family members. Interestingly, four sitters were unidentified, and two had no genealogical relevance whatsoever (Mengs and Murillo). 38 The Goya Room exists on inventories of the collection dated 1906, in preparation for the publication of a cata- logue of paintings in 1911 by Ángel María Barcia. In that year, the Portrait Room only held one painting, a paint- ing of the Duchess of Alba by Madrazo (which duchess and which Madrazo is unclear.) It seems that the Portrait Room was in the process of being dismantled. 39 The attribution of this painting, of Empress Eugénie’s aunts, was changed in the publication of the catalogue of paintings in 1911. In fact, it was the attribution of this painting alone that stalled the publication of the catalogue, which could have been published by Rosario, the 16th Duchess earlier, but she was reluctant to upset the Empress with the change of author. The 17th Duke Jacobo would supervise the publication of the catalogue where the painting was listed as “attributed to Goya,” although it remained in the Salón Goya until at least 1915. See “Vida cultural.” 40 24.3, ADA. In 1906 it held two portraits of Enrique Stuart and Carlos Eduardo Stuart by Parrocel, the Marquis of Santa Cruz by Mengs, a portrait of the Marshal Berwick, and another of Carlos Eduardo Stuart; and two portraits of a woman from the Sobieski family, another of Maria Clementina Sobieski, a Duchess of Liria, and the Countess of Montijo and her daughters by Goya as well as his portrait of the 13th Duchess of Alba. 41 With the exception of a few miniatures and one portrait of the Marchioness of Ariza with her two sons. 42 Ezquerra del Bayo, Catálogo de las miniaturas, 9–10. See the foreword of the catalogue on the comments on the femininity of miniatures. WHITNEY DENNIS 157 Ezquerra del Bayo to publish a catalogue of the collection.43 Rosario would not live to see it pub- lished, and this is one of her numerous initiatives that her son would take up and finish.44 This dis- play of feminine memory was located near the Duchess’ rooms, while its masculine counterparts, in the Grand Duke Room and Zuloaga Rooms (spaces of military excellence and artistic patronage associated with the dukes), were nearest the office and bedroom of the Duke of Alba. The establishment of a space dedicated to illustrious women in the family, may have been a way to set the stage, so to speak, for the next generation, which would be inherited by the 18th Duch- ess of Alba, just five years old in 1931. The 18th Duchess Cayetana repeatedly spoke of her admira- tion for her namesake, 13th Duchess Cayetana, with whom she identified.45 The image and character of the 13th Duchess of Alba was a matter of concern for the 17th Duke, interested in polishing the reputation of the most famous precedent of a female head of house.46 This space was also teeming with traces of the Empress Eugénie. Firstly in the objects it displayed: the grand Winterhalter portrait, but also a miniature of the Empress Josephine by Jean-Baptiste Is- abey that had belonged to Eugénie and was purchased by the 17th Duke in London; and also in the Empire style table, said to have belonged to Napoleon III.47 The portrait of the Marchioness of Lazán, was also gift from Eugénie to her grand-nephew.48 As explained above, in years prior, this room also held the portrait of the Countess of Montijo and her four daughters, previously attributed to Goya, based on the insistence of Eugénie that her aunt, (one of the sitters), remembered having sat for Goya for this painting. There is a clear connection then, between Eugénie and the contents of the room. Secondly, the memory of Eugénie de Montijo is present because of her physical occupation of this space. After Rosario Falcó’s death in 1904, when Eugénie came to stay in Liria for some time to attend the funeral, she held audience in a room just off the Vitrine Gallery.49 In the morning, before lunch, and in the afternoon, two to four, the Empress Eugénie concedes several audiences to the people of Madrid society who have solicited them. The august lady receives in the room next to the library, carrying out, in those cases, her official functions. […] in the room adjacent to the library, decorated with interesting photographs, where the portrait by Winterhalter of the Duchess María Francisca de Sales, sister of the Empress Eugénie, the illustrious lady who sat on the throne of France gives audience.50 This description matches a photograph from the archive of Liria Palace, with the portrait of the 15th Duchess of Alba (Paca) by Winterhalter, and the “interesting photographs” tucked into the 43 Ezquerra del Bayo, Catálogo de las miniaturas. 44 Ezquerra del Bayo, Catálogo de las miniaturas, 9–10. 45 Stuart y Silva, Yo, Cayetana, 10, 15, 125. 46 In 1945, tired of lascivious rumors about the 19th century duchess, Jacobo had her body exhumed to prove once and for all that because of her bone structure, she could not have possibly been Goya’s lover, the results of which were published in Blanco Soler, La duquesa de Alba. In 1929–1930, the Duke also considered moving the 13th Duchess’ sepulcher to the Paraninfo of the Universidad Central (previously the Noviciado Church), her original burial site and a central location and redecorating it, although this was not carried out. Lafuente Ferrari, La vida y el arte, 171. 47 Fondo artístico, ADA; McQueen, Empress Eugénie, 194, n. 148. Although the provenance cannot be confirmed. See Azcue Brea, “Empress Eugenia de Montijo,” 298. 48 Barcia y Pavón, Catálogo de la colección, 52. It was already on display in the Goya Room as early as 1907; Mascar- illa, “Concierto en el palacio.” 49 Mascarilla, “Las audiencias de la emperatriz.” 50 Mascarilla, “Las audiencias de la emperatriz.” ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 158 molding on the wall (fig. 5).51 Later descriptions will also refer to the small armchair that belonged to Eugénie as a child, which Paca had saved and is visible in the photo.52 The ‘library’ likely referred to the Vitrine Gallery, also filled with books. The Vitrine Gallery was located in the equivalent of the Italian Room in today’s Liria Palace, which is adjacent to today’s Goya Room.53 If the room where Eugénie received her guests is this same space, then the window for the Goya Room’s cre- ation can be limited to sometime between 1904 (when Eugénie stayed at the palace after her Ro- sario’s funeral) and 1906 (when it was already arranged as a Goya Room). Between 1906 and 1931, all of the masculine portraits were removed and the Goya Room was given its final feminine air.54 When Eugénie returned to the palace in 1920, just before her death, she used the same room again to hold audience, where the miniature collection had since been added, as well as Eugénie’s portrait by Winterhalter. Octave Aubury described the space: The apartment where the Empress has moved in belonged to her sister, Paca. It was a room called the Miniature Room, At once library and museum, there one can look on the best portrait that Winterhalter painted of Eugénie, with a grand mink stole and her head lightly resting on her hand.55 Although there is no surviving image of the Winterhalter in this space, the 1931 notebook cor- roborates Aubury’s account that this painting hung in the Goya Room (fig. 6).56 Just as there are mul- tiple connections between Eugénie and the Goyas, there are also many between her and this space. The Private Spaces As Alcalá Galiano wrote in Entre Dos Mundos, many palaces were able to put a handful of import- ant paintings or a display of sumptuous furniture in one or two rooms, while the rest of the rooms remained an image of austerity; Liria Palace was, however, an exception, decorated through and through with its impressive collection of paintings, tapestries and furniture.57 This study affirms that in the original Liria Palace many important paintings were kept in the Duke’s and Duchess’ private quarters.58 These areas blended different art schools, time periods, genres, and provenances, with a highly personal criteria that did not obey any evident scientific criteria. 51 Fondo gráfico, ADA 52 Aubury, L’imperatrice Eugenie, cited in Badetz, “Duquesa de Alba,” 109–10. 53 Thank you to Álvaro Romero for his help in researching the history of the interior of Liria Palace and confirming the former location of the Vitrine Gallery. See Basarrate’s reconstruction of the original floorplan; Basarrate, “En- glish Architect in Spain,” 482. 54 24.3, ADA; Fondo artístico, Cuaderno de Salas, ADA. In 1906, the Winterhalter of the 15th Duchess in the photo- graph, the portrait of Eugénie by the same artist, as well as the portraits of the Duchess of Santoña that would later be hung in the Goya Room, were still displayed together in a “White Room” near the Duchess of Alba’s bedroom. 55 Aubury, L’imperatrice Eugenie, 433–44, cited in Badetz, “Duquesa de Alba,” 109–10. It is true that Aubury says that this space is library, museum, and miniature room, but this may be a confusion on the part of the author, written over ten years after the fact. It is certain that this room was not the library, but all evidence suggests that it was the next room. The library-museum would likely refer to the adjacent Vitrine Gallery. 56 Fondo artístico, Cuaderno de Salas, ADA. 57 Alcalá Galiano, Entre dos mundos, 129. 58 In 1882, the Duke and Duchess had perhaps the most splendid exhibits in their private quarters. WHITNEY DENNIS 159 5. Liria Palace, the room in which Empress Eugénie likely received audience in 1904 (© Archivo de los duques de Alba) 6. Liria Palace, The Goya Room, c. 1906 – c. 1915 (© Archivo de los duques de Alba) ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 160 The Destruction of Liria Palace, and the Deposit of Paintings in the Prado Museum As explained above, between 1931 and 1936, Liria Palace would have had a different, darker, empti- er appearance. But more drastic changes were yet to come. After the outbreak of the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939) in July of 1936, when the nationalist forces lead by Francisco Franco rebelled against the government of the Second Spanish Republic (1931–1936), the Republican administra- tion legalized the occupation and seizure of private property.59 The Republican Fifth Regiment then seized Liria Palace, first with the intention of making it their headquarters, but then opting to turn it into a public museum.60 Shortly after, on the November 17, 1936, planes supporting Franco’s advances dropped incendiary bombs on Liria Palace, destroying it with multiple attacks, though the very vast majority of the art collection was saved from destruction by the militia occupying it.61 The scope of this article will not address the full complexity of the events that took place in Liria and the management of the collection, but it is important to know that the art collection was saved almost entirely, and stored in various deposits in Madrid after the end of the war, principally in the Prado Museum.62 And as we will see, what happens to the collection during the years it is in temporary deposit, with no palace to return to, will directly affect how it hung in the reconstructed palace years later. The Alba Collection in the Prado Museum The Duke of Alba had been the president of the Board of the Prado Museum since it was created in 1912, although due to his official function as the Spanish Ambassador to the United Kingdom (1939–1945), he spent lengthy periods away from Madrid and participated in museum matters from a distance. The board must have expressed their interest in exhibiting the Duke’s immense collection soon after reviving their monthly sessions after the end of the war, because by May of 1941, the Duke sent his approval of the temporary exhibition of his collection with the conditions that it be labelled “temporary deposit” and “property of the Duke of Alba”.63 Bearing in mind the advancing recon- struction plans that coincided with the display of the art collection in the Prado Museum, the Duke’s insistence on the “temporary” label acquire deeper significance, as he intended to eventually move the paintings back to his own home.64 There were many deposits of private collections in the Prado Museum for at least some time after the war, but the majority ranged from one to five paintings, 59 Del Valme Muñoz Rubio, “La historia recuperada,” 113. On this topic, see also Saavedra Arias, “El Patrimonio Artístico.” 60 Del Valme Muñoz Rubio, “La historia recuperada,” 113. 61 Castellary, Patrimonio cultural, 367. The designation of the disaster’s cause as a “bombing” by nationalist forces, or a “fire” by the Republican occupants, gives rise to heated discussions which are not the focus of the present article, but important to bear in mind when studying the psychology of the Alba’s artistic management behind the museographic history of Liria Palace. See also García Hernan, Jacobo, 272–82. 62 Between July 5, 1939 and April 20, 1940, 167 paintings and 58 miniatures from the Duke of Alba’s collection arrived to the Prado Museum for long-term deposit; 93/15.24/1–3, 93/15.24/4, 407/11.237/1–1, AMP. 63 Acta 380, 1380/19–15/3, AMP; García-Montón, “España de ficción,” 241. 64 Alba demonstrated his hope to rebuild Liria Palace almost immediately after the war. He met and corresponded frequently with Edwin Lutyens, though the final drawings were not complete until around 1942. On his interac- tions with Lutyens, see Basarrate, “English Architect in Spain,” 260. WHITNEY DENNIS 161 occasionally rising to twenty or thirty.65 The Duke’s deposit of 167 paintings and 58 miniatures was without parallel in size or quality in the way of private collections.66 This provided the museum with a unique opportunity: the ability to see the legendary Alba collection in person, normally inaccessi- ble to the general public except occasionally through the pages of newspapers and weekly illustrated publications, such as Alrededor del Mundo and La Última Moda: revista ilustrada hispano-ameri- cana. The news of Alba’s collection displayed in the Prado Museum attracted the attention of the public and made headlines in newspapers throughout the country, and abroad.67 The installation of the Duke’s collection on the December 27, 1942 in the newly renovated rooms by Pedro Muguruza, was attended by the Spanish cultural and political elite.68 General Francisco Franco and his wife, Carmen Polo, attended the event, as well as Franco’s closest circle of government leaders, including the Director of Fine Arts, and the Prado Museum Board of Di- rectors.69 Franco lauded the exhibition, and spent several hours in the museum, making promises about his interest in the Prado and his support for a new addition to the building, something Alba celebrated, although his initial eagerness for Franco would be exhausted over the next decade.70 The Duke’s paintings were spread over five rooms of the lower level of the Prado Museum (figs. 7–10). The installation was overseen by Francisco Javier Sánchez Cantón, subdirector of the mu- seum, and personal friend and art advisor of the Duke. He related updates on the installation to Jacobo, and described the distribution of paintings, which naturally would be more suited to the institutional setting of the most prestigious art museum in Spain, where a professional, academic ordering would be necessary. This is the first time that the paintings’ exhibition would be clearly organized according to art historical criteria.71 The exhibition of the Duke’s collection was effectively 65 93/15.24/ 1–3, AMP 66 93/15.24/ 1–3, AMP 67 “El duque de Alba visitó las nuevas salas del Museo del Prado.” El Compostelano, December 28, 1942, unpagi- nated; “Las nuevas salas del Museo del Prado,” Hoja del Lunes, January 4, 1943, 2. In January of 1943, Francesco Cambó also wrote from Argentina that news of Alba’s collection in the Prado was in the papers; Letter from Cam- bó to Sánchez Cantón, January 5, 1943, 102–05, Archivo Museo de Pontevedra (MP); García-Montón, “España de ficción,” 242. And when the Duke announced his intentions to collect his paintings, Sotomayor, the director of the museum, thanked him saying that the exhibit did indeed increase public interest. Acta 407, June 25, 1945, 1380/15–19/3, AMP. 68 Acta 393, 1380/19–15/3, AMP 69 Acta 393, 1380/19–15/3, AMP 70 Acta 393, 1380/19–15/3; Acta 416, 1380/19–15/3, AMP. While Alba initially celebrated Franco’s supportive atti- tude in the Prado, the Board Meeting minutes show that a few years later (1948—the year Franco denied Alba his passport as a reproach for his monarchic activities) he would grow tired of the Generalísimo’s propagandisitic whims, and in the following years distanced himself considerably from the board’s activities after a disagreement concerning a request from the Franco’s office of propaganda for a loan. Alba said that in the end, “nothing is done except what the ultimate authority wants […] the final decision depends on others”. On the passport restriction, see Hernández Barral, “La nobleza,” 422. For Alba’s initiatives against Franco in this year, see Hernández Barral, Luis Martínez de Irujo, 86–89. For the quote about the lack of independence of the Prado Board of Directors, see García Hernan, Jacobo, 510. For the final confrontation between Alba and the Prado Board on account of orders from the General Director of Propaganda, after which Alba would not return to a board meeting for over a year and a half, see Acta 416, 1380/19–15/3, AMP. 71 The ordering of the collection in catalogues took these criteria into account earlier. An inventory of the collection in 1882 lists the paintings alphabetically by artist name with an accompanying biographical sketch (197.21, ADA). The first catalogue of the collection of paintings was published by Ángel María Barcia in 1911, separating the paintings by family portraits (and by noble house), and then by artistic school, but the grouping by schools did not affect the palace’s display. However, Barcia’s catalogue would provide the base for Sánchez Cantón’s installation. Barcia y Pavón, Catálogo de la colección. See also Dennis, “Reading Between the Lines;” Urquízar-Herrera and ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 162 7. Flemish and Northern School Room of the temporary exhibit of the Duke of Alba’s collection in the Prado Museum, 1943–1947 (© Archivo del Museo del Prado) 8. Italian Room of the temporary exhibit of the Duke of Alba’s collection in the Prado Museum, 1943–1947 (© Archivo del Museo del Prado) WHITNEY DENNIS 163 9. Room of Family Portraits in the temporary exhibit of the Duke of Alba’s collection in the Prado Museum, 1943–1947 (© Archivo del Museo del Prado) 10. The Grand Duke Room in the temporary exhibit of the Duke of Alba’s collection in the Prado Museum, 1943–1947 (©Archivo del Museo del Prado) ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 164 adapted to its place of installation. This would have been a significant gain in terms of the symbolic capital of the Duke’s collection, which, in a way, absorbed the institutional distinction of the Prado Museum. This spoke of the quality of the Alba Collection, deemed sufficient to be exhibited in the most important Spanish museum, and occupying five rooms—a privilege not available to just any collector.72 Although as we will see, it would still preserve the personal idiosyncrasies of a private art collection belonging to the Duke of Alba. Three rooms were divided by school: there was a Spanish room, a Flemish and Northern Schools room, and an Italian room, while another two rooms retained the aura of their origins: one being a room of family portraits, and another which was a recreation of the Grand Duke Room.73 The exhibition of the duke’s collection, complete with a recreation of the Grand Duke Room in the Prado—particularly at a time when the Duke of Alba had no palace in Madrid—would have been a powerful image of continuity after the tumultuous years of civil war.74 Sánchez Cantón admitted that the display was truly impressive, and the Duke had no doubt it would be “the best outside of Liria”.75 Shortly after, in 1943, Alba gave a speech upon entering the Real Academia Española in which he spoke of the unique contribution of nobility to society through the stewardship of their collections “in the appropriate setting”—the private one—where the objects could acquire their full meaning with the contextualization of their surroundings.76 Although the institutional setting of the Prado added prestige, it could potentially also pose a threat to the Duke’s relevance, rendering his cultural contribution to society via his collection obsolete. In reiterating the importance of contextualization, he reasserted his personal relevance in the construction of meaning in the col- lection. Not even the Prado Museum could replace Liria Palace… Nearing the end of the Second World War, and after the Lausanne Manifest, where the Spanish pretender to the throne called on any of his supporters who were also Franco’s agents to relinquish their posts in protest at Franco’s refusal to reinstate the monarchy, Alba announced his resignation as ambassador in London and began to plan his return to Spain.77 Part of these plans involved the reconstruction of his palace, and also a more long-term, yet still temporary, solution for his residence and the exhibition of his art collection. He wrote to the Prado Board from London on June 25, 1945, celebrating that the collection had been able to be on view to the public for so long, and thanking the museum for its generosity in storing it, but announced that it was time to begin to prepare its removal.78 Modesto López-Otero, an architect and member of the Prado’s Board of Directors, along with Sánchez Cantón, the museum’s assistant director, and Fernando Álvarez Sotomayor, the director, helped to outfit a building, designed by Antonio Ferreras, on the same Vigara Zafra, “La nobleza española,” 257–74. 