153
ZUZ – XLVIII – 2012
In 1918, when the Habsburg Empire collapsed, the Czech lands became a demo-
cratic state. Th e Prague castle, the past seat of Habsburg emperors, became the 
presidential residence of the Czechoslovak Republic. Its fi rst president, Tomáš G. 
Masaryk, set it as his goal to convert the old castle into a symbol of the new de-
mocracy.
1
 It was assumed that architect Jože Plečnik realised his ideas.
2
 Recently, 
Tomáš Valena returned to this assumption, and restated the main arguments in 
its favour. He sees ’a democratic nature’ of Plečnik’s reconstruction of the Prague 
Castle in the following features: “transparency, successive openings of the castle 
grounds to the public, discursiveness, the anthropomorphic scale of the small in-
terventions in the public space, and, above all, the reference to Greece as the cra-
dle of democracy.”
3
 In this project, the ideals of Periclean Athens allegedly played 
the key role.
4
 
Th is work was supported by grant no. IAA800090902 (Antická inspirace v českém barokním umění) 
of the Grant Agency of the Academy of Science of the Czech Republic.
1
 Cf. Masaryk’s text of April 20, 1925 (Institute of T. G. Masaryk in Prague, inv. no. TGM-R, KPR 
370/10), cf. Tomáš G. Masaryk, Světová revoluce , Praha 1925, p. 563; Karel Čapek, Hovory s T. G. 
Masarykem, Praha 1990, p. 147 (originally published in 1931). 
2
 On Plečnik and Prague castle cf. Josip Plečnik. An Architect of Prague Castle (ed. Zdeněk Lukeš – 
Damjan Prelovšek – Tomáš Valena), Praha 1996; Damjan Prelovšek, Architekt Josip Plečnik. 
Práce pro presidenta Masaryka, Praha 2001; Zuzana Güllendi-Cimprichová, Architekt Josip 
Plečnik und seine Unternehmungen in Prag im Spannungsfeld zwischen denkmalpfl egerischen Prin-
zipien und politischer Indienstnahme, Bamberg 2010 (Dissertation, http://www.opus-bayern.de/uni-
bamberg/volltexte/2011/314/pdf/1DissCimprTextopusneuseA2.pdf). 
3
 Tomáš Valena, Plečnik, Masaryk und die Antike oder eine Architektur für neue Demokratie, 
Umění, LX, 2012, pp. 39–52, 89, quotation on p. 89.
4
 Valena , cit. n. 3, p. 48: “Plečnik’s Rückgriff  auf antike Formen bei seinen Arbeiten für die 
Prager Burg ist off ensichtlich. Es sind aber nicht die imperialen Formen der Repräsentation, und sei 
es der demokratischen Staatsmacht, sondern wie wir bereits gesehen haben eher die diskursiven For-
men im anthropomorphen Maßstab, die wir dem Menschenbild der griechischen Polis zusprechen 
möchten.“
Plečnik, President, and Hippodrome
JAN BAŽANT
36_zbornik.indd   153 36_zbornik.indd   153 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51

154
JAN BAŽANT
 Jože Plečnik became the architect of Prague Castle on November 5, 1920. In 
numerous sketches, which he made for the Castle, he repeatedly returned to sev-
eral motives. Th ey seem to occupy pivotal positions in his proposal how the an-
cient castle above Prague should be revived.
5
 Th e hippodrome and obelisk were 
the oldest of these motives. When Masaryk became president, he learned how to 
ride horses and cultivated a public image of himself on horseback, in a semi-mili-
tary outfi t (fi g. 1). Masaryk did not see, however, Prague Castle as his private resi-
dence, but as an institution, as the residence of the president of the Czechoslovak 
Republic. We must, therefore, try to fi nd another explanation for Plečnik’s hippo-
drome and obelisk. Th ey do not belong to common elements of state residences 
of the early 20
th
 century. Moreover, the hippodrome with obelisks is synonymous 
with the imperial Rome. Plečnik’s Prague hippodrome has demonstrably nothing 
to do with democracy and that is why it deserves a closer analysis, even though it 
was not realised. What was behind this idea?
 In Plečnik’s plans, hippodrome and obelisk appeared together, in the frame of 
his work on the so called Paradise Garden.
6
 It is the westernmost part of gardens 
in front of the southern façade of Prague Castle, which faces the city. Th e impor-
tance of the Paradise garden lies in that it is right next to the First Courtyard, 
the ceremonial entrance to the Castle. It was the president’s private garden, but 
Plečnik’s gate of 1924–1925 provided anyone a spectacular view of it. Masaryk 
used it, but it was a matter of all citizens of the republic. 
 Between July 14 and 17, 1920, Plečnik made ten plans for the Paradise garden.
7
 
