Collecting Antiquities from the Middle Ages to the End of the Nineteenth Century Proceedings of the International Conference Held on March 25-26, 2021 at the Wrocław University Institute of Art History Edited by Agata Kubala ColleCting Antiquities from the middle Ages to the end of the nineteenth Century ColleCting Antiquities from the middle Ages to the end of the nineteenth Century Proceedings of the International Conference Held on March 25-26, 2021 at the Wrocław University Institute of Art History edited by Agata Kubala WYDAWNICTWO WYDAWNICTWO Kraków-Wrocław 2021 Agata Kubala Universty of Wrocław, Poland https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4601-1958  agata.kubala@uwr.edu.pl © Copyright by individual authors, 2021 Review dr hab. Barbara Lichocka, prof. IKSiO PAN dr hab. Tomasz Scholl Language editing Piotr Art, Dariusz Rossowski, Roshni Sengupta Cover design Marta Jaszczuk ISBN 978-83-8138-585-5 (print) ISBN 978-83-8138-586-2 (PDF) https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862 On the cover: Johann Zoffany, Charles Townley in his Sculpture Gallery (source: Wikimedia Commons) Publication financed by the Institute of Art History and the Faculty of Historical and Pedagogical Sciences of the University of Wrocław KSIĘGARNIA AKADEMICKA PUBLISHING ul. św. Anny 6, 31-008 Kraków tel.: 12 421-13-87; 12 431-27-43 e-mail: publishing@akademicka.pl Internet bookstore: https://akademicka.com.pl Contents Preface.................................................................................................................................. Introduction: When is a Collection a Collection? Provenance Studies and the Role of Dealer’s Collections (Vinnie Nørskov) ................................................................. 7 9 Part i. european Collections of Antiquities in eighteenth and nineteenth Centuries From Antiquarianism to Scholarship: Classical Archaeology in the Netherlands, 1600–1840 (Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma) .................................................................. Antiquities in the Collection of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era (Aistė Paliušytė) ....................................................................................................................... Master and Disciple: Bertel Thorvaldsen’s Private Collection and Its Impact on Neoclassicism (Zoltán Suba) ...................................................................................... Glyptic Treasures in Krakow and Old Master Paintings Collection of Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński (Paweł Gołyźniak) .................................................................... Collecting in Sicily in the Nineteenth Century: Baron Judica and the Wonders of Ancient Akrai (Elena Santagati) ............................................................................ The Overlooked Collection: The Ancient Art Collection of the Princes Czartoryski Museum (Dorota Gorzelany-Nowak) ............................................................. 31 55 83 99 129 143 Part ii. Collecting Prehistoric Antiquities in eighteenth and nineteenth Centuries Die ostpreußischen Sammlungen der »vaterländischen Alterthümer« im 18 Jh. (Wojciech Nowakowski) ............................................................................................. 163 United by Context, Divided by Collection: The Nineteenth Century Collecting of Prehistoric Artifacts from Villafrati (Sicily, Italy) (Serena D’Amico) .............. 179 Part iii. silesia Antiqua. Collecting Antiquities in the nineteenth-Century wrocław and the Lower silesian Area Antiquities Collections in Silesia – Terra Incognita? (Magdalena Palica) ................ 207 5 Contents From Greece to Wrocław: Eduard Schaubert’s Collection of Antiquities (Agata Kubala) ........................................................................................................................... 217 Collecting Antiquities at the Archaeological Museum of the Royal University in Wrocław in the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century (Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk) .................................................................................................................. 237 Part iV. Chosen objects from european Collections of Antiquities The Pieces of the Ara Pacis (Gaius Stern) ....................................................................... The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt Acquired in 1893 by the Archaeological Cabinet of the Jagiellonian University in the Context of the Early Interest in “Coptic” Weaving (Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska) .......................... From the Capitol to the Louvre: The Journey of a Relief of Mithras (Annarita Martini) ......................................................................................................................... Luxury Souvenir or Precious Original: The Case of the Bronze Tripod from the Real Museo Borbonico (Eliška Petřeková) ........................................................ The Dionysian Ancient Reliefs of the Cardelli Collection: A Product of Seventeenth Century Classicism or an Interpretative Paradigm? (Giulia Moretti Cursi).............................................................................................................................. 259 287 311 331 347 Part V. Varia “Anno ab incarnatione Domini Nostri MLXVI”: A Note about Halley’s Comet in Viterbo’s Archbishop Library Collection (Luca Salvatelli) ............................... 369 The Presence of the sobieski royal family in the Collection of the sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali di roma, in the roman Chronicles and in rome: A historical Commentary The Sobieskis: Memories, Prints, Paintings, and Letters in the Collections of the Sovrintendenza Capitolina di Roma, in the Roman Chronicles and in Rome: A Historical Commentary (Francesca Ceci) ............................................... 385 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski in the Musei Capitolini: History, Style, Setting up and Dismantling over Two Centuries (Isabella Serafini) ....................................................................................... 417 Index of Names................................................................................................................... 467 PrefACe The international conference Collecting Antiquities from the Middle Ages to the End of the Nineteenth Century took place remotely via Microsoft Teams on 25–26 of March 2021. Like many other events during the pandemic of 2020– 2021, it had initially been planned as a traditional reunion of scholars, who were to be hosted by the organizer in the city of Wrocław in March 2020. A year after the planned date, due to epidemiological restrictions still in place, there was no other option but to organize the conference as a virtual event. In the short time that has passed since the beginning of the pandemic, we have all become accustomed to this mode of working, especially in academia. The conference participants came from countries heavily impacted by the epidemic – at the time of our virtual meeting, we had thirty thousand new cases recorded in Poland each day. Therefore, the event could not have taken place were it not for these new tools. It was undoubtedly successful, with twenty to over thirty participants from many different countries attending at all times. This by no means suggests that we intend to overlook the irreplaceable advantages of face-to-face meetings, such as the conference ambience and discussions over coffee during which we get to meet people whom we have only known so far from reading their scientific texts. Virtual conferences, which we have learned to appreciate as they are relatively easy to organize, more cost-effective and convenient – as they can be attended from home, from our desk or even our kitchen table – are still merely a substitute for the real encounters as we knew them before the pandemic. We hope that the former conference format and manner of exchanging ideas will soon become possible again. The conference that has generated and has been documented in this volume, was conceived and facilitated by dr hab. Agata Kubala from the Institute of Art 7 Preface History. It was due to her determination that this previously cancelled meeting could finally take place. The conference was attended by researchers from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, the USA, and Poland, from universities, museums, libraries, independent research institutions, as well as by independent scholars. We wish to express our gratitude to all those who, following a year-long delay, responded positively to our invitation to participate in this virtual event and who made their texts available for publication. Romuald Kaczmarek Director Institute of Art History University of Wrocław https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.00 Vinnie Nørskov (Museum of Ancient Art and Archaeology, Aarhus University) when is A CoLLeCtion A CoLLeCtion? Provenance studies and the role of dealers’ Collections Abstract The paper discusses a phenomenon in the history of collecting antiquities that is rarely recognised. Many antiquities acquired and presented in museums as ‘collections’ were, in fact, assembled by dealers. Thus the compilation of objects was guided by a commercial incentive, sometimes to meet specific gaps in museum collections or, at other times, to empty the dealers’ stocks. The practice had its historical roots in the role of dealers as agents, but became more widespread during the nineteenth century and was particularly effective in the twentieth, as collection histories acquired additional economic, social and ethical value. This paper critically analyses the inclusion of such ‘collections’ in museum collection histories, using provenance studies as a key methodology and focusing on developments in the nineteenth century. Keywords: collectors, dealer’s collections, provenance studies, Krzysztof Pomian Antiquities collecting has been studied as a phenomenon for many years, but what defines a collection is rarely discussed today. Johann Zoffany’s painting of Charles Townley, painted in 1781–1783 and showing the collector surrounded by his sculptures and his friends, is the quintessence of how we imagine the collector and his collection: the collection embraces Townley, endowing him with the values and qualities of knowledge and taste (Fig. 1). The image is constructed: the library is crowded with sculptures, the atmosphere is of scholarship, Townley himself is seated at a desk with one book open and another lying on the floor. His two friends stand behind him: the politician Charles Greville and the British Museum conservator Thomas Astle. In a chair in the lower front 9 Vinnie Nørskov corner of the painting, we see the French antiquarian d’Hancarville, author of the catalogue of Townley’s collection. The painting embraces the image of the collection closely connected to the personality of the collector. We feel comfortable with this image, and it is often this kind of image that comes to mind when we encounter the term ‘collection’: objects selected with a personal sense of aesthetics and taste to the forefront, a sense shaped by the ‘persona’ of the collector – as she/he shapes herself/himself in the image as a scholarly collector. As defined in ICOM’s Key concepts of museology: a collection may be defined as a set of material or intangible objects (works, artefacts, mentifacts, specimens, archive documents, testimonies, etc.) which an individual or an establishment has assembled, classified, selected, and preserved in a safe setting, and usually displays to a smaller or larger audience, according to whether the collection is public or private (Desvallées & Mairesse 2009: 26). The strength of this trope is evident in illustrations of collectors through time, as seen, for instance, in the portrait of the school rector of St. Maria Magdalena Christian Stieff (1675-1751), shown surrounded by his books and objects distinguishing him as a scholarly collector (Hakelberg 2021, 64, Fig. 2). Another much later example is the staged image of the American collector Robert H. Lamborn and his curator in Memorial Hall against the background of his collection, in a photograph taken just over a hundred years later (Linn 2018) (Fig. 2). In this paper, I suggest that this is an image exploited by the art market and used consciously to endow assemblages of objects gathered by dealers with added value. The term ‘from the collection of…’ is a common provenance reference in auction and sales catalogues; however, the term says nothing about how a collection was shaped or about whether there ever was a ‘collector’ with a personal taste. Next, I will present two cases of dealer ‘collections’ that were assembled with the sole intent of selling them. I will argue that dealer collections should not be considered collections as such, and that we need to be very careful when the word collection is used both in sales catalogues and in collection histories, as it can sometimes cover a dealer’s activities and conceal a rather more commercial background. The idea or inspiration for this paper stems from my work on the photo archive of John Marshall, the British friend and companion of Edward Perry Warren.1 In the 1890s, Marshall and Warren acted together as agents for the 1 On Edward Perry Warren and John Marshall, see Nørskov 2002: 69–71. On Marshall and the Metropolitan, see Petruciolli (ed.) forthcoming. The John Marshall Photographic 10 When is a Collection a Collection?… Boston Museum of Fine Arts; from 1906/7, when the former curator of the Boston Museum, Edward Robinson, moved to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, Marshall became sole agent for the Metropolitan Museum. Marshall settled in Rome (remaining there until his death in 1928) and worked closely with Robinson and the newly appointed Gisela Richter – who was employed in 1905 as an assistant at the museum and became curator only in 1924 – the first female curator in the United States. Richard De Puma, in his account of the history of the Metropolitan’s Etruscan collection, defines Marshall and Richter’s relationship as a mentorship – he as her mentor, she learning from him (De Puma 2018: 34–36) – but we may note that whereas Richter published hundreds of articles of great scientific value, Marshall published only one, an account of the beautiful marble head from Chios (Marshall 1909). As agent, Marshall acquired a vast number of antiquities for the Metropolitan Museum. His photographs were subsequently donated to the British School in Rome, and that photographic archive was the object of a research project from 2015 to 2018 under which I studied Marshall’s dealings in vases. That work is currently being prepared for publication, and a digital database with the photo archive will also be made accessible online at the time of publication. Making dealers’ archives accessible in this way is profoundly changing the possibilities for tracking collecting histories; it is an essential tool in the rising field of provenance studies. For the Boston Museum, Warren and Marshall had been very actively acquiring Greek vases, but that was not Marshall’s focus for the Metropolitan: there, he was supposed to fill in the gaps in the collection, with a focus on sculpture. Before his arrival at the Metropolitan, the museum had acquired the Canessa collection of Greek pottery, consisting of three hundred vases. It was the acquisition of the Canessa collection that led me to reconsider what constitutes a collection in the context of the art trade. the CAnessA CoLLeCtion The Canessa collection comprises a selection of various different kinds of vases, thus laying the groundwork for further collecting of Greek pottery. Until that moment, pottery had predominantly been represented by Cypriot Archive will be made available on the homepage of the British School of Rome: https: //british schoolatrome.wordpress.com/tag/jmarp/. 11 Vinnie Nørskov pottery from the extensive collection of Luigi Palma de Cesnola, acquired in 1874 (Anon 2004). Gisela Richter presented the acquisition of the Canessa collection both in the Burlington Magazine and in the museum Bulletin shortly after the acquisition (Richter 1906a; 1906b; idem 1936: 1; Nørskov [in press]). She explained how this new collection was correcting the deficiency. Interestingly, in her Burlington Magazine article, she puts quotation marks around ‘Canessa Collection’ and continues: This collection has not existed in its present form very long. It was brought together by the dealers, Messrs. A. and C. Canessa, of Paris and Naples, and was purchased by the Museum in January of this year. If the object was to have the collection both representative and of uniform good quality, it can readily be conceded that this object has been attained. (Richter 1906a: 204) It is clear from this passage that Richter is hesitant to define the acquisition as a collection in traditional terms. She explains the short-lived history of the ‘collection’, but it is not clear whether it has been assembled with the specific purpose selling it to the Metropolitan Museum. In the Bulletin, this is conveyed implicitly: it ‘is especially adapted to the needs of the museum’ (Richter 1906b: 77). This wording points to the fact that the collection was assembled with an eye to representativity and thus to a buyer who would appreciate this. The collection consisted of a representative selection of Greek pottery, with special emphasis on Athenian black and red-figure vases (Table 1). Even if Richter makes the point that none are of excellent quality, she defines the Athenian vases as by far the most valuable part of the collection. They show us clearly, in unbroken succession, the rapid development and decline through which the art of vase-painting passed in Athens. We advance from vases with black figures on red ground, to the early red-figured style, with its bold but somewhat deficient drawing, and again to the finest period of Attic pottery, when the hand of the artist was skilled and trained to the utmost, until, finally, we come to the period when signs of decadence, careless drawing, and rich accessories make their appearance. (Richter 1906a: 204) She also emphasises that some vases were made for special rites in Greece, such as white-ground lekythoi, loutrophoroi, lebes gamikoi, and onoi. 12 When is a Collection a Collection?… who were the CAnessA Brothers? The three Canessa brothers – Cesare (1863–1922), Ercole (1867–1929), and Amadeo (1874–1934) – became some of the most influential antiquities dealers of the early twentieth century (Jandolo 1935: 235; D’Orazi 2018). They came from Naples, and dealt primarily in coins until their involvement in the sale of the treasure of Boscoreale (Cirillo & Casale 2004; Iasiello 2017: 357; D’Orazi 2018: 9–15), the hoard of silver and gold Roman objects discovered near Pompeii in 1895 by the landowner Vincenzo De Prisco in the newly unearthed Villa Pisanella. De Prisco contacted Ercole Canessa to find a buyer for the treasure, and the Canessa brothers and their companions arrived in Paris with 41 of the objects in May 1895, offering them to the Louvre (Villefosse 1899: 32). However, the asking price of 500,000 francs was too high, and the museum’s offer of half that sum was rejected (Villefosse 1898: 33; Iasiello 2017: 358). Guido Petruccioli argues that the Canessa brothers showed exceptional creativity when transporting the Boscoreale treasure to Paris: the nephew, Francesco, revealed in a 1988 newspaper article that they had arranged an amateur bicycle tour from Italy over the border to France. The treasure was carried over the border by the participants, each carrying a piece of silver beneath their costumes (Canessa 1988; Cirillo, Casale 2004: 48; Petruccioli 2016; Smalcerz 2020: 166–167). According to Guglielmo, Cesare’s son, the brothers agreed with De Prisco to share the costs and the income from the sale fifty-fifty. The asking price was the equivalent of four billion lire; leading a life of luxury in Naples in this period would have cost 1,000 lire a month. Guglielmo Canessa states that for the brothers, the Boscoreale sale was a springboard into the international establishment and the international trade in antiquities (Iasiello 2017: 358, note 31). The brothers established their base in Paris in 1889 in the Rue La Fayette, moving to the more prestigious Avenue des Champs-Élysées in 1909 (D’Orazi 2018: 26), and the company C. & E. Canessa was formally established in 1905, with branches in Naples, Paris and New York. According to Francesco Canessa’s narrative, Cesare was in charge of the gallery in Naples, Ercole managed the gallery in Paris, and Amadeo in New York (Canessa 1988; Cirillo, Casale 2004: 47). In New York, the brothers set up in Fifth Avenue, where Ercole established a close friendship with John Pierpoint Morgan and subsequently guided Morgan in his private collecting. Morgan was, of course, one of the Metropolitan Museum’s greatest benefactors – a trustee from 1888 and, from 1904, president. Ercole Canessa 13 Vinnie Nørskov guided Morgan in his private collecting. The three brothers thus played a very significant role in the antiquities trade from Italy to Paris to New York in the early decades of the twentieth century.2 The brothers also had a close working relationship with Arthur Sambon (1867–1947), a numismatist and dealer, and a president of the Chambre des Experts in Paris (D’Orazi 2018: 19–23). Like the Canessas, Sambon was from Naples (he was born in Portici, to the south), where his father, Jules, was also a numismatist and antiquary; they had probably known each other since childhood. Sambon himself had been writing coin sales catalogues since 1879 (he seems to have produced the first one at the age of twelve). 3 The first catalogue produced in collaboration with Cesare and Ercole, in 1900, was on the Naples coin collection of Professor Luigi dell’Erba.4 In 1901, they acted collaboratively as experts in the sales catalogue of the collection of Alfred Bourgignon, a collector living in Naples (Sambon 1901). Bourgignon had compiled an extensive collection of antiquities that attracted great attention from dealers like Paul Hartwig and Friedrich Hauser, who were especially interested in the painters of Greek vases and published some of the first papers on this subject (Rouet 2001: 30–33; Tsingarida 2014).5 We can track a marked difference in approach or working method between the three Canessa galleries by looking at the catalogues they published (Fig. 4). 6 The eighteen catalogues from Paris begin in 1900 and continue until 1913, most of them written in collaboration with Arthur Sambon. About half of these present coin collections, the other half antiquities. The twelve Neapolitan catalogues, issued between 1907 and 1923, present a diverse scope of objects in the earlier catalogues, including furniture, the later ones mostly coins. The New York gallery issued its first catalogue in 1915 in connection with the Panama Pacific International Exposition held in San Francisco, where Italy allocated space to the Canessa brothers in the national pavilion and where they showed both European art and antiquities. Three further catalogues published in New 2 3 4 5 6 When Cesare died in 1924, his two sons took over the Naples gallery (A. & D. Canessa), whereas Ercole kept Paris and New York. The Bibliotheque Nationale lists 109 catalogues by his hand, the earliest dated 1879, when he was 12, but regularly from 1888. On dell’Erba, see Prota 1937. He was a very close friend of Arthur Sambon. On Bourgignon see also Voukelatos 2018. D’Orazi provides a list of the catalogues (D’Orazi 2018: 59–64) based on research on online archives, pointing out that there might be some missing. 14 When is a Collection a Collection?… York presented the material as a ‘collection formed by C. & E. Canessa’ in 1917, ‘the Canessa collection’ in 1919, and the ‘art collection of the expert antiquarians C. & E. Canessa of New York’ in 1924. In the Canessas’ European catalogues, the word ‘collection’ is used when presenting private collections, but not when the auction is compiled of objects from different sources; in the American catalogues, by contrast, the wording ‘Canessa collection’ is used in all the catalogues that present objects as collected by the dealers: that is, as objects bought by the dealers to be sold in the gallery. A different culture on the American art market seems to have made it more profitable to present the objects as part of a collection. There is one European catalogue that presents the content as a Canessa collection. In 1904, Arthur Sambon published a small volume entitled Vases antiques de terre cuite: Collection Canessa. This has no introduction, but opens directly with the presentation of the objects, comprising some three hundred objects. It is in fact a catalogue of the vase collection acquired by the Metropolitan Museum in 1906. Why does Gisela Richter not mention in her account that the collection had been published two years earlier? Sambon’s publication is a sales catalogue, intended for potential buyers of the entire ‘collection’ – even if it is not actually an auction catalogue. Having a publication on a collection or group of vases seems to have made it more valuable, and the practice seems to have been relatively widespread. Richter does refer to the catalogue in her volume on Attic red-figure vases, published in 1936. The publication is also mentioned in the bibliography of some of the vases from the Canessa publication in the digital database on the museum webpage, but not all. It is in fact a general problem in provenance studies that objects’ appearances in auction and sales catalogues have been neglected. This neglect has disguised a large number of collecting histories.7 It is thus one of the future tasks of provenance studies to work on the inclusion of all available information in academic books, museum catalogues and sales catalogues. The Canessa collection was assembled and defined as a collection with the specific purpose of presenting a representative collection. As for its sources, the catalogue of 1904 provides a geographical provenance for 78 of the objects, covering many different locations – surprisingly, many of them in Greece (Table 2). Most of the material seems to derive from clandestine excavations. Only seven objects are acquired from previous collections (Table 3). Most vases are 7 See for instance Tsirogiannis 2019: 68–73. 15 Vinnie Nørskov complete, but there are two fragments of a red-figure vase said to have been published by Hartwig (Sambon 1904: 39, lot 116). These fragments stem from a volute krater that subsequently became the name vase of the Painter of the New York Centauromachy.8 Canessa had acquired the fragments at the auction of the Alfred Bourgignon collection in 1903, as mentioned by Richter in her 1936 catalogue, but not in Sambon’s catalogue. The inclusion of the fragments is exceptional, and leads us to our next case. trAde in frAgments Pottery fragments constitute an area where the role of dealers has proved crucial. Fragments have been a rather unique collecting area, closely associated both with scholars and with study collections. Well-known collections belonged to scholars such as Dietrich von Bothmer and Robert Guy and also to dealers such as Herbert Cahn, one of the leading Swiss dealers of the twentieth century. Contemporary with the Canessa brothers, Edward Perry Warren too was very interested in fragments, collecting them for the Boston Museum of Fine Arts. Two other protagonists played a crucial role in this trade: Paul Hartwig, mentioned above, and his close friend and companion in Leipzig, Friedrich Hauser (Tsingarida 2014). The collecting of pottery fragments developed in the second half of the nineteenth century in close connection with connoisseurship studies. Norbert Eschbach and Daniel Gräpler have demonstrated that collections of fragments at the University of Göttingen did not consist solely of debris from chance finds, but were products of the deliberate dismemberment of vases by dealer scholars (Eschbach 2007: 86). On two occasions, in 1892 and 1897, Professor Karl Dilthey acquired two groups of fragments for the university collection – on both occasions from Hartwig. The correspondence between Hartwig and Dilthey reveals that Hartwig collected fragments for the professor for academic purposes, to provide him with a representative collection of styles and shapes for use in 8 The fragments have the inventory number 06.1021.140a–c: https://www.metmuseum.org/ art/collection/search/247305. I have not been able to locate the publication by Hartwig. However, in the Furtwängler Reichhold volume III, published in 1932, Hartwig refers to the fragment, explaining how he drew it himself when it was still in the possession of Bourgignon, p. 52, note 15. 16 When is a Collection a Collection?… teaching. This need was prompted by a change in the focus of research from iconography and antiquarian issues to types, schools and painters, a shift that paved the way for a new role and value for fragments in the collections, because fragments enable the viewer to focus on the details of painting. When only a tiny part of an image is preserved, it is easier to define the details. This, in the methodology of connoisseurship, makes it possible to distinguish the hands of different painters. Hartwig was one of the key scholars in the new field of stylistic studies in Greek painted pottery, as manifested in his significant publication Griechische Meisterschalen der Blüthezeit des strengen rot-figurigen Stiles, published in 1893. Together with Friedrich Hauser, he offered so-called Stilproben or style samples to the university collections in Germany (Eschbach 2007: 86–87).9 A detailed study of these collections has shown how fragments across the collections connect vases from Hartwig and Hauser, pointing to the practice of separating fragments belonging to the same vase and selling them off to different collections. Even vases that were already restored were deconstructed: fragments from a neck amphora were found to fit fragments from the University Museum in Pennsylvania, and traces of glue are evidence of restoration before the sale and subsequent deliberate destruction in order to sell fragments of the same vase to different collections (Eschbach 2007: 84–86). The same study also showed that the fragment collections did not become as popular as expected: large quantities of fragments from the stock of Hartwig and Hauser were acquired by Paul Arndt in Munich. Similar practices seem to have taken place in the case of late antique textiles, as shown in the paper by Anna Głowa and Joanna Sławińska (cf. pp. 287–308). rereAding PomiAn Krzysztof Pomian’s seminal paper “The Collection: Between the Visible and the Invisible”, first published in 1978 and republished in his collection Collectors and Curiosities in French in 1984 and in English in 1987, is still one of the best theoretical texts when it comes to the interaction between collecting and economics. The role of dealers and the market in shaping collections is a factor 9 Eschbach identifies collections of fragments bought from Hartwig in eleven university collections between 1892 and 1922. 17 Vinnie Nørskov often ignored in collection studies, but Pomian’s point is that “when the history of their circulation is examined, the history of the economics cannot be avoided” (Pomian 1987: 5). Thus in considering when a collection can actually be defined as a collection, it is worth looking at how Pomian defines the collection as phenomenon (1987: 5): – An institution coextensive with man both in terms of space and time – meaning that there is a dialectic relationship between the collector and the collection. – A product of a unique type of behaviour, consisting in the formation of collections, in an attempt to create a link between the visible and the invisible. Thereby collections are understood as meaning-making processes. Pomian refers to two dimensions: first, the geographical dimension, as “collections are concentrated in religious and political centres” and at what he calls “intellectual, artistic and economic crossroads” (Pomian 1987: 5); and second, the social dimension, as the collection is “generally accessible only to a public satisfying certain criteria, while their actual nature and content depend on the status of the collector himself; that is, on the positions he has reached in the hierarchies of power, prestige, education and wealth” (Pomian 1987: 5). The geographical and social dimensions thus place collecting firmly in the social and economic setting of human activities. In his text on the visible and the invisible, Pomian becomes more concrete, defining the collection in terms of the following criteria (Pomian 1987: 9): A set of natural or artificial objects kept temporarily or permanently out of the economic circuit, afforded special protection in enclosed spaces adapted specifically for that purpose and put on display. This definition clarifies the problem of defining ‘dealer collections’ as collections: their ‘collections’ are definitely not out of the economic circuit. Revisiting Pomian’s definitions cited above, it is also reasonable to see economic gain as the key factor rather than meaning-making processes or purposes of power or prestige. Pomian discusses the paradox of objects in the collection being taken out of the economic circuit while being treated and taken care of as precious or valuable objects. When an object enters into a collection, it loses its function, and it is the subject (i.e. the collector) that defines the meaning and value. This process does not happen independently of time and space, but is constructed within the geographical and social dimensions that Pomian cites. This transformation is what is called musealisation in museological theory. But objects 18 When is a Collection a Collection?… ‘collected’ by dealers do not undergo this musealisation process; their economic value is preserved as a defining dimension. I suggest that we consider the trade in objects as neither object nor collection, but as an in-between: a liminal space in which the objects are part of a constant negotiation. This process can be discussed through the following matrix, using two dimensions (Fig. 5). The first dimension is the relationship between single objects and objects as collections. This is relevant when we are talking about the art market: objects are sold individually and have agency as individual objects, and it is through their specific character that they enter a collection and become part of an ensemble or assemblage – the collection. The horizontal line thus defines the musealisation process: the transformation from an object with a special – useful – function to a part of a collection in which it contributes to the deepening of meaning on the subject. The second dimension is the relationship between archaeology and art. Classical antiquities are considered both as archaeological objects and art objects: they can be both simultaneously. However, the treatment, focus and approach differ depending on how they are categorised. Archaeological objects are defined as part of an archaeological context, and evaluated as part of a larger group of evidence. Art objects are defined as single objects, valued for their embedded aesthetics independent of the context they are placed in. These are two completely different ways of looking at the object, but with a common tension – especially when dealing with classical antiquities that are both archaeological objects and aesthetic works of art. The vertical line thus represents two different approaches to collecting: one focused on the object’s archaeological dimension, its cultural and historical importance, and its capacity to provide new knowledge through connections to other objects; the other on the aesthetic value of the object in itself. Once the concept of collection is appropriated by the trade in antiquities, the trade is influenced by and itself influences all these elements. Defining a group of objects as a collection adds value to the objects, as it provides them with a meaning-making process. During the late nineteenth century, research in vase painters transformed objects from archaeological objects to art objects, likewise contributing to a higher valuation: when it comes to power and value, an art collection is the most prestigious. I hesitate to use the term ‘dealer’s collection’ for these collections. As used by the trade, this term lends them authority (power) through the subjectivity of the collector which, actually, is not there. These collections are not the 19 Vinnie Nørskov result of the processes defined by Pomian; they are not a materialisation of the relationship between collector and object, but the result of a unique type of behaviour – behaviour that facilitates further exchanges of the objects through trade and finds the right buyer for a specific object – not forming a collection and creating a link between the visible and invisible. It could be argued that dealers in the nineteenth and early twentieth century were often also scholars and collectors. This is, for instance, the case with Hartwig and Hauser, mentioned above. But in fact this point emphasises the problem with dealers’ collections: when does the transformation to collection take place? The question is whether dealers’ collections can be placed in a special category, in the liminal space – defining dealers not as scholars, not as collectors, but as mediators using all necessary tools. ConCLusion The question of when a dealer’s collection really is a collection is a complex one. The development of the antiquities market during the nineteenth century gave rise to a large variety of ways to engage with antiquities. Whether these dealer collections should be called collections or not, they testify to a special process of collecting that mirrors geographical, spatial and intellectual developments in the engagement with antiquity. Dealers have played an essential role in the shaping of collections; but their ‘own collections’ should be carefully evaluated before this self-definition is accepted, as the definition lends incentive to processes that are secondary in these cases. When dealers use the word ‘collection’ themselves, they lend power and authority to the objects, adding economic value through false implications. The dealers react to specific needs on the part of the institutions – but they are also part of the process of developing and shaping those needs. In the worst case, objects are even destroyed in order to meet those needs. 