72 The Count of Cimera also hoped to exhibit his collection in the Prado Museum, although the Board was reluctant to accept the whole collection, and insisted that any exhibition of Cimera’s art would have to be limited to only the best pieces; Acta 393, 1380/19-15/3, AMP. Luis Sazatornil recently presented on his research the Count of Cime- ra’s collection in the Prado Museum in the conference La visibilidad del coleccionismo privado: De la Ilustración a la Segunda República, Prado Museum in Madrid, October 17–18, 2022. 73 Patricia García-Montón, “España de ficción,” 242. 74 On the idiosyncrasy of “a Duke without a palace”, see Hernández Barral, “La nobleza,” 411–16. 75 Letter from Alba to Sánchez Cantón, November 23, 1942, 102–56, Archivo Museo de Pontevedra (MP). 76 Fitz-James Stuart, Discurso leído, 28. 77 Hernández Barral, “La nobleza,” 421–23. 78 Acta 407, 1380/19-15/3, AMP. WHITNEY DENNIS 165 block of his Liria Palace, where he would live and display the collection.79 This flat was endearingly given the name, Museíllo. The Museíllo In March of 1947, over the course of 12 days, multiple trucks moved the collection from the Prado Museum to the flat on Mártires de Alcalá Street, the Museíllo.80 On June 3, 1947, Alba wrote to Sán- chez Cantón, thanking him effusively for the work he had done on the Museíllo, to which Cantón replied that the pleasure of “finding a narrative” in the ordering of the Museíllo was all his.81 And this one phrase constitutes the principal difference between the ordering of the collection in the original palace, with that of the Museíllo (and by extension, the reconstructed palace): the imposi- tion of a more sophisticated, academic museographic narrative, to complement—not replace—the exhibition of family memory. Alongside the opening of museums in the 18th century and throughout the 19th, private collec- tions began to adopt the discourse of fine arts to order their collections.82 The exhibit in the Prado constituted a major advance in the progression of the musealization of the Alba art collection. When the paintings returned to private installation, it retained most of the professional presenta- tion it was given in the museum, with a renewed prestige as an art collection able to exhibit more than family memory, but also a narrative of art history worthy of exhibition in the Prado Museum. The Museíllo’s itinerary was published in a pamphlet that accompanied the inauguration, ti- tled Guía de las Colecciones Artísticas de la Casa de Alba, and listed the spaces as the following: Foyer and Stairway Vestibule Italian Room (15th and 16th centuries) Italian Room (16th and 17th centuries) Spanish Room Northern Schools Room Meeting Room Grand Duke Room Stuart Room Duchess of Alba Room Empress Eugénie Room Many of the spaces are an impressive demonstration of the continuance of the arrangement of the original palace, with appearances that are scarcely altered, and only enhanced, such as the Grand Duke Room (fig. 11).83 Others are new creations that maintain the professionalization, or 79 Letter from Alba to Sánchez Cantón, July 7, 1944, Fondo Don Jacobo Correspondencia, ADA: “Thanks to you [Sánchez Cantón], Sotomayor, and López Otero, the plans for the new museum on Mártires de Alcalá Street were finalized last spring.” The design of the structure was by Antonio Ferreras. See Basarrate, “Edwin Lutyens,” 321. 80 2/17.04/5, AMP. 81 Correspondence between Alba and Sánchez Cantón, June 3–5, 1947, 105–1, MP. 82 Urquízar-Herrera, “Memory and Taste,” 181–209; Urquízar-Herrera and Vigara Zafra, “La nobleza española.” 83 Added to this space were: the double portrait of Charles V and Isabel of Portugal, and a portrait of the Grand ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 166 very literally, the “musealization” that the paintings had undergone on display in the Prado Muse- um, such as the Italian Rooms (separated chronologically and by school), and the Northern School and Spanish Rooms (fig. 12). Although once more, the exhibition was adapted to its place of instal- lation—this time, the residence of the Duke of Alba. This explains, for instance, why the portrait of the 13th Duchess of Alba by Goya was displayed in the Spanish Room of the Prado Museum (where the personality of the artist would outweigh that of the sitter); in the Museíllo, however, the portrait returned to a room where the personality of the Duchess warranted exhibition apart from the rest of the Spanish school, as it had been in the original palace. Ultimately the collection was divided into two, recalling earlier decorative schemes: areas ded- icated to family memory; and areas of aesthetic pleasure, but with the new academic criteria of an art historian. The former were given stronger narratives, with recent acquisitions by the 17th Duke of Alba, and the latter were rearranged, by chronology and art school. These two groups also reflect- ed different forms of provenance, with the latter being constituted almost entirely by the numerous acquisitions of the 14th Duke of Alba in the 19th century. This not only separated the newly acquired works from objects of more ancient provenance, but served to celebrate the tradition of collecting in the House of Alba. The two branches worked together to build a discourse of ancient noble roots as well as patronage of fine arts—part of the nobility’s traditional value in society (albeit one that was increasingly hard to justify with the artistic minded and philanthropic rising bourgeoisie.) Sánchez Cantón explained his decisions in the inaugural pamphlet: The following disclaimer will allow one to appropriately judge the present installation, which neither intends to resemble a palace, nor a museum. Because the collections in Liria Palace have two different types of provenance, which is reflected in the arrangement given. Direct reminders of past times of family splendor are distributed among four rooms, personified in the Grand Duke of Alba; the 1st and 2nd Dukes of Berwick; doña María del Pilar Teresa Cayetana de Silva, 13th Duchess of Alba; and the Empress Eugénie. In another four rooms, the rest of the collection, acquired by the 7th Duke of Berwick and 14th of Alba, don Carlos Miguel (1794–1835) is ordered by school, [he was] dominated by the passion of acquiring paintings, statues and Greek vases, and travelled tirelessly through Italy, Germany and France […].84 Half of the exhibition refined displays of family memory, while the other half reinforced dis- courses of Albas as art collectors, for example in the glorification of the history of the 14th Duke of Alba by perfecting the presentation of his acquisitions with art historical criteria—expressing both the noble act of patronage and also the excellence of the Albas’ elite, cultivated taste for beauty. In this way, the exhibition showed noble qualities in ancient bloodline, as purveyors of good taste and as generous art patrons. The blend of these two narratives fused family memory and the duty as guardians of art and history and served to set the Duke of Alba apart from other social classes, and other institutions, that were both increasingly able and eager to collect and exhibit art. The professionalization of the display of art in the Museíllo, based on the temporary exhibit in the Prado Museum, marks an important step on the path towards the musealization of Liria Duke, both by Rubens after Titian, and both purchases made by the 17th Duke of Alba in London and exhibited in the Prado. Sánchez Cantón, Guía, 24; Pita Andrade, El palacio de Liria, 32; Jiménez-Blanco and Uría Prado, “More Than a Collecting Tradition,” 317. 84 Sánchez Cantón, Guía, 6–7. Note that the Duke of Berwick was a descendant of the family of Mary Stuart, and so the room containing the Berwicks’ portraits is also the Stuart Room. WHITNEY DENNIS 167 11. The Grand Duke Room in the Museíllo, 1947–1956 (© Archivo de los duques de Alba) 12. The Italian Room in the Museíllo, 1947–1956 (© Archivo de los duques de Alba) ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 168 Palace which was notably influenced by the British tradition of country houses, primarily evident in the choice of architect—Edwin Lutyens—and style—augmenting the already neoclassical air of the building.85 The treatment of the art collection also resembled the Anglo-Saxon tradition of museography which emphasized the importance of narrative and context, as opposed to the French (Mediterranean) approaches which tended to arrange by genre, focusing on the singularity of an art object itself.86 The Duke of Alba said that of all the things that surprised North Americans about his lifestyle, the most shocking to them was that he indeed “lived in a museum”.87 Of course, the wealthiest of North American collectors could amass enormous and expensive collections as well, but Alba’s col- lection was different. The context of the private and noble setting differentiated him from public in- stitutions, and also from these “capitalist classes” of art collectors, demonstrating that which Alba felt was truly the noble class: “that which has known how to preserve ‘in the appropriate setting’— in palaces, pious foundations that they have constituted and funded, in their councils and their temples—the family portraits, notable paintings, the sculptures and funerary monuments, and all of the artistic treasures that it can conserve.”88 As a collector, Alba strived to recover paintings and sculptures that had been separated from the collection for any number of reasons.89 His dedication to reconstructing Liria Palace in part reveal his aspiration to preserve “the appropriate setting” for his art collection, in spite of the enormous difficulties.90 He longed for measures like those taken in England and France that helped the owners of historic houses to preserve them. In the way of old houses, something is coming to a head. In France, the idea of conserv- ing the ‘demeure historique’ is helping the owners in the face of the insatiable taxman. In England, the current socialist government has named a commission to study how to provide tax relief to owners [of historic homes] in amounts that are sufficient help for the maintenance of the Houses that are worth it, and whose loss would mean a definitive loss for the national cultural heritage. Without this, in not many years, none of these houses— products not only of the wealth of their owners but of their good taste, their patronage, without which the great artists in many cases (if not all) would not have been able to be known or have the opportunity to develop their genius—will last.91 85 Basarrate, “Edwin Lutyens;” Basarrate, “English Architect in Spain,” 235–71. 86 Gómez Martínez, Dos museologías, 159–72. Thank you to Luis Sazatornil for his generous and insightful conver- sations on museology. 87 Fitz-James Stuart, Discurso leído, 29. 88 Fitz-James Stuart, Discurso leído, 28. 89 Dennis, “Collecting and Recollecting,” 56–70. 90 The reconstruction was not initially covered by the insurance company, and the duke took on the enormous costs and filed a lawsuit against the insurance company, which was not settled until 1951. See “Cerca de tres millones de pesetas recibirá el duque de Alba por el seguro del palacio de Liria.” Pueblo: Diario de Trabajo Nacional, June 30, 1951, 1. See also García Hernán Jacobo, 272–75. Thank you again to José Miguel Hernández Barral for discussing the reconstruction of Liria with me. 91 Memorias, 315–16, Fondo Don Jacobo, ADA. WHITNEY DENNIS 169 In the Reconstructed Palace When Alba hired Edwin Lutyens, the renowned English architect known for his neo-classical style and aristocratic clientele, he initially proposed the idea of building separate structures on the prop- erty, with one dedicated exclusively to the exhibition of the art collection, and the other to be used as a residence.92 This is similar to an earlier idea he had of building a separate structure for the ar- chives.93 Nonetheless, it seems that the future Duchess of Alba, Cayetana, was partial to the idea of reconstructing one structure for both the residence and the art collection, as it had been before the Civil War.94 Even when Lutyens suggested that the new palace reserve a large gallery as the “mu- seum” of the palace, following Cayetana’s preferences, the new palace repeated the original layout with numerous smaller rooms on the main floor, where the paintings would be distributed similar to how they had been in the Museíllo.95 The inauguration of the reconstructed palace in 1957, instigated the publication of another pamphlet, written by José Manuel Pita Andrade, under the auspices of the 18th Duke and Duchess of Alba, Cayetana Stuart y Silva and Luis Martínez de Irujo, after the passing of Jacobo Fitz-James four years earlier.96 Without scrutinizing the details of the display of each room, the list of spaces clearly shows that the reconstructed palace intended in large part to recreate the original palace, but was influenced by the Museíllo’s itinerary (in turn, a reflection of the musealization in the Pra- do Museum temporary exhibit). The rooms were labelled: Foyer and Stairway Vestibule Flemish and Dutch Room Grand Duke Room Spanish Room Zuloaga Room Italian Room Duchess of Alba Room Room of the Loves of the Gods Empress Eugénie Room 17th Duke of Alba’s Stairway (Second Floor Rooms) (Rear Ground Floor Rooms) (Other Ground Floor Rooms) The most apparent demonstration of continuity through cultural patrimony is the very recon- struction of the palace, which overwhelmingly is more similar to the original than it is dissimilar (albeit with nuances in architectural decisions, as Basarrate explains in his doctoral thesis and 92 Basarrate, “Edwin Lutyens,” 311, 313. This would not have been the first time that the paintings in the Alba Col- lection were displayed in a gallery outside of the palace. See Sánchez, “El proyecto museográfico,” 131–96. 93 Basarrate, “Edwin Lutyens,” 311. 94 Basarrate, “Edwin Lutyens,” 313. 95 Basarrate, “Edwin Lutyens,” 313. 96 On the opening of Liria Palace, see Hernández Barral, Luis Martínez de Irujo, 135–44. ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 170 WHITNEY DENNIS recent article). A case in point is the rejection of Lutyen’s proposal for a diaphanous modern gallery, and a replication of the original palace’s numerous smaller rooms. With regard to the exhibition of the collection, the spaces dedicated to family memory also remain almost entirely the same, as does the stairwell, with the only notable changes being additions to strengthen their iconographic programs.97 Even the ratio of spaces in 1957 is consistent with that of 1947 and of 1931, with half of the spaces dedicated to family memory, and the other half arranged with a predominantly aesthetic criteria. As explained in the previous section, it is the arrangement of the latter half that constitutes the most notable change. In summary, this means that of the reconstructed palace’s eleven most sociable/public spaces, which also constitute the palace’s accessible spaces today as a museum (those listed above, ex- cept for the 17th Duke’s stairway, which is not part of the visit), only three rooms were not part of the original palace’s museographic design: the Spanish, Italian, and Flemish and Netherlandish Rooms. These are precisely the three rooms that were reorganized by Sánchez Cantón during the collection’s temporary housing in the Prado Museum (the basis for the installation in the Museíllo). To create these rooms, others were eliminated, such as the Vitrine Gallery, and others’ decoration was reduced, such as the Duke and Duchess’ private quarters. Other spaces, which concentrated on the tapestry collection as opposed to painting, were rec- reated almost the same as the originals, such as the Room of the Loves of the Gods (Tapestry Room), or the Dining Room in a show of continuity. The remaining spaces saw their narratives refined. The Bonaparte Room gave pride of place to the figure of the Empress, and the narrative of her legacy consequently no longer competed with that of Goya. And other rooms’ programs were reinforced with professional museography and the continual acquisitions of the 17th and then 18th Duke and Duchess of Alba, as is the case in the Grand Duke Room.98 Three rear ground floor rooms mentioned in the inaugural pamphlet show the continued musealization of the palace with an academic arrangement and coherent museographic narrative centered on engravings, the Second Empire era in France, and 18th century Spanish and French paintings and decorative arts.99 Nonetheless, when the palace opened as a museum in 2019, these spaces would not be accessible to public—again, the most representative spaces are those that rec- reated the original palace, demonstrating continuity in the exhibition of the art collection. The second-floor rooms described in the inaugural pamphlet were reserved as a private space for guests staying at the palace. The personal nature of these rooms is reflected in the display of paintings, which “no longer follows a historical or museographic criteria”, and featured a variety of styles: 97 It is true that Alba accepted Lutyens ideas for a modern staircase, although somewhat hesitantly. Hernández Bar- ral, “La nobleza,” 412; Basarrate, “English Architect in Spain,” 257–58. 98 The 17th Duke’s purchases for the Grand Duke Room have been mentioned in previous sections of this contribu- tion. The 18th Duchess purchased also bought an important portrait of the Imperial Prince by Winterhalter for the Empress Eugénie Room. The family already owned a copy of this painting which they inherited from the Eugénie de Montijo; Fondo Artístico, ADA. 99 The first was an Engravings Room, which holds the remainder of the collection of engravings that was lost in the Civil War. There was a Second Empire Room, again remembering the Empress Eugénie, decorated with the variety of furniture, paintings and sculptures in the collection related to Napoleon III, Eugénie and the Imperial Prince. And lastly was the “long room” principally decorated with paintings from the 18th century, with the excep- tion of a painting and preparatory sketch by Jacques Dominique Ingres of Philip V placing the Collar of the Gold- en Fleece on the Marshal Berwick, purchased by the 17th Duke Jacobo. Lastly is a room with various sculptures, including the Marquesa de Ariza by José Alvarez Cubero, Napoleon III by Bartolini, and a modern bust, Zöe, by Emiliano Barral, another acquisition by the Duke Jacobo. 171 ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 18th century English portraits, landscapes by Antonio Joli, and Gustave Courbet, as well as family portraits and busts by Juan Antonio Morales or Mariano Benlliure.100 This study shows how, over time, the further the collection is from the public eye, the less academic is its arrangement. Again we remember Alcalá Galiano’s comment in 1928, and see that the reconstructed Liria Palace still boasted the unique capability of filling both “public” and “private” spaces with its impressive art collection. Conclusion The evolution of the Alba collection’s exhibition over time is just one of many ways to evaluate the ancient nobility’s strategies to persevere and adapt to changing times, and is one that is well-en- dowed with documentation available in inventories, catalogues, photographs, press coverage, and the Prado Museum Board meeting minutes. This history brings to light information about the cre- ation and/or optimization of different narratives constructed with the art collection that form part of the collective memory of the Alba family, and are integrated into the museography of Liria Pal- ace. The analysis of the collection’s exhibition history illuminates the function of the art collection for self-fashioning, inwardly and outwardly. Inwardly in the defining and refining of role models and collecting priorities; and outwardly in the tangible manifestation of distinction, continuity, and perseverance of the Alba family in tumultuous times for the nobility. But as we have seen, continuity is not synonymous with immutability. Numerous changes were made in the exhibition of the palace—aside from the fact the palace itself was a new construction—while the overall effect was one of continuity, bringing to mind ideas of the “fiction of continuity”.101 Postscript: Continuity and Context The exhibition of the art collection provided a means for the family to demonstrate its continuity and the perseverance of the nobility in aftermath, and in the midst of, great, and threatening, social and economic changes. When the reconstructed Liria Palace was inaugurated, Sánchez Cantón wrote that it was like “a phoenix rising from the ashes”.102 The importance of the exhibition of the art collection was a significant part of the Duke’s desire to rebuild the palace because the art collec- tion, like the palace acquired a significance in its capability to display continuity. Alba’s insistence on the exhibition of the collection “in its appropriate setting” refers to the value of context in providing meaning. In any other setting the collection can boast objects of beau- ty or of historical importance. Yet, no other collector—state museum, noble, bourgeois collector or otherwise—could activate the element of collective family memory in the way the possession by the Duke could. For the collection to acquire its “full” sense, it needed to be exhibited then in an appropriate setting. This granted a special function to the Duke of Alba in society, as a provider of context to suffuse the collection with meaning—a meaning constructed with the tangible evidence 100 Pita Andrade, El palacio de Liria, 76–80. The pamphlet does not describe the most personal private living areas of the palace. 