In four plans, numbers 3 to 6, the architect fi lled its total extent by a park in the 
shape of a hippodrome (fi gs. 2–3). In the fi rst plan, the hippodrome is of the an-
cient Greek and Roman type. Its distinguishing feature is that only the one side was 
semi-circular. Th e other side was even, with an extensive portico in which stands 
for the horses and chariots were. Exactly these arrangements we fi nd in Plečnik’s 
plan three (fi g. 2). We fi nd here a semi-circular end at the west end and a square end 
with a row of columns or pillars at the east.
8
 Designs numbers 4 to 6 have the both 
5 
Cf. Jan Bažant, Plečnik, Prague, Palatine, Ars, XLVI/1, 2013, pp. 51–74.
6
 Cf. Tomáš Valena, Courtyards and Gardens. Plečnik’s intervention in the context of Prague 
Castle, Josip Plečnik 1996, cit. n. 2, pp. 259–290; Tomáš Valena, Plečnikova Rajská zahrada Praž-
ského hradu. Vývoj ideje projektu, Umění, LI, 2003, pp. 428–436.
7
 Josip Plečnik 1996, cit. n. 2, designs on pp. 56–58. 
8
 Cf. Valena 1996, cit. n. 6, design on p. 57 below and p. 262: „there is an obvious parallel with 
a Roman circus or hippodrome, or with Canopy of Hadrian’s villa at Tivoli.“ Plečnik’s Prague pu-
pil, František Oktávec, designed hippodrome of this very type, cf. Jozip Plenik, Výběr prací 
36_zbornik.indd   154 36_zbornik.indd   154 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51

155
ZUZ – XLVIII – 2012
ends semi-circular, like in modern hippodromes. In subsequent versions, Plečnik 
dropped the idea of the hippodrome garden and returned to standard rectangular 
compartments. He proposed this solution in his ultimate plan of February 2
nd
, 1921. 
 In ancient Greek hippodromes and Roman circuses, there were posts at both 
ends that the horses or chariots turned around. In Plečnik’s design, the idea of a 
stressed turn appeared on plan six (fi g. 3). On this plan, he placed a monumental 
sculpture on a high basis to the centre of the western rounded end. Th is statue 
was the fi rst step to an obelisk. In autumn 1920, Plečnik dropped the idea of a 
hippodrome-garden. He fi lled with enormous stairs the entire west side of the 
garden. In its middle, in the place where was the statue in his hippodrome gar-
den, he erected an obelisk (fi g. 4). Masaryk became enthused by this idea and to-
gether with his architect they elaborated it with relish. Plečnik started to work 
on a monumental column with an eternal light at its top.
9
 It would honour le-
gionnaires, whose actions in WW1 contributed signifi cantly to the creation of 
Czechoslovakia in 1918. Th e monument in the Paradise garden had, however, a 
complicated history. Finally, Plečnik dropped this idea, and in 1925, he decid-
ed that the fragment of the obelisk should be placed in the Th ird Courtyard of 
Prague Castle, where it stands now.
10
Školy pro dekorativní architekturu z roku 1911–1921, Praha 1927, p. 89 (tittle: „Study after clas-
sical antiquity“). 
9
 Plečnik told students in Ljubljana, that it was his idea: “When I said that there could be an eternal 
light for fallen warriors, Masaryk was thrilled” (Dušan Grabrijan, Plečnik in njegova šola , Maribor 
1968, p. 72, cf. also p. 108).
10
 „Plány M. Plečnika/Plans by M. Plečnik,” April 18
th
, 1925, Archive of Prague Castle, cf. Vale-
na 1996, cit. n. 6, p. 284 and p. 290 note 80. Th e fi rst obelisk for Prague castle broke and the frag-
ment was erected at the Palacký square (arch. Hübschmann), it was destroyed during German 
occupation, cf. Věra Malá, History of the Obelisk, Josip Plečnik 1996, cit. n. 2, pp. 291–295. Ob-
elisk was also planned, but not realised for the Victory square in Dejvice (arch. Engel, project of 
1923–1928).
1. T. G. Masaryk on horseback, 
Karlovy Vary, July 1931
36_zbornik.indd   155 36_zbornik.indd   155 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51