20 When is a Collection a Collection?… Bibliography Anon 2004 [October]. The Cesnola Collection at The Metropolitan Museum of Art. In: Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. [online:] http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/cesn/hd_cesn.htm, accessed on 10.10.2021. Canessa C., Canessa E. 1917. A Catalogue of Minor Art (collection formed by C. & E. Canessa, on exhibition at their galleries, February – March, 1917). New York: [s.n.]. Canessa C., Canessa E. 1919. Illustrated Catalogue of the Canessa Collection of Rare and Valuable Objects of the Egyptian, Greek, Roman, Gothic and Renaissance Periods. New York: [s.n.]. Canessa E. 1915. Catalogue Canessa’s Collection, Panama-Pacific International Exposition. [San Francisco: Canessa printing co.]. Canessa E. 1924. Illustrated Catalogue of the Art Collection of the Expert Antiquarians C. & E. Canessa of New York. New York–Paris–Naples: American Art Association. Canessa F. 1988. Mio nonno, compratore di “portabaà”. Il Mattino, 10 Luglio, p. 3. Cirillo A., Casale A. 2004. Il Tesoro di Boscoreale e il suo scopritore. La vera storia recostruita sui documenti dell’ epoca. Pompei: Associazione Amici di Pompei. D’Orazi L. 2018. Canessa. Una famiglia di antiquari. Cassino: Associazione culturale Italia numismatica. Nummus et historia, 35. De Puma R. D. 2018. The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Etruscans: Collecting from the 1870s to the present. In: A. A. Carpino et al., Collecting and Collectors from Antiquity to Modernity. Boston: Archaeological Institute of America, pp. 29–43. Selected papers on ancient art and architecture, 4. De Villefosse A. H. 1899. Le trésor de Boscoreale. Paris: Ernest Leroux. Desvallées A., Mairesse F. 2010. Key Concepts of Museology. Paris: Armand Colin. Eschbach N. 2007. Teile und Verdiene. Zu den Wanderbewegungen attischer Keramik um 1900. In: M. Bentz, U. Kästner (Hrsg.) Konservieren oder restaurieren – Die Restaurierung griechischer Vasen von der Antike bis heute. München: Verlag C. H. Beck, pp. 83–92. Beihefte zum Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, 3. Furtwängler A., Reichhold K. 1932. Griechische Vasenmalerei: Auswahl hervorragender Vasenbilder. München: F. Bruckmann. Hakelberg, D. 2012. For the Sake of Memory. Practicing Archaeology in Early Modern Silesia. In: O. Wolfhechel Jensen (ed.). Histories of Archaeological Practices. Reflections on Methods, Strategies and Social Organisation in Past Fieldwork. Stockholm: The National Historical Museum, pp. 53–80. Hartwig P. 1893. Die griechischen Meisterschalen der Blüthezeit des strengen rotfigurigen Stiles. Berlin: G. Reimer. Iasiello I. 2017. Napoli da capitale a periferia: archeologia e mercato antiquario in Campania nella seconda metà dell’Ottocento. Napoli: Federico II University Press. 21 Vinnie Nørskov Jandolo A. 1939. Bekenntnisse eines Kunsthändlers. Berlin–Wien–Leipzig: Paul Zsolnay Verlag. Linn S. 2018. Robert H. Lamborn: An Atypical Collector in 19th Century Philadelphia. In: Penn Museum Blog, 22 April. [online:] https://www.penn.museum/blog/collec tion/archival-practice/robert-h-lamborn-an-atypical-collector-in-19th-centuryphiladelphia/, accessed on 8.10.2021. Marshall J. 1909. Of a Head of a Youthful Goddess, Found in Chios. In: Jahrbuch des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, bd. 24. Berlin: Druck und verlag von Georg Reimer, pp. 73–92. Nørskov V. [in press – 2019]: John Marshall’s Dealings with Vases and Terracottas. In: I. G. Petruciolli (ed.) The John Marshall’s Archive at the British School of Rome [Forthcoming]. Nørskov V. 2002. Greek Vases in New Contexts. The Collecting and Trading of Greek Pottery – an Aspect of the Reception of Antiquity. Journal of the History of Collections, 15(2). https: //doi.org/10.1093/jhc/15.2.273. Pearce S. 1992. Museums, Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study. Leicester: Leicester University Press. Petruciolli G. (ed.) [forthcoming]. Ancient Art and its Commerce in Early Twentieth Century Europe: The John Marshall Archive. Published by the British School of Rome. Petruciolli G. 2016: The Canessa brothers find novel ways to transport antiquities. In: Life at the BSR, 28.01.2016. [online:] https://britishschoolatrome.wordpress.com/ 2016/01/28/trading-antiquities-in-early-20th-century-europe-the-john-marshallarchive-research-project-colloquium-2016/cyclists-2/, accessed 7.05.2021. Pomian K. 1990. Collectors and Curiosities: Paris and Venice 1500–1800, transl. by E. Wiles-Portier. Cambridge: Polity Press. Prota C. 1937. Luigi dell’Erba. Bollettino del circolo numismatico, 15–16 (Gennaio–Dicembre), 7–16. Richter G. M. A. 1906a. The Canessa Collection. The Burlington Magazine for Connoiseurs, 9(39), 204–211. Richter G. M. A. 1936. Red-figured Athenian Vases in the Metropolitan Museum of Art (with drawings by Lindley P. Hall). New Haven–London: Yale University Press. Richter, G. M. A. 1906b. Collection of Greek and Roman Vases. The Bulletin of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1(6), 77–80. Rouet Ph. 2001. Approaches to the Study of Attic Vases: Beazley and Pottier, transl. by L. Nash. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford monographs on classical archaeology. Sambon A. 1901. Collection d’antiquités, grecques et romaines, provenant Naples, sculptures, vases peintes, terres cuites, verrerie, bijoux, bronzes, médailles. Paris: [Macon] or [E. & C. Canessa]. Sambon A. 1904. Vases antiques de terre cuite. Collection Canessa. Paris: Bureau du Musée. Collection Canessa. 22 When is a Collection a Collection?… Smalcerz J. 2020. Smuggling the Renaissance: The Illicit Export of Artworks out of Italy, 1861–1909. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Studies in the history of collecting & art markets, 8. Tsingarida A. 2014. The Search for the Artist. The van Branteghem and Bourguignon Collections and the Connoisseurship of Greek Vases. In: S. Schimidt, M. Steinhart (Hrsg. ). Sammeln und erforschen. Griechische Vasen in neuzeitlichen Sammlungen. München: Verlag C. H. Beck. Beihefte zum Corpus vasorum antiquorum, 6. Tsirogiannis C. 2019. Nekiya. A ‘Reflection’ of the Antiquities Market: Selected Cases from the Antiquities Identified in 2018 and 2019. Journal of Art Crime, 63–73. Voukelatos J. 2018. Provenance Lost and Found: Alfred Bourguignon. Koinon, 1, 30–38. List of ilustrations Fig. 1: Charles Townley and friends in his library at Park Street. Oil on canvas (127 cm height, 102 cm width), Johann Zoffany 1781–83. Towneley Hall Art Gallery and Museum, Burnley, Lancashire. https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/charles-town ley-and-friends-in-his-library-at-park-street-westminster-151327/view_as/grid/ search/keyword:zoffany—venue:towneley-hall-art-gallery-museum-6220/page/1. Fig. 2: Robert H. Lamborn and his curator Dalton Dorr in Memorial Hall, Philadelphia 1889, staged photograph. Courtesy New York Public Library. https://digitalcollec tions.nypl.org/items/510d47e4–188c-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99. Fig. 3: The Canessa Gallery in New York. Courtesy New York City Museum. ( https:// collections.mcny.org/CS.aspx?VP3=DamView&VBID=24UP1GRMKLSDR&SML S=1&RW=1920&RH=955. Fig. 4: Front pages of the Canessa catalogue 1917. Fig. 5: Matrix illustrating the relationship between objects and collections, art and archaeology. Table 1: Types of vases in Sambon’s catalogue. Vase antiques de terre cuite. Collection Canessa. Table 2: Geographical provenances in Sambon’s catalogue. Vase antiques de terre cuite. Collection Canessa. Table 3: Collection provenances in Sambon’s catalogue. Vase antiques de terre cuite. Collection Canessa. Vinnie Nørskov Table 1: Types of vases in Sambon’s catalogue. Vases antiques de terre cuite. Collection Canessa. 3 Mycenean 3 Geometric 18 Corinthian 17 Early black figure 56 Athenian black figure 76 Atheninan red figure 16 Athenian white ground 4 Athenian black glazed 4 East Greek 9 Boiotian / Eubean 3 Campanian black glazed 26 South Italian red figure 4 Canosan 1 Daunian Tabel 2: Geographical provenances in Sambon’s catalogue. Vases antiques de terre cuite. Collection Canessa. 15 Greece 14 Capua 7 Attica 5 Cumae 4 Athens 4 Rhodes 4 Orvieto 3 Sicily 3 Pouille 2 Italy 2 Cerveteri 2 Eretria 1 Boiotia 1 Corneto 24 When is a Collection a Collection?… 15 Greece 1 Corinth 1 Vico Equence 1 Chalis 1 Suessula 1 Boscoreale 1 Ialysos 1 Apulia 1 Asia Minor Tabel 3: Collection provenances in Sambon’s catalogue. Vases antiques de terre cuite. Collection Canessa. 2 Bourgignon 2 Castellani 1 Raoul-Rochette 1 Lécuyer 1 Prince de Drago 25 Vinnie Nørskov Fig. 1 26 When is a Collection a Collection?… Fig. 2 Fig. 3 27 Vinnie Nørskov Fig. 4 Fig. 5 Part I euroPeAn ColleCtions of Antiquities in eighteenth And nineteenth Centuries https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.01 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma (National Museum of Antiquities, Leiden) from AntiquAriAnism to sCholArshiP Classical Archaeology in the netherlands, 1600–1840 Abstract The early collecting of classical antiquities in the Netherlands was inspired by Italian examples. Peter Paul Rubens acquired a taste for antiquities during his stay in Italy between 1600-1608 and acquired an important collection of sculptures from Sir Dudley Carleton, the British ambassador in The Hague. In Amsterdam, the brothers Gerard and Jan Reijnst recreated the atmosphere of a Venetian palazzo after their purchase of the classical antiquities and paintings of Andrea Vendramin in 1629. Parts of these collections came into the possession of Gerard van Papenbroek in the 18th century. Papenbroek’s bequest to Leiden University marked the start of academic interest in antiquities, which culminated in 1818 in the creation of a Chair of Archaeology in Leiden with Caspar Reuvens as its first professor. Keywords: history of collecting, cultural policies, museum history, archival research The history of classical archaeology in The Netherlands can be divided into two parts. On 13 June 1818, an academic Chair of Archaeology was created at the University of Leiden.1 Its first professor was Caspar J.C. Reuvens (1793–1835), who was also responsible for the ‘Archaeological Cabinet’ of the university. In the long period before this appointment there had been, of course, activities 1 About this Chair of Archaeology and the early history of the National Museum of Antiquities: Halbertsma (2003) and Hoijtink (2012). 31 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma by scholars and amateurs, which could be defined as ‘archaeological,’ but the scientific approach to the discipline was initiated by Reuvens, and supported by the Dutch government. In this article I intend to describe the periods before and after Reuvens’ appointment and the important changes in the scholarly and cultural world, which were initiated by the new discipline of archaeology and the transition of an ‘archaeological cabinet’ to the National Museum of Antiquities. ColleCting Antiquities in the low Countries, 17th–18th Centuries Antwerp: Peter Paul rubens The first collection of classical antiquities in the Low Countries was assembled by the Flemish painter Peter-Paul Rubens (1577–1640).2 On his Grand Tour to Italy he became impressed by the lavish decoration of the Italian palazzi, consisting of paintings and fine antiquities. Between 1600 and 1608, he visited Venice, Mantova, Florence, Genova and Rome. His sketches show the famous masterpieces of the period: the Laocoon, the Apollo Belvedere, the Hercules Farnese, and so on. In Italy, he bought his first archaeological object: a portrait of an old man, with wrinkles and a pained expression on his face. This type of portrait was said to represent the Roman philosopher Seneca (Vickers 1977). Rubens portrayed the head on his well-known painting ‘The four philosophers’ (ca. 1612, now in the Palazzo Pitti, Florence, Fig. 1). This acquisition was in line with the humanistic ideas of his teacher Justus Lipsius, who advised to fill libraries and studies with portraits of the great ancient authors: ‘We could study the writings of Homer, Hippocrates, Aristotle, Pindar, Virgil, Cicero and others, and at the same time enjoying with our eyes their portraits’ (Muller 2004: 43). In 1618 Rubens enlarged his collection spectacularly by buying the antiquities of Sir Dudley Carleton, the British ambassador to The Hague. Carleton had been ambassador to Venice, where he acquired these objects for Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset. When Carr was arrested on suspicion of murder, Carleton was left with the antiquities (about hundred sculptures), for which he was not 2 See for Rubens’ interest in antiquities: Alpers (1995), Haskell and Penny (1981), Jaffé (1969), Jaffé (1977), Muller (1977) and Muller (1989). 32 From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… able to find a buyer in England. He took them with him from Venice to his next assignment in The Hague. Rubens heard of the collection, and offered to acquire them, in exchange for 12 of his paintings. Rubens wrote to Carleton: The paintings have cost me next to nothing, because usually one is more generous with fruit from his own garden, than with things one buys on the market. And in exchange for marbles to decorate only one room, Your Excellency will receive paintings, with which you can decorate a whole house. (Muller 2004: 34) The room to which Rubens refers might well be the famous ‘Rotonda’ in his Antwerp palazzo, which is mentioned in many descriptions of the place (Muller 2004: 30). Just like the Pantheon in Rome, the ‘Rotonda’ had an opening in the ceiling, from which the sunlight descended on the statues with varying effects during the day. The wall had niches in two tiers, and could house around 30 sculptures. The rest of Carleton’s collection was placed in other rooms of the house, and the larger sculptures will have found a place in the Italianate gardens. Rubens was not overly attached to his collection. His need of money and his growing interest in English politics led to the sale of many antiquities, gemstones and paintings to Georges Villiers, Duke of Buckingham. Villiers was one of the mightiest men in England, and this purchase secured Rubens’ entrance into the world of the British Court. The transaction earned him the enormous sum of 84,000 Dutch guilders and knighthood granted to him by King Charles I. Plaster casts were made to fill the gaps in the now emptied ‘Rotonda’. The sale of antiquities to the Duke of Buckingham marked the beginning of the dispersal of Rubens’ collection. After Rubens’ death in 1640, parts of his collection were auctioned in Antwerp, and ended up in the hands of other Dutch collectors. Amsterdam: Jan and gerard reijnst The brothers Jan and Gerard Reijnst belonged to the municipal elite of the merchant city of Amsterdam (Fig. 2).3 Their father had been Governor-General of the Dutch Indies, and together they conducted one of the biggest trade firms of Amsterdam. Gerard Reijnst took care of the firm’s interests in Amsterdam, while his brother Jan resided in the Republic of Venice, which had many ties with 3 See for the history of the Reijnst family and their collections: Halbertsma (2003: 6–10) and Logan (1979). 33 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma the Netherlands. In Venice, Jan encountered the enormous luxury with which the Venetians surrounded themselves: their palazzi were loaded with fine paintings and classical sculptures. Inspired by these surroundings, Jan conceived the idea of creating the interior of a Venetian palazzo in Amsterdam: a unique opportunity to enhance the stature of the Reijnst brothers and to create the image of the mercator sapiens, who is not only interested in profit and riches, but also in the fine arts and antiquities. The opportunity to realise this dream presented itself in 1629, when the Venetian collection of Andrea Vendramin (1556–1629) was sold. After consulting his brother Gerard, Jan was able to buy around 200 paintings and 300 sculptures, which were then transported to the Reijnst mansion on the Keizersgracht. The impact of this collection was huge. Here Rembrandt encountered the highlights of Italian painting for the first time. Every important visitor to Amsterdam saw the collection and commented on its beauty. Among the visitors we encounter the names of Amalia van Solms, Cosimo de’Medici and Christian Knorr von Rosenroth. The pearls in the crown of the Reijnst brothers were two illustrated catalogues of their collection. In 1665, a selection of the finest paintings was published in the Caelaturae (edited by Clement de Jonghe, paintings by e.g. Titian, Veronese and Tintoretto), followed around 1670 by the publication by Nicolaes Visscher of the ancient sculptures in the Signorum Veterum Icones. A closer look at the latter catalogue makes it clear that the publication was meant to impress and cannot be considered as a work of scholarly endeavour. The engravings show beautiful sculptures (with impressive names like e.g. ‘Cleopatra’, ‘Germanicus’ or ‘Agrippina’), which are complete, without any indication of fractures or restorations. A comparison with still existing statues makes it clear that the engravings are embellished versions of the sculptures. After the death of Gerard Reijnst in 1658 (his brother had died earlier), the whole collection was sold. Twenty-four paintings and twelve sculptures were acquired by the Dutch Republic and offered as part of an important diplomatic gift to the British monarch King Charles II in 1660. The other paintings and sculptures ended up in various Dutch and European collections. 34 From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… nijmegen: father and son smetius As we have seen above, the collections of Rubens and Reijnst were meant to impress. The classical sculptures, which were expertly restored, showed the perfection of the ancient artists and had to bear impressive names taken from ancient history. They served as ‘conversation pieces’ in the houses of their collectors. An archaeological collection of quite a different nature was to be found in the eastern part of the Netherlands, in the city of Nijmegen. It was here that Johannes Smetius (1591–1651) worked as a Calvinist clergyman, with huge scholarly interests, especially in the history of the city of Nijmegen (Halbertsma 2003: 10–11). His conviction was that Nijmegen (the Roman city of Noviomagus) could be identified with the Oppidum Batavorum, mentioned in Tacitus as the centre of the courageous tribe of the Batavians, who rebelled against Roman domination in 69 AD. To substantiate his claims, he started to collect local antiquities, which were found in and around the city of Nijmegen. These were not the shining marble remains of ancient art, as shown in Antwerp and Amsterdam, but more mundane artefacts like oil lamps, terracotta statuettes, tableware, small bronzes and glasswork. He published his collection in his book Oppidum Batavorum seu Noviomagum (Amsterdam, 1644). His endeavour was continued by his son Johannes Smetius junior (1636–1704), also a protestant clergyman in Nijmegen and curator of the important collection. He wrote the illustrated catalogue Antiquitates Neomagenses (1678), in which we encounter around 4,500 Roman artefacts and around 10,000 coins. His collection attracted more than 3,000 visitors, which makes it more of a modern museum than the Antwerp and Amsterdam collections, which were only open to invited guests. When his health declined, Smetius tried to sell his collection to the city of Nijmegen, but to no avail. The antiquities remained together, but in the possession of Johann Wilhelm, Elector of the Paltz, residing in Düsseldorf. This is the last known location. At the moment only a few objects in Mannheim and Munich can be traced back to a provenance in the Smetius collection. Four inscriptions remained in Nijmegen as silent witnesses of the great endeavours of the two scholarly clergymen. 35 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma the 18th Century: gerArd VAn PAPenbroek Calvinistic approaches to antiquity Some of the antiquities of Rubens and Reijnst remained in the Netherlands, in the possession of collectors like Nicolaes Witsen, Gerrit Uylenburgh and Jan Six. Many of these antiquities were acquired by Gerard van Papenbroek, a very wealthy 18th century collector (Halbertsma 2003: 14–20). His collection grew to a total of ca. 150 Greek and Roman antiquities. His motives for collecting antique sculpture are to my knowledge unique and need some further consideration. Gerard van Papenbroek (1673–1743) was a descendant of a wealthy Flemish family, which fled to the Netherlands in the 16th century, due to the persecution of protestants in the Spanish part of the Netherlands. The family prospered in Amsterdam. Van Papenbroek was so rich that he could live the life of a ‘gentleman of leisure,’ although he did perform some administrative duties at the city’s council. Like other members of the Amsterdam elite, he owned two houses: one on the Herengracht in the city centre, and one in the countryside in Velsen, near the North Sea. He was an avid collector, with a special interest in portraits of famous scholars, manuscripts and classical antiquities. His portraits and manuscripts were kept in Amsterdam, while his antiquities were displayed in his country house ‘De Papenburgh’ in Velsen. Van Papenbroek was not a traveller. He never went on a Grand Tour to Italy, and collected objects mainly by buying them at auctions or acquiring from other antiquarians. The first mention of his collection of antiquities dates from 1725 and is to be found in a publication by David van Hoogstraten and Jan Lodewijk Schuur. In this description of his country house we encounter: Greek and Latin inscriptions, altars, gravestones, funeral urns, sublime sculpture, statues and busts, which were found and excavated in various parts of Asia, in Greece, in Rome, and in the surrounding neighbourhoods, also in the Dutch Republic, and which were brought hither. (Regteren Altena/Thiel 1964: 29–30) The collection of antiquities was placed in a gallery next to the mansion. When entering the gallery, the visitor saw a Latin inscription ‘on the left hand side’ with a clear admonition to the visitor: ‘All ye who enter, pay attention!’ Then followed a list of all the objects the visitor would encounter: portraits of mighty men and women, gods and goddesses, inscriptions and altars… The ad36 From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… monition continued with: ‘Be mindful of human frailty, vanity and instability, remember that all worldly things die, perish, collapse and change, and that nothing is permanent and stable. That only the word and the name of Jehova the Lord remain to all eternity.’ Obviously, it was of great importance to Van Papenbroek to admonish the visitors of his collection with this lesson: ancient empires have fallen, ancient gods are not worshipped anymore, inscriptions in praise of mere mortals have lost their meaning – all this in great contrast to the one and only true religion: Christianity. Antiquities in leiden: the Papenbroek bequest Van Papenbroek was attached to his collections. He tried very hard to publicize his antiquities, but due to various reasons this project never materialised. When his health began to fail, he looked for a safe haven for his precious belongings. Due to his excellent contacts with some curators of Leiden University, he decided to bequeath his entire collection to this institute. Opposition from some influential inhabitants of Amsterdam led to a division of the portrait gallery: part of it was donated to the Athenaeum Illustre, the predecessor of the University of Amsterdam. Van Papenbroek died on 12 October 1743. His collections arrived in Leiden in the early months of 1744. The paintings and manuscripts were placed in the Academy Building and the Library, but there was no room available for the collection of 150 antiquities. It was decided to alter a building project which was already underway: the construction of a new orangery in the Botanical Garden of the University. The central room of this building was embellished with classical pilasters, a stuccoed ceiling and pink marbled niches. The white marble contrasted very pleasantly with the pink background and the overall effect was a tribute to the generosity of Gerard van Papenbroek.4 On 27 September 1745 an official inauguration was celebrated in honour of the bequest. Keynote speaker was Franciscus Oudendorp, professor of ancient history and rhetoric, who was preparing a catalogue of the antiquities. In his speech we encounter the feelings of uneasiness, which were provoked by the pagan world of antiquity: the statues of gods and goddesses were naked, inscriptions praised emperors as if they were gods and the representations of the 4 Leiden University wanted to honour Van Papenbroek with a portrait, but he answered that an inscription with his name was enough. 37 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma pleasures of human life far surpassed the observance of austere religious behaviour (Halbertsma in Eck 2017: 103–114). The following quotation gives an idea of the general attitude of Oudendorp towards antiquity: If you would like to admire, or to ridicule, the over-ambitious titles of the Emperors, on equal footing with the gods, with which citizens, allies and provincials have idolized those lords and rulers of the world; titles heaved upon each other to a boring limit, the stones will give you as much arguments as books and coins. (Halbertsma in Eck 2017: 111) Of course, from an academic point of view the collection was very interesting, because it offered, for example, representations of gods, which were formerly unknown to classical scholars, like the indigenous goddess Nehalennia or the Batavian god Magusanus. But a warning was in place: students had to defend themselves ‘with a superior smile’ against these ‘wrong opinions about the divine’. Better objects of study were the early Christian monuments and the inscriptions from the catacombs in Rome. And so, the first large collection of antiquities entered the academy of Leiden. Apart from Oudendorp, the objects did not receive much attention. They belonged to the curiosities in the Botanical Garden, together with the stuffed alligators, precious stones and tortoise shells. Moreover, the damp conditions in the orangery caused the deterioration of many statues. Joints had been repaired with iron clamps, which began to rust. Parts of statues broke off, or were taken away by visitors. The once so glorious ‘salon’ became a sore sight, as we can read in many travel accounts of the period. the 19th Century: the ChAir of ArChAeology in leiden Caspar reuvens: inspiration from Paris The presence of the Papenbroek bequest in Leiden was the main reason to make a choice for this city when, in 1818, a chair of archaeology was created by Royal Decree (Halbertsma 2003: 24–25). The first scholar to be appointed Professor of Archaeology was Dr Caspar J.C. Reuvens, who, at the age of 25, had already proven to be a genius (Fig. 3). He had read Law and Classics at the universities of Amsterdam, Leiden and Paris. In the latter city he had obtained his doctor38 From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… ate in Law. During his stay in Paris (1811–1814), he had witnessed the enormous impact of neoclassicism on all aspects of life: architecture, applied arts, fashion… Apart from reading classics, he had also studied the huge collections of the Musée Napoléon, filled with art from all over Europe. It was here that his fascination for the material culture of Greece and Rome took shape. Filled with these ideas, he returned to the Netherlands, where he became Professor of Classics at the small university of Harderwijk. This university was closed in 1818. As there were no vacancies at other universities in the field of Classics, a new chair by special appointment was created for the promising scholar, in view of his fascination for ‘the moveable objects from antiquity,’ as it was described in his recommendation. In order to gain more knowledge about collections and to meet colleagues abroad, he made travels to England and the German States, and worked intensely to create a network of like-minded scholars and influential high ranking civil servants and politicians. During his travel to London, Oxford and Cambridge he desired to acquire plaster casts of the Parthenon Marbles, recently acquired by the British Museum. The University responded negatively to his request for funds, but the Ministry of the Interior did see the importance of enlarging the collections in Leiden, and financed the transactions. Now Reuvens experienced with which connections he could realise his ambitions, with far reaching results. Collecting Antiquities: an affair of state Reuvens’ first concern was to find an adequate housing for the sculptures, which were decaying in the orangery of the university. Six rooms were made available for him, in a building next to the Museum of Natural History. His second concern was to take an inventory of all the antiquities, which were scattered among various institutions in the Netherlands. For this reason he made a clear description of what kind of objects should be placed in a Museum of Antiquities. Being a classicist, the ancient cultures of Greece and Rome were his point of departure. Consequently, the material remains of all the cultures which were known by or influenced by Greece or Rome had to be placed in the archaeological museum: Egypt, Carthage, Persia, the Germanic and Celtic worlds (Halbertsma 2003: 31–42). And even India and the East Indies, as the Buddhist art of the East Indies was derived from Indian examples. This system excluded the Americas and the Far East (the Americas were included later in the 19th century). And 39 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma so the collections in Leiden began to grow: apart from the Papenbroek statues and busts, you could find in Leiden plaster casts, European prehistoric artefacts from various countries, Provincial Roman finds and East-Indian statues and reliefs. Not all the institutions were willing to cede their antiquities to Leiden. The Museum of Natural History refused to part with prehistoric axes ‘because of the type of stone’. The Cabinet of Curiosities in The Hague denied Reuvens their East-Indian antiquities ‘because the director had bought them with his own money’ and the Royal Cabinet of Coins and Carved Stones (The Hague) considered Egyptian scarabs as ‘carved stones’ and refused to give them to Leiden. The collections of B.e.A. rottiers In the meantime, word had spread that a new museum was created in the Netherlands. Collectors with a special interest in archaeology found their way to Leiden with the result that important collections were offered to the museum. One of these collectors was the Flemish Colonel Bernard E.A. Rottiers (1771– 1858, Fig. 4).5 Rottiers was born in Antwerp and had pursued an adventurous military career, which had brought him to Russia in service to the Tsar. In 1819, he was granted an honourable discharge with a huge bonus, and set off on his homeward journey from Tiflis via Constantinople, Athens and Rome to Antwerp.6 All his life he had been an avid collector of paintings and ‘objets de vertu,’ but in Turkey and Greece he became interested in ancient coins and antiquities. He arrived in Athens in 1819 and became acquainted with the prominent French diplomat-cum-collector, Louis-François-Sébastien Fauvel. With the financial resources of Rottiers and the political influence of Fauvel, excavations were started around Athens, aided by other members of the Athenian corps diplomatique. The excavating teams were successful. In the cemeteries along the ancient roads of Athens they discovered grave markers like marble lekythoi and beautiful stelae dating from the 4th century BC. The finds were divided between the excavators, and the impression is that Rottiers, as the main financer, got the best of the results. Of course, this practice had nothing to do with archaeology, but it was rather a common ‘quest for antiquities,’ already going on for centuries. Rottiers arrived with his treasures in Antwerp in 1820 and came in 5 6 See about Rottiers: Bastet (1987); Halbertsma (2003: 49–70). Rottiers later published an account of this travel: Rottiers, B.E.A. 1829, Itinéraire de Tiflis à Constantinople, Bruxelles. 