101 Bourdieu, “Postface,” 385–97. 102 Sánchez Cantón, El palacio de Liria, 15. 172 of the continuity of the collective memory of the Albas. In Alba’s worldview, the stewardship of his collection, and the special meaning it attains in his possession, would serve as one of the justifica- tions for the existence of the nobility in the 20th century.103 The collection’s meaning depended on the duke, as the duke’s role in modern society depend- ed on the collection.104 The subject and object, the collector and collection, simultaneously reaf- firmed one another. The symbiotic relationship built on intangible memory and distinction is made tangible in the art collection when exhibited in the appropriate context. The creation of context depended on the Duke of Alba, but it also called for a physical space, an original space—it required the reconstruction of Liria Palace.105 103 For Alba’s defense of the nobility as art patrons and promoters of good taste, see his speech upon entering the Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando; Fitz-James Stuart, Discursos. 104 Hernández Barral, “La nobleza,” 421. 105 I thank the team at the Fundación Casa de Alba, especially José Manuel Calderón, Álvaro Romero, and Jaime Fernández. Research for this article was carried out within the framework of the project Politics for the Legiti- mation of Nobility: Similarities, dissimilarities, and appropriations in the collecting of the nobility and bourgeoise (1788–1931), PID2019-107636GA-100, and the Program of History, Art History and Territory at the National University of Distance Education, the International Doctoral School. WHITNEY DENNIS 173 Bibliography Alcalá Galiano, Álvaro. Entre dos mundos: Seguido de un ensayo sobre la decadenci de Europa. Madrid: Espasa-Calpe, 1928. Álvarez Lopera, José. Política del Nuevo Estado sobre el patrimonio cultural y la educación durante la Guerra Civil española. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte, 1982. Aubury, Octave. L’imperatrice Eugenie. Paris: Artheme Fayard et Cie, 1931. Avilés Farré, Juan. “La misión del duque de Alba en Londres (1937–1945).” In Propagandistas y diplomáticos al servicio de Franco (1936–1945), edited by Moreno Cantano, 55–80. Gijón: Trea, 2012. Azcue Brea, Leticia. “Empress Eugenia de Montijo: Art of the Second Empire and the Alba Family.” In Treasures from the House of Alba: 500 Years of Art and Collecting, edited by Fernando Checa Cremades, 281–307. Dallas: Meadows Museum; Southern Methodist University, 2015. Badetz, Yves. “Duquesa de Alba y Emperatriz de los franceses, el increíble destino de dos hermanas.” In El legado de la Casa de Alba, edited by Pablo Melendo, 105–11. Madrid: Centro Centro Cibeles de Cultura y Ciudadanía, 2012. Barcia y Pavón, Ángel María. Catálogo de la colección de pinturas del Excmo. Sr. Duque de Alba. Madrid: Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, 1911. Barón Borràs, Ester. “Exposición de Pintura Española en la Royal Academy of Arts de Londres.” In Nuevas contribuciones en torno al mundo del coleccionismo de arte hispánico en los siglos XIX y XX, edited by Immaculada Socias Batet and Dimitra Gkozgkou, 35–52. Madrid: Trea, 2013. Basarrate, Iñigo. “Edwin Lutyens y la reconstrucción del palacio de Liria.” Goya 381 (October/December 2022): 309–24. Basarrate, Iñigo. “English Architect in Spain: Five Projects by Edwin Lutyens.” PhD diss., University of Edinburgh, 2017. Blanco Soler, Carlos. La duquesa de Alba y su tiempo. Madrid: Espesa, 1949. Bourdieu, Pierre. “Postface: La noblesse; capital social et capital symbolique.” In Anciennes et nouvelles aristocraties de 1880 à nous jours, edited by Didier Lancien and Monique de Saint Martin, 385–97. Paris: Editions de la MSH, 2007. Calderón Ortega, José Manuel. “Doña Rosario Falcó y Osorio, Condesa de Siruela y Duquesa de Alba: Una aristócrata ilustrada en la España de la Restauración (1854–1904).” In XIII Encuentros de Estudios Comarcales: Vegas Altas, La Serena y La Siberia, 21–30. Badajoz: Federación de Asociaciones Culturales de la SISEVA, 2021. Calderón Ortega, José Manuel. “El Archivo de la Casa de Alba: Pasado y Presente.” In Paseo documental por el Madrid de antaño, edited by Nícolas Ávila Seoane, Juan Carlos Galende Díaz, and Susana Cabezas Fontanilla, 79–100. Madrid: Universidad Complutense 2015. Colorado Castellary, Arturo. Patrimonio cultural, guerra civil, posguerra. Madrid: Editorial Fragua, 2018. Colorado Castellary, Arturo. Arte salvado: 70 aniversario del salvamento del patrimonio artístico español y de la intervención internacional. Madrid: Sociedad Estatal de Conmemoraciones Culturales, 2010. Del Valme Muñoz Rubio, María. “La historia recuperada: Vicisitudes del palacio de Liria durante la Guerra Civil española.” In Colección Casa de Alba, 105–39. Seville: Junta de Andalucía, Consejería de Cultura, 2009. Dennis, Whitney. “Collecting and Recollecting: Recuperating Family Memory in the House of Alba.” In Mapping Art Collecting in Europe 1860–1940: Eastern and Western Sociocultural Perspectives, edited by Milena Wozniak-Koch, 57–70. Leiden: Brill, 2023. https://doi. org/10.30965/9783657795437_005. ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 174 Dennis, Whitney. “Reading between the Lines: The Alba Collection after the End of Entailment (Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries).” Journal of the History of Collections 35 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1093/jhc/fhad022. Ezquerra del Bayo, Joaquín. Catálogo de las miniaturas y pequeños retratos pertenecientes al Excmo. Sr. Duque de Berwick y de Alba. Madrid: Sucesores de Rivedeneyra S.A., 1924. Fitz-James Stuart, Jacobo, Duque de Alba. Discurso de ingreso a la Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando. Madrid: Sucesores de Rivadeneyra, 1924. Fitz-James Stuart, Jacobo, Duque de Alba. Discurso leído en el acto de su recepción por el Duque de Berwick y Alba sobre los Mecenazgos ilustres. Contestación del Duque de Maura. Madrid: Real Academia Española, 1943. Fitz-James Stuart, Jacobo, Duque de Alba. Discursos leídos ante la Real Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando en la recepción pública del Excmo. Sr. Duque de Berwick y de Alba, individuo de número de la Academia de la Historia y Honorario de la Española celebrada el día 25 de mayo de 1924. Madrid: Sucesores de Rivedeneyra S.A., 1924. García Hernan, Enrique. Jacobo: El duque de Alba en la España de su tiempo. Madrid: Cátedra, 2023. García-Montón, Patricia. “España de ficción: El Museo del Prado y los discursos de la Historia del Arte.” Ph.D diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2020. Gómez Martínez, Javier. Dos museologías: Las tradiciones anglosajona y mediterráne; diferencias y contactos. Gijón: Trea, 2006. Halbwachs, Maurice. Los marcos sociales de la memoria. 1926. Translated by Manuel Antonio Baeza and Michel Mujica. Barcelona: Anthropos, 2004 Hernández Barral, José Miguel. “La nobleza una élite contemporánea? Jacobo Fitz-James Stuart, Duque de Alba (1878–1953).” In La nobleza española, 1780–1953: Grupo de estudio sobre la historia de la nobleza. 3rd ed. Madrid: Ediciones 19, 2019. Hernández Barral, José Miguel. Luis Martínez de Irujo, duque de Alba: El peso del nombre. Madrid: La Esfera de los Libros, 2022. Lafuente Ferrari, Enrique. La vida y el arte de Ignacio Zuloaga. San Sebastián: Editora Internacional, 1950. Mascarilla. “Concierto en el palacio de Liria.” La Época, February 9, 1907. Mascarilla. “Las audiencias de la Emperatriz.” La Época, June 1, 1904. McQueen, Alison. Empress Eugénie and the Arts: Politics and Visual Culture in the Nineteenth Century. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing, 2011. Pita Andrade, José Manuel. El palacio de Liria. Madrid: Instituto de Estudios Madrileños, 1959. Redín Michaus, Gonzalo. “El XIV Duque de Alba y La Pintura Napolitana.” In Camillo d’Errico (1821–1897) e le rotte mediterranee del collezionismo ottocentesco, edited by Elisa Acanfora and Mauro Vicenzo Fontana, 171–85. Foggia: Claudio Grenzi Editore, 2017. Redín Michaus, Gonzalo. “El príncipe imperial, Napoleón Eugenio Luis Bonaparte, a caballo.” In Invitadas: Fragmentos sobre mujeres, ideología y artes plásticas en España (1833–1931), edited by Carlos G. Navarro, 318. Madrid: Museo Nacional del Prado, 2020. Redín Michaus, Gonzalo. Nobleza y coleccionismo de tapices entre la Edad Moderna y Contemporánea: Las Casas de Alba y Denia Lerma. Madrid: Arco Libros, 2018. Ribagorda, Álvaro. “El Comité Hispano-Inglés y la Sociedad de Cursos y Conferencias de la Residencia de Estudiantes (1923–1936).” Cuadernos de Historia Contemporánea 30 (2008): 273–91. Sánchez Cantón, Francisco Javier. Guía de las colecciones artísticas de la Casa de Alba. Madrid: 1947. Sánchez García, Jorge. “El proyecto museográfico del Duque.” In El XIV duque de Alba coleccionista y mecenas de arte antiguo y moderno, edited by Beatrice Cacciotti, 131–96. Madrid: CSIC, 2011. WHITNEY DENNIS 175 Saavedra Arias, Rebeca. “El Patrimonio Artístico durante la Guerra Civil (1936–1939): Política e ideología en las ‘dos Españas’.” PhD. diss., Universidad Complutense de Madrid, 2013. Saavedra Arias, Rebeca. “Salvar el arte, perder la Guerra: El exilio de los protagonistas de la salvaguarda del patrimonio histórico-artístico durante la Guerra Civil (1936–1939).” In Artea eta erbestea (1936–1960), edited by Carolina Erdocia Castillejo, 227–46. San Sebastián: Hamaika Bide Elkartea, 2015. Serna, Victor de la. “Mansiones españolas: El palacio de Liria.” Voluntad, February 1, 1920. Siruela, Jacobo. “Family Sketches.” In Treasures from the House of Alba: 500 Years of Art and Collecting, edited by Fernando Checa Cremades, 23–59. Dallas: Meadows Museum; Southern Methodist University, 2015. Stuart y Silva, Cayetana. Yo, Cayetana. 4th ed. Madrid: Espasa, 2011. Urquízar-Herrera, Antonio. “Las obras de arte en la supresión de los mayorazgos. El debate parlamentario y el pleito por la testamentaría de la XIII duquesa de Alba (1802–1844).” Boletín de Arte 37 (2016): 203–11. https://doi.org/10.24310/BoLArte.2016.v0i37.3279. Urquízar-Herrera, Antonio. “Memory and Taste in the Collections and Households of the Spanish Nobility (Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries): An Introduction to the Topic with Some Notes on the House of Osuna and the Origins of the Period Room.” Journal of Iberian and Latin American Studies 25, no. 2 (2019): 181–209. https://doi.org/10.1080/14701847.2019.1632028. Urquízar-Herrera, Antonio, and José Antonio Vigara Zafra. “La nobleza española y Francia en el cambio de sistema artístico 1700–1850.” In El arte español en Roma y París (siglos XVIII y XIX), edited by Luis Sazatornil Ruíz and Frédéric Jiméno, 268–74. Madrid: Casa de Velázquez, 2014. “Vida cultural.” Revista General de Enseñanza y Bellas Artes 126 (March 15, 1915), 3–4. ”IN THE APPROPRIATE SETTING”: CONTINUITY AND CONTEXT IN THE ALBA COLLECTION IN LIRIA PALACE (1931–1957) 176 »Primerno umeščena« Kontinuiteta in kontekst zbirke vojvod Alba v palači Liria v Madridu (1931–1957) Povzetek Stalna postavitev rodbinske zbirke vojvod Alba v palači Liria v Madridu je nastala pod izrazitim vplivom lastnikovih teženj po ohranitvi oziroma poudarjanju družbene razslojenosti v 20. stoletju s poudarjanjem kolektivnega rodbinskega spomina, po ponazarjanju kontinuitete in utemeljevanju pomena zbirke s kontekstualiziranjem v njenem prvotnem okolju. V prispevku je podana primerjalna analiza prvotne stalne postavitve v rezidenci vojvod Alba, palači Liria, leta 1931; palača je bila leta 1936 porušena v španski državljanski vojni. Avtorica prvotno postavitev primerja s povojno postavitvijo, ki so jo leta 1957 uredili v prenovljeni palači. Na podlagi arhivskih inventarjev v zasebnem arhivu vojvod Alba poglablja vedenje o obeh postavitvah zbirke umetnin in o vlogi, ki jo je imela rodbinska zbirka pri rekonstrukciji palače. Celovito ohranjena arhivska dokumentacija, ki med drugim vključuje inventarje, kataloge zbirk, fotografije interjerjev, odmeve v medijih in zapisnike sestankov svetovalnega odbora muzeja Prado, je omogočila temeljito proučitev sprememb v postavitvi zbirke. V njih se zrcalijo strategije, s katerimi se je ena najbolj etabliranih evropskih plemiških dinastij prilagajala družbenim spremembam v 20. stoletju. Dolgotrajno deponiranje in nadomestno vključevanje umetnin v razstave muzeja Prado sta zaznamovala muzeografijo rekonstruirane palače. V prispevku so tematizirani vidiki formiranja in optimiziranja narativov, ki spremljajo umestitev zbirke v interjerje, kot osrednjih elementov kolektivnega rodbinskega spomina vojvod Alba in so integrirani v muzejsko predstavitev v palači Liria. Takšna obravnava historiata zbirke in sprememb v njeni umestitvi omogoča njeno proučevanje v ožjem in širšem kontekstu: v ožjem z iskanjem vzorov njene prezentacije, v širšem pa s proučitvijo materialnih manifestacij njenih posebnosti, kontinuitete in vidikov ohranjanja rodbinske vloge in pomena v turbulentnem obdobju in neugodnih razmerah, s katerimi se je soočalo plemstvo. Kontinuiteta rodbine v tem primeru ne pomeni ohranjanja oziroma nespremenljivosti. Ob dejstvu, da je bila po uničenju med državljansko vojno palača ponovno zgrajena, je v novi postavitvi zbirke kljub težnjam po kontinuiteti prišlo do sprememb, na podlagi katerih lahko historiat postavitve zbirke Alba pojasnimo z Bordieujevim pojmom »fikcija kontinuitete«. Člani rodbine Alba so se zavedali, da sta pomembnejša rodbinska prispevka ravno skrbništvo nad rodbinsko zbirko in njeno upravljanje, vključno s primerno umestitvijo v njihov zasebni družinski prostor v palači, v kateri bivajo. Simbolična vrednost in pomen, ki temeljita na vojvodi, ter kulturno-družbena vloga vojvode pa so vzajemno povezani tudi z zbirko. Subjekt in objekt – v tem primeru zbiratelj in zbirka – se vzajemno potrjujeta in utemeljujeta. Simbolični odnos med lastnikom in zbirko, zgrajen na nesnovnem spominu in distinkciji, postane snoven samo, kadar je zbirka umeščena v primeren kontekst. Za ustvarjanje konteksta je poskrbel vojvoda Alba, ustvaril ga je z umestitvijo v prvotni prostor – z rekonstrukcijo palače Liria. WHITNEY DENNIS 177 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.28.2.08 ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 ∙ 2023, 177–199 Abstract: “Keep That German Kitsch Away from the Czech Hands!” Ethnic Cleansing in the Light of Material Culture: Furnishings of the Displaced Moravian and Silesian Nobility on the Post-1945 Brno Auction Market 1. 01 Original scientific article The paper deals with the significant social restructuring and radical ethnic cleansing in post-Second World War Czechoslovakia borderlands as evidenced by the art market, where massive state appropriations and transfers of furnishings from the mostly ex-German and ex-Hungarian nobility residences manifested themselves in huge wave of frenetic auction sales. The uniquely preserved archive file on the Karel Ditrich Exhibition and Auction House in Brno enables us to reconstruct these processes within the scope of the entire Moravian and Silesian territory. The documents reveal the contemporary ethnic, social, and economic disputes, leading in the end to significant class and social transfers, i. e., new trends in living culture and collecting. Keywords: Karel Ditrich, German and Hungarian nobility, noble residences, post-1945 Czechoslovakia, art market, confiscations of movable assets, social and class transfers, living culture, national labelling Izvleček: »Spravite ta nemški kič stran od čeških rok!« Etnično čiščenje v luči materialne kulture: Stanovanjska oprema izseljenega moravskega in šlezijskega plemstva na dražbenem trgu v Brnu po letu 1945 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek V članku je obravnavano pomembno družbeno prestrukturiranje in radikalno etnično čiščenje na češkoslovaškem obmejnem območju po drugi svetovni vojni na podlagi analize umetnostnega trga. Množično podržavljenje zasebne lastnine in prenosi opreme iz nekdanjih nemških in madžarskih plemiških rezidenc so rezultirali v velikem valu mrzličnih dražbenih prodaj. Izjemno dobro ohranjena arhivska dokumentacija o razstavni in dražbeni hiši Karla Ditricha v Brnu nam omogoča rekonstrukcijo teh procesov v okviru celotnega moravskega in šlezijskega ozemlja. Dokumentacija razkriva tedanje etnične, socialne in gospodarske spore, ki so nazadnje pripeljali do pomembnih razrednih in socialnih premikov oziroma novih trendov v zbirateljstvu in bivalni kulturi. Ključne besede: Karel Ditrich, nemško in madžarsko plemstvo, plemiške rezidence, Češkoslovaška po letu 1945, umetnostni trg, zaplembe premičnega imetja, družbeni in razredni premiki, bivalna kultura, nacionalno označevanje “Keep That German Kitsch Away from the Czech Hands!” Ethnic Cleansing in the Light of Material Culture: Furnishings of the Displaced Moravian and Silesian Nobility on the Post-1945 Brno Auction Market Marcela Rusinko Assist. prof. Marcela Rusinko, PhD, Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts, Department of Art History, Arna Nováka 1, 602 00 Brno, marcelarusinko@phil.muni.cz, ORCID-ID: 0000-0002-9592-7321 178 MARCELA RUSINKO Unhealed History as a Culture Topos The post-war ethnic cleansing period in the Bohemian borderlands after the Second World War in Central Europe1 belongs without doubt to one of the most sensitive, yet still not fully healed, moments of common Czech-German contemporary history. Certainly, the events during the war have left numerous traces on the Czech visual and literary culture of the time (fig. 1), yet they as a rule bear the substantive undertones of ideological manipulation and propaganda and thus should not be considered as impartial, objective reflections of circumstances.2 Against this rather subjec- tive—if perhaps from the present-day perspective attractive—reference framework, I prefer to em- phasize the objective research value of the testimonies in the material culture. In this study, I work with a historical art market data set and documents, endeavouring to demonstrate their valuable potential in reconstructing and reconnecting the lost traces of historical memory and destinies of individual artefacts as well as their supra-national networking provenance research potential. All this, with the further intention to study these processes and transfers from the social point of view and relate them, if possible, to the period’s national and class values, the various preferences and tastes that they represented and the interpretational contexts of which they were a part. However, before I address this, let me bring to bear one of those inherent visual and literal symbols. In seeking a strong, multifaceted, expressive cultural sign of the events described, we perhaps need look no further than the 1967 novel by the Czech writer Vladimír Körner (b. 1939) named Adelheid (fig. 2).3 A film was made two years later (1969) at the end of the famous Czech New Wave era in cinematography4 by the renowned filmmaker and director, an art historian by schooling, František Vláčil (1924–1999). Körner and Vláčil were the co-authors of the screenplay.5 In the piece, the overall atmosphere of prevailing destruction and hatred is emphasized by cho- ral music by the majestic Germanic composers such as Wagner, Bach or Strauss, accompanied by empathetic art camerawork by František Uldrich (1936–2013). Adelheid played the role of a movie dealing in an artistically exceptional and, ultimately, non-ideological manner with the post-war dramatic situation on the border. According to the plot, a former Czech soldier from the West- ern Front is assigned to a village as the administrator of nationalized ex-German property. He is accommodated in a residential villa where a local-active Nazi resided,6 and where he meets the Nazi’s daughter, Adelheid. In this visually strong story of tragic love, both confident, yet fragile and fatigued, characters are placed alongside. Still, all the “big history” is somewhat left behind, read- able only in the various hints, side-characters or dialogues. The piece aspires to be impartial, even conciliatory in the narrative and the human profile of the Czech soldier, as he reveals—despite the 1 For general information, see e.g. Naimark, Fires of Hatred; Mlynárik, Vortgesetzte Vertreibung; Frommer, National cleansing; Curp, A Clean Sweep?; Hrabovec, Vertreibung und Abschub. From the local Czech sources, esp. Staněk, Odsun Němců; Arburg and Staněk, Vysídlení Němců; Kuklík, Znárodnění Československo. 