156
JAN BAŽANT
 For the reconstruction of Plečnik’s creative process, and for understanding of 
his intentions, his unrealised projects are as valuable as the realised ones, perhaps 
even more so. It is, therefore, quite reasonable to ask, why the ancient Greek or 
Roman hippodrome at Prague Castle. What meaning could have a giant Egyptian 
obelisk here? We may begin with the Egyptian obelisk, which started its second life 
in the Roman Empire. In order to celebrate the incorporation of Egypt in the an-
cient Roman Empire in 30 BC, Augustus erected the imported obelisk of pharaoh 
Ramesse II in the Circus Maximus (today it is in the middle of Piazza del Popolo). 
Th e most famous Roman obelisk erected Caligula in his circus in Horti Aggripi-
nae, Rome, which later belonged to Nero (fi g. 5). Th e circus was standing in the 
place, where Christians later constructed St. Peter’s basilica. In 1586, pope trans-
ported the obelisk to its present location in front of this church, as a silent witness 
of martyrdom of countless Christians.
11
 As a standard feature of the ancient Ro-
man circus, Egyptian obelisk became part of Roman, and later European culture.
12
 
11
 Cf. Géza Alföldy, Der Obelisk auf dem Petersplatz in Rom, Heidelberg 1990.
12
 E. g. „L’épine des cirques était orné avec un luxe extraordinaire: c’est de là que proviennent tous 
les obélisques qui se dressent aujourd’hui sur les places de Rome“ (Auguste Choisy, Histoire de 
l’architecture, II, Paris 1899, p. 579).
2. Jože Plečnik, plan three for the Paradise Garden, Prague Castle, 1920. Prague, National Technical 
Museum
36_zbornik.indd   156 36_zbornik.indd   156 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51

157
ZUZ – XLVIII – 2012
 Th anks to Tacitus, circus and obelisk started appearing in Christian martyr-
ology. Ancient Roman historian wrote: “Mockery of every sort was added to their 
deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, 
or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the fl ames and burnt, to serve as a 
nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero off ered his gardens for the 
spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus.”
13
 Th e idea of Vatican obelisk 
as an eternal witness of self-sacrifi ce was revived in Prague. Plečnik and Masaryk 
adapted this idea to local conditions and incorporated it into the image of the newly 
founded Czechoslovak Republic. 
 Th e idea of the Vatican obelisk took roots in Prague already in the 17
th
 century. 
In 1618, Czech Protestants threw Jaroslav Bořita Martinic and Vilém Slavata out 
of the window of Prague Castle. After 1638, these Catholic martyrs were honoured 
by obelisks erected on the spot, where they miraculously landed without any in-
jury.
14
 Plečnik took considerable care to provide the obelisk of Slavata with an ap-
13
 Tac. ann. 15, 44, cf. also 15, 39 a 14, 14 (translated by A. J. Church, and W. J. Brodribb).
14
 Cf. Jiří Dvorský – Rudolf Chadraba, Votivní obraz Viléma Slavaty v Telči, Umění, XXXVIII, 
1990, pp. 128–14.
3. Jože Plečnik, plan six for the Paradise Garden, Prague Castle, 1920, detail. Prague, National Technical 
Museum
36_zbornik.indd   157 36_zbornik.indd   157 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51