40 From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… contact with Reuvens about the possibilities to sell his objects to the new museum. With the financial aid from the Ministry of the Interior, the antiquities were bought and the museum in Leiden came into possession of original classical sculptures dating from the 4th century BC. The enterprising Colonel did not stop with this sale. A collection of Greek ceramics, acquired by his son in 1821, was sold to the museum (Halbertsma 2003: 54–55) and an idea developed in the mind of the Colonel. During a number of talks with the Ministry of the Interior he sketched a project, with the aim to start excavations in Greece and collecting antiquities in the Mediterranean. For this project, he needed the help of the Dutch Navy, which had a fleet in the Mediterranean Sea, based at Cap Mahon. From the fact that Professor Reuvens was not invited to these talks, it is clear that archaeology (and archaeological collecting) had become part of the cultural policy of the Netherlands and was planned at the Ministries in The Hague, and not in the halls of the university in Leiden. Colonel Rottiers received permission and funding for an archaeological expedition to the Mediterranean which would last two years (1824–1826). Only after this permission had been granted, Reuvens was informed about the decision. The professor was not amused, to say the least. He had come to know Rottiers as an adventurous man, and a skilled organiser, but not as a scholarly investigator. Rottiers’ ideas about archaeology did not go beyond the stage of digging for treasures, and for him the pecuniary aspects of the objects far surpassed their value for the scholarly world. In the meantime, Reuvens did what he could to train the Colonel in the basics of archaeology: he compiled a reading list and wrote a long memorandum about the most important aspects of the archaeological mission in Greece. The mission was not successful. After the completion of the expedition in 1826, even the Ministry had to agree they had been wrong to support the Colonel’s ideas. The amount and quality of the acquired objects were not impressive, Rottiers had totally ignored Reuvens’ wish list and he had managed to instigate serious diplomatic incidents with the Greek government during his activities on the island of Melos and in Athens, as will be described later. In retrospect, it becomes clear that the main incentive to travel to Greece had been Rottiers’ wish to stay six months on the island of Rhodes, where he ordered his painter P.J. Witdoeck to draw in detail the medieval architecture of the Knights Templar. After the expedition, these drawings were engraved and published, with a travel account by Rottiers, in ‘Les Monumens de Rhodes’ (1830). Apart from his time-consuming activities on Rhodes (where in the words of Reuvens ‘he managed not to buy one single archaeological object’), the 41 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma Colonel did some collecting and digging for a few days on the island of Melos, but as a whole, the expedition had failed. After 1826, Rottiers tried a few times to ingratiate himself with Reuvens, but to no avail, especially after Reuvens had discovered that Rottiers had cheated him about the provenance of an important object from the collection which Revuens had acquired from Rottiers in 1822.7 Jean emile humbert: Carthage, etruria and egypt As sketched above, in the newly established Kingdom of the Netherlands archaeology had become part of the country’s national policy. It was through these channels that Reuvens came into contact, in 1821, with a Dutch expatriate, who had lived for more than twenty years in Tunisia. Jean-Emile Humbert (Fig. 5), a major-engineer, had been part of a diplomatic mission to Tunisia in 1796, which was organised to build a modern harbour at La Goulette, the canal that gave access to the Lake of Tunis.8 After the end of this mission in 1806, he was invited to remain in Tunisia as head-engineer of the Regency. In this function he modernised the citadel of Tunis and built various fortifications in the interior of the country. In his free time he learned Arabic, studied the history of the country and started collecting ancient coins. He became especially interested in the history of Carthage and the interpretation of its ancient ruins, which were lying in the neighbourhood of La Goulette. He made detailed plans of the Carthaginian peninsula and even started excavations, during which he found the first remains of the Punic city, which was destroyed by the Romans in 146 BC. When he returned to the Netherlands in 1821, he took his drawings and collections of coins and Punic material with him. Through the Ministry he came into contact with Reuvens, whom he met in Leiden, with important consequences to the history of archaeology. 7 8 A bronze bust, allegedly acquired on the island of Egina in 1821, but in reality purchased by Rottiers in 1819 in Italy, on his voyage back from Russia to Antwerp. His demeanour in general reflects this thought: ‘It should also be recalled that the international scholarly environment at the time was largely populated by “amateurs,” princes and prelates, senior civil servants, aristocrats and officers – a socially inhomogenous group of enthusiasts. But these men were the pioneers behind many of the great European collections of today. The sciences and arts […] were at that time only just starting on the road to professionalism.’ Møller in Bundgaard Rasmussen (e.a.) (2000: 98). See about this mission and the archaeological activities of Jean-Emile Humbert: Halbertsma (1995) and Halbertsma (2003: 71–111). 42 From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… Reuvens was thrilled with the maps of the Carthaginian peninsula, which were drawn with military precision. He considered them the best plans of Carthage ever made. The location of the Punic settlement still remained a mystery, as no Punic remains had been unearthed. The finds of Humbert, four stelae and some fragments, most of them with inscriptions, provided a starting point for solving the topographical mysteries of the peninsula and for shedding light on the Punic language. On one of the detailed maps of Carthage, Humbert had indicated the findspot of the Punic stelae.9 Reuvens realised that with this material and the topographical knowledge of Humbert, he could publish a monograph on Carthage, with which he would make his name in the archaeological world. The maps and stelae were bought for the archaeological cabinet, the coins were acquired by the Royal Coin Cabinet in The Hague and Reuvens suggested to Humbert an archaeological expedition to Tunisia, in order to acquire more Punic and Roman material and to study the topography of Carthage, in view of the forthcoming publication. Because of the national prestige of such an enterprise, the Ministry decided in favour of the expedition. Humbert was elevated to the rank of Lieutenant-Colonel, received a military order for his earlier achievements in Tunisia, and left the Netherlands early in the year 1822. He remained in Tunisia till 1824 and sailed home with a shipload of Punic and Roman antiquities, and notebooks full of topographical sketches and drawings of the excavations he had conducted in Carthage and in other places. Humbert’s most important acquisition was a collection of eight imperial statues from Utica. They were bought from a high ranking official at the Tunisian court, who provided detailed information about the spot where the statues had been found more than twenty years earlier. Reuvens and the Ministry were very pleased with the outcome of this expedition, but the topographical material was still not enough for the final publication. Moreover, Reuvens had started to aim higher than Carthage alone; he wanted to incorporate the topography of Carthage in a broader context of the history of the whole North African coast. For the sake of this endeavour, a second exhibition to North-Africa was organised, which would last four years (1826–1830). But the political circumstances had changed: the War of Independence in Greece had provoked hostile 9 A comparison of Humbert’s plan with the modern excavations of Carthage makes it clear that his finds had been part of the Tophet of the city, dedicated to Ba’al and Tanit. The stelae were grave markers for sacrificed children. Reuvens and his colleague Hendrik Hamaker published the stelae in 1822 (Hamaker 1822; Reuvens 1822). 43 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma sentiments towards Christians. The safety of Humbert outside of Tunis could not be guaranteed. Humbert asked permission to remain in Italy, at least for the summer of 1826. This permission was granted, provided that Humbert would be active in buying antiquities for the museum in Leiden. This provision led to unforeseen results. In 1826, Humbert bought an important collection of Etruscan decorated urns from Volterra and a big collection of Etruscan antiquities from Cortona (Collection Corazzi). The funds were provided by the Ministry, in view of the ‘great honour’ it would give to the museum in Leiden, which was to house the first Etruscan collection outside of Italy. Following the acquisition of the Corazzi collection, Humbert bought an important collection of Egyptian antiquities, which had belonged to Dr Cimba, a physician of the well-known collector of Egyptian antiquities, Henry Salt (see Manley, Ree 2001). In 1827, busy with packing and shipping the Etruscan and Egyptian antiquities to Leiden, Humbert was informed that a very large collection of Egyptian antiquities was on its way to Leghorn. These objects, more than 5,600 in total, belonged to Jean d’Anastasy, consul-general of the Scandinavian States in Alexandria, and, along with the diplomats Salt and Drovetti, the most active collector of Egyptian antiquities. Humbert got permission to enter talks with the representatives of d’Anastasy, and after a year of difficult negotiations the collection became the property of the Dutch government. With this acquisition Leiden was on equal footing with the most important collections of Aegyptiaca in Europe: Paris, London and Turin. A new task lay ahead of Reuvens: the publication of the Egyptian monuments of the Leiden Museum. Moreover, he had started excavations on the site of the Roman city Forum Hadriani, near The Hague. These excavations and their publication weighed heavily on his shoulders. In these circumstances it became very hard to work on three publications at the same time, apart from his duties as museum director, excavation supervisor and university professor. The d’Anastasy collection was the last big acquisition in these pioneer years of the museum. Humbert remained in Italy till 1830 and had been able to buy a huge vase collection in Naples10 and a collection of fine statuary in Venice,11 but the Ministry decided that enough had been spend on archaeology, much to the displeasure of Reuvens. The important acquisitions of Punic, Etruscan and Egyptian antiquities left the classical department behind, both in numbers and 10 More than 2000 vases from the collection of Raffaele Gargiulo: see about this collection Milanese (2014: 201–255). 11 Collection Nani-Tiepolo. 44 From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… in quality. The end of these prosperous pioneer years is marked by the political turmoil following the Belgian insurrection in 1830 and the subsequent partition of the Kingdom of the Netherlands into two separate states. Cultural expeditions to the Mediterranean were cancelled due to the dire financial situation in the Netherlands. Humbert went back to Italy, where he died in 1839. Four years earlier, Reuvens had met an untimely death, following a stroke. This event thwarted all his ambitious projects. Colonel Rottiers survived both Reuvens and Humbert, and died in 1857 in Brussels, at the age of 86 years. He was buried with military honours. With the death of these three protagonists there came an end to the eventful pioneer period of the Leiden Museum. ePiLogue: towArds A ComPrehensive study of historiCAl ColleCtions So far I have sketched a story of collecting classical antiquities in the Netherlands, from the 17th century till the birth of the official study of archaeology in the first half of the 19th century. This story has been told from a Dutch point of view. But we must not forget that archaeology and the trade in antiquities have been practised on an international scale. In order to comprehend the provenance and the history of objects, it is of paramount importance to look at every aspect of the object (or collection) in question. Let us take, for example, an early Christian sarcophagus, which belonged to Peter-Paul Rubens in the 17th century.12 As described above, Rubens acquired a large part of his collection in 1618 from Sir Dudley Carleton. Carleton had bought these antiquities in Venice, from the collection of Cardinal Giovanni Grimani, Patriarch of Aquileia. On the plinth of the sarcophagus, there is an inscription dedicating the object to the eternal memory of Pope Marcellus, Bishop of Rome in the years 308–309. The inscription is not from the 4th century AD, but leads us to Rome, where a church in honour of Marcellus was built in the 8th century AD. The mortal remains of Saint Marcellus were transported to this church on the Via del Corso from the catacombs of Santa Priscilla. In 1527, Pope Clemens VII appointed Marino Grimani as Cardinal, with the San Marcello al Corso as his titular church. In order to add some 12 Now in Leiden, inv. Pb 35. 45 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma glamour to his new status, he planned to rebuild the San Marcello, burned down in 1519. Maybe on this occasion, Grimani removed the damaged remains of the sarcophagus and placed them among his own collection of antiquities, which were bequeathed in 1546 to his nephew Giovanni Grimani in Venice. The sarcophagus is heavily restored and shows traces of black soot, probably the traces of the fire in 1519. This history of only one piece in Rubens’ collection shows the necessity to study various archives related to its previous owners, in the Vatican, Venice, Antwerp and England in order to get a complete picture of the object. A second example may be taken from the expedition of Rottiers during the years 1824–1826. In August 1825, Rottiers started excavations on the island of Melos. He bought a piece of land next to the findspot of the Venus of Milo, and according to a common practice he was allowed to dig the terrain. He unearthed a mosaic floor, of which he lifted the main panels. According to his report, he also found an altar decorated with boukrania, which he took aboard his ship. He had just ended his activities on Melos when he was informed about new laws concerning the acquisition of ancient objects. In his own words: My activities were disrupted by the archon of Milo. This magistrate informed me of a decree by the Greek government, which forbade every foreigner, from every country, to carry out excavations and appropriate pieces of antique monuments. All these objects belong to the state. Once the Greeks have finished a heavier task, they want to place them in a Hellenic Museum. With pride they will show the foreigners what is left of their ancestors, of those men who gave Europe its art and civilization. I obeyed the orders of the archon, although I myself had bought the terrain of the excavations. It meant taking leave of grand projects. I sacrificed my sincere hopes to the young legislation of a suffering country and I do not believe that I should feel sorry for that. (Rottiers 1830: 10) The real reason, however, was the arrival of the Dutch ambassador on his way to Smyrna and the departure of Rottiers’ ship the Diana. And from Greek archival sources, it becomes clear that Rottiers’ relationship with the Greek authorities was far from ideal. From the archives it transpires that the altar decorated with bull’s heads was not found on the land bought by Rottiers, but on an adjacent patch of land, which did not belong to the Colonel. The archon of the island wrote to Rottiers: To our great amazement we have seen that you have lifted from the earth a marble, which does not belong to you at all. We, representatives of our government, have told you in person […] that it is not permitted to excavate on any other 46 From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… property than the land of which you have ownership. And now you confiscate a marble discovered by another person on a different field […]. If you proceed to take it by force, we admonish you that it is worth 5000 collonati, which will be fined to you on behalf of our government.13 Rottiers totally disregarded the threats, produced a Turkish firman which he considered ‘as more important than the Greek legislation,’ and threatened to come back to do more excavations. This behaviour was reported to the authorities on the Greek mainland. Articles appeared in Greek journals about his conduct, and when Rottiers arrived in Athens to measure architectural remains and to buy antiquities, his reputation had preceded him: he was caught by the police, and was forced to return all the ancient items he had collected. Then, the enraged good Dutchman, not only did he not pay the expenses he had made at the hotel, but he also refused to pay the people who had served him, and while leaving the place, he threatened that he would guide the Turks how to conquer Athens. (General Newspaper of Greece 1825: 76)14 Here we see the necessity not to put one’s thrust in official reports and memoirs alone. Other archival sources may shed a totally different light on the events in Greece. The third and last example can be taken from the travels of Jean Emile Humbert. In Tunisia, he was not the only antiquarian trying to buy antiquities. As sketched above, Humbert was interested in acquiring the imperial statues, which had been found (around 1800) in Utica. They were in the possession of a high ranking minister of the Bey. When Humbert arrived in Tunis in 1822, he learned that one of the finest statues, probably representing Plotina, the wife of emperor Trajan, had been bought by the Danish consul Andreas Christian Gierlew (now in Copenhagen, see Lund 2000). Gierlew’s successor as consul was Christian Tuxen Falbe, who was also interested in the history of Tunisia. Falbe had started excavations in Carthage, which were disrupted by Humbert 13 Letter by Mr. Emanuel to Rottiers, August 1825, cited in: E.G. Protopsaltes (ed.), Historika eggrafa, peri archaeotiton kai leipon mnimeion tes historias kata tous chronous tes Epanastaseos kai tou Kapodistria [Historical documents on antiquities and other monuments of history during the years of the Revolution and of Kapodistrias] (Athens: Archaeological Society, 1967), pp. 20–21. The document is to be published in: Charalampos Maliopoulos, Chasing the imaginary – The classical past of ancient Greece: colonial and national fantasies (Leiden University MA Thesis, forthcoming). 14 To be published in Maliopoulos, op. cit., note 14. 47 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma in a most ungentlemanly manner (Halbertsma 2003: 84). Humbert had spread a rumour that somewhere beneath a Roman mosaic floor in Falbe’s excavation a chest with golden coins laid buried. The result was that Falbe saw his excavation totally ruined, a fact that he never forgave Humbert. None of these international conflicts ever reached the ears of Reuvens or the Ministry. During his stay in Italy, Humbert came into contact with different other European collectors: for example Jean-François Champollion, who was acquiring antiquities for the Louvre, and Johann-Martin von Wagner, who was active for the Court of Munich. At various moments, he was ahead or behind one of these players in acquiring objects. He stood also in close contact with Eduard Gerhard, the founding director of the Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica and visited with him in 1829 an exhibition of Greek vases excavated on the premises of Lucien Bonaparte near Viterbo. For a complete picture of the history of classical archaeology in Europe, it is therefore of paramount importance to include various archives in one’s research. The availability of searchable archival sources, which are kept in museums and State Archives, is essential for understanding this period of dynamic collecting, international competition and governmental involvement. Moreover, only the archives can give answers to the very important questions concerning the legality, the motives and the practicalities of 19th century collectionism. Archaeological coherent complexes, such as the tomb contents of Volterra, the Bonaparte vases from Vulci or the imperial statues from Utica, which are now scattered over various museums, may in the future be united in a digital format, and many questions about the ‘the whole’ (which cannot be answered by ‘the separate parts’) may be posed and, perhaps, be answered. It would allow us to recreate the original archaeological environment existing before the activities of the antiquarian adventurers of the 19th century. 48 From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… bibliography Alpers S. 1995. The Making of Rubens. New Haven–London: Yale University Press. Bastet F.L. 1987. De drie collecties Rottiers in Leiden. Leiden: Rijksmuseum van Oudheden. Bundgaard Rasmussen B., Steen Jensen J., Lund J. (eds.) 2000. Christian VIII and the National Museum. Copenhagen: The National Museum of Denmard. Eck C. van 2017. Idols and Museum Pieces – The Nature of Sculpture, its Historiography and Exhibition History 1640–1880. Berlin–Boston: Walter de Gruyter. Halbertsma R.B. 1995. Le solitaire des ruines – de archeologische reizen van Jean Emile Humbert (1771-1839) in dienst van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden. Leiden: Rijksuniversiteit. Halbertsma R.B. 2003. Scholars, Travellers and Trade – The Pioneer Years of the National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, 1818–1840. London–New York: Routledge. Halbertsma R.B. 2017. Admirari vel Deridere – Calvinistic Approaches to Classical Sculpture in the Netherlands. In: C. van Eck (ed.), Idols and Museum Pieces – The Nature of Sculpture, its Historiography and Exhibition History 1640-1880. Berlin– Boston: Walter de Gruyter. 103–114. Hamaker H.A. 1822. Diatribe philologico-critica monumentorum aliquot Punicorum nuper in Africa repertorum interpretationem exhibens. Lugduni Batavorum: S. et J. Luchtmans. Haskell F., Penny N. 1981. Taste and the Antique: The Lure of Classical Sculpture 1500– 1900. New Haven–London: Yale University Press. Hoijtink M. 2012. Exhibiting the Past – Caspar Reuvens and the Museums of Antiquities in Europe (1800–1840), Turnhout: Brepols. Jaffé M. 1969. Rubens as a Collector, Journal of the Royal Society of Arts. 117(5157), 641-660. Jaffé M. 1979. Rubens and Italy. London. Logan A.M. 1979. The ‘Cabinet’ of the Brothers Gerard and Jan Reynst. Amsterdam: North-Hollan. Lund J. 2000. Il console Gierlew e il conte Borgia in terra d’Africa. In: V. Ciccotti (ed.). Atti del convegno internazionale di studi Camillo Borgia. Velletri: Comune di Velletri, 75–84. Manley, D., Ree, P. 2001. Henry Salt: Artist, Traveller, Diplomat, Egyptologist. London: Libri. Milanese A. 2014. In partenza dal Regno – Esportazioni e commercio d’arte e d’antichità a Napoli nella prima metà dell’Ottocento. Firenze: Edifir edizioni Firenze. Muller J.M. 1977. Rubens’s Museum of Antique Sculpture: An Introduction, The Art Bulletin, 59(4), 571–582. https://doi.org/10.2307/3049711. Muller J.M. 1989. Rubens: The Artist as Collector. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 49 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma Muller J.M. 2004. De verzameling van Rubens in historisch perspectief. In: K.L. Belkin, F. Healy (eds.). Een huis vol kunst – Rubens als verzamelaar. Antwerpen: Rubenshuis. Regteren Altena I.Q. van, Thiel P.J.J. van 1964. De portretgalerij van de Universiteit van Amsterdam en haar stichter Gerard van Papenbroeck, 1673–1743. Amsterdam: Swets en Zeitlinger. Reuvens C.J.C. 1822. Periculum animadversionum archaeologicarum ad cippos Punicos Humbertianos Musei Antiquarii Lugduno-Batavi. Lugduni Batavorum: S. et J. Luchtmans. Vickers M. 1977, Rubens’s Bust of ‘Seneca’?, The Burlington Magazine, 119(894), 643–644. list of illustrations Fig. 1. Peter-Paul Rubens, The four philosophers (with bust of ‘Seneca’), ca. 1612, Palazzo Pitti, Florence. Fig. 2. Bartholomeus van der Helst, The captains of the Kloveniersdoelen (with Jan Reijnst in the centre), 1655, Amsterdam Museum, Amsterdam. Fig. 3. Louis Moritz, Portrait of Professor C.J.C. Reuvens, ca. 1826, Special Collections, Leiden University. Fig. 4. Portrait of B.E.A. Rottiers, lithography after a painting by Th. Lawrence, from Les Monumens de Rhodes (1830). Fig. 5. Portrait of J.E. Humbert, ca. 1822, lithography by A. Boggi, Special Collections, Leiden University. From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… Fig. 1 Fig. 2 51 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma Fig. 3 52 From Antiquarianism to Scholarship… Fig. 4 53 Ruurd Binnert Halbertsma Fig. 5 54 https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.02 Aistė Paliušytė (Lithuanian Culture Research Institute, Vilnius) Antiques in the ColleCtions of the rAdziwiłł fAmiLy in the wettin erA Abstract The article examines the collections of antiques of one of the most influential families of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania – the Radziwiłł family, preserved in the residences of Nesvizh and Biała Podlaska in the first half and the middle of the 18th century. Different categories of artefacts are analysed and evaluated on the basis of the most unexplored inventories of the Radziwiłł family property, the correspondence of nobles and officials. The collection of the Radziwiłł family antiques continued the tradition of early modern collections of the Central European aristocrats. Their antique collections were among the largest in the Duchy, distinguished by a variety of artefacts. At the Radziwiłł family court, antiques were treated as curiosities, sources of history and instruments of cultural memory. They helped establish the identity of the family and create images of its power. Keywords: the Radziwiłł family, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, culture of curiosities, cultural memory introduCtion With the gradual establishment of critically based antique collecting in 18th century Europe, with the popularity of new types of artefacts, changes began to manifest themselves in the collections of aristocrats of the Grand Duchy 55 Aistė Paliušytė of Lithuania1. More purposeful and more erudite antique collections have emerged. The content of the collections also changed – in addition to local objects, the collection of ancient antique artefacts began to be collected more consistently, focusing more on objects of one category (Mikocki 1990; Betlej 2017: 449–461). In the 18th century, however, earlier models of antique accumulation remained important. Traditionally, the origins and power of the family were represented at the noble courts of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania when collecting antiques, mainly family heirlooms and other local artefacts. This article raises the question of how the changes in the Age of Enlightenment affected the collecting practices of one of the most influential families of the Duchy, the Radziwiłł family. These nobles were the princes of the Holy Roman Empire, high-ranking state officials, owners of large estates and belonged to the most significant art collectors of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. In the early to middle 18th century, the family collections were managed by influential representatives of the Nesvizh branch: Lithuanian Chancellor Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł (1669–1719), his wife Anna Radziwiłłowa née Sanguszko (1676–1746), as well as their sons – Lithuanian Grand Hetman Michał Kazimierz “Rybeńko” (1702–1762) and standard-bearer Hieronim Florian (1715–1760). The historiography of the Radziwiłł family’s antique collection from the time of the House of Wettin is mentioned in a very fragmentary way. Katarzyna Brzezina, analysing Hieronim Florian Radziwiłł’s collections of curiosities, wrote that the nobleman had antiques, including the armour of Alexander the Great and an ancient Egyptian mummy (Brzezina 1997: 5–20). The mummies owned by the Radziwiłłs were also mentioned by art historian Aldona Snitkuvienė as one of the examples of the Duchy’s nobility interest in the Egyptian artefacts (Snitkuvienė 2011: 66–67). Belarusian historian Sergey Rybchonak has published an inventory of the early 18th century, in which the luxury items described probably belonged to the Chancellor Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł 2. The author noted the abundance of ordinance, that is, inherited objects related to lands, in this collection, and their origin from the representative of the Nesvizh branch – Mikołaj Krzysztof “the Orphan” Radziwiłł (1549–1616) (Рыбчонак 2009: 214–228; 2019: 35–52). 1 2 More on the changes in collecting in the 18th century: Pomian (1996: 78–85). This is a document written in 1737 or later, in the time of Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł, a copy of the original, written, as implied, in the time of Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł: Рыбчонак (2009: 226–227). 56 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era This article aims to explore in more detail the collections of the Radziwiłł family’s antiques during the Wettin times. The main attention is paid to the evaluation of the types of artefacts, attention is also paid to the meanings given to them, interpretations of antiques in the sources of the Radziwiłł family court. The collections of the princes were looted and most of the antiquities did not survive3. The article, therefore, relies on written sources, primarily uninvestigated inventories of the princes’ property4. Many of the descriptions of the collections are fragmentary, some consider special groups of objects, such as numismatic ones. However, some larger-scale descriptions for the princes’ property have also survived. The article is also based on the diaries of nobles and the correspondence of the officials of the court. loCAtions And owners of Antiques Antiques that are not associated with antiquity or other civilizations are often mentioned in the inventories and other sources of the Radziwiłł family property of the Wettin era. Works of various periods, as well as artefacts from the 16th and 17th centuries, were called antiques5. As evidenced by the Radziwiłł family correspondence, diaries and other sources, their attitude towards these items was extremely respectful. The Radziwiłł family, traveling around Europe, drew attention to them as interesting and rare items6. The princes were interested in ancient weapons, objects and relics of early Christianity7. In their diaries, they 3 4 5 6 7 The collections were first looted in the second half of the 18th century, when Nesvizh was devastated by the Russian army. A large portion of the collections was also lost in the 19th century: Веремейчик (2008: 17–21). Some surviving artefacts, John Sobieski’s items, identified with the Radziwiłł family collections from the Wettin times: Рыбчонак (2019: 35–52). Only a few descriptions of relatively small collections have been published: Рыбчонак (2009); Brzezina (1997: 13–16); Radziwiłł (1998: 180–184). There are almost no specialised descriptions for the antiques left. Only the undated list of “Various Antiquities” is known, probably written in the time of Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł (1669–1719): AGAD, AR, 26/220. The list was also used by Anna Radziwiłłowa: it contained entries handwritten by the princess. On the concept of antiquities at the Radziwiłł court, see also: Brzezina (1997: 8). Antiques are mentioned in Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł’s travel notes, his and Hieronim Florian Radziwiłł’s diaries: AGAD, AR, 6/II–80a; 35/46; Radziwiƚƚ (1998); Podróże (2013). During a visit to Poznań in 1737, Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł noted the “beautiful antiques” seen in Corpus Christi Church, the sword of St. Peter: Podróże (2013: 57). In the emper- 57 Aistė Paliušytė mentioned antiques seen or bought, passed on legends related to antiques or the stories of their owners. The didactic significance of antiques was also assessed8. The books of the Radziwiłł family libraries also helped to understand the value of these artefacts. The princes had one of the largest collections of books in the area, containing publications for the art collections of Western and Central Europe and books on the history of ancient civilizations and different types of artefacts9. The Radziwiłł family appreciated the antiques for their mediating purpose in learning about the past. For example, in his diary, Hieronim Florian Radziwiłł mentioned a sword (multan) given to him, “remembering more than one century,” from which, in the words of the prince, “ancient times themselves looked upon him”. The nobleman also noted that the beauty of the object, which is not for everyone, but only for amateurs, also comes from the past10. Thus, at the Radziwiłł family court, as in the environment of other nobility of the Duchy, antiques were valued and considered prestigious collectible objects. The status of antiques as collectibles was also supported by examples from other lands that the princes encountered while traveling. The Radziwiłł family saw various antiques in the collection of European aristocrats and rulers at the residence of the King Augustus II in Dresden, the collection of the King of Prussia, the collection of the Holy Roman Emperor in Vienna and elsewhere. The Radziwiłł family kept the antiques in their most important residences, along with other luxury items. Although in the 18th century there were already specialised collections of antiques, the storage of individual objects and their small groups in treasure houses and cabinets of curiosities was still common in Lithuania and other European countries11. or’s treasury, Radziwiłł saw the “genuine” thorns of Christ’s crown of thorn, the nail with which the Savior’s hands were nailed to the cross, other relics: a copy of Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł’s diary, AGAD, AR, 6/II–80a, p. 99. Hieronim Florian Radziwiłł mentioned the relics of the Holy Cross preserved by the Dominican monks in Lublin: Radziwiƚƚ (1998: 98). 8 The text of the governor of the sons of Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł on the methods of educating children mentions the educational significance of antiques: AGAD, AR, 11/164, p. 11a. 9 See the inventory of the Biała Podlaska Library, published in the book: Karkucińska (2000: 174–285). The catalogues of the Nesvizh library are stored in Central Archives of the Historical Records in Warsaw, Warsaw Radziwiłł Archive (AGAD, AR). 10 Record of January 29, 1748: Brzezina (1997: 8); Radziwiłł (1998: 65). 11 Pomian (1996: 31–38). Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł saw the antiques in the kunstkammer and treasury of the King of Prussia: AGAD AR, 35/46, p. 31. This way of preserving antiques 58 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era In the Wettin times, the antiques of the families passed through the hands of several rulers. One of the earliest sources of the researched period is an undated inventory from the beginning of the 18th century, which probably describes the items that still belonged to the Chancellor Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł (Рыбчонак 2009: 226–227). After the prince’s death in 1719, his widow Anna Radziwiłłowa possessed the antiques together with other treasures. During her reign, the antiques were preserved in the residence of Biała Podlaska in the socalled “upper” treasure room12. In 1735, most of the duchess’s luxury items with antiques were distributed to her sons13. The largest and most valuable part of the family’s antiques went to the eldest son Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł (Fig. 1). They were kept by the prince in the most important family residence in Nesvizh (Нясві́ ж, now Belarus, Fig. 2), in a representative part of the building, in a separate room next to the library (Bernatowicz 2011: 289, 344–345). Aligning with one of the most famous European collections of the time, the treasure house of the King Augustus II in Dresden (Grünes Gewölbe), Radziwiłł also called his treasure collection “Green Vault” (Gryngewelbe)14. The prince’s collection is similar to the royal inspirer’s one in its luxury and variety of items, and its composite structure. Like the “Green Vault” of Augustus II Wettin, the treasure of Radziwiłł represented first and foremost the owner’s wealth, but was also the space for his personal and kinship souvenirs. The most comprehensive and first known inventory of Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł’s “Green Vault” was compiled in 174015. At that time, the prince was already holding the important position of the Lithuanian field hetman. In addition, he had recently acquired valuable relics of John Sobieski, under contract with the King’s granddaughter, Maria Carolina de Bouillon16. It is probable that 12 13 14 15 16 was common in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, as well as at the Radziwiłł family courts of previous generations: Paliušytė (1996: 43–63). Description of the treasures of Anna Radziwiłłowa, 1721, AGAD, AR, 26/177. Lists of items handed over to Michał Kazimierz and Hieronim Florian: AGAD, AR/26/224; 26/260; 26/ 267; 26/804a; 805; LVIA, 1280/1/1788, 608–609. Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł had already visited the ruler’s “Green Vault” in Dresden and noted the event in the diary: AGAD, AR, 6/II–80a, p. 379. Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł’s inventory of the “Green Vault,” 1740, NHAB, 694/2/10805. The memorabilia of John Sobieski were received from Maria Carolina de Bouillon on March 31, 1740. The event is mentioned in Michaƚ Kazimierz Radziwiƚƚ’s diary (AGAD, AR, 6/II–80a). Later, Maria Carolina de Bouillon bequeathed more trophies of the Battle of Vienna led by John Sobieski to Radziwiłł in her will: AGAD, AR, 11/145, p. 47, 49; Skrzypietz 59 Aistė Paliušytė it was the newly acquired items of the ruler that prompted Radziwiłł to take care of their proper storage: it was then that it was decided to organise, re-systematise and describe the entire family treasure. Radziwiłł commissioned the inventory of the treasure from the archivist, Lieutenant Marcin Wobbe, one of the most reliable and educated officials, the future author of the Icones familiae ducalis Radivillianae, and the compiler of the book catalogues of the Nesvizh library17. Compared to previous inventories, the new description of the Radziwiłł treasure is more erudite. Wobbe provided more information about the objects, wrote down their inscriptions, sometimes gave more precise names to materials or iconography, and explained the origin and purpose of the objects in more detail. This description of the collection remained relevant even after the death of Michał Kazimierz: it was completed and commented on during the time of the founder’s son Karol Stanisław (1734– 1790). The name “Green Vault” has also been used for a long time; it was used at Radziwiłł court even at the end of the 18th century18. The treasure house of Nesvizh was the most important place of preservation of the family’s antiques throughout the 18th century. The collections of the younger brother, Hieronim Florian, were smaller; he kept the old ones in his residence in Biała Podlaska (now Poland), like Michał Kazimierz, along with other luxury items. However, at the court of Hieronim Florian, the antiques were more associated with the diversity of the world, its curiosities. The surviving handwritten text of Hieronim Florian himself, entitled Interesting Things, Both Alive and Various, is reminiscent of other descriptions of cabinets of curiosities (kunstkammer)19. It lists natural objects, artefacts, and various oddities, which Hieronim Florian thought were worth enjoying in his residence. The list of 34 items also mentions several relics of ancient civilizations. Various types of antiques are also mentioned in the descriptions of (2003: 378). Radziwiłł and Maria Carolina had long kinship ties: the prince was the grandson of John Sobieski’s sister. 17 Nesvizh library inventory, 1753, AGAD, AR, 35/9. Marcin Wobbe wrote the inscriptions and dedication for the book Icones familiae ducalis Radivillianae (1758). 18 Historical sources also refer to Gryngiwel (Gringivebl): Inventory of Nesvizh Residence, 1778, AGAD, AR, 26/946, p. 113; J. Kozƚowski’s letter probably to Karol Stanislaw Radziwiłł from Warsaw, 4 October 1762, AGAD, AR, 5/7637, p. 4; Fragments of descriptions of Karol Stanisƚaw Radziwiłł’s items, NHAB/694/1/55, p. 249; 694/2/10805, p. 105. 19 A description of the collection has been published: Brzezina (1997: 13–16); Radziwiƚƚ (1998: 180–184). 60 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era Biała residence, which were compiled shortly after the nobleman’s decease. After the death of the prince, his property with his antiques passed to his brother Michał Kazimierz, and a few years after the latter’s death, to his descendants (Рыбчонак 2019: 41). fAmiLy, LAnd And regionAL Antiques The Radziwiłł family collection, like other European aristocratic family collections, contained many items related to the owner himself and his family (Mencfel 2013: 233–241). For example, in the early 18th century inventory of Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł’s items, there were 42 objects inherited from ancestors (Рыбчонак 2009: 227). They are also mentioned in later descriptions of the treasures of Anna Radziwiłłowa and Michał Kazimierz. In the Wettin times, the Radziwiłł family collections contained artefacts attesting to key events in the history of the family. Among them are the swords received by Radziwiłłs on the occasion of granting them the title of Imperial Princes of the Holy Roman Empire by the Emperors Maximilian I and Charles V from the House of Habsburg (AGAD, AR, 26/177, p. 12; 26/220, p. 1; 26/224, p. 10; 26/226, p. 68; 26/260, p. 10; 26/267, p. 1; 26/804a, p. 7; NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 1. Рыбчонак 2009: 217)20. Swords were the reminders of the princely status of the family, elevating the Radziwiłł family above other noble families of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania21. The Radziwiłł family collections preserved not only the sword received in 1547 from Charles V by Mikołaj “the Black” Radziwiłł, the direct ancestor of the Nesvizh branch, but also the one received in 1515 by Mikołaj Radziwiłł, the Imperial Prince of Goniądz and Meteliai, the progenitor of another branch (which ceased to exist at the end of the 16th century). The collection also included items reminiscent of other branches of the Radziwiłł family, such as the Continental Reformed Radziwiłł line from Biržai, whose male lineage became extinct as early as the 17th century. The representatives of this branch, the hetmans Krzysztof, called the Thunderbolt (1547–1603), and Janusz (1612–1655), owned 20 In 1518, Maximilian I granted to Mikołaj Radziwiłł the title of a Prince of the Holy Roman Empire and this was the first such case in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Maximilian I’s sword was decorated with a nacre and gold, Charles V’s sword was enamelled. 21 The obtaining of the title of a prince was depicted in works of art in Radziwiłł residences: Bernatowicz (2011: 260). 61 Aistė Paliušytė the bulavas (maces or batons, the ceremonial attributes of a hetman) stored in Nesvizh (AGAD, AR, 26/267, p. 3; NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 21. Рыбчонак 2009: 218). Thus, the Radziwiłłs of Nesvizh were the custodians of the legacy of the whole family, its various branches22. However, the items of the direct ancestors of the family predominated in the collections of the Radziwiłłs of Nesvizh. There were many relics originally belonging to Mikołaj Krzysztof Radziwiłł, called the Orphan, especially the items brought from his famous pilgrimage to Jerusalem23. The inventory mentions one of the twigs that Radziwiłł “the Orphan” broke off on the banks of the Jordan River in 1582, near the place where Christ was baptised24. The origin of the object was evidenced by an earlier inscription on it: the initials of Radziwiłł “the Orphan”, the coat of arms of Jerusalem and a short Latin entry about the origin of the object (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 70). The descriptions of the treasures also mention the hat of Cardinal Jerzy Radziwiłł (1556–1600), a cloak, a helmet (misiurka), and armour worn by Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł (1635–1680) when he fought at the Battle of Khotyn, and the bulava of the same prince, many other insignia and weapons of the Radziwiłł ancestors (AGAD, AR, 26/177, p. 11, 38; 26/220, p. 2; 26/224, p. 6, 28; 26/226, p. 67; 26/260, p. 7, 15a; 26/267, p. 3, 14; 26/804a, p. 5, 15. NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 3, 8, 21, 39, 40, 60, 93. LVIA, 1280/1/1788, p. 1106v–1107, 1117v. Рыбчонак 2009: 218, 224, 225). Although much of the ancestral antiques were inherited, one of them was acquired relatively recently. The inventory of 1735 mentions an “article from a unicorn” of high value, once belonging to the “House of Radziwiłł”, probably bought by Prince Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł for 1000 ducats 25. It is noteworthy 22 The broad concept of the family, the “House of Radziwiłł”, was often expressed in the cul- ture of the Nesvizh Radziwiłł court, for example, when decorating the interiors of Nesvizh Castle. Paintings and other works depicted the military marches of various branches: Bernatowicz (2011: 212–230). 23 The mentioned marshal’s staff, and travel sticks, cloak, chess, crucifix, bag, rosaries, cup: AGAD, AR, 26/177, p. 4, 8, 11, 13, 14; 26/220, p. 126; 26/224, p. 5, 7, 24, 28, 60;26/226, p. 68, 69, 73, 78; 26/260, p. 10, 13, 15, 15a, 16, 17; 26/267, p. 5, 13, 14, 15; 26/804a, p. 8, 12, 13, 15, 16; NHAB, 694/2/10805, p 3, 40, 44, 53, 62, 63, 104; LVIA, 1280/1/1788, 1106, 1117, 1117v; Рыбчонак (2009: 218, 222, 223, 224). 24 Branches of coastal trees brought from the place of Christ’s baptism on the bank of the Jordan River, are mentioned in the description of the trip of Mikołaj Krzysztof “the Orphan” Radziwiłł: Radvila (1990: 109). 25 The same item is also mentioned in previous inventories: AGAD, AR, 26/224, p. 30; 26/226, p. 77; 26/260, p. 16; 26/267, p. 14; 26/804a, p. 15. LVIA, 1280/1/1788, p. 1116v. Рыбчонак 2009: 221. 62 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era that this was one of the largest sums the Radziwiłł family paid for the object intended for their collection during the Wettin times. The Radziwiłł family collections of Nesvizh also contained artefacts that once belonged to the representatives of other prominent families of the Duchy. For example, the chess box of the Lithuanian Chancellor and Hetman Lew Sapieha (AGAD, AR, 26/267, p. 20. Рыбчонак 2009: 224). The Radziwiłł family collections also contained centuries-old gifts from the Grand Dukes of Lithuania and the kings of Poland, and the weapons of the rulers of neighbouring countries. Some items were reminders of the kinship of nobles and Lithuanian rulers, such as the items belonging to Sigismund Augustus, married to Barbara Radziwiłł: a sword (mahometanka) gifted by the ruler to the Radziwiłł family, and his other weapons (AGAD, AR, 26/177, p. 12; 26/224, p. 4l; 26/226, p. 68; 26/260, p. 3; 26/267, p. 1; 26/804a, p. 1. LVIA, 1280/1/1788, 1106, 1116v)26. The sword of Stephen Báthory and several staffs representing his power, swords and knives of Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki and Władysław IV Vasa were also preserved (AGAD, AR, 26/220, p. 1; 26/260, p. 7; 26/267, p. 2; 26/804a, p. 5. NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 4, 5, 18, 40). However, most of the items once belonged to John Sobieski, who had close connections with the House of Radziwiłł27. The relations with the Sobieski family were widely promoted by the Radziwiłłs, especially by Michał Kazimierz: these connections were recalled in literary works, in the decoration of palaces and founded memorials (Bernatowicz 2011: 107–125). Thus, Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł’s treasure contained many items of John Sobieski: trophies of the Battle of Vienna, various insignias and more (AGAD, AR, 26/177, p. 38; 26/226, p. 67; 26/260, p. 5; 26/267, p. 8. NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 2, 5, 6, 23, 32, 39, 40, 44, 54, 60, 70, 84, 89, 104, 111. LVIA, 1280/1/1788, p. 1107v, 1117v. AGAD, AR, 26/226, p. 67; 26/260, p. 5; 26/267, p. 8). One of them, the Order of the Immaculate Conception, which belonged to the ruler, was to be transferred from the noble’s jewellery collections to his “Green Vault” in 1753 by Michał Kazimierz 28. 26 Some inventories state that the sword was gifted to Mikołaj “the Black” Radziwiłł: AGAD, AR, 26/267, p. 1; Рыбчонак 2009: 217. The “Green Vault” inventory states that the sword belonged to Prophet Muhammad. In 1442 King Władysław III of Poland and Hungary obtained the sword as a war trophy. Later Sigismund Augustus presented it to Mikoƚaj “the Red” Radziwiƚƚ: NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 4. 27 John Sobieski’s sister was the wife of Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł (1635–1680). 28 List of jewels (“Rejestr klejnotów”), 1753, AGAD, AR, 26/420. The document was examined by Krzysztof Filipow: Filipow (2010: 453–459). The author presumed that the objects were 63 Aistė Paliušytė Although most of John Sobieski’s memorabilia were kept at the “Rybeńko’s” residence in Nesvizh, many were also in the possession of Hieronim Florian 29. Some of the ruler’s items were acquired by his contemporaries, but a large part of those was acquired by Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł as well. The importance of John Sobieski’s memorabilia to the image of the Radziwiłłs is evidenced by their public display outside the residence. For example, in 1745, during the funeral rites of Charles VI, a sword and a pearl-embroidered hat gifted by Pope Innocent XI to John Sobieski were presented at the castrum doloris in the church of Nesvizh College (Zielińska 1993: 209–210). The description of the “Green Vault” also mentions some objects of local proto-archaeology. Among them – a blade found in Volhynia, in an ancient tomb. The blade was obtained from Mikołaj Faustyn Radziwiłł (1688–1746), voivode of Novogrudok. The crusader sword found in one of the lakes of Samogitia was also stored in the “Green Vault”. It was another gift from Mikołaj Faustyn Radziwiłł (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 6, 9). An ancient shield adorned with scenes from Constantine the Great’s life was also associated with local proto-archaeology. According to some inventories, it was found in Czemierniki, in King John Sobieski’s property. The shield was gifted to the Radziwiłł family by Prince Jakub (AGAD, AR, 26/267, p. 3; Рыбчонак 2009: 218)30. Such finds were not new in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, they were already present in the Radziwiłł family collections in the 17th century (Paliušytė 1996: 48, 55). However, in the Wettin times, interest in these objects grew throughout the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and the Radziwiłł family collection confirmed these trends (Abramowicz 1993: 146–187). The treasure of Nesvizh also contained items related to the history of the Duchy and its contacts with neighbouring countries, the history of wars. For example, the spear and cup of Tsar Ivan the Terrible are mentioned in the treasure moved to the “Green Vault” of Augustus II Wettin: Filipow (2010: 458). 29 The Hieronim Florian collection mentions a silver stick which belonged to John Sobieski: AGAD, AR, 26/805, p. 3. 30 Another story of the shield’s origin is told in the “Green Vault” inventory: this shield was re- ceived as a gift by John Sobieski from the Duke of Tuscany, Charles de Medici, after the Battle of Vienna: NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 28. It is likely that the same shield is now housed in the National Museum in Krakow (Fig. 3): Рыбчонак (2019: 51–52). Probably it was made in Augsburg or Milan in the late 16th century. The following version of its origin is provided: the shield was found by the architect Stanisław Kopernik during the renovation of the chapel of the Holy Cross in Wawel Cathedral. 64 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era of Nesvizh, as well as the musket, which was once received from Saxon electors, and the helmet of King Henry II of France (AGAD, AR, 26/177, p. 11, 12, 38; 26/224, p. 9, 19; 26/226, p. 68, 76; 26/260, p. 13; 26/267, p. 1, 4, 8; 26/804a, p. 9, 12. NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 10, 52, 69. LVIA, 1280/1/1788, 1106, 1116v. Рыбчонак 2009: 217, 222)31. Many foreign weapons and war trophies have been preserved. Although most of the family and regional antiques were stored at the “Rybeńko” residence in Nesvizh, in the “Green Vault”, Hieronim Florian also owned similar artefacts. He received some of them from his mother in 1735, and, over time, he added to the collections (AGAD, AR, 26/805, p. 1–3. Radziwiłł 1998: 122. Matuszewicz 1998: 576; Kowalczyk 1995: 36). The purchases of antiquities were pursued through agents and merchants in Königsberg: the prince was informed about the sale of ancient armour, rifles32. Thus, looking at the Radziwiłł family collections, it can be seen that the princes mostly kept, passed on from generation to generation, objects testifying to the history of the family. The treasure of the “Green Vault” of Nesvizh was formed as the most important place in the history and memory of the family. The princes also appreciated the objects relating to the rulers of Lithuania, Poland, and other European countries. They high estimated various insignia, and weapons, which could be indirect references to the positions of military commanders held by the Radziwiłłs for several generations. In addition, the importance of weapons as collectible artefacts was reinforced by the cultural tradition of the Duchy’s nobility. The identification of the nobility with the estate of knightly warriors encouraged the presentation and preservation of armaments. reLiCs of PAgAnism, eArLy ChristiAnity And the seCulAr ClAssiCAl PAst The Radziwiłł family collections also contained artefacts of universal origin, from European prehistory. They also helped create important meanings for the identity of the family33. Some of these antiques were also related to the 31 According to some inventories, Ivan the Terrible’s spear was of steel and gilded. 32 Letters of Friedrich Saturgus. probably to Hieronim Florian Radziwiłł. from Königsberg, 7 No- vember 1746, 2 April 1747, 3 May 1747, 26 May 1748, 2 April 1751, AGAD, AR, 5/13955–IV, pp. 28–29, 38, 42, 54, 144. 33 On the importance of ancient artefacts to the identity of local communities: Christian; de Divitiis (2018: 1–12). 65 Aistė Paliušytė Radziwiłłs’ past, inherited from ancestors, and played the role of the family’s tokens of remembrance. However, unlike local relics, universal antiques also had other meanings – they represented the diversity of the world and the origins of European culture. Among the universal antiquities, there were relatively many objects of religious history preserved, as in other collections of modern European aristocrats34. Pagan knives and relics of idolatry are found in the collections of the Radziwiłł family. The origins of these items are usually undefined in inventories. In the descriptions of the treasures of Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł and Anna Radziwiłłowa, a knife used for sacrificial slaughter of cattle, a dagger filled with poison, and an idol were mentioned, with a comment: “anyone who refused to worship him was killed” (AGAD, AR, 26/177, p. 12, 13; 26/220, p. 2; 26/224, p. 9, 10; 26/226, p. 68, 69. LVIA, 1280/1/1788, 1106, 1106v, 1116v, 1117. Рыбчонак 2009: 220). Sacrificial knives were also found in the collections of Michał Kazimierz and Hieronim Florian (AGAD, AR, 26/260, p. 11; 26/267, p. 10; 26/804a, p. 9; 26/805, p. 2). They probably inherited these items from their parents. In the “Green Vault” collection, pagan sacrificial knives belong to the group of Corinthian bronze, that is, they are associated with ancient Greco-Roman paganism35. Next to one of them, the sacrificial knife, the legend of the origin of this metal is described: an alloy of gold, silver, and other metals was formed by accident when Herostratus set fire to the temple of Diana (Artemis) in Ephesus. After the alloy was transported to Corinth, various rarities were made from it (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 44)36. Some pagan sacrificial objects are associated with the territories of the provinces of the Roman Empire. For example, the description of Nesvizh treasures mentions a silver ring with a gem (antyk) and hieroglyphs, which the pagans sacrificed at the Temple of Jupiter, in a place which was called “Carnultum” in the inventory, near present-day Vienna in Austria37. 34 Samuel Quioccheberg also mentioned the importance of objects of sacred history in the treatise about collecting (“Inscriptiones”): Mencfel (2014: 235). 35 Probably the same pagan sacrificial utensils that were described in 1721 in the description of the Anna Radziwiłłowa’s collection as being made of a special alloy (AGAD, AR, 26/177: 13). For more on Corinthian bronze, see: Jacobson, Weitzman (1992: 237–247). 36 For other legends of the alloy’s origin, see: Jacobson; Weitzman (1992: 238–239). 37 The records were probably made after 1740, perhaps in the time of Karol Stanisƚaw Radziwiƚƚ (1734–1790): NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 94. The source probably contains a distorted name for the Carnuntum area. It is the capital of the Roman Empire province of Pannonia in Lower Austria, between Vienna and Bratislava. Systematic archaeological excavations in this area began in the 19th century. 66 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era There were also more pagan artefacts, such as a bell with figurines (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 98). Sometimes sacrificial supplies are associated with the Old Testament events and places. For example, the inventories mention a knife from the Solomon’s Temple, used for sacrificial slaughtering of cattle. The knife was gifted to the Radziwiłł family by Prince Jakub38. In the treasures of the Radziwiłł family, the relics of pre-Christian past and their commentaries most often created dramatic images, reminded of the defeated paganism and its rituals that caused death. The Radziwiłł family collections contained items related to the New Testament characters in the first centuries after the events connected with the life of Christ. One of them is the sword mentioned in the Gospel, with which St. Peter cut off Malchus’ ear (AGAD, AR, 26/177, p. 12; 26/224, p. 10; 26/260, p. 10; 26/267, p. 1; 26/804a, p. 8. LVIA, 1280/1/1788, p. 1106, 1117. Рыбчонак 2009: 217). The inventory of “Green Vault” mentions the history of the acquisition of this item. The voivode of Vilnius, Mikołaj Krzysztof “the Orphan” Radziwiłł bought a sword on a trip to Palestine in 1583. The inventory also contains a rather detailed description of the object: the sword handle is wooden, with an eagle’s head carved in it. Portraits of Tiberius on the one side, and Pontius Pilate on the other (NHAB, 694/1/10805, p. 4). Moreover, the inventory, emphasizing the importance of the artefact, notes that it was also mentioned about by Samuel Friedrich Lauterbach in his book on history of Poland in 172739. The “Green Vault” also mentions some objects related to the events mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles: several tongues and half-tongues of the serpents of the Island of Malta turned into a stone by St. Paul (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 62). They were probably flat, triangular fossils found in Europe, mentioned by Pliny the Elder. In the Middle Ages and later, they were considered the tongues of snakes (called Glossopetrae) turned into stone on the Island of Malta by St. Paul. The compiler of the inventory followed this traditional interpretation of the origin of the fossils40. According to the depiction of the treasure, clay lamps were also stored in the treasures of the Radziwiłł family, burning in 38 Some inventories mention that the knife was made of a special metal and belonged to John Sobieski: AGAD, AR, 26/260, p. 11; 26/267, p. 10; 26/804a, p. 9; Рыбчонак (2009: 220). 39 The book mentions the sword of St. Peter acquired during the journey of Radziwiłł “the Orphan” to Jerusalem and the respect of the faithful shown to the item: Lauterbach (1727), 735. 40 For scientific explanations of the origin of these fossils in early modern times, see: Hsu (2009: 93–106). 67 Aistė Paliušytė catacombs for a thousand years without any combustible material. Lamps were brought by Radziwiłł “the Orphan” from his pilgrimage (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 62). There were also other early Christian relics. They were reminiscent of the dramatic history of early Christianity and at the same time represented the religious identity of the Radziwiłł family. Although many of the objects owned by Michał Kazimierz recalled Radziwiłł “the Orphan” and its pilgrimage, and probably originated in the first half of the 17th century family collections, some were added to them much later. For example, the preserved ancient unicorn bone cross with Christ’s suffering and the Four Evangelists, according to the description, originated from ancient Christian treasures. The cross was sent to John Sobieski by a Turkish sultan as a special rarity (wielki specjał) and was later bought from the ruler of the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth by the Radziwiłł family (AGAD, AR, 26/177, p. 9; 26/224, p. 27; 26/226, p. 75; 26/260, p. 15a; 26/267, p. 14)41. In the treasure of “Green Vault” which belonged to Michał Kazimierz, universal objects have acquired a slightly more important significance than in the previous collections. A new group of objects called “Corinthian bronzes, or statues and sacrificial utensils” was formed from inherited objects (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 44)42. Sixteen statues are listed, including a copy of the famous Farnese Bull, Capitoline Wolf, as well as Saturn, Venus, and other ancient gods. In the previous collections, the depictions of the themes and motifs of these objects were not equally detailed. They were named more precisely in the description of the treasure of Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł. Judging by the Farnese Bull’s description, the sculpture was most likely one of the bronze-made variations on the theme of the famous ancient sculpture, popular in early modern Europe43. There were more sculptures of the so-called Corinthian bronze in the 41 This artefact is also mentioned in the inventory published by Sergey Rybchonak: Рыбчонак (2009: 222). The author presumed that the cross was purchased by Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł: Рыбчонак (2019: 40). The inventory of 1735 states that the item was purchased from the Royal Treasury by Anna Radziwiłłowa: AGAD, AR, 26/804a., p. 14. In 1740, the inventory of the Nesvizh treasure mentions the ancient Greek unicorn cross with figures and an image of the Resurrection of Christ. It was gifted to John Sobieski by the Patriarch of Alexandria. Later, Anna Radziwiƚƚowa received it from the King: NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 56. 42 Some objects of the group are also mentioned in the previous, early 18th century, inventory: Рыбчонак (2009: 216). 43 The inventory features more group figures than there were in the original Farnese Palace sculpture. 68 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era Radziwiłł family collections, only in other inventories it was sometimes more clearly stated that the connection of the object’s material with the legendary metal was indirect. For example, Hieronim Florian’s collection in Biała contained several unnamed figures and horse sculptures made of a material that, according to the inventory, resembled Corinthian bronze (AGAD, AR, 26/492, p. 45v; 26/947, p. 79, 83). In the Wettin times, the Radziwiłł family’s collections could also contain marble sculptures, probably copies of antique works. They are mentioned in late sources of the second half of the 18th century: an archivist of Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł wrote in a letter that the portraits of Roman emperors kept in the Nesvizh library were once brought from Vienna by Hieronim Florian Radziwiłł 44. The numismatic collections of were relatively large. For example, they are mentioned in Anna Radziwiłłowa’s treasure inventory of 1721. The majority of the several hundred artefacts of classical antiquity were Roman numismatic items with portraits of rulers, their wives, or daughters (AGAD, AR, 26/177, p. 77, 79–83, 86–92). Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł also likely owned antique coins. His numismatic collection was stored in the “Green Vault”, in a luxurious, red velvet-covered cabinet decorated with gold and the coat of arms of the Radziwiłł family. The inventory of this collection, according to Marcin Wobbe, was written separately (the list did not survive) (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 3)45. A collection of engraved gems of an unknown period also was stored in a separate cabinet (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 3). Hieronim Florian also possessed numismatic items. In a list compiled after his death, 22 of the 313 numismatic objects were named Roman. Several items in this collection are described in detail. Among them is a Greek coin or medal with the image of the Macedonian soldier Lysimachus. On the other side – a sitting figure with a shield and the Greek inscription “Basileus”. Three Hebrew coins are also listed, a commemorative medal with Romulus, Remus and the she-wolf, and seven small Roman numismatic works (NHAB, 694/1/55, 235– 248v). Other 26 larger and smaller medals or coins of the Roman emperors were also listed separately. The origin of the most of these objects is unknown. But authentic artefacts are very likely to be found in this group. Some of the coins 44 Letter from Antoni Kałakucki, probably to Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł, from Nesvizh, 3 June 1774, AGAD, AR, 5/6292: 22–25. 45 According to Marcin Wobbe, these coins were collected by Michaƚ Kazimierz Radziwiƚƚ “Rybeńko”. 69 Aistė Paliušytė may have been local finds. Hieronim Florian’s diary mentions a case in which he was presented with a coin found by a local peasant on the nobleman’s estate. It was a damaged coin, slightly smaller than a ducat one, with a portrait of the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius46. The residence of Hieronim Florian also stored antiquity-like gems (antyki) from an unspecified period of time (AGAD, AR, 26/947, p. 2). Another object related to antiquity is the armour attributed to Alexander the Great, mentioned in Hieronim Florian list of curiosities (Radziwiłł 1998: 182). It reads: “the genuine armour of Alexander the Great, gilded, testifying that he was great, although not in terms of body”47. The description shows that the object was valued by the prince as a testimony to the historical reality, the small body of Alexander the Great. The collection of Michał Kazimierz also contained another exceptional trifle related to the classical past – a well-preserved double goose feather, according to the description, from ancient Roman times. It was found just before the birth of the baby twins Janusz and Karol Stanisław, and foreshadowed it (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 64). In the inventory, the feather is attributed to the geese that defended ancient Rome’s Capitol Hill. The inclusion of the feather in the set of the most valuable items was to be a sign of a fateful coincidence in the recent history of the family and, at the same time, its participation in the order of the history of the world under the care of Providence. The object inspired images of antiquity and helped to substantiate the connection of the family with the universal origins of Europe, the well-known and important events of its past. The description of the “Green Vault” testifies to the fact that Marcin Wobbe searched for the sources of the history of the objects in the Bible, ancient literature, family legends, and the historiography of his time. Commenting on antiques, he revealed the connections between ancient civilizations and the history of the family. There were many different types of objects in the collection. Universal antiques were not consistently systematised. However, in the Wettin times, an attempt was made to single out objects of universal history or to create new groups of them. Nesvizh treasure inventory records testify to Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł’s idea to move objects of ancient civilizations from the family 46 The diary also reminds us that the statue of this emperor was standing in the Roman Capi- tol: Radziwiƚƚ (1998: 83). 47 „Zbroja prawdziwa Aleksandra Wielkiego, z której choć nabijanej zƚotem, poznać, że mag- nus sed non corpore erat”: Radziwiłł (1998: 182). 70 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era treasure to the library (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 44). It reflects a search for a more specific place for universal objects, one that is more in line with their nature. The universal artefacts placed in the library, together with the books dedicated to universal history, were to represent the world’s cultural treasure48. orientAL Antiques And AnCient egyPtiAn ArtefACts Another group of antiques was related to distant, non-European territories. The collections of the nobility of the Duchy contained a relatively large number of Turkish objects reminiscent of the country’s historical contacts with the Muslim state. Turkish horse-tail standards, helmets, armour parts, swords – trophies of the battles – were mentioned in the inventories (AGAD, AR, 26/224, p. 8; 26/260, p. 16; 26/267, p. 4; 26/804a, p. 15. NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 22, 23. Рыбчонак 2009: 219). The description of the treasures of Nesvizh also mentions the pipe of Suleiman I, Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, and another belonging to a Turk who died in Khotyn (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 71, 89). Indian, Chinese and Persian items also appeared in the Radziwiłł family collections of the Wettin times49. In addition, Hieronim Florian had one exceptional sword. Based on the claims of unnamed Syrian princes, the magnate considered the weapon to be one of the five swords once belonging to the Prophet Muhammad and mentioned in the Quran prophecy. It said: The Ottoman Empire will take over the Christian world when all the swords of Muhammad return to the Muslims. Three out of five swords have already been regained by Muslims, but two have not. According to Radziwiłł, one of them was kept in his residence (Radziwiłł 1998: 182–183). In this story, the nobleman emphasized the importance of the sword for the destiny of the entire Christian world. The Radziwiłł collection also contained several ancient Egyptian artefacts. A statue of Osiris which was brought from Egypt as a rarity by Radziwiłł “the Orphan” in 1583, was preserved in the “Green Vault” (NHAB, 694/2/10805, p. 99). There was an ancient Egyptian mummy in a sarcophagus held in the 48 The universal antiques were preserved in the library of Nesvizh in the time of Michał Kazi- mierz Radziwiłł’s son Karol Stanisław. 49 Indian and Chinese items are already mentioned in the 17th century Radziwiłł family collec- tions: Paliušytė (1996: 43–63). 71 Aistė Paliušytė residence of Hieronim Florian. It is described in the aforementioned Radziwiłł’s list of curiosities as the first item on the list. The mummy is said to be “strange to our eyes, but it is genuine,” and demonstrates the way the bodies of the dead were embalmed and prepared in Egypt (Radziwiłł 1998: 180). The description emphasizes the authenticity of the antique, quite rare in inventories of the Radziwiłł family. The status of the object as a material testimony to history is also expressed. This mummy most likely was purchased by Hieronim Florian in 1757: a receipt signed by Samuel Gemnik, a merchant from Königsberg, has survived. The receipt states that Florian’s trustee Friedrich Saturgus in Königsberg paid 120 ducats for one Egyptian mummy and 15 jars of curiosities (NHAB, 694/4/2019, p. 46)50. After the death of Hieronim Florian, the mummy was probably inherited by his brother Michał Kazimierz and later by his son Karol Stanisław. The mummy in Nesvizh was mentioned several times in the 1780s, after Stanisław Radziwiłł was deported from the country and Nesvizh was devastated by the Russian army. Although many family valuables were looted at the time, the mummy was left behind. The archivist of the Radziwiłłs informed the prince that the “Egyptian mummy nearly a thousand years old” had survived in the library. It was damaged by curious people and lost parts of its legs51. Later, when Karol Stanisław returned to Nesvizh, the mummy was mentioned several more times in written sources. It was stored in the library, along with other rarities, natural objects and works of art. In one inventory, it is described as the mummy of a Pharaoh’s daughter, wrapped in a wooden Egyptian sarcophagus, “with hieroglyphs of that land”52. It can be assumed that the acquisition and preservation of the mummy was prompted by the princes’ interest in the history of various ancient civilizations: the library of the family housed books describing ancient Egyptian funeral customs, such as the work by Bernard de Montfaucon (Fig. 4, 5)53. The acquisition of the mummy was probably also motivated by the uniqueness of this object: 50 A solid amount was paid, significantly exceeding the annual salaries of many court officials and professionals of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth at that time: Kitowicz (1985: 217). 51 Letter from Antoni Kałakucki to Karol Stanisław Radziwiłł from Nesvizh, 3 June 1774, AGAD, AR, 5/6292: 22–25. 52 List of items stored at the Nesvizh residence, 1778. AGAD, AR, 26/946, p. 122. 