2 The movies Border Village (1948) by Jiří Krejčík, or Boarding (1952) by Otakar Vávra could serve as typical case examples. 3 Körner, Adelheid. 4 Hames, The Czechoslovak New Wave. 5 František Vláčil, Adelheid, Filmové studio Barrandov; Kouzlo Films Společnost, Czechoslovakia, movie, April 6, 1970, 99 min. See Fiala, Vláčil and Körner, “Adelheid;” Gajdošík, František Vláčil; Vogelová, “Letting the De- mons.” 6 The small chateau is described in the novel as a seized Jewish property, bought originally from a Teutonic Knight order. See Körner, Adelheid, 43. 179 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... 1. Václav Chochola: The feeling of a social change, 1940s in Prague (© Archive B&M Chochola) 2. The period promotion on František Vláčil’s film Adelheid, 1969 (© private collection) circumstances—his love and affection for the German girl who is about to be deported. However, a more profound reconciliation turns out to be unattainable, as the roots of mutual misunderstand- ing penetrate much further than simply language. Thus, the work embodies a distressing message on the impossibility of mutual comprehen- sion and compassion, and the class, ethnic and gender stereotypes and prejudices of both heroes deepened by their lived war traumas. It seems, for both novelist and movie director, the subject constituted a personally experienced theme, as they originated from north Moravian families, the regions addressed by this paper. Thus, the intransigent realities in the piece, including the damaged chateau architecture in the cold wide depopulated hilly landscape, with the random fragments of porcelain and other furnishings in interiors, are expressed with a surprising natu- ralistic persuasiveness.7 In this way, the picture captured by Körner and Vláčil creates a telling topos that seems to be sufficiently illustrative to provide an insight into the circumstances of the seized residences and their large sets of movable assets, i.e., their remarkably radical treatment, translocations, monetization, as well as their incidental dismantling or re-labelling. This question is addressed below. 7 For further comparisons of the novel and original script with the movie version, forcibly shortened and released during the beginning of the political “standardization” period in Czechoslovakia, i.e. after the Soviet invasion in August 1968, see Hlaváčková, “Osamělost;” for reception of period reviews, see Šrajer, “Príliš viditelné.” 180 MARCELA RUSINKO Ditrich Auction House Files The transfers and auction sales of artistic assets originating from residences confiscated after 1945 under the authority of the decrees issued by the President of Czechoslovakia constitutes an area of research that is definitely topical but still not yet fully contextually clarified.8 Systematic research in the previous decades has been hindered not only by insufficient time distance and, to a certain ex- tent, by the surprisingly persistent nature of the theme’s moral sensitivity, but also, above all, by the lack of any comprehensive primary archival sources.9 Indeed, it appears to be part of the specificity of this sector of business, i.e. auction sales, that its operators, especially during troublesome his- torical periods, strive to leave behind little in the way of documentary files. Often, only the auction catalogues, if they were even published, survive as a trace of their activities, and sometimes even only in fragments.10 In this context, the complexity and informative value of the extensive archive collection on the Karel Ditrich Exhibition and Auction House (fig. 3), preserved in the Moravian Provincial Archives in Brno, has been of immense value to us.11 According to the available docu- mentation, the company can be characterized as the leading art market trader with state authority to sort, transport, store and merchandize tens of thousands of seized artefacts originating in the confiscated estates, mansions and residences from the entire territories of Moravia and Silesia, i.e. from more than four dozen localities related to displaced German or Hungarian nobility.12 Quite uniquely, this beneficial source offers us an insight into the mechanisms of these dramatic and large-scale property transfers that resulted in an anonymous and fast-moving auctions market. The files of the auction house cover its most turbulent period, between 1947 and 1950, and capture two transformations in its proprietary status: from a private post-war licensed trade run by the collector and connoisseur Karel Ditrich (1913–?)13 to a company run by politically assigned national adminis- trators, and then, two years later, its final transfer to the branch of the state network of the antiquities trading company Antikva. Concurrently, this gradual nationalization process, taking place against the background of the extensive sales of seized artefacts, could be considered key in understanding the preservation of documents in such atypical width, depth and richness. As part of this documenta- tion, the beneficial communication between national administrators, state and local authorities and institutions—primarily the National Land Fund (Národní pozemkový fond – NPF), the Regional 8 On the issue of movable asset transfers and destinies esp. Uhlíková, Národní kulturní komise; Uhlíková, Šlechtická sídla; Uhlíková, “Zestátněné památky;” Rusinko, Snad nesbíráte; Rusinko, “In the ‘Public Interest’;” Uhlíková, Konfiskované osudy. 9 Cf. Rusinko, Snad nesbíráte, 73–98; Slavíček, “Chuť kupovat;” Slavíček, “Cesta do hlubin.” 10 Cf. Hopp, Kunsthandel, 15–17; Golenia, Kratz-Kessemeier and le Masne de Chermont, Paul Graupe, 13–14, 84–91; Francini, “Jüdische Kunsthändler.” 11 Karel Ditrich, výstavní a aukční síň (Karel Ditrich exhibition and auction hall), fund no. H 984, Moravský zemský archiv v Brně (MZA). The Ditrich fund was preserved as part of the fund Obchodu klenoty, hodinami a starožit- nostmi Brno. 12 For Czech territory, with Prague as a natural centre of the auction market, we expect the position of the legitimate trader of the large sets of assets confiscated according to president Edvard Beneš decrees during the first post-war years to be held by the Václav Hořejš Auction House, based at Mikulandská street no. 7. However, we lack any systematic documentation on the running of this major company. Interestingly, this company was, at least during the critical year 1948, legally and financially connected to the Karel Ditrich Auction House Brno. See Rusinko, Snad nesbíráte, 85–86. 13 Alternatively, we find the transcription “Dittrich” in documentation. However, here, I stick to the prevailing “Dit- rich” form. See Slavíček, “Dopis sběratele;” Rusinko, Snad nesbíráte, 73, 82. 181 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... 3. The location of Karel Ditrich’s auction house in Brno, Náměstí Rudé armády, today Moravské náměstí, 1946 (© Archiv města Brna) National Committee in Brno, later also the National Cultural Commission (Národní kulturní komi- se – NKK) and the company Antikva, as well as the former owner—has remained preserved. For many borderland localities, the archive contains extensive inventories of furnishings provid- ed by the NPF, labelled as “released” for sale. As a rule, we can establish in which auctions the items from individual mansions were auctioned and what the initial and sometimes also the final prices were.14 The accounts of the national administrators to the NPF and detailed reports on the trades and management of the company have also been preserved. In the case of items eliminated from the auc- tions by the NKK as objects of special cultural value with assumed further use in the public sphere, we can identify which institutions they were intended for. Certainly, many of them can be found in these public collections even today and their original provenance identified. However, no doubt many other records were intentionally destroyed, especially concerning the early period when the original owner Ditrich operated the socially and politically sensitive but profitable business, already aware that the state bodies could take over the files and the whole company soon, i.e., before December 1948.15 Apartment Filled with “Chateau Furnishings” Thus, from the available files, we have been able to learn a great deal about the personality of the original dealer as well. Ditrich was a skilled exhibition organiser and modern art collector, maintaining extensive contacts with living artists, and acting as a secretary official of their local association in Olomouc between the years 1937 and 1945. In addition, he had astonishing domestic academic contacts. As an international art agent, he specialized in attractive numismatic deals, having a couple of top world commercial contacts within the field.16 His auction house located 14 For more detail on the individual auctions in terms of financial analysis and links to concerned localities, see Rusinko, “Perské koberce.” 15 For the general historical and political context and interpretation of the communication in the light of the often-contradictory interests of involved authorities, see Rusinko, “Dražby mobiliářů.” 16 For instance, Henry Grundthal (1905–2001), American Numismatic Society of New York; and other contacts to Switzerland, Germany, Italy, France, Netherlands. 182 MARCELA RUSINKO in Brno17 obtained an official state authority permit for trading the selected movable assets from seized chateaus and residences during February 1948.18 Over the next months, until November 1948, he promptly organised five extensive auction sales, monetarizing the seized objects originat- ing from almost two dozen Moravian localities, with a total turnover of 3.5 million Czechoslovak crowns [Kčs] and an average charge of 19%. So far, none of Ditrich’s antiquities auction catalogues from this period have been found.19 During this period, the sales participants and clients came both from Brno and more distant parts of the country, and often from abroad. Also, all the major private collectors and museum representatives were present as buyers, as he later noted.20 Of the confiscated inventories taken over by Ditrich for auctioning in the course of 1948, it is worth mentioning the collection originating in the so-called Bauer chateau in Brno, modi- fied in the mid-1920s for the then owner by the leading European modernist architect Adolf Loos (1870–1933). Originally a classicist mansion, the residence, located today in the area of the Brno exhibition ground, belonged to the family of the sugar entrepreneur, traveller and thinker Viktor Bauer Jr. (1876–1939).21 The furniture released for sale from this location, referred to as Bauer’s ramp, was successively auctioned over five of Ditrich’s auctions. With a total reported yield of 609,000 Kčs, it became the most significant location in the history of this hall’s auctions. None of the other nationalized noble or business residences in the territory of Moravia and Silesia provided such a significant amount of property to the art market at this time. Yet, only Persian carpets of this provenance, offered in the number of twelve pieces in the September 1948 auction sale, were auc- tioned for a total of 262,000 Kčs. The most expensive piece, the Tebriz carpet (340 x 240 cm), had a reported final price of a hard-to-believable 76,000 Kčs, an amount that largely defies all known contemporary auction results. Bauer’s carpets Zaha (320 x 260 cm, 38,000 Kčs), Heriz (365 x 277 cm, 36,000 Kčs) and Heriz (450 x 250 cm, 32,000 Kčs) finished with a final price above the symbolic level of 30,000 Kčs. The set of carpets from Bauer’s ramp, stored in one of Ditrich’s warehouses from August 1948, were subject to special instructions from the NPF: the Teppiche were not to be handed over for sale without a direct instruction from the Fund’s management.22 However, the documents refer to by no means rare illegal trades, for example, Ditrich’s fre- quent bidding in his own auctions, intentional property, data and record manipulations on the ex- pense of the state, efforts to prioritize the personal material interests before the public one.23 From 17 Firstly, at his private address Dra Bedřicha Macků no. 77 (today Údolní street), from October 1948 then at the Náměstí Rudé Armády no. 12 (Red Army Square, today Moravské náměstí). See Rusinko, “Dražby mobiliářů,” 41. 18 However, we know from Ditrich’s local press advertising that he auctioned Persian carpets and the other (seized?) antiquities at least from April 1947. See Čin: Zemský orgán československé sociální demokracie na Moravě 3, no. 78 (1947): 4. 19 His numismatic activities are well-documented through four catalogues from three sales realized in 1947 and one in 1948. 20 Letter from Schneider to Regional National Committee Brno, December 13, 1948; Karel Ditrich, exhibition and auction hall Brno, investigation into the operation and financial situation of the company, inv. no. 21/1, carb. 1, Karel Ditrich, výstavní a aukční síň, fund no. H 984, MZA. 21 Mašek, Šlechtické rody, 1: 51; Kořínková, Adolf Loos. 22 Bauer’s ramp carpets billing, October 6, 1948, inv. no. 39/2, carb. 2, Karel Ditrich, výstavní a aukční síň, fund no. H 984, MZA. Worth noting is the amount of average gross wage per month, which reached 823 Kčs in 1948. More in detail, for an industrial worker the average was 725 Kčs, for technical engineer 1,194 Kčs. See Průcha, Hospodářské. 23 Manipulations within the lists of extensive inventories and in financial estimations seem to be among the most typical. As documented, the highly valued hand-made Persian carpet could be listed as a common machine-made one; multi-piece sets of valued Meissen porcelain or furniture as less-piece sets for the same financial appraisal, etc. 183 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... those records, we learn that Ditrich’s Brno apartment was literally crowded with various noble an- tiquities originating from liquidated mansions.24 In accordance with these findings, by the end of the year 1948, the highly profitable auction house had been taken over by assigned public national administrators. The local accounting manager at the Provincial Pawn Office, Jan Honek, remained in office as the Ditrich’s company national administrator for the next two years. Between March 1949 and September 1950, he organised eleven large auction sales supplied by the seized artefacts from three dozen, as a rule more distant, borderland localities with a total turnover of 4.2 million Kčs and a supplementary charge of 27 percent.25 Nevertheless, even Honek’s activities were not free of the accusations regarding purposeful object and data manipulations on the account of private benefits. In relation to Ditrich, in Decem- ber 1948, the local authorities filed a complex criminal complaint against him, resulting in a lawsuit with an extensive charge, extending to multiple paragraphs.26 Yet, Ditrich, as an active member of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, took advantage of remarkable personal protection coming from the highest political circles. Thus, in the dispute he was acquitted under rather unusual cir- cumstances, which enabled him to continue his professional engagement in the field.27 Case Destinies of Residences and Inventories The destinies of the seized residences in Moravian and Silesian territory varied widely. Some of them were simply used for accommodation purposes and adapted according to local officials’ needs, including local authorities’ offices, schools, kindergartens, facilities for the elderly. Yet, many abandoned small mansions gradually fell into disrepair and after several decades were nearly or completely ruined. Numerous mansions did not undergo full reconstruction until the 1990s. There were also edifices, in which the museums, monuments of national heritage institute or some- times even depositories were located. In fact, multiple affected localities were situated in the north border region of Moravia and Silesia, with little access and unsuitable infrastructure, far from Brno. This was already an issue during the expropriation processes, when various inventories were made, the items subsequently sorted out, and some of them transferred to the Brno auction house Ditrich for further sale. A valid example of a lost, destroyed residence is Solca (Solza), belonging to the family of Count Larisch-Mönnich, situated until 1953 in Karviná (Karwin) in Silesia. The last proprietor, Count Johann Larisch-Mönnich (1872–1962), was a lawyer and aristocratic businessman in the coal mine 24 Letter from National administrators to Regional National Committee Brno, December 23, 1948; Letter from Na- tional administrators to Regional National Committee Brno, January 14, 1949, inv. no. 21/1, carb. 1, Karel Ditrich, výstavní a aukční síň, fund no. H 984, MZA. 25 For detailed tables with the turnovers link to individual seized residence localities and realised auction sales, see Rusinko, “Perské koberce,” 128–31. For the period of the national administrator, all the auction catalogues pub- lished between March 1949 and September 1950 have been found in the archive file. 26 Legal action of the District Prosecutor in Brno against Karel Ditrich, October 2, 1950; Acquittal judgment of the District Criminal Court in Brno, December 12, 1951, TV 294/50, carb. 1040, fund no. C153 IV, Okresní lidový soud trestní (District People’s Criminal Court), MZA. Among the accusations: fraud, embezzlement, obstructing the execution of a court decision, violation of the duty of a public official. 27 More on the specific political background of political purges and s. c. Rudolf Slánský (1901–1952) trial connected to the agency of Karel Ditrich in the auction business with sensitive items, in Rusinko, “Dražby mobiliářů,” 47–51. For the general literature see e.g., Kaplan and Kosatík, Gottwaldovi muži. 184 MARCELA RUSINKO 4. Count Johan Larisch-Mönnich (1872–1962) with his collection of figurative porcelain (© Státní okresní archiv Karviná) industry, as well as a member of the Reichstag in Vienna before 1918 (fig. 4). The Solca Chateau was situated in a region with rich coal deposits. It was burned out already during the war in 1944 (fig. 5). Seriously damaged, and according to period authorities, also “undermined”, the official bodies tore it down in 1953.28 Contrary to this, the chateau residence Chudobín (Chudwein) near Litovel, belonging to the family of Count Tersch, widely recognised in the region, provides an example of a mansion that was preserved thanks to its new functions. The residence served as an agricultural school, a recreation and training centre of the Sigma industrial enterprise, or a hotel facility. However, the Tersch family also owned the Pavlínin dvůr (Paulinen Hof) residence near Šumperk (Mährisch Schönberg), functioning today as a local museum. From the related records we learn that it was, for instance, at Chudobín Chateau, that the entire dozen valuable Persian carpets originated. In the Brno auction sale, they achieved maximum prices.29 Similarly, the well-preserved South Moravian residence Budišov (Budischau) Chateau met the fate of a complex which has been serving as monument, an exposition and depository facility for the Moravian Museum in Brno. The original noble proprietor, Richard, Baron of Baratta-Dragono (1867–1946), acted as a Czech 28 Matroszová, Rod Larisch-Mönnichů; Mašek, Šlechtické rody, 1: 533; Hazdra, Horčička and Županič, Šlechta střední Evropy; Jelínková Homolová, Šlechta v proměnách. 29 The most expensive ones reached 37,000 Kčs (“Persian variegated” 175 x 350 cm); 39,000 Kčs (“big pink” 400 x 350 cm). deputy, a clerk, a landowner and a lawyer. As the family had owned the place since the beginning of the 19th century, Baratta-Dragono lived in the residence until 1945. He passed away in March 1946 in a deportation camp in near Třebíč.30 However, the case of Letovice (Lettowitz) Chateau deserves particular attention. This domi- nant feature of the landscape north of Brno, originally owned by the Hungarian family of Counts Kálnoky von Köröspatak had been equipped with abundant furnishings and collections. The last proprietor was Count Alexandr Kálnoky (1888–1965).31 The Kálnoky collection was uncommonly rich, containing some oriental archaeological objects, among other things, parts of mummified bod- ies, as the family received a part of the archaeological collection from the Hungarian noble family Waldstein-Wartenberg.32 Some three thousand items from that household were designated for sale. As noted above, in happier, yet rather isolated cases, the selected artistic assets sorted for auction finally ended up as eliminations for regional, national or local museums. This also happened in the case of several artefacts from Letovice that were designated for the local Moravian Museum picture gallery and are still part of Moravian Gallery Brno collections today (fig. 6); the most valuable item among them is Portrait of Countess Waldstein, née Kálnoky (1874), by Hans Makart (fig. 7).33 30 Mašek, Šlechtické rody, 1: 46. 31 Jelínková Homolová, Šlechta v proměnách, 287–91; Mašek, Šlechtické rody, 1: 434–35. 