158
JAN BAŽANT
propriate setting in the redesigned garden (fi g. 6). In 1925, he put in front of it, as 
a rail of its kind, a monumental granite cylinder, which together with the obelisk 
forms a cross.
15
 In ancient Rome, the obelisk and circus were attributes of emperors and their 
palaces.
16
 Th e main Roman hippodrome, Circus Maximus, formed a functional 
and aesthetic unity with the complex of imperial palaces, which stood above it, 
on the Palatine hill. After 92 AD, the palace of Domitian became the defi nitive 
residence of emperors in Rome. Its private area with the imperial apartment had 
its colonnaded façade directly above the Circus Maximus. Th e imperial tribune 
connected the palace with a circus, and this symbiosis of the imperial palace 
and circus was a regular feature of imperial palaces in other cities of the Roman 
Empire. 
15
 Damjan Prelovšek, Josip Plečnik. Život a dílo, Šlapanice 2003, p. 137.
16
 Cf. John H. Humphry, Roman circuses: arenas for chariot racing , Berkeley 1986.
4. Jože Plečnik, Plan for the Paradise Garden, Prague Castle, 1920, detail. Prague, Archive of Prague 
Castle 10117-0105
5. The Vatican obelisk on its original 
location in Caligula’s (later Nero’s) 
circus, 1882
36_zbornik.indd   158 36_zbornik.indd   158 31.3.14   16:37 31.3.14   16:37

159
ZUZ – XLVIII – 2012
6. Jože Plečnik, new arrangement of Slavata’s obelisk. Prague, Castle, southern gardens
36_zbornik.indd   159 36_zbornik.indd   159 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51

160
JAN BAŽANT
 Plečnik’s plan for a hippodrome in Prague castle garden had, however, yet an-
other aspect. In ancient Rome, a private hippodrome was a hallmark of luxurious 
residences. Th is was a well-known fact thanks to letters of Pliny the Younger. In a 
letter of 105-106 AD, he praises the garden of his villa in Etruria: „But though the 
arrangements of the house itself are charming, they are far and away surpassed 
by the riding-course (hippodrome). It is quite open in the centre, and the moment 
you enter your eye ranges over the whole of it … At the far end, the straight bound-
ary of the riding-course is curved into semi-circular form, which quite changes 
its appearance. It is enclosed and covered with cypress-trees, the deeper shade of 
which makes it darker and gloomier than at the sides ... When you come to the 
end of these various winding alleys, the boundary again runs straight, or should I 
say boundaries, for there are a number of paths with box shrubs between them. In 
places there are grass plots intervening, in others box shrubs, which are trimmed 
to a great variety of patterns, some of them being cut into letters forming my name 
as owner and that of the gardener. Here and there are small pyramids (metula, di-
minutive of meta, posts at ends of the real hippodrome).” 
17
 In the Plinius’s hippodrome, vegetation replaced stones and bricks.
18
 Villa’s axis 
run parallel with that of the hippodrome garden; culture and nature were in har-
mony (fi g. 7). Th e same confi guration we fi nd in the most famous and most infl u-
ential archaeological example of the palace with a hippodrome garden – the impe-
rial residence at Palatine, Rome.
19
 As we noted above, it faced the Circus Maximus, 
but it had also a private hippodrome garden. In 1899, during his four month stay 
in Rome, Plečnik no doubt visited also its ruins.
20
 