53 Several book inventories of the Radziwiƚƚ family libraries mention Abbe Bernard de Montfaucon’s “Antiquite explique”, for example: AGAD, AR, 26/946, p. 123; 35/7, pp. 7–9. 72 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era in early modern Lithuania and Poland, the objects of ancient Egypt were extremely rare54. In the first half of the 18th century, King Augustus II had ancient Egyptian artefacts, but there is no data yet that any noble family of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania was in possession of such items. In addition, it is likely that the acquisition and preservation of the mummy was also encouraged by the recollection of the family’s past event. The storage of the mummy in the residence of the princes seems to have served as an accomplishment of the once failed attempt of Radziwiłł “the Orphan” to bring mummies to Lithuania, described in a book dedicated to his pilgrimage to Jerusalem55. ConClusion In summary, the Radziwiłł family of the Wettin times, like other European aristocrats, gathered the antiques of the Radziwiłł family for representation, to emphasise their identity and power, encouraged by human curiosity, and the ability to learn about the past through its material relics. The collections of the Radziwiłł family in the Wettin era have preserved the legacy of many previous generations of the family. The princes’ interest in antiques was not very disciplined. Their collections contained a wide variety of antiques, corresponding to the paradigm of a comprehensive, universal collection. However, some objects of the Radziwiłł family were treated as more important than others. Relatively much importance was attached to the traditional artefacts of aristocratic collections – weapons and emblems of power. A large part of the antiques consisted of family relics. The collection of ancient numismatic objects was also relatively large. In the first half of the 18th century, the Radziwiłł family had one of the largest and most diverse collections of antiques in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The family also had a collection of extremely 54 At the end of 16th century and in the 17th century, they were owned by the rulers of the Pol- ish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and some nobles, such as the Radziwiłł family: Snitkuvienė (2011: 59–65). 55 The book was stored in the Radziwiłł family library. It described how Radziwiłł “the Orphan” bought several mummies and how he unsuccessfully tried to transport them to his homeland by ship: Radvila (1990: 177, 202–204). This story was repeated many times in the 18th century, for example, in a drama performed at the Jesuit Theatre in Nesvizh: Okoń (2003, 229). 73 Aistė Paliušytė rare types of objects in the Duchy, Egyptian artefacts, the collection of which became more popular in Lithuania only in later centuries. At the Radziwiłł court, antiques were often treated as sources of knowledge of the past: the historical functions of objects were emphasized, their connection with the biographies of famous personalities, warriors, the customs of the inhabitants of ancient civilizations. The authenticity of the artefacts was sometimes noted. However, at the Radziwiłł court, antiques were more often judged on the basis of legends than on critical grounds. Thus, the accumulation of ancient Radziwiłł family antiques had little connection with the intellectual foundations of the Enlightenment and new collecting paradigms. In essence, the Radziwiłł family continued a tradition of European aristocratic collecting that had existed for more than a century, collecting primarily testimonies of kinship fame and artefacts revealing the diversity of the world. bibliography Archival sources AGAD, AR: Archiwum Główne Akt Dawnych w Warszawie, Archiwum Warszawskie Radziwiłłów (Central Archives of the Historical Records in Warsaw, Warsaw Radziwiłł Archive): 5/1395, 2676, 6292; 7637; 6/II–80 a; 11/145, 164; 26/177, 220, 224, 226, 260, 267, 420, 492, 804a, 805, 946, 947; 35/7, 9, 46. LVIA: Lietuvos valstybės istorijos archyvas, Vilnius (Lithuanian State Historical Archives in Vilnius): 1280/1/1788. NHAB: Нацыянальны гістарычны архіў Беларусі, Мінск (National Historical Archives of Belarus, Minsk): 694/1/5; 2/10805; 4/2019. Published primary sources Dygdała J. (wyd.) 2013. Podróże litewskiego magnata do Gdańska, Człuchowa, a nawet i dalej… Fragmenty „Diariusza” Michała Kazimierza Radziwiłła „Rybeńki” z lat 1721, 1737 i 1752. Warszawa: Instytut Historii PAN. Kitowicz J. 1985. Opis obyczajów za panowania Augusta III, vol. 1–2. Wrocław: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Lauterbach S.F. 1727. Pohlnische Chronicke, oder historische Nachricht von dem Leben und Thaten aller Hertzoge und Könige in Pohlen: von Lecho an bis auf jetzt glorwürdigst. Regierende königl Majestät Augustum II. Franckfurth: Knoch. Matuszewicz M. 1986. Diariusz życia mego, t. II: 1758–1764. Bohdan Królikowski (ed.). Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Radvila Mikalojus Kristupas Našlaitėlis 1990. Kelionė į Jeruzalę. O. Matusevičiūtė (vertė iš lotynų kalbos). Vilnius: Mintis. 74 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era Radziwiłł Hieronim Florian 1998. Diariusze i pisma różne. M. Brzezina (ed.). Warszawa: Energeia. Secondary sources Abramowicz A. 1983. Dzieje zainteresowań starożytniczych w Polsce, cz. 1: Od średniowiecza po czasy saskie i świt oświecenia. Wrocław [etc.]: Zakład Narodowy im. Ossolińskich. Bernatowicz T. 2011. Mitra i buława: królewskie ambicje książąt w sztuce Rzeczypospolitej szlacheckiej (1697–1763). Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Betlej A. 2017. Polish Art Collections in Brühl’s Time: The Case of Collection of Joseph Alexander Jablonowski. In: Heinrich Graf von Brühl (1700–1763). Ein sächsischer Mäzen in Europa. (Akten der internationalen Tagung zum 250. Todesjahr: Staatliche Kunstsammlungen Dresden, 13–14 März 2014, Bibliotheca Hertziana – Max-Planck-Institut für Kunstgeschichte, Rom, 20–21 März 2014). Dresden: Sandstein Verlag, pp. 449–461. Brzezina K. 1997. Gabinet osobliwości Hieronima Floriana Radziwiłła w Białej. Studia Podlaskie, 7, 5–20. https://doi.org/10.15290/sp.1997.07.01. Christian K., de Divitiis B. 2018. Introduction. In: K. Christian, B. de Divitiis (eds.). Local Antiquities, Local Identities: Art, Literature and Antiquarianism in Europe, c. 1400–1700. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/ 10.7228/manchester/9781526117045.003.0001. Filipow K. 2010. Skarbiec Radziwiłłów z Nieświeża – źródło do dziejów numizmatyki i falerystyki Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego. In: W. Walczak, K. Łopatecki (ed.). Stan badań nad wielokulturowym dziedzictwem dawnej Rzeczypospolitej. Białystok: IBnDKE Instytut Badań nad Dziedzictwem Kulturowym Europy: „Benkowski Publishing & Ballons”, t. 2, pp. 453–459, Zachowanie Polskiego Dziedzictwa Narodowego, 3. Hsu K.-T. 2009. The Path to Steno’s Synthesis on the Animal Origin of Glossopetrae. In: G.D. Rosenberg (ed.). The Revolution in Geology from the Renaissance to the Enlightenment. The Boulder: Geological Society of America, pp. 93–106. https://doi. org/10.1130/2009.1203(06). Jacobson D.M., Weitzman M.P. 1992. What Was Corinthian Bronze? American Journal of Archaeology, 96, 237–247. https://doi.org/10.2307/505923. Karkucińska W. 2000. Anna z Sanguszków Radziwiłłowa, 1676–1746: Działalność gospodarcza i mecenat. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo naukowe Semper. Kowalczyk J. 1995. Hieronima Floriana Radziwiłła stosunek do sztuki i artystów. In: J. Kowalczyk (ed.). Kultura artystyczna Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego w epoce baroku. Warszawa: Instytut Kultury. pp. 27–42. Mencfel M. 2014. Najdoskonalsza wiedza i pełnia władzy. Kolekcjonerstwo i sztuka pamięci w epoce wczesnonowożytnej. In: M. Prejs, A. Jakóbczyk-Gola (ed.). Mnemonika i pamięć kulturowa epok dawnych. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Neriton, pp. 221–248. 75 Aistė Paliušytė Mikocki T. 1990. Najstarsze kolekcje starożytności w Polsce: lata 1750–1830. Wrocław etc.: Zakład Narodowy Imienia Ossolińskich–Wydawnictwo Polskiej Akademii Nauk. Archiwum Filologiczne, 46. Okoń J. 2003. Mikołaj Radziwiłł Sierotka i jego podróż do Ziemi Świętej w teatrze szkolnym jezuitów. In: K. Stępnik (ed.). Radziwiłłowie. Obrazy literackie. Biografie. Świadectwa historyczne. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, pp. 217–230. Paliušytė A. 1996. 1647 m. Liubčios kunstkameros inventorius. Menotyra, 2, 43–63. Pomian K. 1996. Zbieracze i osobliwości. Paryż–Wenecja: XVI–XVIII wiek. Warszawa: Państwowy Instytut Wydawniczy. Rybčonak S. 2009. Rèestr Radzіvіlaўskaj skarbnіcy pačatku XVIII st. In: Silva rerum nova: študyі ў gonar 70-goddzâ Georgіâ Â. Galenčankі. Ukl. Aleg Dzârnovіč, Alʹbіna Semânčuk. Vіlʹnâ, Mіnsk: Aidai–Athenaeum, pp. 214–228. Rybčonak S. 2019. Lës Radzіvіlaўskіh skarbaў: “skarbec troh karalëў”. Gerolʹd Litherland. Goradnâ–Mensk, 21, 35–52. Skrzypietz A. 2003. Maria Karolina de Bouillon i jej kontakty z Radziwiłłami. In: K. Stępnik (ed.). Radziwiłłowie. Obrazy literackie. Biografie. Świadectwa historyczne. Lublin: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Marii Curie-Skłodowskiej, pp. 371–380. Obrazy Kultury Polskiej. Snitkuvienė A. 2011. Lietuva ir Senovės Egiptas: XVI a. pabaigos – XXI a. pradžios keliautojų, kolekcininkų ir mokslininkų pėdsakais. Kaunas: Nacionalinis M. K. Čiurlionio dailės muziejus. Veremejčik A. 2008. Istoriâ materialʹnyh cennostej Nesvižskogo zamka (1865–1920 gg.). Vesnіk Mazyrskaga dzâržaўnaga pedagagіčnaga ўnіversіtèta іmâ І. P. Šamâkіna, 3, 17–21. Zielińska T. 1993. Propaganda świetności domu radziwiłłowskiego epoki Michała K. Radziwiłła “Rybeńki” w ówczesnych „środkach masowego przekazu”. In: T. Chynczewska-Hennel et al. (ed.). Między Wschodem a Zachodem. Rzeczpospolita XVI–XVIII w.: studia ofiarowane Zbigniewowi Wójcikowi w siedemdziesiątą rocznicę urodzin. Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Fundacji „Historia pro Futuro”, pp. 205–214. Веремейчик А. 2008. История материальных ценностей Несвижского замка (1865–1920 гг.). Веснік Мазырскага дзяржаўнага педагагічнага ўніверсітэта імя І. П. Шамякіна, 3, 17–21. Рыбчонак С. 2009. Рэестр Радзівілаўскай скарбніцы пачатку XVIII ст. In: Silva rerum nova: штудыі ў гонар 70-годдзя Георгія Я. Галенчанкі. Укл. Алег Дзярновіч, Альбіна Семянчук. Вільня, Мінск: Aidai–Athenaeum, pp. 214–228. Рыбчонак С. 2019. Лёс Радзівілаўскіх скарбаў: “скарбец трох каралёў”. Герольд Litherland. Горадня–Менск, 21, 35–52. 76 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era list of illustrations Fig. 1. Silvestre Augustyn Mirys (?). Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł, oil on canvas. The National Art Museum of the Republic of Belarus (Wikipedia Commons, Public Domain). Fig. 2. Nesvizh Castle. Photo: Vytautas Balčytis. Fig. 3. Anon. The “Augury Shield” of King John III Sobieski (1629–1696). The National Museum in Krakow [online:] https://zbiory.mnk.pl/pl/wyniki-wyszukiwania/kata log/277465, accessed on 23.06.2021 (Public Domain). Fig. 4. Bernard de Montfaucon. Antiquity Explained and Represented in Diagrams (Paris, 1722, vol. 5), title page. The Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. Fig. 5. Bernard de Montfaucon. Antiquity Explained and Represented in Diagrams (Paris, 1722, vol. 5), illustration (p. 179). The Wroblewski Library of the Lithuanian Academy of Sciences. Aistė Paliušytė Fig. 1 78 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era Fig. 2 79 Aistė Paliušytė Fig. 3 80 Antiques in the Collections of the Radziwiłł Family in the Wettin Era Fig. 4 81 Aistė Paliušytė Fig. 5 82 https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.03 Zoltán Suba (Hungarian National Gallery, Budapest) mAster And disCiPle Bertel Thorvaldsen’s Private Collection and its impact on neoclassicism Abstract At the birth of archeology as a new science, Neoclassicism appeared on the stage of decorative and visual arts as well as that of architecture. The fascination with the rediscovered artifacts of antiquity led artists not to just collect them, but also to utilize them to rethink the legacy of Classical art and create something new out of it. One of the most admired masters of Neoclassicism, the Danish sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen, had his own collection of antiquities which is now preserved in the Thorvaldsen Museum in Copenhagen. In the following I will attempt to capture the impact that these artifacts and plaster casts had on his work, and also point out how important his role was in the education of apprentices during his Roman period. To demonstrate its significance, I will turn to his Hungarian apprentice, István Ferenczy, and drawings, statues, and letters to connect both the master and the disciple to the ancient past. Keywords: Thorvaldsen, classicism, plaster casts, fragments, Ferenczy To sufficiently articulate the significance of Thorvaldsen’s collection of antiques and the impact it had on his art, it is first indispensable to examine his connection to antiquity itself. Most probably he encountered ancient statues for the first time in the Royal Danish Academy of Arts, where he had been admitted in 1781 at the age of 11. During the second phase of their education, students were required to make drawings based on plaster casts of ancient statues (Jørnæs 2011: 15–17), of which Copenhagen had only a few at the end of the 1700s. 83 Zoltán Suba According to Nicolai Jonge’s inventory, which he had maintained until his death in 1789, the Academy’s plaster cast collection consisted of only twenty items, some of which were in pieces (Jørnæs 1970: 52). Thus, it is probable that the person who inspired Thorvaldsen’s later habit of collecting antiques was the painter Nicolai Abraham Abildgaard, who became the master of the young apprentice in 1787. Abildgaard also had a small collection of coins and medals (Fejfer, Melander 2003: 9). Abildgaard likewise had another role in establishing a connection between Thorvaldsen and antiquity: he presumably introduced Thorvaldsen to the professor of sculpture Johannes Wiedewelt, who along with Abilgaard was the most important scholar of Classicist theory in Denmark. Wiedewelt’s work entitled Tanker om Smagen udi Kunstnerne (Reflections on Taste and the Arts) from 1762 shows the influence of the reflections and conclusions from Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s highly influential book (Winckelmann 1756), and even though we do not find any of these titles among Thorvaldsen’s library of more than 845 volumes (Jørnæs 1978: 41-60), it is certain he was well aware of these theorists’ ideas. Regarding his library, it is worth mentioning that after he arrived in Rome, an increasingly systematic conception of collecting unfolded as his time there progressed: most of the titles show archeological and topographical interests, but books about mythology and numismatics can also be found beside the works of ancient authors and museum catalogs. Without a doubt, the most significant individual to influence Thorvaldsen’s desire to collect antiquities was the Danish archeologist Georg Zoëga, who mentored the young sculptor after his arrival in Rome. Although Thorvaldsen had theoretical training during his years of academic study, in Zoëga’s opinion he lacked the qualities that an artist requires. To illustrate his stance, Bjarne Jørnæs cites (Jørnæs 2011: 35) Zoëga’s letter that he wrote to Friedrich Münter: Our fellow countryman, Thorvaldsen, who is spending a week here with me before visiting the notable sights of this area is an excellent artist of great taste and feeling, but far too ignorant of everything that is outside art. Incidentally, it is very poor thinking by the Academy when they send people so very raw to Italy, where they must later waste so very much time learning things without which they cannot properly benefit from their stay here, and which they could have learned sooner and more easily before they went on their travels. Without knowing a word of Italian or French, without the slightest knowledge of history and mythology, how is it possible for an artist to study here as he should? Had they the knowledge, then they could perhaps do without the language, or had they the languages, then they could find books here to instruct them; but without both they are lost and do not know where to begin. In particular a sculp84 Master and Disciple… tor, who has nothing to go by but the antiquities, is much at a loss. I do not demand that an artist must be a scholar, I do not even wish it; but he must at least have some sort of obscure idea of the name and significance of the things he sees. The rest can be supplemented by relations with scholars, but when in any discourse one must begin with the ABC, it soon becomes tiresome for both parties. His words lead us to different conclusions. It seems Thorvaldsen arrived in Rome as a completely uneducated youngster, which is of course merely an exaggeration when judged by the standards of an old scholar. Even if there were rumors regarding Thorvaldsen’s illiteracy (Fejfer, Melander 2003: 11), Zoëga’s guidance was undoubtedly fruitful. Which pieces of the collection were the first, in what order they arrived, and how they got there we do not know, but a well-documented example from 1823 shows us his mature interest in antiquities and books, which was probably the fruit of Zoëga’s mentorship. The Danish archeologist P. O. Brøndsted pledged his collection of coins and books until he could pay back the loan to Thorvaldsen: the hand-written contract from 26 May 1823 indicates that Thorvaldsen gave 2000 roman scudi to Brøndsted, who in return promised many boxes filled with coins, marble fragments, manuscripts, and books1. In the contract’s appendix2 we find the quantity of items in each box, and only a Campanian terracotta vase with two figures, a copy of a yellow Etruscan vase without figures, a terracotta sphinx, and a plaster cast of an Etruscan bronze statue are mentioned. Although Brøndsted asked Thorvaldsen in a letter in 1833 to at least send the books and manuscripts to him in Copenhagen, and that the coins should be brought back when Thorvaldsen returned to Denmark, the sculptor, although referring to a tight deadline, did not fulfill the archeologist’s request. In his reply, Brøndsted expressed his doubts that Thorvaldsen was telling him the truth about the delay3. It seems that Thorvaldsen may have held back Brøndsted’s collection4 purposefully with the intention of founding his own museum (Brøndsted never got back his books or his coins)5. The growing recognition of Thorvaldsen’s advanced artistic qualities certainly played a role in his increasing connection to antiquity and the enlarge1 2 3 4 5 Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. 173a. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. 173b. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. m18 1833, no. 92. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. 172-3. The fact that Thorvaldsen never received the loan, and also that some of Brøndsted’s coins disappeared during an 1829 robbery, undoubtedly influenced Thorvaldsen’s decision to retain Brøndsted’s collection. 85 Zoltán Suba ment of his collection, and this made it possible for him – as a foreigner, and not least as a Protestant – to be accepted by the Italian institutions of art and archeology. In 1808 he became a member of the papal academy of arts, the Accademia di San Luca, where he was elected professor of sculpture in 1812. Later, in 1827, he was elected director of the institute. For the purpose of increasing his collection, he used his connections to regularly visit archeological excavations in the Gulf of Naples and northern Italy. As a direct result of this, Thorvaldsen became a founding member of the Institut für archäologische Korrespondenz and became an honorary member of the Accademia Romana di Archeologia in 1817 (Fejfer, Melander 2003: 13). This needs no further explanation, yet it is important to remember that because of his status, Thorvaldsen was among the first scholars to find out about the latest discoveries in the excavations, and although he did not exercise absolute control over the fate of the artifacts that were discovered, due to his reputation he had the possibility to be the first to make use of their motifs, to restore them, or to purchase them. For Thorvaldsen, the restoration of antique artifacts was primarily a “professional obligation”: we do not know whether he traded these items or not, as such works were commissioned by wealthy clients. Moreover, he considered restoration to be an especially thankless task that impinged on his self-esteem, because his contribution was not visible on the restored artifact. It remains uncertain whether he restored any of the items in his own collection or not (Fejfer, Melander 2003: 14). the ColleCtion The installation of the collection of antiquities in the Thorvaldsen Museum leads us to some interesting conclusions regarding its former owner. The partitioning of the collection obviously evinces a conceptual intention which is not necessarily consequential. In other words, the artifacts that were Brøndsted’s have been kept separate within the collection of coins, even if some parts of it demonstrate thematic, chronological, or geographical matches with Thorvaldsen’s own coins. The displays of marble statues and fragments suggest a rather aesthetical arrangement; thematic cohesion emerges only accidentally in relation to a few items. Among the marble fragments, there are numerous pieces depicting limbs, various other body parts, and draperies that clearly served as the source of Thorvaldsen’s collection of motifs. This in itself distinguishes it 86 Master and Disciple… from most collections of the time: it is a typical artist’s collection, which does not necessarily rely on the completeness of the items or on the method with which they are displayed, but rather the artifacts are rendered items for personal use. The same goes for lanterns, gems, and tiny objects made of semi-precious stones, which are really special pieces, but due to their small size they would not be representative enough for contemporary collectors. It seems variety was also a motive behind the collection, but – just as in the cases of foot-, hand-, and drapery-fragments – the motifs and compositions of the gems and lanterns served as models for his own art. The most pragmatically-motivated category is the plaster cast collection. While the value of marble fragments, gems, and medals is undeniable given their originality, the plaster casts clearly serve as a collection of motifs not only for Thorvaldsen but also for the apprentices working in his atelier. The casts considered as sources of inspiration came in handy not only during the making of his own statues, but were useful for restorations, since only a cast made after antique originals, or fragments carved on the basis of originals, can really replace the piece to be restored on a statue. It is important to note that these casts were made from the most precious works of the Farnese Collection, the Ludovisi Collection, and the Vatican Museum before Napoleon shipped them to Paris (Fejfer, Melander 2003: 24). For the sake of completeness, a truly unique and unusual category in Thorvaldsen’s collection, which has been discussed in greater detail by Karen Benedicte Busk-Jepsen (2018), cannot be ignored. Although I referred above to the lessons of installation, it actually praises the work of Ludvig Müller, the Museum’s first director, who probably relied on Thorvaldsen’s partitioning as well. Because of him, the collection has some pieces that were not displayed in the beginning, but which are nowadays available to the general public. In order to protect the reputation of the celebrated Danish sculptor, numerous works of art depicting erotic scenes and phallic symbols were censored. Understandably, despite their large numbers, the motifs of these objects were not utilized, and their “concealment” protected the sculptor’s reputation, who after all had already been criticized for ignoring Northern mythology in his art. 87 Zoltán Suba the CoLLeCtion As A rePertory of motifs It is not surprising that a style such as Classicism, which defines itself in reference to specific works, contains objects within its purview that bear obvious parallels to concrete foreshadowing, especially at a time when artistic training set the imitation of statues as a benchmark. As I pointed out in my introduction, this was no different in Thorvaldsen’s early years. It may be surprising to know, however, that both when he first arrived in Rome and then later as an established artist, he often used the motifs of ancient artifacts, and in some cases recycled and expanded them. Jørgen Birkedal Hartmann’s comprehensive monograph (Hartmann 1979) on antique motifs in the art of the Danish sculptor provides the most thorough overview. The author (beyond discussing the influence of artifacts from other collections) highlights the application of motifs from pieces in Thorvaldsen’s own collection. At the level of praxis, the statue of Jason6, which was a breakthrough in Thorvaldsen’s life, can be seen as a practical realization of Winckelmann’s conception. This is because there was no established sculptural style of depiction of the Argonaut leader that Thorvaldsen could have utilized, so he had to create the figure of the mythical hero based on other prefiguration. Polykleitos’ Doryphoros (or its surviving Roman copy) must be considered as the “primordium” of the statue, which, with its contrapposto, the physique of the ideal man, has been a point of reference for centuries. It exerts its impact on Jason through the Mars statue of Villa Albani and the statue of Diomedes7 currently in Munich (Hartmann 1979: 48–50). The evident compositional similarity thus helped Thorvaldsen only in his general portrayal of the hero, but the need for it to be recognizable also made the inclusion of the Golden Fleece essential. An obvious model seems to be the calyx crater on which Jason stands in front of Pelias in contrapposto, with a spear in his right hand and the Golden Fleece in his left: although the calyx crater is currently located in the Louvre8, Thorvaldsen could have seen it before its arrival in Paris, and by blending it with the sculptural tradition of the hero, he was able to create his groundbreaking statue. Although Thorvaldsen did not yet have access to his own collection at the time of Jason’s making, it is worth considering the circumstances of its creation because it highlights not just the Danish 6 7 8 Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A822. Staatliche Antikensammlungen und Glyptothek, München, inventory no. 304. Louvre, Paris, inventory no. K 127. 88 Master and Disciple… sculptor’s working method, but also the praxis of Classicism: combining the lessons of ancient masterpieces in order to build a bridge between antiquity and the present, as Frederike Brun wrote in a poem praising Thorvaldsen’s statue (Brun 1803: 485–486). The examination of plaster cast collection, units of body parts, draperies, and marble fragments serving as a repertory of motifs is problematic for several reasons. First, it is not known whether Thorvaldsen actually applied all of them or simply enriched this part of the collection in order to expand it. Secondly, even if he had used these fragments, they are so common that their identification is impossible, and would not introduce any novelty into the study of Classicist sculpture. The variety of objects from his collection he employed, and the ingenuity of their application is even more interesting. One of these is the bust of Napoleon, made in 18309, which gained its final form after being anticipated in a different form. Since Thorvaldsen had never met Napoleon, a copy of his death mask10, a portrait by Antoine-Denis Chaudet, and a coin by Jean-Bertrand Andrieu and Jean-Pierre Montagny11 helped him create a credible portrait, as did those paintings and etchings which were being circulated at the time and that were accessible by Thorvaldsen. In terms of formation, Thorvaldsen had the possibility to access numerous portraits of Roman emperors, but in terms of composition we can point out some interesting antecedents from his collection. One of them is the portrait of Hadrian12 that was made in the 18th century after an antique original. Other examples include some motifs from truly ancient lanterns (Fig. 1), which helped Thorvaldsen in setting the composition. From the Hadrian bust he made use of the small aegis which was always attached to the left shoulder; Thorvaldsen, however, placed it on the right one. The statue of Hadrian is standing on a globe that is held by an eagle with outstretched wings. Two lanterns13 in his collections show a variation of this motif that was eventually used by the artist (Fig. 2): a depiction of the Jupiter-bearing eagle (Zamarovsky 1970: 244–245) on Thorvaldsen’s statue that is similar to that of a Roman emperor raises Napoleon to the heights of Jupiter (Hartmann 1979: 84–88). 9 10 11 12 13 Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A252, A732, A867, A909. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. L652. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. F105. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. H1437. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. H1144, H1145. 89 Zoltán Suba Antique fragments, as well as numerous plaster casts, helped Thorvaldsen with the sculptural articulation of harmonizing draperies and movements. On a Roman cameo fragment14 depicting a dancing bacchante, her legs are in motion, and a drapery that follows might have served as a model for similar scenes in his own works: the vigorous grace of Dancing Girl with a Panther15, the dynamism of figures on the rounded reliefs depicting the Muses16, or the cavalcade of Dancing Muses on Helikon17 can all justifiably be seen to have served as examples for the application of this ancient motif. However, it cannot be stressed enough that his adaptation is rarely unmediated, and I assume that a motif from an ancient object had often served as confirmation for the artist regarding the correct use of prefiguration as seen on contemporary – or recent – works of art. For this reason we cannot ignore Asmus Jacob Carsten’s drawing18 from 1793 as a source of inspiration for Thorvaldsen, either. The Muses, by their very nature, provided additional inspiration for Thorvaldsen. In looking at the attributes of the plaster cast of the seated Urania statue19, which has been dated to the 3rd century BC, it may have served as a model for making one of the Muse reliefs20 mentioned above. Though Hartmann denies (Hartmann 1979: 82) that the parallel between the Urania statue and the seated figure in Elisabeth Osterman-Tolstoy21 propounded by Elise Kai Sass (1957: 71–99) exists, suggesting that the Neapolitan Agrippina and Canova’s Letizia Ramolino Bonaparte statues could be justifiably compared to the seated figure of the Russian countess22, the idea of ancient prefiguration cannot be ruled out. On the one hand, the “case of Jason” showed how Thorvaldsen created his own version of the Argonaut leader by referring to various artworks while there were no concrete sculptural foreshadowings; on the other, Thorvaldsen could obviously have sought to apply a motif differently from the works 14 Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. I2033. 15 Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. C54. 16 Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A328, A329, A330, A331, A332, A333, 17 18 19 20 21 22 A334, A335, A336, A337. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A341. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. D815. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. L42. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A335. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A167. Although Hartmann does concede that the positions of the heads, arms, and legs differ between the two statues. 90 Master and Disciple… of his celebrated rival, Canova. Nor can the dichotomy of imitation vs. copying in Classicism be neglected: the goal is to bring something new to art through the imitation of ancient works. With this in mind, it could be understood why the works of Classicist sculptors resemble ancient compositions and motifs, and yet by comparing them, we find they differ in the details. They are similar and different at the same time. It is worth observing the work of countless sculptors who appeared in Thorvaldsen’s workshop. To what extent did they imbibe the style of their master’s compositions, and can a concrete ancient foreshadowing be detected in their work? It is difficult to give an accurate answer to this question, as at least 189 sculptors and stonemasons worked for Thorvaldsen23, and we still have no knowledge of the work of many of them to this day. By examining the oeuvre of the only Hungarian sculptor who turned up in his workshop, István Ferenczy, we can at least get some impressions about his master’s influence. His sketches show that he enthusiastically drew the statues of the Vatican Museum24, and thus it is natural that the portraits and busts which he carved in Thorvaldsen’s atelier as an assistant testify to a thorough knowledge of Classicist portrait sculpture. Ferenczy’s correspondence (Ferenczy 1912) and Thorvaldsen’s accounts help to reconstruct the works on which the Hungarian artist labored, from which one can infer the source of inspiration for his own works. Among others he had worked on was the bust of Miklós Esterházy25, the relief portrait of Christina Alexandra Egypta Bonaparte26, and the statue of the Shepherd Boy27. Furthermore, Ferenczy mentions (Ferenczy 1912: 116) the relief of the Entry of Alexander the Great into Babylon28 as one of the biggest works, and it is also regularly mentioned among the accounts of his Danish master. In terms of a more specific connection, Thorvaldsen’s aforementioned Elisabeth Osterman-Tolstoy statue is noteworthy due to the fact that not only this work, but also the composition of the possible prefiguration, is so peculiar that it can provide an opportunity to compare it to other works. The seated statue of Ferenc Kölcsey is just as similar 23 See the archives of the museum: https://arkivet.thorvaldsensmuseum.dk/articles/thorvald sens-assistants, accessed on 4.06.2020. 24 Hungarian National Gallery, Department of Prints and Drawings, Budapest, inventory 25 26 27 28 no. 1902–782. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A293. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A726. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A177. Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A503. 91 Zoltán Suba to the work of his Danish master, or to the statue of Urania in his collection, as it is to the figure of Agrippina in Naples. Compared to Thorvaldsen’s work, the legs assume an inverted posture, depicting the poet with a parchment scroll worthy of the author of the Hungarian national anthem, so that an ancient motif that has been used many times before can become an original Classicist work of art. One of the most interesting pieces of Ferenczy’s work is the sketch29 in which he sincerely confesses his spiritual struggles (Fig. 3): should he travel home or stay in Rome?30 Observing each attribute and composition can facilitate interpretation: on the left, in the foreground of ancient ruins, a pensive figure is sitting on a ram-headed sarcophagus surrounded by a sword, a crown, and a scepter, while on the other side, against an empty background, Janus calls the artist into the unknown, at whose feet lies a tombstone (DM FERENCZYUS). This seems to resemble the dilemma of a mediocre but acclaimed foreign artist as he considers whether to remain in Rome or return home to the unknown. The topos of the pensive artist and the genius rushing to his aid is not new in the fine arts, but in this case an obvious foreshadowing may also come into play. Thorvaldsen’s relief 31 from 1808 offers an opportunity to compare it to Ferenczy’s sketch (Fig. 4), not only by theme but in terms of expression: at the feet of the figure embodying art, attributes aid interpretation, and she rests her head on one hand, awaiting the inspiration that comes from the chalice of “enlightenment” through the mediation of the genius of light. In addition to the similarities between the two scenes, the inscription on the stele-like stone block in Thorvaldsen’s work, which can also be rhymed with the one in Ferenczy’s drawing, cannot be ignored. Almost twenty years later, this motif was almost completely adopted by Ferenczy when he modeled the plaster sketches of the reliefs designed for the monument to King Matthias (Fig. 5). The daguerreotype of Matthias’s Apotheosis, which has unfortunately been subsequently destroyed, was published by Simon Meller in his monograph (Meller 1905), which is the basis of our comparison. Ferenczy places the figure of the winged genius on the other side; his formation is less plastic and clumsy, and with his left hand he pours from the chalice of “enlightenment” into the bowl placed on the stone block. He even made use of the caption, this time in Hungarian: A lángésztől jön 29 Hungarian National Gallery, Department of Prints and Drawings, Budapest, inventory no. 1952–4680, 66. 