32 This aspect interconnects the topic with the ongoing research of Hajnalka Boncz from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences on the Waldstein family collecting cultures. See Boncz, “Több mint másolat.” 33 Tomášek, Moravská zemská obrazárna, 216–17, kat. no. 130. Marie Adele Waldstein – Wartenberg, 1874, oil on canvas, 136.5 x 96 cm, inv. no. Z 2665. 185 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... 5. Solca Residence before the Second World War (© Státní okresní archiv Karviná) 186 MARCELA RUSINKO 6. Jakub Bauernfreund: Die Habsburg, drawing, formerly in Letovice, now Moravian Gallery, Brno (© Moravská galerie v Brně) 7. Hans Makart: Portrait of Countess Waldstein, née Kálnoky, 1874, oil on canvas, formerly in Letovice, now Moravian Gallery, Brno (© Moravská galerie v Brně) 187 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... 8. Simone Mezziene: The Abduction of Proserpine, formerly in Jindřichov ve Slezsku, now Moravian Gallery, Brno (© Moravská galerie v Brně) Both the Letovice and Luhačovice (Luhatschowitz) residences of the Hungarian family of Earl Serényi and the last proprietor Alois Serényi (1893–1957) can be recorded among the exam- ples of successfully restituted mansions. According to the files, about a thousand items from the Luhačovice Chateau inventory were sold in Brno auctions between 1949–1950. Again, a large set of valuable antique furniture and large sets of valuable Meissen porcelain were included.34 On the other hand, the original proprietors of the Silesian border chateau Jindřichov ve Slezsku (Henners- dorf) were the barons Klein von Wisenberg, known as builders of the railway network on Czech territory and beyond; the last proprietor was Adalbert Klein von Wisenberg (1896–1959). This Em- pire style monument, surrounded by a vast 17th-century garden park, which served for a long pe- riod as a local social facility, is today administrated by the municipality, and several of its pieces can also be found in the Moravian Gallery Brno collection (fig. 8). Furthermore, the documents on this charming distant locality, preserved in the Ditrich fund, point to repeated violence towards and losses of seized artefacts. A large section of the inventory was stolen or destroyed by the population in the period between the inventory being carried out and the items being transported to Brno. Notably, the social, class and national dispute solved in “civilized” Brno through correspondence in an initiative by living artists, as illustrated below, was—in the case of Hennersdorf—answered by an immediate act of violence.35 Nevertheless, far from all the seized artefacts and furnishings were sold on the auction market. Many of them were simply transferred to large depositories, warehouses, and then sorted out and transferred to other localities, or national monuments, often very far away. That way, in general, the historical memory of assets and their original provenance was forgotten. They were as a rule cut off their original localities, proprietors and destinies. Thus, the most valuable items on the inventories, 34 Mašek, Šlechtické rody, 2: 213. 35 Mašek, Šlechtické rody, 1: 461; Rusinko, “Perské koberce,” 125–26. 188 MARCELA RUSINKO such as valued Persian carpets of all kinds, historical pieces of furniture, larger sets of branded por- celain or fragments of ancestral picture galleries were either moved to other monument localities, or often just “released” for auction sales. In this way, they generally found new owners among the currently established elites, or higher middle class, but also fell into the hands of various cross-bor- der traffickers or illegal dealers.36 In contrast, small utilitarian objects and worn clothing without a real market value often found a quick sale even in the seat of the “liquidated” residences among the needy population. However, even for the objects transported to Brno warehouses, waiting for further processing while being prepared for public auction sales, additional exceptional treatment could be applied, as in the case of required representative office furnishing equipment for the new political elites or extraordinary direct export orders. Concerning the request of NPF to Ditrich’s auction house dated October 1948, an order was subsumed to release a set of confiscated objects for the leading Brno politician Ferdinand Richter (1885–1950), at that time the deputy chairman of the National Assembly. This applicant from high political circles should have had a priority right to purchase the furniture at estimated prices. Richter requested for himself a complete branded porcelain set for 12 people, including cutlery, a complete set of glassware for 12 people, a matching set of table linen, as well as decorative glass and porcelain objects and, of course, Persian carpets and paint- ings. Ditrich was supposed to enable the politician to inspect the objects and help in their selecting and evaluating. The whole set was then financed by the Fund (NPF) by deduction from the invoiced sales. “When it comes to the selection of carpets, due to their limited number, the NPF can release a maximum of 2 Persian carpets for the applicant, in the case of a request for more pieces, let’s offer a different carpet—a machine-made one,” as the Fund’s instructions to Ditrich stated.37 Similarly, in a note dated August 16, 1948, a set of rare highly estimated antiquities from the assets of the Moravec (Morawetz) Chateau in the district of Žďár nad Sázavou (Saar) were desig- nated for sale to Switzerland. The note concerned an 11-arm porcelain Meissen chandelier valued at an amount of 60,000 Kčs; four porcelain Meissen wall sconces (28,000 Kčs); “a round table with nine pictures and a porcelain, plastically decorated leg” (48,000 Kčs); and two porcelain vases and another candlestick, again labelled with Meissen branding (2,500 and 600 Kčs).38 A similarly docu- mented directive on antiquities sales to Western countries fulfilled a clear mission to earn as much as possible in scarce foreign currencies for the state budget in the economically critical post-war period. Thus, we can expect here not only a careful selection of luxurious enough artefacts but also a reasonable exaggeration of the estimated prices, which would not have been easily feasible in the domestic market. Kitsch from Disposed Mansions: Labelling and Promotion During the economically uneasy Czechoslovakia early post-war period when basic food was only accessible through state coupons and the same shortage manifested itself in basic consumer goods such as shoes and clothing, multiple sale announcements on “exhibition of ancient furniture, 36 Uhlíková, Národní kulturní komise, 34–58. 37 Letter from NPF, signed by Dr. Placht, to Karel Ditrich on elimination of objects for Ferdinand Richter, October 15, 1948. inv. no. 9/1, carb. no. 1, Karel Ditrich, výstavní a aukční síň, fund no. H 984, MZA. 38 Inv. no. 57/3, carb. no. 3, Karel Ditrich, výstavní a aukční síň, fund no. H 984, MZA. paintings, sculptures, porcelain and glass, tin and metal objects, ancient clocks, weapons, etc. from the disposed, liquidated chateaus,” appeared in the periodicals (fig. 9).39 The promotion of the large sales of seized objects was evidently aimed at the general public as it was published in the most common daily press; yet, at the same time, it built on the uncommon variety and richness of the goods (fig. 10). The message had often been expressed by rather lapidary proclamations, ensuring a buyer that the range of the available items spans “from the Chinese porcelain sets to the bedroom furniture in the Louis XVI style”, as in the instructive article published in Práce.40 Nevertheless, the reality of the large-scale sales of confiscated goods—at least in the case of Brno where it is documented—triggered a prompt oppositional protest reaction of living artists and their local association. The secretary of the Association of the Fine Artists of Moravia (Blok výtvarných umělců země Moravskoslezské – BLOK), the merchant, collector and functionary František Venera (1901–1979)41 sent an indignant official note to Prague NPF authorities, of which Ditrich was one of the recipients, in November 1947, shortly before the auctioneer was even granted the legal auction concession.42 Venera states: 39 The sales advertising annotation from local periodicals, a fragment from Rovnost. List Komunistické strany Československa na Moravě, August 1949. 40 Jindra, “Starožitnosti.” 41 Slavíček, “František Venera;” Rusinko, Snad nesbíráte, 100, 156, 192, 216, 251, 297. 42 Letter from František Venera – BLOK to NLF, Praha X-Karlín, in copy to Karel Ditrich, Brno, November 25, 1947, inv. no. 29/2, carb. no. 2, Karel Ditrich, výstavní a aukční síň, fund no. H 984, MZA. 189 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... 9. The cover of the auction catalogue for the National Administration of Karel Ditrich, June 1950 (© private collection) 10. Karel Ditrich advertising the auctioning of coins, medals, antiquities and works of art (Numismatické listy, no. 6, December 1948) 190 MARCELA RUSINKO According to our information, you sent your expert to evaluate and sort the paintings that are in the Brno warehouses from the Moravian-Silesian confiscations, and your rep- resentatives intend to auction off a large number of paintings in a cafe in Brno before Christmas. Our visual artists do not have a bed of roses these days. If you flood the Brno Christmas market with products of German provenance, you will damage not only the artists, but also our work, and that very noticeably. According to him, contemporary artists have already “protested several times so that kitsch not to be sold”. The BLOK association, via Mr. Venera, demanded the whole issue of the sale of confiscated items be entrusted to a committee of living artists. Venera asked that at least two of his colleagues “would be invited to the committee to sort out the kitsch that must not come into Czech hands”. Therefore, he “protests with all seriousness against the sale of paintings of German provenance without the statement of an expert commission,” we read in the correspondence. The fact that the statements presented above, which suggest clearly negative labelling, both in terms of nationality and quality, did not appear in a private letter exchange, yet in the official correspondence between authorities, is worthy of our attention. Venera situated himself literally in the position of spokesperson for the whole group of regional living artists and thus represented a professional majority opinion in a certain sense. Above all, the surprising sovereignty of his stance mirrors the restless and emotionally heightened dynamics of regional Czech majority public opin- ion—embodied with a naturalistic persuasiveness seen already in the late 1960s literary and cin- ematic topos Adelheid. Thus, not only business, but ultimately much more deeply rooted national and social class conflicts also played a role here. The huge business with confiscated artefacts had by all accounts a severe impact on the con- temporary living art market sector. In this sense, the association’s fight by all available means, seems to be understandable. Well, let’s focus on what was expected to be “sorted out” during the sales by the expert Czech living artists committee and thus really labelled as a kitsch. While examining the catalogues, we notice a certain prevalence of academic 19th-century German provenance paintings or drawings, often of middle-range or low quality. This kind of artefact, abundant in the affected lo- calities, were—at least according to the modernist and avant-garde perspective widely spread among the Czech modern artists and Czech bourgeoisie middle class buyers—generally considered to be of second-best quality.43 We can thus assume that the dispute concerned mainly painting as a medium, as it constituted a direct competitive product on the market—as the majority of the artists in the association were painters. The other forms of merchandized artefacts, such as furnishings, art in- dustrial objects, carpets, etc., were less of a concern. Noticeably, the secondary reference, which may ultimately be the essential message behind this dispute, points out that the lifestyle, taste and pref- erences of the expelled nobility as a “declining” social class were considered rather traditional and outdated. For the prevailing Czech middle class buyers and cultural intellectuals, this represented an out-of-date style, the spread of which had to be fought. Yet, further context clarified the topical exhibition entitled Art and Kitsch (Umění a kýč) organised by the Venera and BLOK association in Brno during summer 1948.44 Venera claimed authorship of the exhibition, both ideologically and 43 The general differences between German and Czech artists in Brno and their associations, in terms of taste, mo- dern art referencing and a certain progressiveness in their orientation were discussed at least at the turn of 19th and 20th century. See e.g., Janás, “Brněnské malířství.” 44 Umění a kýč, between June 6 and July 11, 1948. creatively, as well as the authorship of the catalogue.45 The concept of the show was primarily edu- cative and instructive, based on a thorough explanation of the Czech modern art visual language, its position and quality, the ways in which artists capture reality, while containing rich visual case examples of Czech contemporary artists’ work and sample works of traditional popular folk culture, juxtaposed in the end with the “kitsch” samples (fig. 11).46 These last items mentioned were represented—as far as we can see from the published photo in this section—by a selection of souvenir porcelain figures and cheap prints, portraits of politi- cians, both painted and plaster casts, and a set of traditional landscape paintings. Applying the comparative visual method to demonstrate relations by using threads, arrows and short com- ments, Venera allegedly demonstrated “the social meaning and function of artistic creation,” and “the connection between folk and so-called high art, as well as the comprehensibility of modern artistic expression and the banality of kitsch”.47 However, the range of national, political and business concerns, discussed only a few blocks away from where the large scale sales of confis- cated goods happened, seem undeniable, as multiple statements in the catalogue called for rea- sonable, well considered purchases, avoiding “junk traders” and motivating the public to refuse such “kitsch traders” and consult their association or experts before buying.48 Thus, the Venera exhibition could be perceived as circumstantial evidence of the contemporary unequivocal class, taste, quality and ultimately also national identity labelling of the confiscated artefacts in the 45 Venera, Umění a kýč. 46 For more period discussion on the topic of kitsch, see Pech, “Umění a kýč;” Pech, “Diskuse o kýči.” 47 Venera, “Nové formy,” with the reproduced photos of the installation of the show. 48 Venera, Umění a kýč, 4, 5–6, 10; Pech, “Umění a kýč,” 322. 191 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... 11. The “kitsch” sample section in František Venera’s educative exhibition Art and Kitsch, Brno House of Arts, 1948 (Blok 3, no. 3, 1948–1949) 192 MARCELA RUSINKO society. Although here, Venera avoids directly linking the terms kitsch and German as in the correspondence,49 the general pejorative meaning designating “the old regime” representatives, their taste and values, was strongly rooted and subject to wide discussion during the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, the Second World War period.50 Class and Social Transfers: New Trends in Living Culture However, it is legitimate to ask, where the seized furnishing and objects of the expelled population merchandized in the Brno Ditrich auctions ended up. Who were the final receivers and buyers— not institutions but private individuals—what were their motivations? According to what we know of the troublesome early post-war economic conditions in Czechoslovakia, the basic motivation for acquiring was driven mostly by the financial and supply situation, specifically long-term monetary uncertainty accompanied by the severe lack of basic food and goods.51 Thus, a general tendency to weather currency fluctuations and invest spare funds that could not be used during that period for anything else could also be considered as fundamental motives for the general public. Moreover, it was poor economic status that was decisive in why the items were purchased by buyers, with the revenue of these sales going to the NPF and ultimately the state budget. During the first few years, the interests of the state were clearly expressed by the requirements to mer- chandize the huge amounts of available seized goods as soon as possible, which was apparently reflected in the symbolic, i.e., strikingly low level of the real initial starting prices for most of the artefacts.52 However, even if Venera’s exhibition explained and emphasised the creative position of Czech modern living artists illustratively enough, their prices were—compared to those of the confiscates—uncompetitively high, so that they could not match the wide section of the market motivated basically by pure economic needs. Additionally, based on the partial data relating to final auction prices, we acknowledge a gradually weakening response in demand. While during the first few months when Ditrich alone managed the business, numerous valuable items enjoyed significant, several-fold price increases, the same was not true for the consequent years when national administrators ran the business. Later, the willingness of the population to react to supply decreased noticeably. The market seemed to be already saturated enough. At the same time, the priorities of the state bodies slowly moved from pro-monetary motives further towards the tendency to control the whole process of property transfer and to select culturally valuable artefacts53 and preserve them in institutions. Thus, the quality of supply alone weakened and multiple items had to be auctioned two or three times before finding a buyer prepared to meet the starting price. 49 The reason could also be rather prosaic and pragmatic—an expected closer personal and business contact be- tween him and Mr. Ditrich. As we learn from the consequent letter exchange, Ditrich contributed to the BLOK association’s activities as an exhibition curator but also financially, as a donator. Letter from Venera to Ditrich on the joint exhibition of Karel Svolinský arrangements, January 26, 1948, inv. no. 35/2, carb. 2, Karel Ditrich, výstav- ní a aukční síň, fund no. H 984, MZA. 50 Pech, “Umění a kýč,” 325, 326. 51 See Kaplan, Proměny české společnosti, 9–29, 91–124. 52 Rusinko, Snad nesbíráte, 73–98. 53 See Uhlíková, Národní kulturní komise, 34–58. 193 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... In our efforts to clarify the other than purely economic motives for the transfer of objects to new owners during the period under discussion, owners belonging to social classes not typically associated with such purchases, we may be rather surprised by the answer. We are considering here specifically the destinies of the innumerable art industrial artefacts and furnishings—as they were in terms of potential new identity labelling much less ethnically and nationally identifiable then typical “kitsch” painting from Czech German noble or bourgeoisie interiors. This answer is con- nected to changes in lifestyle, living culture and taste, as well as trends in leisure time spending, which experienced a surprising shift in dynamic with the upcoming post-war decades. Within this, we can see how immediately—during the first two decades—the seized furnish- ings became a sovereign unquestionable element of the legitimate cultural context. The most il- lustrative is the example of a leading local post-war lifestyle and living culture periodicals, Domov (Home), the Czech home design magazine published since 1960, following the example of Western European magazines focused on interior design and living space improvements. In the early issues of the unusually progressive Domov, we can find various hints and advice recommending readers to improvise in their living culture and to apply an eclectic mixture of neo avant-garde up-to-date structural abstraction canvases with 19th-century, early modern or even older, seized furniture items that were still cheaply accessible in official state shops many years after ethnic cleansing was carried out. Such synthetic, individual and creative living culture home sets, ideally, should be ac- complished by Asian or other exotic details, which had already established itself as a typical feature for first modern era collectors. Not surprisingly, these texts, which applauded the incorporation of the seized and traded no- ble furnishings into modern cultural standards were often written by professional art historians and theoreticians themselves, as they evidently were among the first ones to apply these furnishing strategies in their own apartments. Thanks to same young non-conformist editorial team, despite of all the restrictions and prejudices at the time, Domov were already publishing features between 1962 and 1963 on completely modern Czech interiors dominated by large-scale structural abstrac- tions by the artists Mikuláš Medek (1926–1974) and Jan Kotík (1916–2002), long before these artis- tic expressions appeared in mainstream fine art periodicals. In this sense, one of the first articles in a unique series titled Zabydlený interiér (The Homey Interior) presented the renovation of a basement apartment in Prague’s Vinohrady district, which was the home of modern and contem- porary art historian and editor Antonín Hartmann (1925–2007) and his wife, Ludmila Hartman- nová (1929–2012),54 an art historian and editor specializing in applied art (fig. 12).55 The article was accompanied by exhaustive photographic documentation, a floor plan, and commentaries. Decorated with distinctly “non-socialist” taste, the interior was dominated by a harmonious eclectic range of styles and times, combining contemporary furniture with historical solo pieces purchased “cheaply at Antikva and craftfully restored,” decorative art objects, modern sculptures, and abstract gestural paintings. The room designated in the article as the “wife’s living room”— Hartmannová was the daughter of Professor Antonín Kybal (1901–1971), a member of the maga- zine’s editorial board, which certainly played a role—was quietly dominated by a vertical abstract composition by Mikuláš Medek, which hung next to a “Chinese willow tendril in an Art Nouveau vase”, although the painter was not named in the article. The atmosphere of the man’s study, on 54 See Horová and Slavíček, “Hartmann Antonín;” Horová,“Hartmannová Ludmila.” 