 During Plečnik’s stay in Vienna, the imperial idea was still topical. He was 
brought up in conviction that empire guaranteed security and cultural fl owering. 
In the school of architecture of Otto Wagner, which Plečnik attended in 1894-1898, 
the historicist style prevailed, but the use of new materials and new forms was en-
17
 Plin. epist. 5, 6 (translated by N.S. Gill). Plečnik could fi nd more information in, e. g., Hermann 
Winnefeld, Tusci und Laurentinum des jungeren Plinius, Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen 
Instituts, VI, 1891, pp. 201–217; Marie Luise Gothein, Geschichte der Gartenkunst , I, Jena 1914, pp. 
104–110.
18
 Th is is not to say that Roman magnates could not have real hippodromes next to their residen-
ces, see Mart. 12, 50, 5: “pulverumque fugax hipodromon ungula plaudit.”
19
 Literature accessible to Plečnik, e. g.: Friedrich Marx, Das sogenannte Stadium auf dem Palatin, 
Jahrbuch des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, X, 1895, pp. 129–143; Eberhard von Haugwitz, 
Der Palatin. Seine Geschichte und seine Ruinen, Rom 1901; Gotthein 1914, cit. n. 17, p. 110.
20
 France Stelè, Arh. Jože Plečnik v Italiji, 1898–1899, Ljubljana 1967; Alessandra Pontel, Appun-
ti di viaggio: Joze Plecnik in Italia, Arte documento, IX, 1996, pp. 181–187.
36_zbornik.indd   160 36_zbornik.indd   160 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51

161
ZUZ – XLVIII – 2012
couraged. According to Wagner, the preservation of traditional aesthetic canon in 
no way contradicted the cultivation of modern culture. In his school, for instance, 
Rudolf Weiss designed a royal villa modeled on the ancient imperial palace at Pal-
atine in Rome. Th e central courtyard of this palace has a shape of a hippodrome 
with obelisks at both ends of the spina.
21
 Wagner’s pupils, including Plečnik and his Czech schoolmate and friend, Jan 
Kotěra, disseminated the views of his school in central Europe.
22
 Th is is not to 
say, of course, that Plečnik’s did not distinguish between ancient Roman emper-
ors, and the fi rst president of the democratic Czechoslovak republic. Th is is to 
say, that in his work for the Czechoslovak president Plečnik took inspiration in 
the most magnifi cent residential architecture he knew about: the palace of an-
cient Roman emperor. In this way, we may also explain the similarities between 
Plečnik’s projects for Masaryk and that which he simultaneously made for his 
patrons in Ljubljana.
21
 Cf. Marco Pozzetto, Die Schule Otto Wagners 1894 –1912, Wien 1979, fi gg. 278–280.
22
 Denis Bousch, „Cosmopolis imperatrix“: la notion de style imperial dans l’architecture vien-
noise: de l’historicisme à la Sezession,“ Europe centrale = Mitteleuropa. Revue-germanique-inter-
nationale, I, 1994, pp. 137–149.
7. Reconstruction of the villa of Plinius the Younger in Etruria, 1914
36_zbornik.indd   161 36_zbornik.indd   161 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51

162
JAN BAŽANT
 Plečnik planned the hippodrome at Prague castle because it was the attribute 
of palaces of ancient Roman emperors. Th at is why he did not replace it by some 
other feature which would integrate the garden area in front of the southern 
façade of Prague Castle. Plečnik saw the hippodrome as a part of the epic message 
of the Masaryk’s Prague castle. Th e main component of this epic message was the 
opening of the Southern castle gardens to the surrounding space. He integrated 
the gardens with the fabulous vista of the city panorama. Plečnik did not con-
nect pavilions and other elements of garden architecture together. Th is diversity, 
unpredictability and conspicuous lack of unifi ed scheme were entirely in keep-
ing with that what Plečnik knew about ancient Roman villas. He could read about 
them in Plinius’ letters, but most important of all, he saw them during his “grand 
tour.” On May 19
th
–20
th
, 1899, he visited the Villa Hadriana in Tivoli.
23
 Th e villa, 
which served from the beginning of the year 134 AD as the imperial residence, is 
a charming combination of heterogeneous buildings, including the hippodrome 
garden (fi g. 8).
 Plečnik’s architecture is outspokenly historicizing, and in this is seen his con-
tribution to the architecture of the fi rst half of the 20
th
 century, which after the 
middle of this century defi nitively turned away from the classical tradition. At the 
end of the 20
th
 century, when the classical tradition in architecture was defi nitively 
abandoned, this traditionalist architect was rediscovered, and his work started to 
be studied. Th e reception and interpretation of Plečnik’s work is, however, strik-
23
 Stelè 1967, cit. n. 20, pp. 20, 188.
8. Hadrian’s villa in Tivoli, hippodrome (“Stadio”) is in its centre 
36_zbornik.indd   162 36_zbornik.indd   162 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51