30 For further examination see: Cifka 1978. 31 Thorvaldsens Museum, Copenhagen, inventory no. A518. 92 Master and Disciple… a világosság (The light comes from the genius). In front of him, however, we see Matthias and the group of those who mourn him, so the artistic inspiration has been replaced by the act of transcendence in Ferenczy’s work. The influence of the Danish master is also reflected in the development of Ferenczy’s collection. There is no information on the motives behind the selection of, or how Ferenczy obtained, ancient artifacts in Rome. Given that we have no knowledge of such intentions from before (which could be explained by his financial situation), however, it is sure that not only Thorvaldsen but Canova, too, had influenced the Hungarian artist to collect antiquities. After more than a hundred years since Ferenczy’s collection was placed in the Museum of Fine Arts in Budapest, it has been proven that the majority of its works are mostly Renaissance artifacts. This reveals that Ferenczy apparently did not have access to genuine ancient pieces due to his financial situation and his low status, and also that, because of his lack of education, he really considered some of the pieces in his collection to be ancient: his Neptune statue32 appears as a piece from “Hellenic prehistory” on his own list, despite the fact that we now know that it was made in the first half of the 16th century. He likewise claimed that his Mounted Warrior equestrian statue33 was an antique, but it was in fact made in the early 16th century and now attributed to Leonardo da Vinci. Bearing in mind the danger of speculation, I assume that Ferenczy may have been misled by the archaic design of the statues and their stylized details. Nonetheless, the collection had a category that included truly antique pieces, which were however lost under unclear circumstances after the collection was acquired in the 1920s. Although the quality of the archive photos made from the collection does not allow us to make clear dating, it is nonetheless still apparent that those pieces are by no means representative of what the Danish master had. Compared to his master, Ferenczy’s much more modest collection clearly shows the difference in their intentions: the Hungarian sculptor’s collection is not an artist’s collection, as there are no usable and detailed body parts and draperies, despite the fact that he would have greatly needed them considering his art. Antiques, and statues considered to be antique, did not serve as a compositional example for his oeuvre, either, and Ferenczy himself seems to have sought inspiration for his own works more from his Danish master, as well as perhaps from Canova and from the famous statues in the Vatican Museum. When articulating his inten32 Museum of Fine Arts, Department of Old Sculptures, Budapest, inventory no. 5307. 33 Museum of Fine Arts, Department of Old Sculptures, Budapest, inventory no. 5362. 93 Zoltán Suba tion to collect, his patriotic zeal cannot be neglected, either, by which he aimed to create Hungary’s artistic education and to enrich his country’s art treasures – and in this, he intended to play a prominent role (perhaps too prominent). Bibliography Brun F. 1803. Der neue Teutsche Merkur, Bd. 3. Weimar: C.M. Wieland, 485–486. Busk-Jepsen K.B. 2018. Echoes of Antiquity: Thorvaldsen’s Collections as a Reservoir of Motifs. In: A. Gregersen (ed.). Echo Room. Thorvaldsen, Willumsen, Jorn and their Collections. Berlin: Hatje Cantz Verlag. [online:] https://arkivet.thorvaldsens museum.dk/articles/echoes-of-antiquity-thorvaldsen%E2%80%99s-collections-asa-reservoir-of-motifs, accessed 13.07.2020. Cifka P. 1978. A pályakezdő Ferenczy István. H. Szabolcsi, A. Zádor (eds.). Művészet és felvilágosodás. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. Fejfer J., Melander T. 2003. Thorvaldsen’s Ancient Sculptures. A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures in the Collection of Bertel Thorvaldsen, Throvaldsens Museum. Copenhagen: Thorvaldsens Museum. Ferenczy I. 1912. Ferenczy István levelei. W. Dezső (ed.). Rimaszombat: Rábely Miklós és Fia Ny. Hartmann J.B. 1979. Antike Motive bei Thorvaldsen. Tübingen: Verlag Ernst Wasmuth. Jørnæs B. 1970. Antiksalen på Charlottenborg. Meddelelser fra Thorvaldsens Museum Bulletin. Copenhagen: Thorvaldsens Museum, 48–65. Jørnæs B. 1978. Thorvaldsens bogsamling. Bogvennen. Copenhagen: Forening for Boghaandværk–Christian Ejlers Forlag, 41–60. Jørnæs B. 2011. The sculptor Bertel Thorvaldsen. Copenhagen. Thorvaldsens Museum. Meller S. 1905. Ferenczy István. Budapest: Athenaeum. Sass E.K. 1957. The Classical Tradition in Later European Portraiture with Special Regard to Thorvaldsen’s Portraits. Acta Congressus Madvigiani (1954), vol. 3. Rome: Strenna dei Romanisti. Winckelmann J.J. 1756. Gedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerey und Bildhauerkunst. Dresden–Lepizig: Walther. Zamarovsky V. 1970. Istenek és hősök a görög-római mondavilágban: A–Z. Budapest: Háttér Kiadó. 94 Master and Disciple… List of illustrations Fig. 1. Lamp with Jupiter and the eagle. Roman, 25–7. Thorvaldsens Museum. www. thorvaldsensmuseum.dk. Fig. 2. Bertel Thorvaldsen: Napoleon Bonaparte. ca. 1830. Thorvaldsens Musem. www. thorvaldsensmuseum.dk. Fig. 3. Ferenczy, István: Sketch. Hungarian National Gallery © Department of Prints and Drawings, Budapest, inventory no. 1952–4680, 66. Fig. 4. Bertel Thorvaldsen: A Genio Lumen (The Genius of Art and Light). 1808. Thorvaldsens Museum. www.thorvaldsensmuseum.dk. Fig. 5. Ferenczy, István: Daguerreotype of Matthias’s Apotheosis (destroyed). Zoltán Suba Fig. 1 Fig. 2 Fig. 3 96 Master and Disciple… Fig. 4 Fig. 5 97 https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.04 Paweł Gołyźniak (Jagiellonian University in Kraków) glyPtiC treAsures in krAkow and old master Paintings Collection of Constantine schmidt-Ciążyński Abstract This article is based on two lectures delivered during the symposium “Collecting Antiquities from the Middle Ages to the End of the Nineteenth Century” held at the University of Wrocław, 25–26 March 2021. It discusses two collections related to the glyptic art housed in Krakow: a pictorial archive once owned by Philipp von Stosch including visual reproductions of his own gems as well as those from other contemporary cabinets, now in the Princes Czartoryski Museum in Krakow and the Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński collection of engraved gems in the National Museum in Krakow. These two different sets enable us to illustrate the history of collecting intaglios and cameos, and explain why engraved gems became such a popular phenomenon among the eighteenth and nineteenth century enthusiasts of antiquity, its art and craftsmanship. In addition, Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński’s collection of Old Master paintings is briefly discussed as another proof of his extraordinary connoisseurship and taste. Keywords: Cameos, Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński, glyptics, intaglios, old master paintings, Philipp von Stosch 1. PhiliPP Von stosCh (1691–1757) And the eighteenth Century enthusiAsm towArds intAglios And CAmeos The eighteenth century witnessed unprecedented interest in ancient intaglios and cameos which were already highly regarded in the Renaissance, avidly 99 Paweł Gołyźniak collected, sometimes reused and even copied, either for the sake of reaching absolute perfection in engraving by contemporary artists or simply as forgery.1 Intaglios, with images incised into gemstones’ surfaces, and cameos, sculpted in relief technique, offered inexhaustible array of illustrations of ancient mythologies, customs, beliefs as well as galleries of historical portraits – all encapsulated in the miniature sculptures that could be easily carried in rings on a finger or as other jewellery pieces for personal adornment. The craftsmanship of ancient engravers was absolutely unique compared to the large-scale media and most of the engraved gems survived nearly or completely untouched by the time. All these aspects contributed to their special status in the collecting of art in the Neo-Classical era. The phenomenon of collecting engraved gems, well developed among the aristocratic Italian families like the Grimani, Medici, Orsini or Dukes of Mantua and performed under the patronage of popes in the eighteenth century, spread virtually across entire Europe (Neverov 1982). 2 This was notably due to some agents who established themselves in the very centre of the antiquarian business of Central Italy, especially in Rome, and controlled the flow of intaglios and cameos from old collections and the newly discovered ones to new clients coming from Britain, France or Germany.3 The arrival of Philipp von Stosch in Rome in 1715 and his brilliant career in that respect resulting in a sort of domination in the market of gems for next decades was utterly exceptional giving the circumstances. The eighteenth century was also the time when some individuals came out of the collecting box with much more ambitious projects since their devotion to gems pushed them to ask questions about their makers, chronology, potential functions and meaning in antiquity. Here, Stosch, a representative of an old but relatively poor Prussian noble family who created an outstanding and rich collection of engraved gems, proves to be a pathfinder who steered studies of ancient glyptics onto a very innovative course.4 1 2 3 4 For a detailed study of this problem, see: Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 291–304 (with further literature). One of the best examples of that phenomenon is the celebrated Beverly collection of intaglios and cameos kept at the Alnwick Castle, Northumberland, see: Scarisbrick, Wagner and Boardman 2017, especially pp. XV–XXV. In the first half of the eighteenth century, Italian antiquarians like Marcoantonio Sabatini (1637–1724), Antonio Maria Zanetti (1679–1767), Pier Leone Ghezzi (1674–1755) and Hieronymus Odam (ca. 1681–1741), among others, strongly dominated the art market for engraved gems in Rome, Naples, Venice or Florence. More on Philipp von Stosch and his various activities as well as his legacy, see: Furtwängler 1900: vol. 3, 409–410, 415–417; MacKay Quynn 1941; Lewis 1961: 38–90; Lewis 1967; Bor- 100 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… Regardless of the doubts on Stosch’s professional profile, the fact is that he was tremendously successful. There were two factors contributing to his success – his ease in establishing contacts making him very well-connected, and his ambition. Already in his early twenties in 1712, Stosch accompanied the Dutch envoy François Fagel (1659–1746) to London, where he made some valuable contacts with British art collectors. In 1713, he met Philippe II, Duke of Orléans (1674–1723) while travelling across France. He not only accessed his collection of gems, but also learnt how to make glass pastes and sulphur impressions after ancient intaglios and cameos from Duke’s physician and chemist Wilhelm von Homberg (1652–1715).5 Most likely at that time he purchased some of his very first intaglios from Michel Ange de La Chausse (1660–1724) and he met Charles César Baudelot de Dairval (1648–1722) who in 1717 published his study on the famous Strozzi Medusa intaglio singed by Solon (Baudelot de Dairval 1717. Zazoff, Zazoff 1983: 19. Pomian 2000: 21. Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 279. Hansson 2014: 14). It must have been due to Duke of Orléans and his circle influence that Stosch embarked upon a research project aiming at investigation of ancient intaglios and cameos with inscriptions some of which he claimed to be artists’ signatures. In 1715, Stosch arrived in Rome and stayed there for the next two years. During that time he was introduced to a good number of collectors and antiquarians, among them Marcantonio Sabbatini (1637–1724), a papal antiquary and advisor to the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI, an expert on gems and coins and tutor to pope’s nephew Alessandro Albani (1692–1779). The friendship with Albani was particularly important in the later stages of Stosch’s career but as one can see, he very early established a number of useful contacts enabling him later to perform a role of the key advisor, an oracle, to the collectors of engraved gems in Italy and beyond. Stosch quickly noticed a potential in offering his services as an art dealer and advisor in Rome for notable German-speaking grand tourists. Among his early clients were, for instance, Prince Frederick William of Brandenburg-Schwedt or Reichsgraf von Schulenburg. He also proved very useful to François Fagel in the search for rare books, drawings and prints. At the unexpected death of his brother Ludwig in Paris in 1717, Stosch was called back home, and while traveling to Kustrin he made further useful 5 roni Salvadori 1978; Zazoff, Zazoff 1983: 3–67; Lang 2007; Zwierlein-Diehl 2007: 274–275; Hansson 2014: 13–33. On Willhelm Homberg and his glass pastes, see: Cavalier, Jentel 2002: 112–117. 101 Paweł Gołyźniak contacts in Vienna, Prague and Dresden. As a result, he was nominated a royal antiquary to Augustus II the Strong, King of Saxony (1670–1733). After a short stay in his hometown, Stosch travelled to The Hague and reconnected with François Fagel. There, he was recruited by Lord Carteret as a spy with a mission to infiltrate the diplomatic circles in Rome and report on the actions taken by James Francis Edward Stuart, the Old Pretender (1688–1766). With these new additional employment, Stosch arrived in Rome in the early 1722 and stayed there until his spying activities were unmasked in 1731, forcing him to leave Rome for Florence where he stayed until his death. Stosch was not an ordinary dealer and collector, though. During all his travels as well as stays in Rome and Florence, he accessed a large number of royal and private collections of gems, accumulating materials for his studies, especially a book project devoted to intaglios and cameos signed by ancient masters. This pioneering work helped him establish his position as a connoisseur of ancient glyptic items in the antiquarian circles of Rome dominated by Italians. Among the many valuable contacts Stosch made along his travels there were a few particular ones like the leading Italian artists, connoisseurs of antiquities and collectors of gems: Pier Leone Ghezzi (1674–1755) and Hieronymus Odam (ca. 1681–1741). He selected them to contribute illustrations to his book (Fig. 1). Nearly sixty drawings by Odam and a few by Ghezzi were sent together with Stosch’s manuscript to Bernard Picart (1673–1733), a notable publisher, to Amsterdam. Picart, a skilful draughtsman himself, redrew the plates according to his own standards, so that he ultimately became not only the publisher of Stosch’s book but also its illustrator (Fig. 2). The book appeared under the title Gemmae antiquae celatae in 1724 and became a great success (Fig. 3), for Stosch convincingly presented 70 intaglios and cameos bearing signatures of their makers.6 The study was remarkable due to several reasons. First, it was devoted to a single, scholarly phenomenon rather than another presentation of a collection like it was traditionally the case at the time. Second, he rejected typical subject-matter organisation and introduced high standards of the publication: the gems were presented on individual plates with full discussion on them in the accompanying texts, as well as information on the gemstone types they were made of and provenance information, for example collections to which they belong. Listing the selected intaglios and cameos in the alphabetical order 6 For more detailed analyses of Stosch’s book project of Gemmæ antiquæ cælatæ, see: Heringa 1976; Zazoff, Zazoff 1983: 24–50; Whiteley 1999; Hansson 2014: 18–21. 102 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… of the engravers allowed studying several works attributed to one artist at the same time, which fostered reflections on the matters of individual styles and techniques of ancient engravers. These aspects were not fully developed, though, because Picart, unaware of Stosch’s ideas, paid less attention to them in contrast to Ghezzi and Odam, both, like Stosch, collectors and connoisseurs of gems. As a result, the illustrations received some criticism because they were judged too artistic, rather than accurate.7 The reasons why Picart replaced the original drawings seem mainly selfish and related to his self-promotion. The discovery of a huge collection of drawings of engraved gems in the Princes Czartoryski Museum in Krakow commissioned by Stosch provides an opportunity to study the preparation process of his first book in details, and a unique insight into his other virtually unknown scholarly projects. The drawings of intaglios and cameos made for Stosch in the number of 2269 objects bound in 28 folio volumes ended up in Krakow due to Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski’s (1770–1861) exile to Italy at the very end of the eighteenth century. The circumstances of their purchase, probably in Florence, according to his correspondence, are not entirely clear.8 Nevertheless, once in the hands of the Czartoryski family, they travelled with other parts of their collections to France in the nineteenth century, and back to Poland after the Second World War. This collection is a large part of Stosch’s pictorial legacy that should be set together with another, much smaller collection of drawings which once formed the so-called Spencer-Churchill Album, and several other smaller sets now mostly in private hands. Together, they constitute a large part of pictorial archive created on Stosch’s commissions by artists like Pier Leone Ghezzi, Hieronymus Odam, Johann Justin Preissler (1698–1771), Georg Martin Preissler (1700–1754) or Johann Adam Schweickart (1722–1787) who worked in the collector’s atelier, first in Rome, and later also in Florence (Gołyźniak 2021) 9. The drawings of gems housed in Krakow are particularly interesting because they enable to reconstruct not only the process of Stosch’s first book preparations but also his other scholarly projects. For example, in the archives related to Stosch, one finds information that he planned to publish in the second volume of the 7 8 9 Mariette 1750: vol. 1, 331–333. This issue is still being a subject of investigation. For more information on this matter, see: Gołyźniak 2021. Visit also a website dedicated to the research project analysing these collections of drawings and contextualising them within Stosch’s scholarly activities: https://stosch.archeo. uj.edu.pl/home [retrieved on 29 May 2021]. 103 Paweł Gołyźniak Gemmae antiquae caelatae book. He was collecting material, but despite the new book being referenced from time to time, no real progress was presented until his death in 1757 (Mariette 1750: vol. 1, 332. Strodtmann 1754: 50; Zazoff, Zazoff 1983: 66; Hansson 2014: 21). It is suspected that a trace of preparations for this supplement materialised in the luxury edition of Johann Joachim Winckelmann’s catalogue of Stosch’s gems published in 1760 with some images featuring gems with inscriptions probably taken as artist’s signatures (Winckelmann 1760; 2013: 22–23, 42–52). Nevertheless, only now the discovery of the large pictorial archive of gem drawings in Krakow demonstrates that indeed the project was quite advanced and Stosch collected dozens of signed gems. The first illustrations were made by Ghezzi but apparently, Stosch later hired a skilful German draughtsman Johann Justin Preissler to document new gems intended to be published in the new book (Fig. 4) (Gołyźniak 2021). The reasons why Stosch did not ultimately publish them still need to be investigated. The drawings related to the first and the second volume of Gemmae antiquae caelatae study constitute only a small fraction of the collection in Krakow. Originally, it was believed that all the drawings present gems once owned by Philipp von Stosch10. Nevertheless, their ongoing identification process slowly reveals that they were a sort of pictorial archive not only of gems from Stosch’s but also from other contemporary cabinets. The scanty pieces of information from the archives reveal that Stosch, with some help of his brother Heinrich Sigismund Stosch (1699–1747), regularly inventoried his collection of gems at least until the latter’s death in 1747 (Winckelmann 1760: 1–2; Zazoff, Zazoff 1983: 74–75). It appears that alongside that inventory work, Stosch also produced casts and impressions of his items in glass paste and sulphur, and he apparently commissioned drawings of a large portion of them (Fig. 5). It might be that these, as well as other drawings now in Krakow, were meant not only as documentation, but Stosch probably used them to illustrate the rich iconography of gems reflecting tastes, mythologies, customs and history of ancient civilizations like many other different works of ancient art, as well as the famous Atlas – a collection of architectural drawings and maps all exhibited in Stosch’s own house, which became a sort of a private museum opened to everyone who demonstrated interest in these matters (Gołyźniak 2021a). It is expected that the elaboration and contextualisation of the gem drawings rediscovered in Krakow together with the drawings once in the SpencerChurchill Album and those in other small sets will allow to fully reconstruct all 10 The drawings are described as such in old museum catalogues. 104 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… the collecting and scholarly projects and activities of Philipp von Stosch. They testify to the outstanding collecting and research standards of the Prussian baron. His investigations on gems with signatures and techniques of documentation of regular intaglios and cameos from various cabinets, also in the pictorial form, show how much he advanced the studies of glyptic art in the first half of the eighteenth century. His work was clearly inspiring to others, especially Johann Joachim Winckelmann, who admits that he benefited a lot while writing a catalogue of Stosch’s gems from the collector’s own inventory and various archives he amassed (Winckelmann 1952: vol. 1, no. 262, 444–445). The gem drawings commissioned by Stosch also bear commentaries to the iconography and information on the objects’ provenance and material they were made of. For Winckelmann, the work on Stosch’s gem collection was a testing ground for many of his concepts and hypothesis later fully developed in his opus magnum published in 1764 (Zazoff, Zazoff 1983: 71–134; Décultot 2012; Winckelmann 2013: 19–23; Hansson 2014). 2. ConstAntine sChmidt-Ciążyński (1818–1889) And the dAwn (?) of the ColleCting of engrAVed gems in the nineteenth Century As demonstrated above, Philipp von Stosch not only contributed to the widespread collecting of engraved gems mostly among his German and British peers due to his crucial role as a dealer authorised by the pope and influential Cardinal Albani, but he also made intaglios and cameos a subject of scholarly investigations. The processes that begun in the first half of the eighteenth century were continued later. In the second half of the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth century, many collections of engraved gems were built mainly by the representatives of nobility, but some also by dealers and less wealthy collectors. However, around the middle of the nineteenth century, the growing number of fake gems produced in Italy and elsewhere to deceive grand tourists and collectors (the great scandal related to the Poniatowski collection is probably the most prominent example of that phenomenon11), and because most 11 On Prince Stanislas Poniatowski’s (1754–1833) collection of engraved gems, see: Wagner 2008; 2013; Rambach 2014 (with more literature). 105 Paweł Gołyźniak praised pieces were already deposited in royal and public cabinets, the market for intaglios and cameos sharply decreased and the collecting of gems virtually collapsed. Dispersion of important collections combined with a general shift in investment trends (so many gems of doubtful authenticity made them a very risky investment) resulted in a drop in interest in them, not only from a collecting, but also scholarly point of view (Plantzos 1999: 3; Berges 2011: 151; Gołyźniak 2017: 57–58). Nevertheless, there were still individuals who created interesting and valuable collections also succeeding to buy pieces from old, dispersed cabinets. A perfect example of them was a Polish antiquary and collector Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński (1818–1889). Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński was born in Warsaw in 1818 and he pursued a brilliant career at the art market. The talented restorer of Old Master paintings worked for about twelve years in the Hermitage Museum, and pursued his career as an art dealer and collector in St. Petersburg. He started to accumulate intaglios and cameos there buying pieces from the best Russian art collectors like Urusov, Uvarov, Shuvalov, Zubrov or Kononov (Gołyźniak 2017: 32–36). In 1851, a serious illness forced him to move out of St. Petersburg and after two-years-long journey across Germany and England he settled in Paris in 1853 where he became one of the main suppliers of works of art to the Emperor Napoleon III and established a successful antiquarian business with branches in Nice and Vichy (Gołyźniak 2017: 38–45). Similarly to Philipp von Stosch, Schmidt-Ciążyński collected gems during his numerous travels. He visited Italy on a regular basis where he traded with leading antiquarians like Alessandro Castellani (1823–1883), Count Michał Tyszkiewicz (1828–1897) and Francesco Capranesi (1796–1854). He also managed to purchase intaglios and cameos from old cabinets like Boncompagni-Ludovisi or Zanetti and more recent but prominent ones like Baron Hirsch, Bram Hertz, Fejérváry-Pulszky, Fould, Demidoff, Pourtalès and Pistrucci (Gołyźniak 2017: 40–44). However, a noteworthy fact is that he also visited places where gems were available in situ, for instance Aquileia, a great Roman glyptic centre where several thousands of gems have been found12. It is known that the collector regularly visited this place purchasing large number of intaglios. Thus, it is likely that a significant portion of Schmidt-Ciążyński’s Roman Imperial gems originate from that site (Gołyźniak 2017: 46–47). Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński is an exemplary collector of his era, acquiring his items mainly through auctions and private sales, however, also access12 On Aquileia as a Roman glyptics centre, see: Sena Chiesa 1966. 106 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… ing ancient gems from the sites of their findings, which was much more secure compared to the art market. As a result, the bulk of ancient gems he amassed are regular products for the period of their production but still he managed to acquire some real masterpieces. A good example of that is an onyx cameo featuring portrait of Drusus the Elder once in the celebrated Demidoff collection (Fig. 6) (Gołyźniak 2017, no. 717). Another rare piece is a tiny emerald cameo presenting laureated bust of Livia as Venus Genetrix – mother of the Julio-Claudian clan (Fig. 7) (Gołyźniak 2017, no. 718). Exceptional and rare is a three-dimensional bust of Eros cut in chalcedony and dated to the 2nd century AD (Fig. 8) (Gołyźniak 2017, no. 715). Schmidt-Ciążyński created a collection numbering 2,517 pieces according to high standards, which means he wanted it to be representative for every period of glyptic art from the very early cylinder seals through Classical Greek gold finger rings, Hellenistic intaglios and Roman Republican ones, as well as Roman Imperial, magical, early Christian and Sassanian gems (Gołyźniak 2017: 62–64). This also applies to modern intaglios and cameos since there are more than 1,300 of them within the collection including works attributed to the Renaissance masters like Alessandro Masnago (1560–1620) and nearly 100 gems dated to the eighteenth and nineteenth century are signed by the members of Pichler family of gem engravers, Jacques Guay (1711–1793), Nathaniel Marchant (1739–1816), Edward Burch (1730–1814), Nicolo Morelli (1771–1838), Giuseppe Cerbara (1770–1840), Antonio Berini (1770– 1861) and many others (Fredro-Boniecka 1938–1939; 1940–1948; Gołyźniak, Natkaniec-Nowak, Dumańska-Słowik 2016). Towards the end of his life, Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński was looking for a proper place to deposit his collection of 2,517 engraved gems. Ultimately, in 1886 they arrived at Krakow and were presented to the recently founded National Museum in exchange for a life-long pension. Schmidt-Ciążyński wanted his cabinet to be a useful tool for the emerging circles of archaeologists and art historians who started to educate students in these subjects at the Academy of Krakow (today the Jagiellonian University) (Gołyźniak 2017: 48–59). The collection suited such a purpose perfectly because as has been said, it presents the development of glyptic art from the very beginnings to the contemporary times, and there is a great variety of subject-matters presented on gems. Another advantage of Schmidt-Ciążyński’s collection of intaglios and cameos is that even if he possessed an example with a specific device, for example Mars Ultor, he added to his cabinet another one but made of a different precious stone which testifies his interest in mineralogy as well. He also inventoried the whole cabinet 107 Paweł Gołyźniak and made more than 800 plaster and electrotype casts of his gems which proves the high standards of his collecting activities (Gołyźniak 2017: 54–59). The difficulties related to the First and Second World War, among others. resulted in keeping the collection virtually inaccessible to the wide public, however, the ancient part of the collection has been already elaborated and published, and the modern one shall be a subject of a careful analysis in the forthcoming years13. It should be noted that Schmidt-Ciążyński was not only a collector of engraved gems but also a restorer of Old Master paintings, which he collected as well. According to archival sources, he possessed nearly 50 paintings by top artists, mostly Flemish, Dutch, Italian and German masters. A few were donated to various Polish institutions including the National Museum in Krakow, but most of them were sent to the Polish Museum in Rapperswil, Switzerland in 188314. Once Schmidt-Ciążyński learnt about the establishment of the National Museum in Krakow, he wanted them to be deposited there together with his gems but he did not manage to recover his paintings from the director of the Rapperswil Museum – Władysław Plater (1808–1889)15. As a result, only fourteen paintings and miniatures arrived in Krakow, and they are listed in the anonymous inventory dated 1884. Most of them are now considered lost or remain unidentified due to scanty and imprecise descriptions. Exceptions are three: an oil painting on panel said to depict John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol (1586–1653) and an English diplomat by unknown artist, though in the inventory from 1884 attributed to Frans Pourbus the Younger (1569–1622) (Fig. 9), and two other Flemish oil paintings on wood presenting a pair of portraits of a city major and his wife attributed to Nicolaes Maes 13 Some groups of gems were individually elaborated (Śliwa 1989; Kaim-Małecka 1993; Myśliński 2001; 2006; Śliwa 2012; 2014) whereas the most recent and complete study of ancient gems from the Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński collection is Gołyźniak 2017 (with an essay and full bibliography on the collector and his cabinet of gems). Most of the modern gems with artists’ signatures were published by Fredro-Boniecka (1938–1939; 1940–1948) but hundreds of others remain unpublished although more and more appear photographed in the National Museum in Krakow online collection: https://zbiory.mnk.pl/en/home-page, accessed on 29 May 2021. 14 Anon 1884 – a catalogue of paintings, drawings and various works of art and curiosities owned by Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński, mostly deposited with the National Museum in Krakow or the Polish Museum in Rapperswil. For a full commentary on this matter, see: Gołyźniak 2017: 48–49. 15 On the long legal process and Schmidt-Ciążyński, as well as the efforts of the National Museum in Krakow in recovery of those paintings, see: Gołyźniak 2017: 51–52. 108 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… (1634–1693)16. Apart from these, in the last years of his life Constantine was still donating individual works of art to the National Museum in Krakow. Among them was one particular painting by unknown author featuring the famous Polish military leader and national hero Tadeusz Kościuszko (1746–1817) at the Maciejowice Battle17. This painting testifies to Schmidt-Ciążyński’s considerable involvement in the Polish émigré movement and patriotic feelings – the driving motivation for his deposit of gems and paintings in Polish museums18. Regarding the later history of the paintings that ended up in Switzerland, in 1923 the collections and archives of the Polish Museum in Rapperswil was declared state property by Polish Prime Minister. After liquidation of the First Polish Museum in Rapperswil in 1927, the paintings were transferred together with its other collections to Warsaw where they joined State Art Collections and were housed in Podwale in Warsaw (Kuhnke 2012: 10). In 1928, some of the best paintings were exhibited in the Baryczkowska House in the Main Square in Warsaw and later individual paintings decorated government cabinets and other important private institutions while the rest of them and the archives from Rapperswil were kept in the Central Military Library at Aleje Ujazdowskie and later also in the Krasicki Library in Warsaw (Kuhnke 2012: 10–11). About 95% of the Rapperswil collections and archives were completely destroyed during the Second World War bombarding of Warsaw, thus, it was believed that Schmidt-Ciążyński paintings perished as well. Nevertheless, it is possible to prove that some of them survived and most of these are now housed in the National Museum in Warsaw. The paintings from the Polish Rapperswil Museum displayed in the Baryczkowska House were catalogued in 1928 (Anon 1928). A comparison of the list of paintings from the Constantine SchmidtCiążyński collection written in 1884 with that catalogue confirms that many of collector’s Old Master paintings were transported to Warsaw and exhibited there (table 1). Even though their descriptions are very short and sometimes imprecise, seventeen paintings have been identified. Among these, six outstanding 16 The National Museum in Krakow inv. no.: MNK XII-A-9 (= Anon 1884, no. 2) and MNK XII- A-163 and MNK XII-A-163 respectively. According to the Anon 1884 no. 3, the portraits of a city major and his wife were originally attributed to Bartolomeus van der Helst (1613– 1670) however, the recent research proved them to be painted by Nicolaes Maes ca. 1670– 1674, see: Dec and Wałek 2009: 141, nos. 174–175 (with earlier literature). 17 The National Museum in Krakow inv. no.: MNK II-a-246 – Blak, Małkiewicz, Wojtałowa 2001: no. 1139, 417. 18 For more on this matter, see: Gołyźniak 2017: 39–40, 45. 