55 “Zabydlený interiér,” no. 2. 194 MARCELA RUSINKO 12. The apartment of art historians Antonín Hartmann and Ludmila Hartmannová, combining abstract paintings, exoticisms and confiscated antique furniture (Domov, no. 2, 1962) the other hand, was shaped by a poured gestural painting styled on Jackson Pollock (1912–1956) or Pierre Soulages (1919–2022), but which was most likely the contemporary extremely abstract style of Prague painter Richard Fremund (1928–1969): “This composition of diverse elements certainly does not adhere to the style rulebook. On the contrary, it is an experiment and an entirely free composition of fantasy and personal fancy,” the article describes.56 Similarly, other published “homey interiors” of the cultural intelligentsia promoted combin- ing cheap available furnishings (believed to have originally been the property of former German, Hungarian or Czech social elites) bought at the state-owned antique stores Antikva and Bazar with old, secular, religious (fragments apparently from churches), and quite contemporary non-con- formist pro-Western art. The apartment featured in the second issue of the 1963 edition follows in this spirit, combining a large four-piece Chinese decorative panel, a Biedermeier chest, a Vietnam- ese mat, a large early modern crucifix, and a large contemporary painting by Jan Kotík—here, too, the magazine omitted his name apparently intentionally.57 Interestingly, however, a columnist in the third issue of the 1963 edition openly expounds on how, at a professional graphic artist’s studio, “Medek’s blue canvas stands out perfectly against the black background,” while Pravoslav Rada’s sculpture, plate, and vase are “incorporated into the fireplace structure as a whole” and František 56 “Zabydlený interiér,” no. 2. Given the circumstances, the author of the column may possibly be Ludmila Hartman- nová, née Kybalová. This would explain the professional emphasis that the article places on design and decorative art objects; the context suggests to the reader the idea that paintings are merely colorfully decorated accessories, even though the article seems to intentionally promote Medek’s work, as Hartmann himself was the co-curator of Medek’s first solo exhibition and a co-author of a later monograph, and a friend of the painter. Cf. Mráz, Mikuláš Medek, cat. no. 49, Rustling and Silence, 1961, enamel and oil, 162 x 100 cm, collection of Dr. L. Kybalová. 57 “Proti zabydlenému interiéru.” 195 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... Tichý’s mounted drawing creates an interesting minimalist detail.58 It seems that discussions on home design in the early 1960s allowed for the publication of such liberally designed living spaces, masterfully furnished with completely up-to-date Czechoslovak art, complemented by available decorative art objects and furnishings originating from the property of former social elites.59 Conclusion: Homey Interiors Based on “Washed” Memory Surprisingly, dramatic ethnic cleansing and expropriations also brought with them rather inno- vative strategies, transfers and translations in the middle class living and collecting culture. The uncompromising anonymization of the artefacts on the totalitarian art market, the act of system- atic denial and deletion of the individual object’s memory, linked as a rule to noble or bourgeois previous owners, boosted these processes. The public auction house showrooms such as Ditrich’s now took on the position of the symbolic transitional infrastructure, fulfilling not only the role of the official authorized “memory obliterate agent”, but also the role of “value obliterate agent”. In terms of cutting the objects away from their historical bonds and deleting memory trails, the auc- tion house acted—during the months when turnover reached its highest levels—literally as a cer- tain kind of highly effective factory whose production chain started with collecting transfers often from relatively distant residential borderland localities and ended with auctioning the anonymized artefacts to a wide public. The related deconstruction of the objects’ exceptional social, status and culture-forming value certainly constituted one of the essential ideological paradigms of incoming state-socialism. As the already enormous wave of confiscates that flooded the market during the first post-war years lowered the prices of artefacts to a fraction of their original levels, from 1949 onwards on the na- tionalized auction market, it was then manifested in additional intentional price manipulation, levelling and distortion, often attacking the sector of modern living art, the most valued during the interwar period, as it definitely represented the complex taste and cultural identity imprint of the “defeated” Czech bourgeois society. This radically effective double agency—making the objects anonymous, literally “washing” or “cleaning up” previous layers of identity and rendering them sufficiently financially available— helped to bring them ultimately into a brand-new secondary life within dissimilar social, class and taste coordinates.60 58 “Zabydlený interiér,” no. 3. 59 This inspiring concept of living culture benefiting creatively from the “available” artefacts resonated with the many representatives of cultural intelligentsia, as well as, for example, with the Czech photographer and collector Alexandr Skalický (b. 1932) and his outlook on life. For many such young intellectuals behind the Iron Curtain, the private living space represented the essential and only sphere of free self-realisation, a form of “escape” from the ever-present ideological pressure. See Rusinko, “Alexandr Skalický’s.” 60 The research for this article was conducted in the scope of the project Mobilita uměleckých artefaktů na Moravě po roce 1945: Etnický, kulturní a sociální transfer (Mobility of art artifacts in Moravia after 1945: Ethnic, cultural and social transfer) funded by Masaryk University Brno (MUNI/FF-DEAN/1579/2022). 196 MARCELA RUSINKO Bibliography Arburg, Adrian von, and Tomáš Staněk, eds. Vysídlení Němců a proměny českého pohraničí 1945–1951. Vol. 1, Dokumenty z českých archivů. Středokluky: Zdeněk Susa, 2010. Arburg, Adrian von, and Tomáš Staněk, eds. Vysídlení Němců a proměny českého pohraničí 1945–1951. Vol. 2, Dokumenty z českých archivů. Středokluky: Zdeněk Susa, 2011. Boncz, Hajnalka. “Több mint másolat? Waldstein János egykori várpalotai kastélyának mennyezetképe.” Ars hungarica 43, no. 3 (2017): 355–68. Curp, T. David. A Clean Sweep? The Politics of Ethnic Cleansing in Western Poland, 1945–1960. Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2006. Fiala, Miloš, František Vláčil, and Vladimír Körner. “Adelheid.” Film a doba 15, no. 12 (1969): 642–45. Francini, Esther Tisa. “Jüdische Kunsthändler im Nationalsozialismus: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen.” In Alfred Flechtheim: Raubkunst und Restitution, edited by Andrea Bambi and Alex Drecoll, 159–67. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2015. Frommer, Benjamin. National cleansing: Retribution against Nazi collaborators in post war Czechoslovakia. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Gajdošík, Petr. František Vláčil: Život a dílo. Příbram: Camera Obscura, 2018. Golenia Patrick, Kristina Kratz-Kessemeier, and Isabelle le Masne de Chermont. Paul Graupe (1881–1953): Ein Berliner Kunsthändler zwischen Republik, Nationalsozialismus und Exil. Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 2016. Hames, Peter. The Czechoslovak New Wave. New York: Wallflower Press, 2005. Hazdra, Zdeněk, Václav Horčička, and Jan Županič, eds. Šlechta střední Evropy v konfrontaci s totalitními režimy 20. století / Der Adel Mitteleuropas in Konfrontation mit den totalitären Regimen des 20. Jahrhunderts. Praha: ÚSTR, 2011. Hlaváčková, Terezie. “Osamělost, odsun Němců a křesťanská symbolika: Adelheid a její literární Předloha.” Filmový přehled. Accessed April 7, 2021, https://www.filmovyprehled.cz/cs/revue/ detail/osamelost-odsunnemcu-a-krestanska-symbolika-adelheid-a-jeji-literarni-predloha. Hopp, Meike. Kunsthandel im Nationalsozialismus: Adolf Weinmüller in München und Wien. Köln: Böhlau Verlag, 2012. Horová, Anděla. “Hartmannová Ludmila.” In Slovník historiků umění, výtvarných kritiků, teoretiků a publicistů v českých zemích a jejich spolupracovníků z příbuzných oborů (asi 1800–2008), 385–86. Praha: Academia, 2016. Horová, Anděla, and Lubomír Slavíček. “Hartmann Antonín.” In Slovník historiků umění, výtvarných kritiků, teoretiků a publicistů v českých zemích a jejich spolupracovníků z příbuzných oborů (asi 1800–2008), 383–84. Praha: Academia, 2016. Hrabovec, Emilia. Vertreibung und Abschub: Deutsche in Mähren 1945–1947. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 1996. Janás, Robert. “Brněnské malířství od založení Klubu přátel umění do vzniku Československa (1900–1918).” Brno v minulosti a dnes 25, no. 1 (2012): 257–83. Jelínková Homolová, Dita. Šlechta v proměnách: Osudy aristokracie ov Československu v letech 1918–1948. Praha: NLN, 2017. Jindra, Jaroslav. “Starožitnosti ve čtvrtém poschodí: Od čínského porcelánu k ložnici Ludvíka XVI.” Práce 6 (January 29, 1950): 3. Kaplan, Karel. Proměny české společnosti 1948–1960: Část první. Brno: Ústav pro soudobé dějiny AV ČR, 2007. Kaplan, Karel, and Pavel Kosatík. Gottwaldovi muži. Praha: Paseka, 2004. 197 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... Kořínková, Jana. Adolf Loos a konfiskované vzpomínky rodiny Viktora rytíře von Bauera-Rohrfelden. Brno: VUT, 2018. Körner, Vladimír. Adelheid. Praha: Československý spisovatel, 1967. Kuklík, Jan. Znárodněné Československo: Od znárodnění k privatizaci – státní zásahy do vlastnických práv v Československu a jinde v Evropě. Praha: Auditorium, 2010. Mašek, Petr. Šlechtické rody v Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezsku od Bílé hory do současnosti. Vol. 1, A–M. Praha: Argo, 2008. Mašek, Petr. Šlechtické rody v Čechách, na Moravě a ve Slezsku od Bílé hory do současnosti. Vol. 2, N–Ž. Praha: Argo, 2010. Matroszová, Veronika. Rod Larisch-Mönnichů na Karvinsku. Karviná: State Provincial Archive, 1999. Mlynárik, Ján. Vortgesetzte Vertreibung: Vorgänge im tschechischen Grenzgebiet 1945–1953. München: F. A. Herbig Verlagsbuchhandlung, 2003. Mráz, Bohumír. Mikuláš Medek. Prague: OBELISK, 1970. Naimark, Norman M. Fires of Hatred: Ethnic cleansing in twentieth-century Europe. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002. Pech, Milan. “Diskuse o kýči v letech 1938–1948.” Umění 57, no. 3 (2009): 261–72. Pech, Milan. “Umění a kýč.” In Konec avantgardy? Od mnichovské dohody ke komunistickému převratu, edited by Hana Rousová, 317–30. Řevnice: Arbor vitae, 2011. “Proti zabydlenému interiéru.” Domov: Časopis pro kulturu a techniku v domácnosti, no. 2 (1963): 4–6. Průcha, Václav, ed. Hospodářské a sociální dějiny Československa 1918–1992. Brno: Doplněk, 2004. Rusinko, Marcela. Snad nesbíráte obrazy? Cesty soukromého sběratelství moderního umění v Českých zemích v letech 1948–1965. Brno: Books & Pipes, 2018. Rusinko, Marcela. “Dražby mobiliářů z konfiskovaných moravskoslezských zámků: Výstavní a aukční síň Karel Ditrich Brno v letech 1948–1950.” Opuscula historiae artium 68, no. 1 (2019): 40–55. Rusinko, Marcela. “Perské koberce, porcelán, hodiny, nábytek, militaria i exotika: K problematice toků mobiliářů z konfiskovaných moravskoslezských zámků ve výstavní a aukční síni Karel Ditrich Brno 1948–1950.” In Osudy konfiskátů: Výzkum provenience a problematika přesunů kulturního majetku v Československu na základě prezidentských dekretů, edited by Martin Bakeš, Jitka Císařová, and Kristina Uhlíková, 106–31. Praha: Artefactum, 2020. Rusinko, Marcela. “In the ‘Public Interest’? Dispossessing Art Collections in Communist Czechoslovakia Between 1948 and 1965.” Acta historiae artis Slovenica 25, no. 1 (2020): 233–52. Rusinko, Marcela. “Alexandr Skalický’s ‘Homey Interior’ through the Lens of Collecting Behind the Iron Curtain.” In Útěcha bydlením: Život soukromého sběratele za železnou oponou / Consolation by living: The life of a private collector behind the Iron Curtain, edited by Jiří Pátek, 18–67. Praha: PositiF, 2022. Slavíček, Lubomír. “Cesta do hlubin sběratelovy duše – Sbírka moderního umění ostravského sběratele Vladimíra Kouřila ve světle jeho dopisů.” Opuscula historiae artium 62, no. 1 (2013), 44–67. Slavíček, Lubomír. “‘Chuť kupovat živé umění’ – Z korespondence brněnského sběratele moderního umění Františka Dvořáčka.” Opuscula historiae artium 61, no. 1 (2012), 57–75. Slavíček, Lubomír. “Dopis sběratele Karla Ditricha malíři Antonínu Procházkovi.” Opuscula historiae artium 68, no. 1 (2019): 94–102. Slavíček, Lubomír. “František Venera.” In Slovník historiků umění, výtvarných kritiků, teoretiků a publicistů v českých zemích a jejich spolupracovníků z příbuzných oborů (asi 1800–2008), 1601–02. Praha: Academia, 2016. Staněk, Tomáš. Odsun Němců z Československa 1945–1947. Praha: Academia, 1991. 198 MARCELA RUSINKO Šrajer, Martin. “Príliš viditelné švíky, dobová recepcia filmu Adeheid.” Filmový přehled. Accessed January 29, 2016, https://www.filmovyprehled.cz/cs/revue/detail/prilis-viditelne-sviky-dobova- recepce-filmu-adelheid. Tomášek, Petr, ed. Moravská zemská obrazárna (1817–1961). Brno: Moravská galerie, 2022. Uhlíková, Kristina, ed. Konfiskované osudy: Umělecké památky z německého majetku získaného československým státem a jejich severočeští majitelé / Konfiszierte Schicksale: Kunstdenkmäler aus deutschem Besitz, erworben durch den tschechoslowakischen Staat, und ihre nordböhmischen Besitzer. Praha: Artefactum, 2019. Uhlíková, Kristina. Národní kulturní komise 1947–1951. Praha: Artefactum, 2004. Uhlíková, Kristina, ed. Šlechtická sídla ve stínu prezidentských dekretů. Praha: Artefactum, 2017. Uhlíková, Kristina. “Zestátněné památky v Československu, metody jejich zabezpečení a koncepce jejich využití.” In Co bylo Československo? Kulturní konstrukce státní identity, edited by Milena Bartlová, 217–29. Praha: Vysoká škola uměleckoprůmyslová, 2017. Venera, František. “Nové formy výstavnictví,” Blok 3, no. 3 (1948–1949): 48. Venera, František. Umění a kýč. Brno: House of Arts, 1948. Vogelová, Pavlína. “Letting the Demons Speak: The Atmosphere of Adelheid.” In Czech Cinema Revisited: Politics, Aesthetics, Genres and techniques, edited by Lucie Česálková, 393–405. Praha: National Film Archive, 2017. “Zabydlený interiér.” Domov: Časopis pro kulturu a techniku v domácnosti, no. 2 (1962): 16–18. “Zabydlený interiér.” Domov: Časopis pro kulturu a techniku v domácnosti, no. 3 (1963): 6–8. 199 “KEEP THAT GERMAN KITSCH AWAY FROM THE CZECH HANDS!” ETHNIC CLEANSING IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL CULTURE... »Spravite ta nemški kič stran od čeških rok!« Etnično čiščenje v luči materialne kulture. Stanovanjska oprema izseljenega moravskega in šlezijskega plemstva na dražbenem trgu v Brnu po letu 1945 Povzetek Pomembno družbeno prestrukturiranje in radikalno etnično čiščenje na obmejnih območjih na Češkoslovaškem po drugi svetovni vojni je bilo mogoče temeljno osvetliti med drugim tudi na podlagi raziskave trga sodobne umetnosti. Množično podržavljenje zasebne lastnine in prenosi opreme iz nekdanjih nemških in madžarskih plemiških rezidenc so na eni strani povzročili velik val mrzličnih dražbenih razprodaj, ki so jih organizirali državni organi v središčih v notranjosti države, na drugi strani pa se je močno povečal uradni in neuradni izvoz starin. Čeprav podrobnejši viri o teh prodajah običajno niso ohranjeni oziroma dostopni, nam izjemno dobro ohranjeno arhivsko gradivo razstavne in dražbene hiše Karla Ditricha v Brnu omogoča rekonstrukcijo teh procesov na celotnem moravskem in šlezijskem ozemlju. Kartoteka ne omogoča le raziskave o premičnem premoženju posameznih plemiških družin, ki je bilo odneseno iz rezidenc in prodano, ampak služi tudi kot podlaga za raziskave o provenienci, ki jih je mogoče izvesti npr. za predmete, ki so bili pozneje dodeljeni državnim muzejem. Mnoge pomembne povojne muzejske pridobitve so še vedno v muzejih, vendar se obravnavajo kot anonimne, brez individualnega zgodovinskega spomina. Dokumentacija, povezana z množičnimi dražbami premoženja, ki je bilo zaplenjeno predvsem nekdanjemu nemškemu plemstvu, razkriva tudi obdobje etničnih in socialnih sporov na trgu, ki so eksplicitno nastali med prodajalci zaplenjenega blaga in predstavniki sodobne češke umetnosti. Ta večnivojski, nacionalno in očitno tudi ekonomsko utemeljeni konflikt je povezan z bistvenimi razlikami med življenjskim slogom in okusom izgnanih nemških plemiških elit ter vzporedno grajeno sodobno umetnostno identiteto in pričakovanji češkega srednjega razreda kot potencialnega uporabnika in kupca. Z določeno svobodo bi lahko manifestacije takšne zamere interpretirali kot zadnje poglavje ambivalentnih zgodovinskih procesov, povezanih s slabljenjem plemiškega elementa v dobi modernizma. 201 Old Edifices, New Uses Three Residential Buildings of a Romanian Aristocratic Family and Their Destiny after 1930 Silvia Marin Barutcieff Associate Prof. Silvia Marin Barutcieff, PhD, University of Bucharest, Faculty of Letters, Department of Communication Studies, Edgar Quinet 5–7, Bucharest, silvia.barutcieff@litere.unibuc.ro, ORCID ID: 0009-0008-7752-5274 Abstract: Old Edifices, New Uses: Three Residential Buildings of a Romanian Aristocratic Family and Their Destiny after 1930 1. 01 Original scientific article The paper examines how three residential buildings, edified in Romania in medieval and early modern times by the members of the Golescu family, were repurposed during the 20th and 21st centuries, that is, before, during and after the Romanian communist period. It considers the social and political circumstances in which the analysed examples of the Golescu residential buildings have changed owners, appearance and function during the last 80 years. Keywords: Wallachia, Romania, Golescu family, residential buildings, family heritage, modern practices, musealisa- tion of aristocratic heritage, donations Izvleček: Stare zgradbe, nove rabe. Tri rezidenčne stavbe romunske plemiške družine in njihova usoda po letu 1930 1.01 Izvirni znanstveni članek V članku je prikazano, kako so tri stanovanjske stavbe, ki so jih v srednjem in zgodnjem novem veku v Romuniji zgradili člani družine Golescu, spreminjale namembnost in bile ponovno uporabljene v 20. in 21. stoletju, in sicer v obdobju komunizma ter pred in po njem. Pri tem so upoštevane družbene in politične okoliščine, v katerih so anali- zirani primeri arhitekture v zadnjih osmih desetletjih menjali lastnike ter spreminjali videz in funkcijo. Ključne besede: Vlaška, Romunija, rodbina Golescu, rezidence, rodbinska dediščina, sodobne prakse, muzealizacija plemiške dediščine, donacije DOI: https://doi.org/10.3986/ahas.28.2.09 ACTA HISTORIAE ARTIS SLOVENICA 28|2 ∙ 2023, 201–216 202 SILVIA MARIN BARUTCIEFF From Medieval to Modern: The Romanian Principalities and Romania In 17th-century south-eastern Europe, the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia were remark- ably artistically and culturally active. Although they had to send tribute to the Ottoman Empire in exchange for autonomy in appointing their own rulers, under Matei Basarab (1632–1654) and Vasile Lupu (1634–1653), the Danubian Principalities enjoyed a period of political stability, unpar- alleled during the previous two centuries.1 This situation significantly impacted civil and ecclesias- tical architecture, as proven by the edifices commissioned by the elite throughout the 17th century. Towards the end of the century, Wallachia was governed by another prominent political personal- ity, Constantin Brâncoveanu (1688–1714). The Brancovan style, which spread through Wallachia after 1700, was the artistic expression of the cultural program pioneered by the prince at the end of 17th century. During the reigns of Matei Basarab and Constantin Brâncoveanu, a great number of princely and aristocratic residences, as well as churches and monasteries, were erected on these two Ro- manian territories. Local artists or others arriving from various regions of the former Byzantine Empire, during the exodus triggered by the fall of Constantinople,2 were employed to work on their construction. Furthermore, in addition to the new projects of religious and secular architecture, both princes financed the rehabilitation of edifices erected by their political forerunners, thus es- tablishing the first practices of intervention on historical buildings in the area under study.3 During the 19th century, this territory saw two revolutions: the 1821 uprising against the Ottomans and the Phanar regime, and the 1848 revolution, concurrent with the events sweeping across Europe in the same year.4 The latter paved the way for the first union of the Principalities in 1859 and, subsequently, the emergence of another political entity, The United Principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, still dependent on the Ottoman Porte, but enjoying greater autonomy than the two separate principalities in previous times. Sovereignty was not acquired until 1878, following the Independence War (1877–1878) waged under King Carol I, a descendant of the Catholic branch of the Hohenzollern family (Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen).5 Under his reign, the United Principalities, which in 1881 became the Kingdom of Romania,6 underwent a sustained modernization process in which the elites played a significant role. 1 Wasiucionek, Borders, 120. 