163
ZUZ – XLVIII – 2012
ingly asymmetric. In spite of the fact, that ancient Roman forms clearly prevail in 
his oeuvre, its interpretation is not based on them. Th is remarkable asymmetry is 
in no way surprising, because it is a logical consequence of exceptional position of 
Josip Plečnik in the history of architecture. 
 In Plečnik’s youth, architects addressed the audience which was fully conver-
sant with vocabulary, syntax and semantics of the architecture of ancient Romans. 
Th eir patrons had a precise notion of that what is fi tting and proper. Plečnik took 
it for a granted that also his work would be compared with ancient Rome, which 
he considered an axis not only of architectural, but also of spiritual tradition. Al-
ready in Plečnik’s time, however, his work was perceived in entirely diff erent con-
text. In the course of the 20
th
 century, the classical education and classical taste in 
architecture ceased to be a hallmark of the social elite. 
 Buildings designed by Plečnik entered to the world, in which the knowledge of 
ancient Egyptian, Greek and Roman architectonic language became exclusive do-
main of specialists. Rome and its ancient monuments lost their exclusivity, which 
had far reaching consequences. Today, the popularity of Plečnik’s work is to a large 
extent a result of nostalgia after the forever lost world, which his buildings evoke. 
Historical aspects of his work are admired, but they were semantically emptied and 
could be, therefore, fi lled with a new content. Plečnik’s architecture could be, for 
instance, labelled as “democratic” or “inspired by classical Greece,” even though 
we have no proofs that it was his intention. 
Illustration credits: Koblenz, Bundesarchiv, Bild 102-11965 / CC-BY-SA (1); Photo Jan Bažant (6), 
older publications (2–4: Josip Plecnik 1996, cit. n. 2, pp. 55, 58, 60; 5: Alphonse SIMIL, Le Vatican, 
Paris 1882, I, pl. 4; 7: GOTHEIN 1914, cit. n. 16, p. 105; 8: Th. GSELL FELS, Rom und die Campagna, 
Leipzig – Wien 1895, after col. 1060, detail).
36_zbornik.indd   163 36_zbornik.indd   163 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51

164
JAN BAŽANT
Plečnik, predsednik in hipodrom
POVZETEK
Tomáš G. Masaryk, prvi predsednik novoustanovljene češkoslovaške republike, si je 
postavil za cilj preobrazbo starega praškega gradu v simbol nove demokracije. Splošno 
mnenje je, da je Jože Plečnik realiziral njegove ideje v letih 1920–1935 in s to trditvi-
jo pričujoči članek polemizira. V številnih skicah, ki jih je narisal, se je Plečnik vedno 
znova vračal k nekaterim motivom. Najstarejša med njimi sta hipodrom in obelisk: 
skupaj se pojavita v okviru njegovega dela za t. i. “Rajski vrt”. Že leta 1920 je Plečnik 
opustil idejo hipodroma in se pet let pozneje odločil, da je treba obelisk postaviti v 
trejte dvorišče praškega gradu, kjer stoji še danes. Motiv hipodroma ne izraža niče-
sar v smislu demokracije, zato si zasluži posebno obravnavo, čeprav ni bil izveden. V 
Wagnerjevi šoli, ki jo je Plečnik obiskoval med 1894 in 1898, so si hipodrom in obelisk 
razlagali kot atribut starorimske rezidence najvišjega ranga. Lahko se vprašamo, če ni 
bila v Plečnikovem delu za čehoslovaškega predsednika vir navdiha nemara najveliča-
stnejša bivalna arhitektura, ki jo je poznal: palača rimskega cesarja na Palatinu v Rimu.
36_zbornik.indd   164 36_zbornik.indd   164 31.3.14   8:51 31.3.14   8:51