109 Paweł Gołyźniak works of Michiel van Mierevelt (no. 2, Fig. 10), Willem de Poorter (no. 3, Fig. 11)19, Anthony van Dyck (no. 4, Fig. 12), Nicolaes Maes (no. 7), a Follower of Jan Martszen de Jonge (no. 8) and Gaspar Peeter (II) Verbruggen (no. 9) survived the turbulences of the Second World War and are now housed in the National Museum in Warsaw. They prove Schmidt-Ciążyński’s extraordinary taste and connoisseurship. The war loses are severe though. Out of seventeen paintings identified as once in the Schmidt-Ciążyński collection, eleven remain lost (nos. 1, 5–6 and 10–17). Prior to the War, nine of them were in the National Museum in Warsaw (nos. 1, 5–6, 10, and 12–16), while two could be deposited in other institutions (nos. 11 and 17). One painting (no. 1) is recorded in the Wartime Losses Register of the Division for Looted Art at the Ministry of Cultural and National Heritage and, fortunately, it was photographed before the War. Taking these paintings as well as those now in Krakow described above into consideration, Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński’s collection of Old Master paintings was particularly strong in terms of Flemish and Netherlandish art of the XVII century. Like in the case of his assemblage of engraved gems, it is surprising that a collector of his status (not particularly wealthy) managed to collect works of art of such a high quality. One must recall that for twelve years Schmidt-Ciążyński worked as a supernumerary employee in the Hermitage Museum as a restorer of the Old Master paintings where he belonged to the famous school of Eduard L. Sievers. As one learns from Grzegorzewski, he was assigned some of the most ambitious projects and transferred paintings on new canvases and panels (Grzegorzewski 1884: 340; Gołyźniak 2017: 34). He must have acquired considerable connoisseurship which is confirmed not only by the quality of paintings in his collection but also his attributions, most of which are confirmed even in the light of the newest research (table 1). 19 Benesz and Kluk (2016, no. 433 and 514 respectively) inform that these paintings were most probably donated to the Polish Museum in Rapperswil by the Stockholm art dealer Henryk Bukowski (1839–1900), however, the Anon 1884 including a list of paintings once owned by Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński includes records matching them perfectly (no. 3 and 5 respectively) and hence it is more likely that they originate from Schmidt-Ciążyński’s collection. 110 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… Table 1. Anon 1884 inventory 1928 the Polish Museum No. of Schmidt-Ciążyński’s in Rapperswil paintings collections20 exhibition catalogue21 Current status/ whereabouts 1. No. 2 – Lucas van Leyden (1494–1533), Madonna with the Child, oil on panel (circular) No. 59 – Lucas van Leyden (school of), Madonna with the Child, oil on panel, circular, 15cm diameter Lost, once in the National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34169, lost during the II WW, Wartime Losses Register no. 3756, Lucas van Leyden (1494–1533), Madonna with the Child, oil on panel, circular, 15cm diameter 2. No. 3 – Michael Jansen Mierevelt (1567– 1641), Portrait of hr. Horn, oil on panel in ebony frames No. 448 – Michael Jansen Mierevelt (1567–1641)? Portrait of hr. Horn, Swedish General, oil on panel 49,5x38,2cm The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: M.Ob.1408 (Benesz and Kluk 2016, no. 433 – Michiel van Mierevelt (1566– 1641), Portrait of the Swedish General Gustav Karlson Graf von Björneborg Horn (1592–1657), oil on panel 49,5x38,2cm 3. No. 5 – Brahmer Leonard (1596–1660), Man in Eastern Costume and a Knight, oil on panel No. 13 – Flemish school (17th century), Knight Kneeling in front of an Old Man, oil on panel 36x42cm The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: M.Ob.1888 (Benesz and Kluk 2016, no. 514 – Willem de Poorter (1608–1668), Saul and David in the Cave in the Wilderness of Engédi, oil on panel 37x43cm 4. No. 6 – Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641), Saint Hubertus praying, oil on canvas in ebony frames No. 8 – Flemish school, Saint Hubertus, oil on canvas 46x35cm The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: M.Ob.815 (Benesz and Kluk 2016, no. 198 – Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641), The Head of Saint Hubertus (?), oil on canvas 49x37cm 20 Original text as in the inventory. 21 Original text as in the catalogue. 111 Paweł Gołyźniak Anon 1884 inventory 1928 the Polish Museum No. of Schmidt-Ciążyński’s in Rapperswil paintings collections20 exhibition catalogue21 Current status/ whereabouts 5. No. 11 – Nicolaes No. 12 – Flemish school, Berghem (1624–1684), Noah’s Ark, oil on panel Noah’s Ark, oil on 58x82cm panel Lost, once in The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34478 (Noah’s ark) 6. No. 13 – Jacobus van der Ulft (1627–1689), Biblical Scene, watercolour, signed No. 24 – Jacobus Ulft (1627–1689), Biblical Scene, miniature on parchment 13x16cm Lost, once in The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34464 7. No. 14 – Nicolaes Maes (1632–1693), Lady in a Flemish dress, oil on canvas no frames No. 447 – Flemish school (17th century), Portrait of a Lady, oil on canvas 63x50cm The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34176 (Benesz and Kluk 2016, no. 398 – Nicolaes Maes, ca. 1690, Portrait of a Lady Seated at a Table (Petronella Dunois Groenendijk?), oil on panel 63x50, signed bottom-left MAES 8. No. 15 – Jan van Huchtenburgh (1646–1733), Battle, oil on panel in black frames No. 20 – Jan van Huchtenburgh (1646– 1783), War Episode, oil on panel 54x82cm The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34179 (Benesz and Kluk 2016, no. 406 – Follower of Jan Martszen de Jonge, 1651, A Cavalry Skirmish near a Big Rock, oil on panel 56,5x84cm, traces of a monogram and date 1651 9. No. 16 – Gaspar Peeter Verbruggen the Elder (17th century), Flowers and insects, oil on canvas in decorated frames with author’s signature and date 1635 [perhaps should be 1685?] No. 16 – Gaspar Peeter Verbruggen (1635–1687), Flowers, oil on canvas 82x62cm Perhaps the National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: M.Ob.2516 (Benesz and Kluk 2016, no. 701 – Gaspar Peeter (II) Verbruggen (1664–1730), early 1680s., Flowers in a Glass Vase, oil on canvas 82x61,5cm (purchased from Tadeusz Wolff in 1947 [but maybe lost during the II WW and recovered by the Museum?]) 112 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… Anon 1884 inventory 1928 the Polish Museum No. of Schmidt-Ciążyński’s in Rapperswil paintings collections20 exhibition catalogue21 Current status/ whereabouts 10. No. 17 – Lucas Cranach (1472–1553), Adoration of the Three Magi, oil on panel (painting of exceptional beauty) No. 15 – North-German school (15th century), Adoration of the Three Magi, oil on panel 16x14cm Lost, once in The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34485 11. No. 26 – Joseph Vernet (1714–1789), Eighteenth miniatures, oil (painted with utmost delicacy) No. 74 – Claude-Joseph Vernet (1714–1789)? Eighteenth Miniature Landscapes, parchment in two frames each 3,8cm diameter Current whereabouts unknown 12. No. 27 – Jean Baptiste Greuze (1725–1805), Cleopatra, oil on panel in ebony frames Perhaps No. 4 – Jean Baptiste Greuze (1725– 1805), Head of a Young Woman, oil on panel 17,5x14,5cm Lost, once in The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34442 13. No. 30 – Bartolome Murillo (1618–1684), Beatrix Cenci, oil on canvas in wooden decorative frames No. 7 – Bartolome Murillo (1618–1682) (school of), Beatrix Cenci, oil on canvas 75x62cm Lost, once in The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34350 14. No. 31 – Bartolome Murillo (1618–1684), Saint John the Baptist, in wooden decorative frames No. 3 – Bartolome Murillo (1618–1682) (school of), Saint John the Baptist, oil on canvas 77x61cm Lost, once in The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34349 15. No. 36 – Rosalba Carriero (1675–1757), Selfportrait, oil on canvas (she painted in oil on canvas very rarely) No. 37 – Rosalba Carriera (1675–1757)? Head of a Woman, oil on canvas 43x34cm Lost, once in The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34361 16. No. 37 – Giovanni Paolo Panini (1692– 1765), Architecture with people, in golden frames No. 55 – P. Giovanni Panini (1691–1768), Italian Ruins, oil on canvas 63x68cm Lost, once in The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: 34464 113 Paweł Gołyźniak Anon 1884 inventory 1928 the Polish Museum No. of Schmidt-Ciążyński’s in Rapperswil paintings collections20 exhibition catalogue21 17. No. 38 – Rossi (contemporary), Portrait of Garibaldi (in nature), painted in Sicily No. 600 – Rossi (19th century?), Portrait Study of Giuseppe Garibaldi, oil on panel 46,5x35,4cm Current status/ whereabouts Current whereabouts unknown 3. ConClusions The National Museum in Krakow and the Princes Czartoryski Museum in Krakow own tremendously important collections of artefacts related to ancient and modern glyptic art. The Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński collection of engraved gems and the lost pictorial archive of gems commissioned by Philipp von Stosch combined illustrate development of collecting and studying of this peculiar branch or art in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The latter proves that studies of ancient glyptics were crucial in the later transformation of antiquarianism into archaeology and ancient art history as scientific disciplines. Philipp von Stosch was an exceptional collector with scholarly interest in the material he assembled. His interest in glyptic art exceeded far beyond simple collecting as he conducted regular research of ancient, signed intaglios and cameos and collaborated with other connoisseurs to document various cabinets making them accessible to a wider public. Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński and the results of his collecting activities in terms of engraved gems and Old Master paintings demonstrate that despite deep changes in the art market, collections of outstanding quality still could be created if their creators were passionate connoisseurs with considerable knowledge in the subjects of their interests. 114 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… Bibliography Anon 1884. Katalog przedmiotów ofiarowanych przez Konstantego Schmidta-Ciążyńskiego do Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie. Kraków: Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie. Anon 1928. Zbiory Polskiego Muzeum Narodowego w Rapperswilu: katalog XXV wystawy Towarzystwa Opieki nad Zabytkami Przeszłości w Kamienicy Baryczków 1928. Warszawa: Polskie Towarzystwo Opieki nad Zabytkami Przeszłości. Baudelot de Dairval Ch.C. 1717. Lettre sur le pretendu Solon des pierres gravées. Explication d’une medaille d’or de la famille Cornuficia. Paris: Jean-Baptiste Lamesle. Benesz H., Kluk M. 2016. Early Netherlandish, Dutch, Flemish and Belgian Paintings 1494–1983 in the Collections of the National Museum in Warsaw and the Palace at Nieborów Complete Illustrated Summary Catalogue, H. Benesz, P. Borusowski (eds.). Warsaw: The National Museum in Warsaw. Collection of European paintings/ the National Museum in Warsaw. Berges D. 2011. Höchste Schönheit und einfache Grazie. Klassizistische Gemmen und Kameen der Sammlung Maxwell Sommerville im University of Pennsylwania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf. Blak H., Małkiewicz B., Wojtałowa E. 2001. Malarstwo polskie XIX wieku. Kraków: The National Museum in Kraków. Nowoczesne malarstwo polskie. Katalog zbiorów, cz. 1. Borroni Salvadori F. 1978. Tra la fine del Granducato e le reggenza: Filippo Stosch a Firenze. Annali della Scuola Normale Superiore di Pisa. Classe di Lettere e Filosofia, 8(2), 565–614. Cavalier O., Jentel M.-O. 2002. L’Empire de Mars et des Muses. La collection du marquis de Calviére, lieutenant-général des armées du roi, 1693–1777 (Catalogue de l’exposition qui s’est tenue au musée Calvet). Paris-Avignon: Somogy-Musée Calvet. Dec D., Wałek J. 2009. Galeria Malarstwa Europejskiego: przewodnik. Kraków: Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie. Décultot E. 2012. Eine Geschichte der antiken Kunst im Kleinen. Zu Johann Joachim Winckelmanns «Description des Pierres Gravées du feu Baron de Stosch». Antike und Abendland, 58, 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1515/anti.2012.58.1.167. Fredro-Boniecka M. 1938–1939. Gemmy z podpisami artystów w Muzeum Narodowym w Krakowie, cz. 1, Gemmy Pichlerów. Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne, 20, 278–292. Fredro-Boniecka M. 1940–1948. Gemmy z podpisami artystów w Muzeum Narodowym w Krakowie, cz. 2. Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne, 2, 53–84. Furtwängler A. 1900. Die antiken Gemmen. Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst im klassischen Altertum, vol. 1–3. Berlin–Lipsk: Giesecke & Devrient. Gołyźniak P., Natkaniec-Nowak L., Dumańska-Słowik M. 2016. A Nineteenth-century Glyptic Collection in the National Museum in Cracow: The Cabinet of Constan115 Paweł Gołyźniak tine Schmidt-Ciążyński. Journal of the History of Collections, 28, 85–96. https://doi. org/10.1093/jhc/fhu056. Gołyźniak P. 2017. Ancient Engraved Gems in the National Museum in Krakow. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag. https://doi.org/10.29091/9783954908820. Gołyźniak P. 2021. From Antiquarianism to Proto-archaeology: Philipp von Stosch (1691-1757) and the Study of Engraved Gems. Antiquity, 95(383), 1–9. https://doi. org/10.15184/aqy.2021.112. Grzegorzewski J. 1884. Rzeźba w klejnotach i Konstanty Szmidt (Ciążyński), założyciel pierwszej publicznej daktylioteki w Polsce. Przyczynek do dziejów Kamei i gem wklęsłych. Ateneum, 2 (34/5), 339–358. Hansson U.R. 2014. «Ma passion… ma folie dominante» Stosch, Winckelmann, and the Allure of the Engraved Gems of the Ancients. MDCCC 1800, 3, 13–33. Heringa J. 1976. Die Genese von Gemmae Antiquae Caelatae. BABESCH, 51, 75–91. Kaim-Małecka B. 1993. Catalogue des intailles orientales des musées Polonais. Acta Archaeologica Lovaniensia, 32, 59–95. Kuhnke M. 2012. Powrót portretu Jana III Sobieskiego. Cenne, Bezcenne, Utracone, 71(2), 8–11. Lang J. 2007. Netzwerke von Gelehrten: Eine Skizze antiquarischer Interaktion im 18. Jh. Am Beispiel des Philipp von Stosch (1691–1757). In: J. Broch, M. Rasiller, D. Scholl (eds.). Netzwerke der Moderne: Erkundungen und Strategien. Würzburg: Königshausen & Neumann, 203–226. Lewis L. 1967. Philipp von Stosch. Apollo, 85, 320–327. MacKay Quynn D. 1941. Philipp von Stosch: Collector, Bibliophile, Spy, Thief. The Catholic Historical Review, 27, 332–344. Mariette P.J. 1750. Traité des pierres gravées, vol. 1. Paris: L’imprimerie de l’auteur. Myśliński M. 2001. Sceny gonitw rydwanów na hipodromie w Konstantynopolu – dwie gemmy w zbiorach Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie. In: W. Bulsza, L. Sadko (eds.). Ars Graeca – Ars Latina. Studia dedykowane Profesor Annie Różyckiej Bryzek. Kraków: Jagiellonian University Press, 49–54. Myśliński M. 2006. Gemmy późnoantyczne i bizantyńskie w polskich kolekcjach muzealnych. Biuletyn Historii Sztuki, 68(2), 229–233. Neverov O. 1982. Gemme dalle collezioni Medici e Orsini. Prospettiva, 29, 2–13. Plantzos D. 1999. Hellenistic Engraved Gems. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pomian K. 2000. Mariette e Winckelmann. Revue germanique internationale, 13, 11– 38. https://doi.org/10.4000/rgi.766. Rambach H.J. 2014. The gem collection of Prince Stanislas Poniatowski. American Numismatic Society Magazine, 13(2), 34–49. Scarisbrick D., Wagner C., Boardman J. 2017. The Beverly Collection of Gems at Alnwick Castle. London: Philip Wilson Publishers. Sena Chiesa G. 1966. Gemme del Museo Nazionale di Aquileia. Aquileia: Associazione nazionale per Aquileia. 116 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… Stosch P. von 1724. Gemmae antiquae celatae, scalptorum nominibus insignitae. Ad ipsas gemmas, aut earum ectypos delineatae & aeri incisae, per Bernardum Picart. Ex praecipuis Europae museis selegit & commentariis illustravit Philippus de Stosch / Pierres antiques gravées, sur les quelles les graveurs ont mis leurs noms. Dessinées et gravées en cuivre sur les originaux ou d’après les empreintes par Bernard Picart. Tirées des principaux cabinets de l’Europe, expliquées par M. Philippe de Stosch. Amsterdam: Bernard Picart. Strodtmann J.Ch. 1754. Das neuen Gelehrten Europa. Fünfter Theil. Wolfenbüttel: J.Ch. Meißner Verlag, 1–54. Śliwa J. 1989. Egyptian Scarabs and Magical Gems from the Collection of Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński. Warsaw–Cracow: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe–Nakład Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace Archeologiczne, nr 45; Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, nr 917. Śliwa J. 2012. Group of Mask-Animal Gems from the Collection of Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński. Études et Travaux, 25, 379–387. Śliwa J. 2014. Magical Gems from the Collection of Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński and from other Polish Collections. Kraków: Archeobooks. Wagner C. 2008. Picture-book of Antiquity: The Neoclassical Gem Collection of Prince Poniatowski (Congreso Internacional: Imagines. La Antigüedad en las Artes Escénicas y Visuales). Logroño: Universidad de La Rioja, pp. 565–572. Wagner C. 2013. Fable and History: Prince Poniatowski’s Neoclassical Gem Collection. In: H. Wiegel, M. Vickers (eds.). Excalibur: Essays on Antiquity and the History of Collecting in Honour of Arthur MacGregor. Oxford: Archaeopress, 145–150. Whiteley J.J.L. 1999. Philipp von Stosch, Bernard Picart and the Gemmae Antiquae Celatae. In: G. Seidmann, M. Henig, D. Plantzos (eds.). Classicism to Neo-classicism. Essays Dedicated to Gertrud Seidmann. Oxford: Archaeopress, 183–190. British archaeological reports, International series, 793. Winckelmann J.J. 1760. Description des Pierres gravées du feu Baron de Stosch. Florence: André Bonducci. Winckelmann J.J. 1952. Briefe. In Verbindung mit Hans Diepolder; herausgegeben von Walther Rehm, vol. 1 (1742–1759). Berlin: De Gruyter. Winckelmann J.J. 2013. Description des Pierres gravées du feu Baron de Stosch, A.H. Borbein, M. Kunze, A. Rügler (hrsg.). Mainz–Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Johann Joachim Winckelmann: Schriften und Nachlass, 7(1). Zazoff P., Zazoff H. 1983. Gemmensammler und Gemmenforscher, von einer noblen Passion zur Wissenschaft. München: C.H. Beck. Zwierlein-Diehl E. 2007. Antike Gemmen und ihr Nachleben. Berlin–New York: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110920406. 117 Paweł Gołyźniak list of illustrations Fig. 1. Attributed to Hieronymus Odam. Head of Medusa, signature in Greek: ΣOΛΩNOC, 1715–1722, brown ink, 12.7 x 11.3cm. The National Museum in Krakow – The Collections of The Princes Czartoryski Museum, reg. no. MNK XV Rr. 3742 (photo by the author). Fig. 2. Attributed to Bernard Picart. Frontal bust of Athena/Minerva, signature in Greek: EYTYXHC ΔIOCKOYPIΔOY AIΓEAIOC EΠ, 1723, red chalk, 13.8 x 10.5cm. The National Museum in Krakow – The Collections of the Princes Czartoryski Museum, reg. no. MNK XV Rr. 2888, (photo by the author). Fig. 3. Title page of Stosch von P. 1724. Gemmae antiquae celatae [book]. Fig. 4. Attributed to Johann Justin Preisler (1698–1771). Perseus wearing a cloak and Phrygian cap standing to the left with harpa and raising head of Medusa reflecting himself in a shield inscribed AΞEOY (after banded agate intaglio now in the Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden, inv. no.: GS-00276), ca. 1726–1738, pen and ink with grey wash and hatched background, 15,3 x 13,1 cm. The National Museum in Krakow – The Collections of The Princes Czartoryski Museum, reg. no. MNK XV Rr. 3750 (photo by the author). Fig. 5. Attributed to Hieronymus Odam, Venus Anadyomene flanked by Eros rising up a mirror to her and a butterfly on the other side (after carnelian intaglio now in Antikensammling Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, inv. no.: FG 3011), ca. 1715–1731, pen and brown ink with grey wash, 17 x 13.8 cm. The National Museum in Krakow – The Collections of the Princes Czartoryski Museum, reg. no. MNK XV Rr. 2512 (photo by the author). Fig. 6. Onyx cameo, 4 x 3,2 x 0,9cm, in a gold and enamel mount (ca. 1850). Portrait of Drusus the Elder in corona laurea lemniscata, 9 BC-AD 14, once in the Count Nikolai Nikitich Demidoff and Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński collection. The National Museum in Krakow inv. no.: MNK IV-Ew-Zł-1159. The National Museum in Krakow (©Photographic Studio of The National Museum in Krakow). Fig. 7. Emerald cameo, 1,4 x 0,8 x 0,3cm. Portrait of Livia Drusilla as Venus Genetrix, mother of the Julio-Claudian family, 14 AD or slightly later, once in the Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński collection. The National Museum in Krakow inv. no.: MNK IV-Ew-Zł-1520. The National Museum in Krakow (©Photographic Studio of The National Museum in Krakow). Fig. 8. Chalcedony bust attached to a marble plinth, 8,3 x 6,3 x4cm. Frontal bust of Cupid with garland around his neck, 1st-2nd century AD, once in the Constantine Schmidt-Ciążyński collection. The National Museum in Krakow inv. no.: MNK IV-Ew-Zł-4050. The National Museum in Krakow (©Photographic Studio of The National Museum in Krakow). Fig. 9. Anon. Portrait of John Digby, 1st Earl of Bristol (1586–1653), oil on panel, 52 x 38 cm. The National Museum in Krakow, inv. no.: MNK XII-A-9 (photo in public domain). 118 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… Fig. 10. Michiel van Mierevelt (1566–1641), Portrait of the Swedish General Gustav Karlson Graf von Björneborg Horn (1592–1657), oil on panel, 49,5 x 38,2 cm. The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: M.Ob.1408 (photo in public domain). Fig. 11. Willem de Poorter (1608–1668). Saul and David in the Cave in the Wilderness of En-gédi, oil on panel, 37 x 43cm. The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: M.Ob.1888 (photo in public domain). Fig. 12. Anthony van Dyck (1599–1641). The Head of Saint Hubertus (?), oil on canvas, 49 x 37 cm. The National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no.: M.Ob.815 (photo in public domain). Paweł Gołyźniak Fig. 1 120 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… Fig. 2 121 Paweł Gołyźniak Fig. 3 Fig. 4 122 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… Fig. 5 123 Paweł Gołyźniak Fig. 6 Fig. 7 Fig. 8 124 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… Fig. 9 125 Paweł Gołyźniak Fig. 10 126 Glyptic Treasures in Krakow… Fig. 11 127 Paweł Gołyźniak Fig. 12 128 https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.05 Elena Santagati (Dicam – Università di Messina) ColleCting in siCily in the nineteenth Century baron Judica and the wonders of Ancient Acrae Abstract The first studies on the ancient Syracuse settlement in Acrae (663 BC Thuc. 6,5) date back to the 16th century, when Fazellus located the ancient Greek apoikia just west of modern-day Palazzolo Acreide (Syracuse). However, the actual archeological field study in the ancient Greek polis took place as late as 1809, thanks to Baron Judica’s passion towards archeology. He devoted his life and all his wealth to ancient Acrae, where he brought to light its vestiges, thereby giving back to Sicily a piece of its ancient history. Thanks to his tireless effort, passion, and dedication, the Judica collection boasted over 3,000 artifacts, including 892 exquisite Greek vases. This paper will focus on how this very collection was formed. Keywords: Acrae, Sicily, apoikia, Judica, Santoni Among the numerous private collections that passionate aristocrats and rich collectors created in Sicily, Judica’s one in Palazzolo Acreide stands out for the impressive number of items as well as the sequence of adventurous events surrounding its creation. Before focusing on the Baron, it is important to discuss the history of the site, Acrae, present-day Palazzolo Acreide, where most of the items making up the collection were found. Acrae was founded on the Val di Noto upland (700 masl), a pre-existing protohistoric settlement, between the Tellaro valleys to the south and the Anapo 129 Elena Santagati river to the north (La Torre 2011: 46). The literary sources on Acrae are unfortunately quite penurious, thereby not allowing to retrace the complete history of the site in the ancient period. Concerning its foundation, our most prominent source is Thucydides’s (6, 5, 2) Sicilian archaiologia: Ἄκραι δὲ καὶ Κασμέναι ὑπὸ Συρακοσίων ᾠκίσθησαν, Ἄκραι μὲν ἑβδομήκοντα ἔτεσιμετὰ Συρακούσας, Κασμέναι δ᾽ἐγγὺς εἴκοσι μετὰ Ἄκρας (Acrae and Casmenae were founded by the Syracusans, Acrae seventy years after Syracuse, and Casmenae nearly twenty years after Acrae). Thucydides claims that Acrae was settled at the behest of Syracuse, seventy years after the foundation of their own city, in 663 BC. As the sources make no mention of the names of the οἰκισταὶ,1 Acrae might have been founded not as a genuine polis, but rather as a military outpost to defend Syracuse in the internal areas to the south and south-east2. Here, colonists from Rhodes and Crete established Gela in 689 BC, thus requiring protection in the internal area. Besides military objectives, we have to consider that around the same period, archaeological findings testify to a great shift towards Acradina following a sizeable demographic growth in Syracuse. This must have had ripples both in the political and social sphere, resulting in a genuine stasis, as corroborated by the sources. Thucydides reports that following internal conflicts in Syracuse, the Myletidae were expelled from the city, joined Zanclei, and eventually founded Himera in 648 BC. In the light of this incident, we can speculate that Syracuse – already in 663 BC – felt the need to relieve the political and social pressure over the city and to control the internal area; therefore, the polis decided to move ‘unwanted’ elements away by settling them in Acrae. This hypothesis would also account for the absence of founders: Syracuse did not intend to bestow the status of polis upon a settlement made up of politically inconvenient figures. The new settlement attracted a great many people, by virtue of the exploitation of vast and fertile fields in the Hyblaean area, which Syracuse had – previously and 1 2 Among the three sub-colonies of Syracuse, the sources mention the ecysts only for Camarina, Daxon and Menecolus, thus recognizing center as ktiseis. The system of protection and control of the territories was made up of Eloro, which protected the southern border of the Syracusan domains and the Elorina route; Casmenae, which represented the extreme limit of Syracusan expansion towards the west and, as we shall see, Acrae. Camarinae was also part of this system. See Berbabò Brea (1956: 17). About Acrae see Garozzo, Marotta D’Agata, Moreschini 1994: 189–204; about Camarinae see Buongiovanni, Cordano, Pelagatti 1984: 286–314; about Casmenae see Moreschini, Marotta D’Agata 1989: 391–397. 130 Collecting in Sicily in the Nineteenth Century … progressively – secured after ousting the Sicels. Syracuse ousting the Myletidae in 648 BC (Thuc. 6, 5, 1) would also account for the peaceful settlement of Casmenae (644 BC); Syracuse aimed at the military control of the internal territory and, yet again, the relieving of social pressure in politically unstable Syracuse. Herodotus (7, 155) corroborates this hypothesis by stating that Acrae became a sanctuary for those gamoroi who were forced out of their city after yet another stasis, eventually finding refuge in one of these centers. The absence of a mint in the city and the presence of a massive fortification confirm Acrae’s dependence on Syracuse and its lookout position – at least in the archaic period. The fortification, whose remains are scant but still visible in situ, is mentioned in inscription Kaibel 217 and was still visible until its nearcomplete destruction in the 1693 earthquake (Bonanni Colonna 1624: 90). The fortification (Frederiksen 2011) probably dates back to the archaic period and leads us to believe that Akai defended Syracuse’s southern border. The ability to control the internal routes to Selinunte and Gela (Di Vita 1956: 182) and the vast and fertile Hyblaean fields helped the center grow wealthy and prosperous. As a result, Acrae lost its original military role, which was taken on by Casmenae, thereby assuming a grander economic role in agriculture and trade (Copani 2009: 11–21). Whilst archaeological findings convey the image of a wealthy and flourishing city, the literary sources at our disposal are unfortunately insufficient to retrace the ancient history of the site. For instance, Plutarch (Dion 27) tells us that Dion chose the internal route, thus stopping in Acrae on his expedition against Syracuse in 375 BC. The sources do not mention the role of the center in the broader history of Sicily over the following period and particularly the historical events in which such eminent figures as Dionysius (the Old and the Young), Timoleon and Agathocles, played a huge role. Diodorus Siculus (XXIII 4, 1) informs us of the center at the time of the conflict and the subsequent 263 BC peace treaty between Rome and Syracuse: Hiero “[…] was to continue as ruler of the Syracusans and of the cities subject to him, Acrae, Leontini, Megara, Helorum, Neetum and Tauromenium”. This passage leads us to believe that Acrae (Di Vita 1987: 79) had been steadily gaining an administrative autonomy, as shown by several fifth-century inscriptions. Its autonomy – or at least its freedom to autonomously rule over its territories and trades – supposedly persisted until Hiero II signed a treaty declaring its dependence from Syracuse: the inscriptions, the prosperity revealed by grave goods and monuments, and the presence of magistrates would explain Diodorus’s describing Acrae as 131 Elena Santagati a polis. In 213 BC Livius (24, 36) mentions Acrae in a passage describing the Acrillae naval battle between Rome, led by consul Marcellus, and Syracuse, led by Hippocrates, who would eventually find sanctuary in Acrae. After the Roman conquest of Syracuse in 211 BC, the territories and the cities under former Syracusan rule became part of the Roman province and Acrae was added to the lists of stipendiariae civitates (Plin. N.H. 3, 91). The center continued its existence into the Republic and the Empire, as witnessed by archaeological findings. These were the historical events as conveyed by our incomplete literary sources, which show us but a morsel of the grander economic role that Acrae used to play in ancient times. The first identification of ancient Acrae in the territory of present-day Palazzolo Acreide is owed to the passion and dedication of 16th-century historian Fazellus, a native of Sciacca. He was a persistent and curious researcher and his name is closely linked to such important findings as Selinunte and Heraclea. Fazellus put together the results of his research in De Rebus Siculis Decades Duae (1558), where the first decade concerns a thorough geographical and topographical description of places and monuments he visited in Sicily; the second decade focuses on the history of Sicily until Charles V3. His work would later become an important point of reference for scholars, antiquarians, and intellectuals who were invested in the study of the antiquities of Sicily. Whilst the identification of Acrae is attributed to Fazellus, from an archaeological standpoint the finding and promotion of ancient Acrae from the early 19th century are ascribed to the efforts of Baron Judica. His tireless and passionate research was already praised by Giuseppe Turturici in “Considerazioni sull’opera del Barone Gabriello Judica da Palazzolo” (1822: 217–231): Possano di siffatti travagli prodursi in buon numero dai nostri antiquari che saprebbero onorare come ha fatto il Judica, il nome siciliano, e farci alzar con decoro la fronte in faccia agli stranieri. The Judica family originated in Spain. Upon moving to Sicily, the family split into two branches: the first settled in Palermo, the second moved to Grammichele (Catania), and its members immediately stood out in the political sphere and held very prestigious posts.4 Michele Judica, a physician, moved from Grammichele to Palazzolo Acreide, where he married Carmela Danieli, heir to one of the wealthiest families in 3 4 About Fazellus and his work see Vitale 1971; Sanfilippo 1973; Uggeri 2003: 97–128. Calendario d’oro, Istituto araldico italiano. Roma 1901, 516. 132 Collecting in Sicily in the Nineteenth Century … town. As a result, Michele gained greater economic resources, which would allow him to start up an intense entrepreneurial activity in agriculture and to purchase the Baulì estate – thereby obtaining his title (Lombardo 1998: 171). Michele’s son Gabriele was born in 1760 in Noto, but his name would be inextricably linked to Palazzolo Acreide. From a young age he developed a passion for the study of the ancient history of his homeland. He regarded the past as a living thing, as stated in the preface to his 1819 Le antichità di Acre: i nostri vetusti monumenti protesi al suolo, qual trofeo degli anni, saranno proposti alla gioventù studiosa per contemplarne le proporzioni, le forme e le vetustà. Allora si potrebbe dire con franchezza da noi Siciliani all’Europa: noi fummo e fummo, fummo grandi: eccone i testimoni della nostra antica possanza, e non assai meno degli avi nostri potremmo noi essere splendidi e doviziosi, ove intiepido non fosse stato e nol sia tutt’ora ne’ nostri petti santo amor di patria. His education was strongly influenced by cultural neoclassicism, whose most prominent figurehead was Winchelmann, and whose works allowed the Baron to delve deeper into topography, numismatics, epigraphy, iconography, and restoration. At the same time, Fazellus’s opus and the latest archaeological findings in Pompei and Ercolano spurred the young aristocrat to actively participate in the discovery of the ancient vestiges of Sicily. After earning a degree in law, he served as a civil judge and was involved in the political life of his town by holding several elected offices (Lombardo 1998: 181). However, his enthusiasm for archaeology pushed him to devote his whole life and resources to researching a region of the Valle di Noto that promised to bring to life a unique and extraordinary past. This enthusiasm was further fostered by the fascinating experiences of the Grand Tourists, heirs to the wealthiest families in Europe, such as Houel, Saint-Non, Wilkins, De La Salle. In a cultural euphoria stoked by Europe-wide intellectual thriving, Judica was neither an isolated nor an exceptional case. It was a period of great bustle for archaeological research in Sicily, albeit lacking any scientific method, and the aristocracy was eager to promote it: Prince Biscari, for instance, committed his resources to researching the Mount Etna area, while Cesare Gaetani Della Torre, Giuseppe Logoteta and Saverio Landolina devoted themselves to Syracuse.5 Among these figures, Gabriele Judica stood out as the embodiment of the bohemian romantic spirit, yet fulfilling his aristocratic role by ignoring those who 5 About private collections that were formed in Sicily between the late 18th and the 20th century, see Catalogo della Mostra Musei nascosti. Collezioni e raccolte archeologiche a Siracusa dal XVIII al XX secolo, Napoli 2008. 133 Elena Santagati were tasked with protecting his land’s cultural heritage. Through his unwearying research, Judica meant to rediscover an illustrious identity and a memory to be passed down from generation to generation. He claims that: “A voi presento la narrazione di alcuni cavamenti da me intrapresi, per rimenare alla luce un’antica colonia greca quasi obliata; ma che tanto riguardo merita quanto di onorateza ha diritto di riscuoterne la madre, la più illustre delle metropoli della Sicilia che fiorirono ne’ bei giorni della Grecia” (Judica 1819: I) His official activity6 as archeologist began in 1811 with permission7 from the competent authorities. In fact, he carried out his first excavation in 1809 in Contrada Colle Orbo, within his estate, where he unearthed a Hellenistic necropolis. He claims to have discovered the site by chance while strolling around his estate. The discovery would eventually bring to light several figure vases, statuettes, two medals depicting Emperor Vespasian and Trajan, and Eumachius’s epigraph. In the same year, he read works by Bonanni and the Abbot Amico (Judica 1819: 13), thus directing his researches towards the Acremonte, more specifically the area known for its Santoni. He began works without permission and brought to light vases, coins, Emperor medals, and women’s jewelry. The annotation on bas-reliefs carved on stone depicting life-sized men, women, children, and horses is of particular interest8. He carried on his archaeological activity in the vicinity of Acremonte and Colle Orbo, in the Intagliatella quarry, where he found a Christian necropolis and an epigraph. The Baron then transcribed the epigraph from Greek to Latin. The epigraph – dedicated to Marciana – turns into a pretext for the Baron’s erudite philological considerations. Moreover, it is worth noting that whenever the Baron describes any artifact, he digresses by drawing a comparison with Pompei and Ercolano (Judica 1819: 18–24). The Baron’s intense unauthorized activity disquieted Mario Landolina, Regio Custode delle antichità in Noto, who would write to Marques Paolo 6 7 8 To reconstruct his activity as an archaeologist, see the documents preserved in Archivio di Stato and in Biblioteca Alagoniana of Siracusa. The documents are published in Agnello 1965: 78–136. A law enacted in 1787 tried to halt unauthorized excavations and the sale of eventual findings on foreign markets. Nonetheless, the extremely rare inspections contributed to depriving Sicily of numerous artifacts as early as the eighteenth century. It is a rock sanctuary in honor of Cybele. The bas-reliefs had already been described by Paternò Principe di Biscari (1781: 83) and by Houel (1785: 111), who had reported the sketches in his work. See Sfameni Gasparro 1996: 51–86. 