2 Extensive scientific literature is dedicated to the issue of the artists’ peregrination through the Balkans and the adjacent areas after the fall of Constantinople. See Gouma Peterson, “The Survival;” Chatzidakis, Études, 177–97; Garidis, La peinture murale; Drakopoulou, “Peintres de l’espace;” Lymberopoulou, Cross-Cultural Interaction. This artistic mobility also occurred in Wallachia and Moldavia, thus an important number of painters and other artists found professional opportunities at the courts of Romanian elites in the 16th–18th centuries. For example, a Greek painter is mentioned in an inscription from the main church of Topolnița Monastery (1673). The best-known case is of Constantinos who was employed by the Cantacuzenus and Brancovan family after 1680. Constantinos was the leader of the artists working at Hurezi Monastery, a group of painters that contributed to the birth and difusion of the Brancovan style across Wallachia and the neighbouring territories. 3 Moldovan, Johann Schlatter, 114. 4 Hitchins, Ionel Brătianu, 4–5. 5 Hitchins, Ionel Brătianu, 6. 6 Hitchins, Ionel Brătianu, 8. 203 OLD EDIFICES, NEW USES: THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF A ROMANIAN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILY AND THEIR DESTINY AFTER 1930 The Golescu Family: A Brief History The social elite to which the Golescu family belonged are the focus of the present study. My aim is to investigate the pre-war and post-war situation of three pieces of civil architecture—edifices com- missioned by several generations of the Golescu family. These residences were built in the 17th, 19th and early 20th century, respectively, enjoying a variety of users and owners throughout the years. Golescu was one of the great boyar families of Wallachia, descendants of Baldovin, who died during the reign of Radu of Afumați (1522–1529). For more than three centuries, Golescu men held high administrative and political positions. Gheorghe/Iordache Golescu (1776–1848), a politi- cian and erudite scholar, contributed considerably to the cultural sphere at the beginning of the modern era.7 His innovative, reforming ideas were reflected in his concern with identifying and preserving Romanian cultural traditions and in his endeavours to provide his contemporaries with educational tools. His younger brother, Constantin/Dinicu (1777–1830), documented his journeys abroad in the first travel diary to be published in the Romanian Principalities (1826), under the pen name “Constantin Radovici of Golești”.8 Alongside another Romanian intellectual, Ion Heliade Rădulescu, Dinicu founded The Literary Society (Societatea literară),9 an institution intended to 7 Iordache, Goleștii, 18–19. 8 Golescu, Însemnare. For the importance of this piece of travel writing in Romanian literature and culture, see Anghelescu, Literatura română, 180–185; Drace-Francis, “Dinicu Golescu’s;” Vornicu, Statui de hârtie, 47–53. 9 Turda, “Dinicu Golescu,” 104. 1. Ștefănești, the former residence of Golescu family, nowadays part of Golești Museum (photo: © Silvia Marin Barutcieff) 204 encourage Romanian-language schooling in an environment traditionally providing education in Greek. He sent his sons to study in the West, a decision that shaped not only their instruction but also their future career as politicians. In France, Germany and Switzerland,10 Ștefan, Nicolae, Radu and Alexandru C. Albu, known as the Golescu brothers, together with their cousin Alexandru G. Golescu (Negru),11 were educated in the spirit of contemporary European ideals. The family milieu, so favourable to intellectual development, as well as their training abroad,12 prepared them for their leading roles in the major events of their country’s history: the Revolution of 1848,13 the international treaties forging the Union,14 membership in the regency prior to the enthronement of Carol of Hohenzollern,15 accommodating the king on his arrival in the country in 1866,16 and championing Romanian liberalism.17 Three Residences of Golescu Family as Part of Romanian Cultural Patrimony The former main residence of the Golescu family stands in today’s town of Ștefănești, Argeș county, 117 km from Bucharest (fig. 1). In the 19th century this estate, adjoining another aristocratic resi- dence—that of the Florica estate, belonging to another influential Romanian family (Brătianu),18 was surrounded by willows and covered in ivy and grapevine.19 The historiography of architecture as- certained that, along with other buildings elevated during the time (Filipeștii de Pădure, Glogova, Herești), this residential complex pertains to the civil edifices that foreshadowed the Brancovan style.20 Golescu manor was built in 1640 during the reign of Matei Basarab, by the great treasurer Stroe Leurdeanu and his wife, Vișa of Golești, as shown by the inscriptions carved into the stone 10 Iordache, Goleștii, 40–45; Anghelescu, “Dinicu Golescu,” XXVIII; Jianu, A Circle of Friends, 32, 117. 11 Alexandru G. Golescu (Negru or Arăpilă) was the son of Gheorghe (Iordache) Golescu. For his biography, diplo- matic and political activity, see Iordache, Alexandru G. Golescu; Stanomir, Așteptând revoluția, 178. 12 Fotino, Din vremea, 10; Iordache, Revoluționarii Golești, 11–13. 13 Iordache, Revoluționarii Golești, 49–98. Nicolae Golescu was one of the members of the provisional government of Wallachia in 1848. See Hitchins, Rumania, 11. 14 In a meeting held in Constantinople in August 1856, Ștefan Golescu explained to Eyre Evans Crows and his son the reasons that France and Great Britain should assist Wallachia and Moldavia in their aspiration for a union. In order to best make the case of the Romanian cause to the public in Britain, the two journalists published a few articles in the English newspapers of the time. See Jianu, A Circle of Friends, 324. 15 Nicolae Golescu was one of the members of the princely lieutenancy (locotenența domnească) who secured the political transition from the reign of Alexandru Ioan Cuza, the first prince of the United Principalities, to the reign of Carol I of Romania between 11 February and 10 May 1866. See Iordache, Revoluționarii Golești, 326; Hitchins, Rumania, 11; Stanomir, Așteptând revoluția, 182. 16 During his travels from Düsseldorf to Bucharest in 1866, Carol of Hohenzollern, the new prince of the United Principalities, spent one night at the Golești residence. This prominent event for the Golescu’s family is underlined by the existence in the mansion of so-called Room of the King. The visit of the prince is also mentioned in the memoirs of Cantacuzino, Din viața familiei, 63. 17 Turda, “Dinicu Golescu,” 105. 18 Nowadays the Brătianu residence is a public museum (National Museum Brătianu – Villa Florica) in the town of Ștefănești, Argeș county. Ștefănești includes also the village of Golești. 19 Cantacuzino, Din viața familiei, 63. Ion C. Brătianu was a close friend of Golescu brothers, their companion in the events of 1848 Revolution, and together with them a promoter of liberal policies. Cantacuzino, Din viața familiei, 55–69. 20 Moisescu, Arhitectura, 1: 41. SILVIA MARIN BARUTCIEFF 205 OLD EDIFICES, NEW USES: THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF A ROMANIAN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILY AND THEIR DESTINY AFTER 1930 doorframes.21 Damaged by the arson caused by Tartars in 1716, it underwent major repair work and alterations at the end of the same century, thanks to the great ban Radu Goles- cu.22 As revealed by the archaeological excava- tions conducted in the 20th century, the base- ment comprised two halls covering 247 m2 (24 x 11.4 m). For the first time, at Golești manor, Wallachian architecture employed the voûte d’arête, a cross vault created by the intersec- tion of two barrel vaults, a technique used later also for other nobiliar residences, for example, at Filipeștii de Pădure.23 Further architectural innovations included the loggia on the north- eastern side of the building, the porch set above the basement’s entrance, and the vegetal reliefs of window frames (fig. 2).24 This residence is mentioned in the memoirs of Paul of Aleppo, archdeacon and son of the Patriarch of Antioch Macarius, who visited the estate on 12 January 1657. He remarked on the majestic aspect of the manor and the many existing baths.25 Today, a single room of the medieval structure is still extant—the old workroom used by the forty-eighter Golescu brothers.26 On the same estate, in 1646, the couple Vișa and Stroe Leurdeanu founded a church dedicated to the Holy Trinity (figs. 4–5), where an important stonemason of the time, Stoica, is known to have worked.27 He was the same artist who had been in charge a few years earlier of the embellishment of the manor’s win- dows. The residential estate, protected by a wall reinforced with four defence towers, also included the school established by Radu Golescu, re-opened in 1826 by Dinicu,28 as well as the infirmary where the ailing villagers received medical care, the pavilion where Tudor Vladimirescu, the leader of the 1821 Revolution, took shelter before his arrest,29 and a large park with fir trees, a pond, bushes 21 Moisescu, Arhitectura, 1: 43. 22 During the mentioned period the function of the ban designated a military governor. Stoicescu, Bibliografia, 1: 343. On Vișa of Golești, Stroe Leurdeanu and their great-grandson Radu Golescu, see also Lecca, Familiile boie- rești, 255–57. 23 Moisescu, Arhitectura, 1: 43. 24 Moisescu, Arhitectura, 1: 43. 25 Alep, Jurnal, 323–324. 26 Information available in the main exhibition of the Golești Museum. 27 Golescu, “Simbolica animală,” 600; Golescu, “Motive de animale,” 36; Moisescu, Arhitectura, 1: 43; Moisescu, Arhitectura, 2: 18. The artist’s name, Stoica, was inscribed on a window frame of the edifice. 28 Stoicescu, Bibliografia, 1: 343. 29 Cantacuzino, Din viața familiei, 63; Neagoe, Arnăuții, 91–92. For the social and political events of 1821, see Mihai, Revoluție. 2. Ștefănești, the former Golescu residence, window with stone carved frames (photo: © Silvia Marin Barutcieff) 206 and flowers.30 In the late 18th century, a Turk- ish bath was also built there (fig. 3). Of its two rooms, one for cold water cleansing, another for moist heat, only the latter has survived to this day. The 19th century interventions on Golești included the creation of a wooden ladder that connected the ground to the first floor, an ar- chitectural element with both a functional and decorative role applied also at Buftea mansion, owned by the Știrbey family (1864).31 On 7 June 1939, the century-old residence of the Golescu family became a state-owned public institution: “Dinicu Golescu” Museum, by the decree of King Carol II (no. 296/7 June 1939), which expropriated the mansion and the estate of Golescu and set up a museum.32 As direct descendants of the Golescu broth- ers no longer existed, in early 20th century the estate had fallen into decay, as photos taken at the time attest.33 This pitiful situation was de- scribed in the memoirs of Sabina Cantacuzino, daughter of Ion C. Brătianu and friend of the Golescu family.34 The decree issued by Carol II in 1939 transferred the estate into public patri- mony, by turning it into a museum, as a means of preserving and perpetuating the memory of one the great families who founded modern Roma- nia.35 After the restoration conducted in 1942–1943, an exhibition was opened to display artworks and items in the family collection, as well as pieces of antique furniture.36 In 1966, under the com- munist regime, a museum of viticulture and tree growing, with an open-air exhibition, was added to this pre-war institution.37 Today’s museum includes a section dedicated to the Golescu mansion, another centred on the family’s history, an exhibition on the school established in 1826 and an eth- nographic one (presenting items of folk art from Argeș and other regions). There is also the Turkish 30 Cantacuzino, Din viața familiei, 63. 31 For the description of this residence, see Ion, Elitele și arhitectura, 91–119. 32 See the document concerning the management of Golești Museum, “Caiet de obiective,” accessed April 30, 2022, https://www.cjarges.ro/documents/10865/952606/caiet+obiective+Muzeul+Golesti.pdf/c2062b52-fbc2-44ff- -ab12-27802307dd3f. 33 A number of photos from the main exhibition shows the advanced state of degradation diagnosed in the 1930s. 34 Cantacuzino, Din viața familiei, 64, 101. 35 The Golești Courtyard is registered on the Romanian cultural heritage list as AG-II-a-A-13697. 36 Stoicescu, Bibliografia, 1: 343. 37 From 1966 the name of the museum has been Golești Viticulture and Tree Growing Museum (Muzeul Viticulturii și Pomiculturii Golești). The open-air exhibition consists of 36 households from various ethnographical areas, surrounded by fruit trees and vines, harvested and processed by traditional methods. A catalogue with the de- scription of the exhibition was published in the following year. See Ansamblul feudal. SILVIA MARIN BARUTCIEFF 3. Ștefănești, the former Golescu residence, Turkish bath (photo: © Silvia Marin Barutcieff) 207 OLD EDIFICES, NEW USES: THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF A ROMANIAN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILY AND THEIR DESTINY AFTER 1930 4. Ștefănești, Golești Church (photo: © Silvia Marin Barutcieff) 5. Ștefănești, Golești Church, detail with the entrance (photo: © Silvia Marin Barutcieff) 208 SILVIA MARIN BARUTCIEFF bath, the gazebo for surveillance purposes, and a section for temporary exhibitions. After the de- mise of the communist regime in December 1989, the museum opened children’s workshops where they can learn arts and crafts and enjoy leisure activities (horseriding, old games revived). The old family residence has now opened a number of rooms to visitors: the workroom of the Golescu brothers, the room of Dinicu’s wife, Zinca Golescu,38 and that of their niece, Anica,39 an Oriental room and another known as the King’s Room, a result of the friendship between King Carol I and the respective family. During the 19th and 20th century, a space designed in Oriental style with fur- niture and other artefacts was a constant feature across the elite’s Romanian residences (like in the mansion of Brătianu family in Florica,40 the castle of Filipescu-Kretzulescu family from Drajna or, later, in the manor in Micești).41 One reason for this aesthetic option lies in the historical context: as mentioned previously, Wallachia was under Ottoman rule until 1877. The second reason is the synchronization between Romanian and Western cultures, with many European interiors incor- porating the so-called Turkish room at the dawn of the 19th century.42 This branch of the Golescu family died out in 1906,43 while the one descending from Iordache Golescu continued through the descendants of his younger son, Alexandru G. Golescu (Negru). A graduate of the Ecole Polytechnique of Paris, he was alongside his cousins among the 1848 revo- lutionaries, and, after 1866, held various ministerial positions in several Romanian government cabinets. Vasile Golescu (1875–1920), one of the ten children resulting from the marriage of Alexandru G. Golescu and Ecaterina Vlădoianu,44 is remembered at his estate in Câmpulung. The estate came into being in the early 20th century (1909) with the construction of his family’s summer house, a one-storey mansion (figs. 6–7). This grandson of Iordache Golescu, alumnus of École des Eaux et Forêts de Nancy, created a terraced park, where rare species of trees and bushes were brought from abroad and planted around the mansion.45 The mansion was built after the sketches drawn by its owner,46 under the supervision of archi- tect Constantin N. Simionescu.47 Its neo-Romanian style is characteristic of 20th-century architec- ture, south of the Carpathians: it combines Art Nouveau elements and local motifs borrowed from the tradition of the previous centuries. The features of this type of artistic modernity—porticos, stone columns, round arches or trilobate arches in shape of braces, wooden pillars, inspired by 38 Zoe/Zinca Golescu (born Farfara, 1792–1879) was the wife of Dinicu Golescu and the mother of Golescu broth- ers. She passionately supported the ideals of the Revolution of 1848 in Wallachia and her sons’ efforts in accom- plishing this political and social project. Fotino, Din vremea, 4–7; Constantinescu, “Zinca Golescu,” 159–160. 39 Anica Davila married a physician of Italian origin, Carol Davila. He was the organizer of the medical service in the United Principalities. After his medical studies in Paris, he came in Wallachia in 1853, at the request of prince Barbu Știrbei. In 1856 he founded The Surgery School, later known as National School of Medicine and Pharma- cy. See Cantacuzino, Din viața familiei, 66. 40 The residence from Florica was erected in 1858 and modified in 1889. See Ion, Elitele și arhitectura, 154. 41 See the manor of Istrate Micescu of Micești, in Ion, Castele, palate, 219, 330. 42 Roth, “Oriental Carpet,” 25–26. 43 The last survivor of this family branch, Felicia Racoviță, the niece of the Golescu brothers (daughter of their sister, Anica) died on December 25, 1906. See Iordache, Goleștii, 413. 44 Information included in the diagram of the family genealogy at the entrance of Golești manor. 45 See “Pro Patrimonio Foundation,” accessed January 23, 2023, https://www.propatrimonio.org/home/golescu-2/. 46 Oprescu, “Relația personalitate,” 180. 47 Oprescu, “Relația personalitate,” 180. 209 the Romanian peasant houses and Brancovan churches of 17th and 18th centuries and promoted by well-known architects such as Ion Mincu, Petru Antonescu, Nicolae Ghica-Budești, were widely employed in the artistic discourse of the Câmpulung villa. With some disruptions during the communist regime, the property remained in the family until 2002. In that year the mansion as well as the dendrological park were donated by Irina Maria Golescu, one of Vasile Golescu’s twin daughters, to the Pro Patrimonio Foundation, whose main objective is “safeguarding the natural and architectural patrimony”.48 Between 2003 and 2007, restoration work was conducted under the supervision of Caroline d’Assay, president of Pro Patrimonio, France. This project undertook to offer not only the memorial house of a family 48 Pro Patrimonio was founded in 2000 as an international non-profit and non-governmental organization with branches in Great Britain, France and Romania. OLD EDIFICES, NEW USES: THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF A ROMANIAN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILY AND THEIR DESTINY AFTER 1930 6. Câmpulung Muscel, Golescu Villa (photo: © Silvia Marin Barutcieff) 7. Câmpulung Muscel, Golescu Villa and its terraced park (photo: © Silvia Marin Barutcieff) 210 that had played an important role in the history of modern Romania, but a living space as well, which could be simultaneously used and protected by the lovers of nature and beauty. Thus, the Câmpulung Golescu mansion follows the paradigm of inhabited patrimony, also put forth by this foundation in regard to other edifices. The house has a large lobby, a dining room, living room, kitchen, five bedrooms and three bathrooms; furnishings combine Art Nouveau design and elements specific to the tradition of the Argeș region.49 The rooms can be rented by tourists when other cultural projects are not underway. During certain periods of the year, the house is employed for “creative residence” projects which provide writers, musicians, artists, the opportunity to work in a stimulating context.50 Like Golești Museum, it regularly hosts workshops (education on patrimony, photography, arts, crafts), cooking contests, open-air evenings, motion pictures, etc. The third edifice under discussion stands in Bucharest: it is the former Golescu-Grant resi- dence, also known as Belvedere Palace or the Tower House (fig. 8). This building was erected in 1814 by Dinicu Golescu, on the outskirts of the town. On this vast estate, he also intended to build a girls’ school, corresponding to the boys’ school from Golești, but his death in 1830 delayed the pro- ject for a substantial period.51 In 1850, the year of her marriage to Effingham Grant,52 Zoe Racoviță (1827–1892), Dinicu’s granddaughter, became the owner of the Belvedere estate.53 From the mo- ment of his arrival in Wallachia in 1838 until 1860, Effingham Grant (1820-1892) was secretary of the Consul General of Great Britain.54 Having ended his diplomatic career, the Scottish friend of the forty-eighter brothers55 became a businessman and set up the first foundry in Bucharest56 and the first tobacco processing plant in Romania. With his sister, Marie Grant (Maria Rosetti),57 Effingham Grant inaugurated the tradition of Romanian families of British origin.58 Between 1865 49 “Honest Goods,” accessed May 1, 2022, https://www.propatrimonio.org/honest-goods/. 50 “Proiecte – Observatorul de peisaj Golescu – Accelerator de rezidențe creative,” accessed May 1, 2022, https:// www.propatrimonio.org/accelerator-de-rezidente-creative/. 51 Anghelescu, “Dinicu Golescu,” XXIII. 52 Fotino, Din vremea, 142; Jianu, “Maria Rosetti,” 224. The wedding of Zoe Racoviță with Effingham Grant took place within Golești manor, see Constantinescu, “Zinca Golescu,” 165. 53 Anghel, A Historical Journey. 54 Jianu, “Maria Rosetti,” 224. 55 Anghel, A Historical Journey. Effingham Grant (1820–1892) was a very good friend of the Golescu revolution- aries. While Nicolae Golescu took refuge in the British Consulate in 1848, Grant facilitated sending his letters to other revolutionaries. During the exile of Ștefan and Nicolae Golescu to Paris, he also maintained a sustained letter exchange with them, providing updates on the political events occuring in the country. It was also Grant who informed them that they could return to Wallachia in 1857, as soon as the sanctions against the forty-eighters were lifted. See Iordache, Goleștii, 86, 163–64, 170, 193, 205–6, 212, 218, 304. 56 In 1872, Effingham Grant sold the factory. In a letter addressed to his wife on 27 June, his brother in law, C. A. Rosetti, mentioned the selling of the foundry and the possibility of a stable life in France for the Grant family, due to this financial settlement. See C. A. Rosetti către, 78. 57 Maria Rosetti (Marie Grant) was born in 1819 in Guernsey. She arrived in Wallachia in 1838 and was employed by Colonel Ion Odobescu as governess for his children. In 1847, she married the writer and revolutionary Constantin A. Rosetti, member of the Wallachian branch of the Rosetti family. Maria Rosetti was the first Romanian female journalist and the founder of a hospital in Turnu Măgurele during the Independence War, in 1877. The painter Constantin D. Rosenthal, friend of the family, used her as a model for his oil painting Revolutionary Romania (Paris, 1850). See Lecca, Familiile boierești, 419; Ioniță, “Din contribuția,” 422; Drace-Francis, The Tradition of Invention, 130; Jianu, “Maria Rosetti,” 224. For portrait of Maria Rosetti made by her husband, see Bacalbașa, Bucureștii de altădată, 21–22. See also Cantacuzino, Din viața familiei, 49–53. 58 The most known children of Zoe and Effingham Grant were the engineer Robert Effingham Grant (1853–1926), the author of the Grant Bridge from Bucharest, and the painter Nicolae Grant (1868–1950). SILVIA MARIN BARUTCIEFF 211 and 1870, the Grant family modified the Golescu estate, remodelling its garden and lake. At the end of century, the beautiful park created by Zinca Golescu59 still at- tracted the Bucharest elite, with King Carol I himself taking long walks through it.60 The building inherited by Zoe Raco- viță from her grandparents was not per- manently inhabited, as the Grants spent a number of years in France in order to offer their children a good education.61 Today’s architecture is the result of changes made around 1870 and other substantial altera- tions that occurred during the 20th and 21st centuries. The beauty of the mansion, in the Belle Epoque period, was rendered in a painting authored by Nicolae, the young- est son of Effingham Grant, in 1884–1885. Entitled Belvedere Mansion in Bucharest (Conacul Belvedere din București), this painting is the first known work of this artist and is part of the collection in the Golești Museum, alongside the boyars’ portraits painted by him.62 In 1930, the former Belvedere Palace changed hands, as the last member of the Grant family donated the residence to the Romanian Education Ministery for charitable purposes.63 Lady Stanca High School was founded on the estate, an institution dedicated to female instruction finally realis- ing the plan of the first owner, Dinicu Golescu. The powerful earthquake of 1940 and the bombard- ment of 1944 also affected the Belvedere-Grant Palace. Before and after the fall of communism, the residence hosted a kindergarten,64 then the Centre for Children’s Placement (in view of adoption) of the Bucharest District.65 Regrettably, during the communist period, the impressive park, men- tioned in the accounts of many of the Romanian elite, ceased to exist.66 In 2009, as a result of the petitions submitted by citizens attentive to historical and architectural heritage67 and following a restoration process that lasted several years,68 the edifice was included in the list of historic monu- 59 Fotino, Din vremea, 7. 60 Carol I Al României, Jurnal, 370. 61 In June 1872, Effingham Grant successfully rented Belvedere Palace and its garden. See C. A. Rosetti către, 78–79. 62 Boțoghină, “Pictorul,” 328, 333. 63 Olian, Bucureștii sufletului, 54. 64 Olian, Bucureștii sufletului, 57. 65 For references regarding the new purpose of the residence, see Olian, Bucureștii sufletului, 57. The presence of Belvedere Palace within the mass-media is reflected, in Iancu, “Conacul.” 66 Carol I Al României, Jurnal, 370. An extensive description of the garden, in Olian, Bucureștii sufletului, 54–55. See also Potra, Din Bucureștii, 208–209. 67 The engineer Dan Ghelase initiated the process of including the Golescu-Grant residence in the official list of Romanian cultural heritage. See “Despre conacul Belvedere-Grant,” accessed May 2, 2022, http://a-craciunescu. blogspot.com/2010/02/despre-conacul-belvedere-grant.html. 68 “Conacul Belvedere.” OLD EDIFICES, NEW USES: THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF A ROMANIAN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILY AND THEIR DESTINY AFTER 1930 8. Bucharest, the former Belvedere Palace (photo: © A. A. Buzatu) 212 ments and was repurposed.69 Today it hosts the Centre for Recreation and Personal Development “Golescu-Grant Mansion”, as a subordinate department of the General Directorate of Social As- sistance and Child Protection, providing various cultural, artistic, scientific, technical or sports activities to children and teenagers.70 Conclusion The residences of the Golescu family illustrate a situation shared by many such edifices in the Ro- manian patrimony. The old fortifications protected the lay and ecclesiastical buildings in this area and ensured their survival. Their presence was due to the need for defensive structures, to protect them against the countless Turkish-Tartar invasions during the Middle Ages. As documented in Wallachia in this early period, fortified buildings appeared in the second half of the 14th century, with earthen and wooden bulwarks (Frătești, Basarabi, Coconi etc). They preceded the (much more durable) masonry fortifications of the 16th century.71 The “antiquity” of these buildings, as well as the damage intentionally caused during domestic and international military conflicts, or the harm done by natural disasters (earthquakes, floods, etc), posed a threat to this type of architecture and damaged it significantly. Its survival depended on a number of factors. The first one is the direct correlation between the continuity of aristocratic families and the continuity of their material patrimony. With the end of this branch of the family, once the descend- ancy of Dinicu Golescu no longer existed, it became impossible for the ensemble of buildings on their estate to be adequately preserved. Conversely, the perpetuation of successive generations of Iordache Golescu’s descendants allowed the mansion to remain (with some changes) a property of the family, even in the first part of the communist period when the political elites of Romania were expropriated, and most of their residences became properties of the state. Similar to many other aristocratic mansions, in the first part of the communist period (1948–1960), the Golescu estate of Câmpulung received “unwanted guests”, forcibly installed in the noble and bourgeois houses by the new political regime. The second factor derives from the historical context of late 19th and early 20th century. At the time, the emergence of the modern Romanian state entailed the establishment of many institutions intended for the conservation of history, cultural traditions, and collective memory. The enforce- ment of a legislation that regulated the protection of Romanian patrimony72 created a framework allowing public institutions to intervene in order to safeguard the vestiges of the past, as happened with the Golești estate in 1939. 69 The former residence of Golescu-Grant is registered on the list of Romanian historical monuments with number LMI B-IV-m-B-20955. 70 See “Centrul de Recreere.” 71 Moisescu, Arhitectura, 1: 13. 72 The broad legislative framework provided by the Constitution of 1866 was amended through the juridical initia- tives of the 1870s and 1880s, intended to protect the vestiges located on Romanian territory from natural disasters, vandalism or pillage. In 1860 the inventory of all valuables held by monasteries began, while in 1871 the first official project for the conservation of monuments was created, followed by regulations governing the functioning of the Honorary Commission for Public Monuments (1874). The last decade of the 19th century brought about a signif- icant victory in both the cultural and the juridical realms: the promulgation of two crucial laws for the protection of the patrimony (one law concerning the conservation and restoration of monuments—1892—and another, con- cerning the identification of ancient monuments and artefacts – 1893). See Opriș, Ocrotirea patrimoniului, 95–100. SILVIA MARIN BARUTCIEFF 213 The third factor concerns the practice of donations made by the political elite, a phenomenon with a long-standing tradition from the medieval era. After 1821, and especially after 1866, with the multiplication of modern practices in the Romanian society under a Western influence, the donations—previously directed mainly towards the ecclesiastical sphere—began to be increasingly diverted towards the civil sphere. Various categories of vulnerable persons (children, orphans, the destitute or the elderly) became direct beneficiaries of the social and educational projects undertaken by the elites. The recent repurposing of the former Belvedere-Grant mansion reiterated this communitarian tradition to which the Golescu boyars adhered enthusiastically in early 19th century. OLD EDIFICES, NEW USES: THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF A ROMANIAN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILY AND THEIR DESTINY AFTER 1930 214 SILVIA MARIN BARUTCIEFF Bibliography Alep, Paul de. Jurnal de călătorie în Moldova și Valahia, translated from Arabic and edited by Ioana Feodorov. Bucureşti: Editura Academiei and Brăila; Istros, 2014. Anghel, Doina. A Historical Journey through Bucharest, translated by Luminița Townson, digital edition. Bucharest: British Council Romania, 2013. Accessed May 3, 2022, https://www.istoriibritaniceinbu- curesti.ro/en/places-and-personalities_doc_15_effingham-grant-and-maria-rosetti_pg_0.htm. Anghelescu, Mircea. Literatura română modernă. Vol. 1, Premise, începuturi: 1780–1860. Bucureşti: Institutul Cultural Român, 2020. Anghelescu, Mircea. “Dinicu Golescu în vremea sa.” In Dinicu Golescu, Scrieri, edited by Mircea Anghelescu, V–LXI. Bucureşti: Minerva, 1990. Ansamblul feudal Golești. Bucureşti: Meridiane, 1967. Bacalbașa, Constantin. Bucureștii de altădată. Vol. 3, 1885–1888, edited by Tiberiu Avramescu. Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2014. Boțoghină, Cristina. “Pictorul Nicolae Grant (1868–1950), vlăstar din neamul Goleștilor.” Analele Dobrogei 2, no. 3 (2019): 327–34. C. A. Rosetti către Maria Rosetti: Documente literare, edited by Marin Bucur and Neonila Onofrei. Bucureşti: Minerva, 1998. Cantacuzino, Sabina. Din viața familiei I. C. Brătianu 1821–1891, edited by Elisabeta Simion. Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2013. Carol I al României. Jurnal. Vol. 1, 1881–1887, translated from German and edited by Vasile Docea. Iași: Polirom, 2007. “Centrul de Recreere şi Dezvoltare Personală „Conacul Golescu Grant”.” Accessed June 1, 2022, https://www.protectiacopilului6.ro/directia-protectia-copilului_doc_939_centrul-de-recreere-si- dezvoltarepersonala-conacul-golescu-grant_pg_0.htm. Chatzidakis, Manolis. Études sur la peinture postbyzantine. London: Variorum Reprints, 1976. “Conacul Belvedere transformat în Palat al copiilor.” Adevărul 1, June 2012. Accessed May 2, 2022, https://adevarul.ro/news/bucuresti/fotogalerie-conacul-belvedere-transformat-palat-copiilor- 1_50bdf10a7c42d5a663d089b6/index.html. Constantinescu, Grigore. “Zinca Golescu.” Argessis 7 (1995): 159–68. Drace-Francis, Alex. “Dinicu Golescu’s Account of My Travels (1826): Eurotopia as Manifesto.” Journeys – The International Journal of Travel and Travel Writing 6, no. 1–2 (2005): 24–53. Drace-Francis, Alex. The Tradition of Invention: Romanian Ethnic and Social Stereotypes in Historical Context. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Drakopoulou, Eugenia. “Peintres de l’espace grec et balkanique: Les conditions de leur acceptation et de leur réception.” In Topics in Post-Byzantine Painting: In Memory of Manolis Chatzidakis, edited by Eugenia Drakopoulou, 101–30. Athens: Institute of Neohellenic Research; National Hellenic Research Foundation, 2002. Fotino, George. Din vremea renașterii naționale a Țării Românești. Vol. 1, Boierii Golești. Bucureşti: Monitorul Oficial și Imprimeriile Statului, 1939. Garidis, Miltiadis-Miltos. La peinture murale dans le monde orthodoxe après la chute de Byzance (1450–1600) et dans les pays sous domination étrangère. Athènes: C. Spanos, 1989. Golescu, Dinicu. Însemnare a călătoriei mele: Constantin Radovici din Golești, făcută în anul 1824, 1825, 1826, edited by Mircea Iorgulescu. Bucureşti: Minerva, 1977. Golescu, Maria. “Simbolica animală în sculptura veche bisericească.” Revista Fundațiilor Regale 6, no. 6 (1939): 600–07. 215 Golescu, Maria. “Motive de animale în sculptura decorativă și semnificația lor simbolică în arta religioasă.” Buletinul Comisiunii Monumentelor Istorice 36 (1943): 36–48. Gouma Peterson, Thalia. “The Survival of Byzantinism in 18th-Century Greek Painting.” Allen Memorial Art Museum Bulletin 29, no. 3 (1972): 11–59. Hitchins, Keith. Rumania: 1866–1947. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994. Hitchins, Keith. Ionel Brătianu: Romania. London: Haus Histories, 2011. Iancu, Ștefan. “Conacul Golescu-Grant, clădire de patrimoniu redescoperită în Crângași.” România liberă. Accessed January 23, 2023, https://romanialibera.ro/special/conacul-grant- golescu-cladire-de-patrimoniuredescoperita-in-crangasi-128521/. Ion, Narcis Dorin. Castele, palate și conace din România. Bucureşti: Editura Fundației Culturale Române, 2002. Ion, Narcis Dorin. Elitele și arhitectura rezidențială în Țările Române (sec. XIX–XX). Bucureşti: Oscar Print, 2011. Ioniță, Elisabeta. “Din contribuția Mariei Rosetti în războiul pentru cucerirea independenței.” Muzeul Național de Istorie a României 4 (1978): 421–24. Iordache, Anastasie. Alexandru G. Golescu. Bucureşti: Editura Științifică, 1974. Iordache, Anastasie. Goleștii: Locul și rolul lor în istoria României. Bucureşti: Editura Științifică și Enciclopedică, 1979. Iordache, Anastasie. Revoluționarii Golești. Bucureşti: Mica Valahie, 2011. Jianu, Angela. A Circle of Friends: Romanian Revolutionaries and Political Exile; 1840–1859. Leiden: Brill, 2011. Jianu, Angela. “Maria Rosetti: New Genealogical Contributions.” Historical Yearbook 6 (2009): 221–24. Lecca, Octav-George. Familiile boierești române: Istoric și genealogie. Bucureşti: Minerva, 1899. Lymberopoulou, Angeliki, ed. Cross-Cultural Interaction between Byzantium and the West, 1204–1669: Whose Mediterranean Is It Anyway? Papers from the Forty-Eighth Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Milton Keynes, 28th–30th March 2015. London: Routledge, 2018. Mihai, Nicolae. Revoluție și mentalitate în Țara Românească: O istorie culturală a evenimentului politic. Craiova: Aius, 2010. Moisescu, Cristian. Arhitectura epocii lui Matei Basarab. Vol. 1. Bucureşti: Meridiane, 2002. Moisescu, Cristian. Arhitectura epocii lui Matei Basarab. Vol. 2, Repertoriul edificiilor de cult. Bucureşti: Meridiane, 2003. Moldovan, Horia. Johann Schlatter: Cultură occidentală și arhitectură românească (1831–1866). Bucureşti: Simetria, 2013. Neagoe, Claudiu. Arnăuții în Țările Române (secolele XVIII–XIX): Studiu istoric. Bucureşti: Ars Docendi, 2010. Olian, Duduța. Bucureștii sufletului. Bucureşti: Vremea, 2009. Oprescu, Carmen. “Relația personalitate – comunitate urbană exprimată în arhitectura vilelor din Câmpulung.” In Istorie, civilizație și cultură în spațiul românesc, edited by Claudiu Neagoe, 175–92. Bucureşti: Ars Docendi, 2013. Opriș, Ioan. Ocrotirea patrimoniului cultural: Tradiții, destin, valoare. Bucureşti: Meridiane, 1986. Potra, George. Din Bucureștii de ieri. Vol. 2, Aspecte edilitar-urbanistice. Iași: Polirom, 2017. Roth, Rodris. “Oriental Carpet Furniture: A Furnishing Fashion in the West in the Late Nineteenth Century.” Studies in the Decorative Arts 11, no. 2 (2004): 25–58. Stanomir, Ioan. Așteptând revoluția: Pașoptismul și vocile sale. Bucureşti: Humanitas, 2019. Stoicescu, Nicolae. Bibliografia localităților și monumentelor feudale din România – Țara Românească (Muntenia, Oltenia și Dobrogea). Vol. 1, A–L. Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei, 1970. OLD EDIFICES, NEW USES: THREE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF A ROMANIAN ARISTOCRATIC FAMILY AND THEIR DESTINY AFTER 1930 216 SILVIA MARIN BARUTCIEFF Turda, Marius. “Dinicu Golescu: Account on My Journey.” In Discourses of Collective Identity in Central and Southeast Europe (1770–1945). Vol. 1, Late Enlightenment – Emergence of the Modern ‘National Idea’, edited by Balázs Trencsényi and Michal Kopeček, 104–07. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2006. Vornicu, Mihai. Statui de hârtie: Studii și impresii asupra literaturii române. Cluj: Casa Cărții de Știință, 2018. Wasiucionek, Michał. Borders and Political Patronage in the Early Modern World. London: I. B. Tauris, 2021. Stare zgradbe, nove rabe Tri rezidenčne stavbe romunske plemiške družine in njihova usoda po letu 1930 Povzetek V članku je predstavljena usoda treh stanovanjskih stavb, ki jih je naročilo več generacij družine Golescu. Rezidence so bile zgrajene v 17. in 19. stoletju ter na začetku 20. stoletja, skozi čas pa so zamenjale več lastnikov, ki so stavbe uporabljali v različne namene. Prvi obravnavani primer je dvorec, ki sta ga leta 1640 zgradila veliki zakladnik Stroe Leurdeanu in njegova žena Vișa iz Goleștija. Druga stavba, ki stoji na enem od bukareških posestev Dinicuja Golescuja, uglednega romunskega intelektualca in politika, je bila postavljena na začetku 19. stoletja. Leta 1850 je dvorec, znan tudi kot palača Belvedere, in velik vrt ob njem kot poročno darilo dobila Zoe Racoviță, vnukinja Dinicuja Golescuja, ob poroki z Effinghamom Grantom, tajnikom britanskega konzulata v Bukarešti. Tretji primer civilne arhitekture, obravnavane v tem prispevku, je vila v Câmpulungu, ki jo je leta 1909 uredil Vasile Golescu, vnuk Iordacheja Golescuja. Rezidence v Goleștiju in Bukarešti so v zadnjem stoletju doživljale številne spremembe. Na začetku 20. stoletja, ko neposrednih potomcev družine Golescu ni bilo več, je posestvo v vasi Golești propadlo, zato sta bila dvorec in zemljišče leta 1939 prenesena v javno last. Še pred tem, leta 1930, je nekdanja palača Belvedere v Bukarešti zamenjala lastnika, saj jo je zadnji član družine Grant podaril romunskemu ministrstvu za izobraževanje za dobrodelne namene. Nasprotno pa sta hiša v neoromanskem slogu in dendrološki park Vasileja Golescuja ostala v lasti Golescujevih hčera dvojčic vse do leta 2002, z nekaj prekinitvami v času komunističnega režima. V začetku 21. stoletja je zadnji potomec družine posestvo podaril fundaciji, katere glavni cilj je varovanje naravne in arhitekturne dediščine. Preživetje te vrste romunske dediščine je bilo odvisno od številnih dejavnikov: neposredne povezave med kontinuiteto plemiških družin in kontinuiteto njihove materialne dediščine, rojstva sodobne Romunije in nastanka ustanov, specializiranih za ohranjanje dediščine, ter množenja in povečanja donacij, namenjenih civilni sferi, v 19. in 20. stoletju.