134 Collecting in Sicily in the Nineteenth Century … D’Albergo, his caretaker in Palazzolo. This first notification did not mention the Baron. Nonetheless, Landolina claims to have had wind of some unauthorized activity and the subtraction of valuable artifacts. He demands a stronger vigilance to avoid further unauthorized excavations. This very incident marked the beginning of a series of disputes with Landolina, which would oftentimes trouble the Baron. The tension grew so high as to push the Baron to ignore Landolina’s authority and appeal directly to the King: in a letter, he requests the authorization to make further excavations at his own expense and to keep the artifacts in “a private hall” for posterity; the latter request implies the desire to start a private collection. In fact, from later correspondence (Agnello 1965: doc. VII), we learn about Baron Judica asking the permission di fare degli scavi a sue proprie spese ne’ contorni di detta terra, con conservare in di lui potere ciò che di antico si rinviene per lasciarli in memoria ai suoi posteri senza volere essere impedito dai dai particolari de’ fondi, prontuandosi egli ad indennizzare i danni che recherà. Furthermore, he pled the King not to authorize excavations led by foreign-born archaeologists, to avoid dispersing the archeological and artistic heritage. Nonetheless, the King forwarded this appeal to the competent authority, Landolina, who denied it on the grounds of previous unauthorized excavations; moreover, Landolina accused the Baron of failing to hand over the artifacts to the Museum of Syracuse, as mandated by the laws in force at the time. Consequently, the Baron had to temporarily halt his archaeological activity and report all the artifacts found in his research. The penalty was particularly harsh as around the same time such personalities as Fagan, Makensin, Lamberti and Lord Valentin (Musumeci 2008: 34) were allowed to excavate. The Baron’s position changed abruptly between June and August 1811 as a letter from Donato Tommasi authorized him to excavate as long as the Baron took on the administrative duties and the obligations to the landowners (Agnello 1965: doc. XV, 105). Therefore, the Baron never turned in his artifacts, which he kept in his Palazzo al Corso, under the pretext that the Museum of Syracuse was not “Regio” (Agnello 1965: doc. XVIII, 107). Judica committed to notifying the authorities of his discoveries and if any of the artifacts were to be of interest to the King, he would give it up under such compensation as established by the Intendenti (Agnello 1965: doc. XV, 105). His refusal to deliver the artifacts to the Museum of Syracuse and the request not to entrust the excavations to foreign scholars confirms his great desire to keep in Palazzolo what belonged to Palazzolo. As will become clear later, he intended to prevent small towns from losing their rich ancient history and 135 Elena Santagati identity to the great museums in Palermo and Syracuse, which had been accumulating the bulk of Sicily’s latest archaeological findings. We are unable to account for the Secretariat of State reconsidering its initial decision. Regardless of its motives, from then on, Judica was enjoying greater autonomy, which even made him a persona grata before the Secretariat. Around this time, the Baron started works in Contrada Pinita, where he brought to life a necropolis and an impressive number of furnishings: children’s objects, bracelets, balm and unguent jars. After thorough analyses and comparisons with necropoleis in Athens and Rome, this necropolis was shown to predate Inglatella. The graves appear extremely regular as though each block were carefully polished. (Judica 1819: 25; Bernabò Brea 1956: 118). The King’s support through the words of the Archbishop of Heraclea Don Alfonso Airoldi led the Baron to resume works in Intagliatella, where he found the inscriptions of Eutichia, Claudianus, Clodius, and other sepulchers, some Roman coins, vases and lamps, and urns that the Baron believed to contain holy water or other balsamic and odoriferous waters (Judica 1819: 35 ss.). In August 1814, the Baron unearthed an inscription of masculine names bearing the gymnasiarca title “Sub Atemidoro – Gymnasiarchi (fuerunt) – Archedamus – Nimphodorus Policlides”. This led Judica to believe that Acre had a gymnasium (1819: 80). Therefore, he rallied a great number of workers and continued his research with renewed enthusiasm. This new excavation was bound to bear fruit, as the Baron brought to life a half-span Christian-age bronze laurel wreath; several seals, one of which in the shape of human foot palms and another in the shape of a whole foot along with an epigraph lacking Christian emblems; a goblet and a bronze patera; a bronze statuette unearthed in December portraying a young man in a sitting position, probably Arcadius. This excavation provided us with the evidence of an uninterrupted human settlement in this area. The Baron states that the upper strata contained Byzantine vases as well as Arabic and Roman coins, thus spanning from the 5th to the 8th century BC; in the lowest strata he found coins depicting Syracusan tyrants and other cities of the Greek period. In 1815, Regio Custode Landolina once again attempted to halt the Baron’s excavations, to no avail, as the Baron had meanwhile become a prestigious figure for the Secretary of State, who confirmed the previous authorizations and permitted him to work in Modica and Caltagirone. In the same year, Judica resumed works in Inglatella, which had been suspended for two years. There, he found another inscription dedicated to the memory of Stephanus Diaconus, as well as a fragment of a Greek inscription (Judica 1819: 89); he would finally 136 Collecting in Sicily in the Nineteenth Century … claim to have discovered an underground road. On 1 September 1815, Duke Lucchesi Palli, impressed by the Baron’s activity and by his important findings, appointed Judica as Regio Custode and granted him permission to keep a portion of the artifacts he would find: as a result, his collection would finally enjoy official status and would eventually include pottery, inscriptions and coins, jewelry and statuettes. In 1816, the excavations in the Grotta di Senebardo catacombs brought to light a marble head that Judica recognized as Minerva (1819: 99); in addition, he dug up a limestone bust; a Roman-style marble statue missing all its limbs; a huge stone hand and head that Judica believed to be part of a public building, as well as several other statuettes. In 1817, he turned his attention to Contrada Pinita, where he managed to bring to light several tombs, some bas-reliefs, rare medals, and a bronze medallion depicting the triumph of Bacchus (Judica 1819: 118), the frontispiece of a Doric order temple and a vase depicting Hercules. Judica believed this implied that Venus worshippers had inhabited the area, which is further corroborated by an inscription describing the temple itself. The Baron’s excavations grew more and more expensive due to costlier manpower and increasing compensations to landowners. At the same time, the Baron was completely engrossed in his research, thus ignoring his private affairs and depleting a sizeable portion of his fortune. Nonetheless, his efforts were rewarded in 1820 as he discovered the Bouleuterion – mistaken for an Odeon – and the theater in Acrae, whose discovery was made public in a letter to Agostino Gallo published on the Rivista Giornale di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti per la Sicilia. The letter details his most impressive findings: the Baron describes the entirety of the theater and measures it in spans; he counts 24 steps and 6 cunei; he describes proscenium and scene, which he was forced to purchase as they lay on privately-owned land. In 1828, the Baron’s new unauthorized works and his growing private collection stirred another wave of controversy. In January 1829, the Mayor of Palazzolo accommodated the Intendente’s requests by providing him with a defense of Judica and the collection inventory, which at the time amounted to 2,847 artifacts (Agnello 1965: doc. XXXVI, 119). This extraordinary collection was the result of years of authorized and unauthorized excavations as well as purchases from antiquarians. Nonetheless, in 1828 the Baron had to face his first drawback, as the legal representatives of Cardinal Tommaso Arezzi, commendatory Abbot, started foreclosing proceedings on the grounds that the Baron failed to pay emphyteu137 Elena Santagati tic taxes. A prolonged negotiation ensued, as the Baron was unwilling to dispose of his collection. We have but scant information concerning this incident, but it did strongly worsen the finances of the Baron, who was allegedly forced to sell part of his collection to visitors in Palazzolo. The Baron’s weakened economic situation negatively impacted his public image. This was further aggravated by the Commissione di Belle Arti di Palermo revoking his title of Regio Custode. Judica reacted by arguing that all the artifacts were to be considered as private goods, as they were found at his own expense in his own estates. By doing so, he disclosed the entirety of his discoveries thus far. A suspicion also remains that Landolina was responsible for the Commission’s hostility towards Judica. French traveler Gonzalve De Nervo witnessed the Baron’s dire economic situation first-hand. In the spring of 1833, when de Nervo visited the Baron at his Palace in hopes of meeting the most educated and wealthiest man in Sicily, he found him burden with debt. As reported in his journal, De Nervo was ushered in by a ragged servant, who led him up a filthy run-down staircase, into a hall where hens scratched about the chest emblazoned with the Judica coat of arms. The traveler was met by a grey-haired elderly man, donning a worn-down coat, who tried to sell him ancient artifacts. The Frenchman ended up buying, inter alia, Greek medals, women’s toilette accessories, a terracotta patera adorned with artful reliefs and two lacrymatories. So we can conclude that the Baron spent his waning years alone and indebted. On May 3, 1835, he was visited by the bailiffs and the relatives who aspired to inherit his assets. Shortly thereafter the authorities seized the entirety of his collection, including the museum. A mere two years after his death, the rightful heir, don Cesare Judica suggested selling the collection to the Regio Domanio as debt repayment, to no avail. (Lombardo 1998: 194–195; Agnello 1965: 93–94; Bartolo Di 1996–2004: 128–129; Musumeci 2008: 35). The collection was then completely abandoned, as reported by a note in the Bulletin de l’Institut de Correspondance Archéologique (1857: 54). Following prolonged clashes between the Judica family and the Government, the Palazzo fell into absolute disrepair: artifacts were boxed and scattered across cluttered exhibition halls and part of the Palace was even turned into a stable. Retracing the fate of most objects in his collection appears a tall order; it is established that the Baron’s works described just a small portion of his collection, which comprised more than 3,000 objects spanning from the prehistoric age to the late Empire. A great number of artifacts were unfortunately lost or 138 Collecting in Sicily in the Nineteenth Century … smuggled and sold to foreign antiquarians, as witnessed by artifacts described by Judica circulating in the New York antiques market and by a skyphos portraying Dionysus and two flute players on display at the British Museum. Gaetano Judica, one of the Baron’s descendants, attempted to rebuild the whole collection in the early 20th century. Besides the original collection, which was still unique for dimension and variety, Gaetano added other artifacts he had previously bought in the antiques market, as shown by artifacts coming from different areas. Following Gaetano’s death, Paolo Orsi helped draw a second inventory (Gabriele compiled the first inventory in 1929: Agnello 1965: doc. XXXVI, 119–122). The scholar pointed out that some artifacts were unfortunately counterfeit, presumably the work of a forger. The discovery of forged objects among the originals and the Baron’s great attachment to his collection could suggest that Judica had commissioned a craftsman to forge copies of the valuable items that he was not willing to give up. The sale of these forgeries to foreign travelers would have made the Baron able to cope with his vast financial problems. However, what remained of the original collection was safeguarded under law no. 1089 of 1939 and entrusted to the Soprintendenza di Siracusa, which between 1980 and 2003 committed to purchasing several artifacts from the Baron’s descendants. In 2015, at last, Baron Judica’s dreams came true: the artifacts he found in Acrae earned a deserving spot in the halls of a Museum in the Palazzo Cappellani in Palazzolo. This attests to Gabriele’s efforts and the greatness of a distant yet not forgotten past. bibliography Agnello G. 1965. Gabriele Judica e le fortunose vicende del suo Museo. Archivio Storico Sira-cusano, 11, 183–210. Bartolo L. Di 1996–2004. Gabriele Judica: lampadoforo del passato. Studi Acrensi, 3, 119–150. Bernabò Brea L. 1956. Akrai. Catania: [Scicali & Molino]. Bonanni G., Colonna Duca i Montalbano 1624. Dell’antica Siracusa illustrata. Messina Ed. Pietro Brea. Buongiovanni A.M., Cordano F., Pelagatti P. 1985. Camarina. In: Bibliografia Topografica della Colonizzazione Greca in Italia e nelle isole Tirreniche. Pisa–Roma: [s.n.], 286–314. 139 Elena Santagati Copani F. 2009. Acre e Casmene: L’espansione siracusana sui monti Iblei. In: G. Zanetto, M. Ornaghi (a cura di). Argumenta antiquitatis. Milano: Ed. Cisalpino, 11–21. Di Vita A.1956. La penetrazione siracusana nella Sicilia sud-orientale alla luce delle piu recenti scoperte archeologiche. Kokalos, 2, 177–205. Di Vita A. 1987. Tucidide VI 5 e l’epicrazia siracusana. Acre, Casmene e Camarina. Kokalos, 33, 77–86. Frederiksen R. 2011. Greek City Walls of the Archaic Period: 900–480 B.C. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Oxford Monographs on Classical Archaeology. https://doi. org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199578122.001.0001. Garozzo B., Marotta D’Agata A.R., Moreschini D. 1994. Palazzolo Acreide. In: Bibliografia Topografica della Colonizzazione Greca in Italia e nelle isole Tirreniche, 13. Pisa–Roma: [s.n.], 189–204. Houel J. 1785. Voyage pittoresque des isles de Sicile, de Malte et de Lipari, t. 3. Paris: De l’Imprimerie de Monsieur. Judica G. 1819. Le antichità di Acre scoperte, descritte ed illustrate dal Barone Gabriele Judica, Messina: G. Pappalardo. La Torre G.F. 2011. Sicilia e Magna Grecia. Archeologia della colonizzazione greca d’Occidente, Roma–Bari: GLF editori Laterza. Manuali Laterza, 314. Lombardo L. 1998. Gabriele Judica e gli scavi di Akrai. Archivio Storico Sira-cusano, 12, 169–214. Moreschini D., Marotta D’Agata A.R. 1992. Monte Casale. In: Bibliografia Topografica della Colonizzazione Greca in Italia e nelle isole Tirreniche, 10. Pisa–Roma: [s.n.], 289-296. Musumeci M. 2009. Gabriele Judica, le sue ricerche e la collezione Judica. In: A. Crispino, A. Musumeci (a cura di). Musei nascosti. Collezione e raccolte archeologiche a Siracusa dal XVII al XX secolo (Catalogo della mostra, Siracusa, 6.12.2008– 15.02.2009). Napoli: [s.n.], 35–41. Nervo G. de 1834. Un Tour en Sicile. Paris: Chez les marchands de nouveautes. Paternò I. 1781. Viaggio per tutte le antichità della Sicilia. Napoli: Nella stamperia Simoniana. Sanfilippo G. 1973. Tommaso Fazello e i suoi tempi. La vita e l’opera. Sciacca: Biblioteca Comunale. Sfameni Gasparro G. 1996. Per la storia del culto di Cibele in Occidente. Il santuario rupestre di Akrai. In: E.N. Lane (ed.). Cybele, Attis and relatedcults: Essays in memory of M.J. Vermaseren. Leiden–New York: E.J. Brill, 51–86. Religions in the Graeco-Roman world, 131. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004295889_004. Turturici G. 1822. Considerazioni sull’opera del Barone Gabriello Judica da Palazzolo che porta per titolo Le Antichità di Acre. In: L’Iride: giornale di scienze, lettere ed arti per la Sicilia, t. 1. Palermo: [s.n.], 217–231. Uggeri G. 2003. Tommaso Fazello fondatore della topografia antica. Il contributo alla conoscenza della Scienza Orientale. In: Atti del Convegno di studi in onore di Tom140 Collecting in Sicily in the Nineteenth Century … maso Fazello per il quinto centenario dalla nascita (Sciacca 1998). Sciacca: Aulino, 97–128. Vitale M. 1971. Tommaso Fazello. La sua vita, il suo tempo, la sua opera. Palermo: Vittorietti Editore. https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.06 Dorota Gorzelany-Nowak (National Museum in Krakow) the oVerlooked ColleCtion The Ancient Art Collection of the Princes Czartoryski museum Abstract Without a doubt, the Princes Czartoryski Museum’s position amongst Polish museum institutions is significant both because of its history and on account of its collections. The collection of paintings, graphics, arts and crafts and armaments was supplemented by ancient artefacts thanks to Prince Władysław Czartoryski, who, by working on the premise of a ‘scientific establishment’, was acquiring them in the second half of the 19th century. Those works of art were included in the permanent exhibition, since for Czartoryski and the Museum’s management at that time, the status of those objects as representing the development of art history was obvious. This changed after WW2 with the institution’s incorporation into the National Museum of Kraków in line with the policy then of eliminating private ownership and when the permanent exhibition was reorganised. As a result, ancient art disappeared from the exhibition’s scenario despite the enlargement of the exhibition space. Following the exhibition curator’s long efforts to organise a permanent exhibition, it became possible to display the antique collection in the Princes Czartoryski Museum’s Arsenal. The paper includes an analysis of the situation of the persistent exclusion of this part of the Museum’s collection within a wider exhibition, promotion and substantive context. Keywords: Princes Czartoryski Museum, National Museum in Krakow, ancient art collection, history of exhibition 143 Dorota Gorzelany-Nowak In the history of the Czartoryski family’s museum collections we can distinguish three stages of shaping the structure of the ancient art collection and its function in the context of the whole museum. The first stage is the time of establishment of the museum in Puławy. Dux femina facti, that is, in modern translation, the female leader of the project was Princess Izabela Czartoryska. In the shape of the first museum building we can see clear antique architecture inspirations: faithful reproduction of the shape of the Roman temple of Vesta in Tivoli in the park in Puławy and its name – Temple of the Sibyl (1801) – the inspiration for the museum building was drawn from the spirit of antiquity with the intention to make a reference to the sphere of sacrum and prophetic traditions (Żygulski 2009: 25–43). The key to the Temple of the Sibyl took the form of a caduceus with the MNHMHΣ ANOIГΩ IEPON inscription reflecting the founder’s idea – I Open the Temple of Remembrance. In the second museum building – the Gothic House opened in 1809 – fragments of ancient architecture and sculptures covered one of the walls, called the “Roman” wall (Żygulski 2009: 185). There, utility objects were kept as historical memorabilia, mainly from the Roman provinces: several oil lamps, beads, rings, coins and even Roman and Egyptian bronze figurines, as well as symbolic objects such as a piece of lava, twigs, grass and moss from famous ancient sites. All these objects were supposed to make visitors aware of the continuity of civilization, the attitude of the founder of the museum towards the past, represent distant times and create an appearance of antiquity. The son of the Princess, Adam Jerzy Czartoryski, contributed to this collection by sending marble Roman architectural fragments from Italy ordered by his mother, while his daughter Maria Wirtemberska collected small commemorative objects from Pompeii. Also, a few other people from Princess Izabela’s circles, such as General Michał Sokolnicki, thanks to a trip to Germany and Belgium which she financed, sent consistent fragments of antique buildings, coins and lamps, and “large beads collected on the field where Varus fought”1. Out of the ancient objects, mostly described in a way that makes it difficult to identify them, included in the Souvenirs Catalogue of the Gothic House in Puławy published in 1828 (Czartoryska 1828), only a few objects have survived in the collection to this day. These are Roman bronze rings2, oil lamps (Gorzelany 2001: 123–131), a fragment of a bronze 1 2 In Catalogue of the Gothic House see Czartoryska 1828: no. 144. Inv. Nos. MNK XI–248 – MNK XI–263 (Czartoryska 1828: nos. 225, 1345, 1348, 1350–1352, 1346). 144 The Overlooked Collection… statue (Moczulska 2005: 151–156), an Egyptian figure of Imhotep – a metal god statue brought from Egypt in Napoleon times by a Polish officer3, an Egyptian figure of Harpocrates – a bronze god statue from Egypt4, a bronze statue of the god Mercury5 found in the Black Sea region, which was included in the collection of Tadeusz Czacki in Porycko, who also contributed to Puławy. After his death in 1817, Adam Jerzy Czartoryski finalised a huge purchase of a very valuable library of Czacki from Porycko with added items described as “Polish and foreign peculiarities” with the abovementioned “god Mercury”. * The second, key stage in the formation of the ancient collection was the acquisition of a collection by Prince Władysław Czartoryski in the second half of the 19th century and its display as part of the permanent exhibition in the Czartoryski Museum in Kraków, which occupies three connected buildings: the Palace, the Monastery and the former Arsenal. Initially, the Gallery was located in three rooms on the 2nd floor of the Palace. Jerzy Mycielski’s guide to the Painting Gallery (1893: 40–42) says that the third smallest room (in postwar times and now the place where Leonardo da Vinci’s Lady with an Ermine is displayed) was still unfinished, contained a Flemish carpet hanging on one of the walls and ancient objects with painted decorations, such as two Egyptian sarcophagi, fragments of Roman frescoes, two mummy portraits, Egyptian and Coptic fabrics displayed behind glass. The selection criterion was technique – the objects were to present the oldest examples of painting – thus fitting into the narrative of the medieval and modern picture gallery located in the two other rooms (Gorzelany 2018: 162–164). Mycielski draws attention to “two sarcophagus portraits excavated from Egyptian caves, bearing the features of the last years of the Ptolemaic era, and further to ancient Egyptian and Coptic fabrics also from the land by the Nile, some painted and others woven in tapestry”. Mycielski devotes most space to mummy portraits as examples of panel painting. He quotes the story of their discovery by Theodor Graf in 1887 and praises 3 4 5 MNK XI–264 (Czartoryska 1828: no. 134). MNK XI–265 (Czartoryska 1828: no. 661). MNK XI–281. 145 Dorota Gorzelany-Nowak the state of their preservation. He characterises two portraits in the collection of Władysław Czartoryski as follows: “The first one, painted on tempera, but probably also modelled in an encaustic way, is full of the most subtle shades and presents a young, beautiful woman. The second one is a man’s face, swarthy and dry, with huge fiery eyes, raven-black, thick curly hair, a moustache and a short-cut beard, full of strength and energy and as such truly beautiful, painted much more roughly, but even more characteristic than the previous one; surely it is some Egyptionised elegant Greek man from the last days of the Roman Empire…” (Mycielski 1893: 41). Historic ancient paintings were treated not as archaeological objects, but as the oldest examples of the development of the art of painting and were part of the narrative of the art exhibition. Mummy portraits (Parlasca 1977: 395), Coptic and Egyptian fabrics (Moczulska 1988: nos. 17, 19, 20, 141, 153, 154, 161) were among objects purchased by Czartoryski in the winter of 1889/90 during his journey through Egypt. The sarcophagi, briefly mentioned by Mycielski, were purchased by Czartoryski’s agents operating in Egypt. The first one, Copt Makarios Shenouda, enjoyed a good reputation as an experienced man, who independently searched for historic objects and also acted as an agent in their sale. The second one was a Polish correspondent of “Wędrowiec”, Stefan Marusieński. His knowledge was superficial, but he tried to buy directly from fellaheen, who extracted historic objects from opened graves. The agents sent two sets of objects in 1884 and 1885 (Moczulska, Śliwa 1972: 85–104; Gorzelany 2014: 250–252). In addition to the two sarcophagi, the Museum also received a bronze falcon sarcophagus, stone and wooden stelas, bronze and wooden figurines, cladding tiles, clay dishes, mirrors, grave cones, ushabti figures, baskets, stone vessels, faience necklaces, amulets and small jewellery – a total of 154 items. The exhibition in Room III (Fig. 1, 2) was expanded by another four rooms on the second floor of the Palace, which is confirmed by a list drawn up by Roman Jodko-Narkiewicz (Princes Czartoryski Library, BCz 12770–12772). It features more than 550 objects, which indicates that visitors could see all the objects included in the collection. Room IV – Antiquarium (now the Renaissance Room) was dedicated to the art of Greco-Roman antiquity. Greek, Etruscan and Roman objects were grouped basically by material – Greek vases, terracotta figures, olive oil lamps, bronze items, jewellery, glassware, small marble fragments – and by size: in 9 (cabinets) free-standing display cases, wall display cases, 7 glass cases and small bell-shaped cases, as shown in a 1929 photo, such as the centrally positioned case with the Etruscan bronze box, number 1 in the inventory of the ancient art 146 The Overlooked Collection… collections. The other objects were placed on the floor and cabinets and hung on the walls: among others, a Roman mosaic obtained in 1893 from the floor of the tomb in Ostia made in opus tessalatum and opus vermiculatum, depicting Hercules with the Cretan bull (Daszewski 1985: 78–86), as well as fragments of Roman (Sadurska 1992: no. 15) and early Christian sarcophagi: one probably from the catacombs of St. Sebastian in Rome (Sadurska 1992: no. 108), the second found in 1632 in the Vatican necropolis (Sadurska 1992: no. 109) and the third found in Rome near Villa Medici (Sadurska 1992: no. 105). Parts of two of them, the sarcophagus with the scene of traditio legis and the sarcophagus with the apostles, are currently kept in the Museo Pio Cristiano (Gorzelany 2014: 256–257). Apart from the display cabinets, there were also large vases, an Etruscan urn and fragments of Roman sculptures. Their arrangement is visible in two photographs from 1929 and 1948 (Fig. 3, 4). The corresponding fragmentary shots of the room show changes in the layout of the objects in the showcases. An initial comparison of the types of objects: a showcase with Greek ceramics – a showcase with glass vessels – a showcase with terracotta figures shown in the 1929 photograph gave way to a more substantial arrangement with a group of black and white vases, red and red-figure vases and South-Italian ceramics in separate showcases. The opening of room IV resulted in a correction of the theme of room III to Egyptian and eastern objects, that is, in moving the abovementioned mummy portraits, which were juxtaposed with an Etruscan votive head and an urn lid, to the new room. Most of the exhibits presented in the showcases were acquired by Władysław Czartoryski at Parisian auctions or in antiquarian transactions, some from antique dealers. On the shelves, we can see, among others, kylixes by Amasis Painter (Bulas 1935: pl. 5, 1a–b; Gorzelany 2007a: 25–31) and Onesimos (Bulas 1935: pl. 8,1a–c) bought in the early period of the collector’s activity, as well as vases acquired in 1890 and 1893 from Neapolitan museum conservator Giuseppe Mele and his son August (Gorzelany 2014: 247–248). The first batch included, among other things, a red-figure Chicago Painter stamnos from the 2nd quarter of the 5th century BC found in Nola with an image of a warrior’s farewell (Bulas 1935: pl. 11,1a–b), a Kerch pelike found in Capua from the Workshop of the Hippolytos Painter (360–350 BC) decorated with a Dionysian scene (Bulas 1935: pl. 13, 4; Gorzelany 2011: 35–48), and a black-figure krater by Painter from Tarquinia RC 6847? (520–510 BC) with a double-sided representation of a carriage with a coachman (Bulas 1935: pl. 4,1 a–b), a black-figure band cup from 147 Dorota Gorzelany-Nowak 550–530 BC decorated with non-sense inscriptions (Bulas 1935: pl. 5,2) and a black-figure skyphos with a representation of Pegasus made by a painter from the Little Masters Group from 540–530 BC (Bulas 1935: pl. 5,4). In the second group were a Siana kylix from the 2nd quarter of the 6th century BC (Bulas 1935: pl. 4,3a–b), red-figure vessels such as hydria with a rare scene of the madness of the Thracian king Lycurgus by Late Mannerist Painter from 460–450 BC (Bulas 1935, pl. 12,1, 14; Gorzelany 2011: 35–48; 2012a: 35–47; Topper 2015: 139–171), hydria by Painter Q? from the last quarter of the 5th century BC with Paris and Helena (Bulas 1935: pl. 13,2; Gorzelany 2013: 139–141), kylix from the 1st quarter of 5th century BC with a representation of satires and maenads (Bulas 1935: pl. 8,2a–c) and amphora from the Workshop of Shuvalov Painter, ca. 435–420 BC (Bulas 1935: pl. 12,3a–b). Although Mele was famous for supplying vases of good quality to private collectors and public museums, he also sold historic objects reconstructed to varying degrees, glued, supplemented, repainted, as evidenced by the objects bought by Czartoryski. An amphora by Painter Leagros, visible in the black-figure ceramics cabinet in the 1948 photo, was purchased from Italian antiquarian and archaeologist Riccardo Mancini. It was found during the excavations he carried out in August 1888 in Orvieto in an area belonging to Cesare Zampi within the Cannicella necropolis in two-chamber tomb No. 22 (Bulas 1935: pl. 4,2; Moczulska 1989a: 197–198 no. 9.8). Czartoryski also obtained an Etruscan amphora by Painter Micali (about 500 BC) from Mancini, decorated with a frieze of walking hares (Bulas 1935: pl. 15,9 a–b; Moczulska 1989: 199–200 no. 9,11), displayed with terracotta figures and an amphora by one of the leading painters of Campania, Ixion Painter (330–310 BC) with a representation of Niobid Chloris protecting herself at the Demeter statue (Bulas 1935: pl. 18,2; Gorzelany 2017: 18–21), as well as two bucchero amphoras (Bulas 1935: pl. 15,4–5; Moczulska 1989: 202–203 no. 9,16). In total, the museum collection was enriched by 40 items of Orvieto or EtruscanCampanese provenance, as Mancini, in addition to selling historic objects extracted from tombs, also worked as an agent trading in other finds. Numerous Greek terracotta figurines visible in the showcases constituted attractive collector’s items in the 4th quarter of the 19th century, despite negative voices about their originality. The ones acquired back in the 1870’s, when the copists’ activity was just beginning to develop, are ancient objects, whereas the Prince’s subsequent acquisitions – especially directly from Greek antique 148 The Overlooked Collection… dealers Lambros and E. Triantaphyllos or through antique dealers or at auctions – raise doubts or are clearly forgery (Gorzelany 2012b: 213–221). Above the passage, there is a fresco with a sacral-idilical scene, which based on the way it is painted and the theme can be classified as the 4th Pompeiian style (Ostrowski 1972: 61–68). This fresco was purchased in 1891 from antique dealer V. Barone of Naples (Gorzelany 2014: 255). The preserved photographs do not show the room on the ground floor of the Museum called the Lapidarium, where Roman sculptures were placed. There was a statue of Medici-type Venus from the beginning of the first century, also obtained from antique dealer Barone (Gorzelany 2019: 244–246). In the same year Czartoryski acquired, probably from the collection of Alessandro Torlonia (Gorzelany 2019: 246–252), a set of sculptures, supposedly from Ostia. Only one of these statues, a small male torso in a chlamys (Mikocki 1994: no. 79), set in the 18th century on a grave slab (Sadurska 1990: no. 10), is visible in the 1948 photo. Other statues acquired in this set include a female torso (Mikocki 1994: no. 89) and a torso with a paludamentum on the shoulder (Mikocki 1994: no. 80), both set on architectural elements – an Ionic capital and the base of a Ionic column respectively, as well as a statue of a young man in a chlamys from the Antonine period (Mikocki 1994: no. 78) bought with modern additions: an added head (Bieńkowski 1919: 150–151; Gorzelany: 2019: 250) from another sculpture and a modern base. All these sculptures, despite their undeniable technical and artistic value, were not available to the public, perhaps due to the weight and dimensions making it difficult to carry them through the narrow staircase to the second floor of the building where the exhibition of ancient art was located. The reason could also be necessary conservation work on the sculpture of Venus and on the Etruscan sarcophagi, which was only undertaken in the 1980s due to technological advancements and the determination of the curators of the ancient collection to open the first permanent exhibition after the war. * The aforementioned conservation works concerning a significant part of the ancient collection were carried out during a changed mode of operation of the Princes Czartoryski Museum, which was incorporated into the National 149 Dorota Gorzelany-Nowak Museum in Kraków in 1950. The change of ownership and manner of looking after the objects within the more extensive structures of the state museum begins the third stage in the life of the ancient collection. From an exhibition point of view, it was not initially advantageous. The pre-war exhibition was closed in 1954 as a result of the need to modernise it. After several years of renovations, it reopened in 1959, but despite the enlargement of the exhibition space, there was no room for ancient art. A group of curators/art historians defined historic art objects as objects created later than ancient ones. Thus, the term “archaeological collections” arose in the innermuseum narrative, which had not previously been used in the Princes Czartoryski Museum in the context of objects from the Mediterranean area, but was reserved for objects obtained from excavations in Poland. Removal of ancient art objects from art history, with their clear depreciation, became quite common in the attitudes of art historians, not only from Kraków. This “inferior” part of the collection, which was not displayed, was presented only at temporary exhibitions: “Greek Vase Painting” (September–December 1964), “Egyptian Art” (1965), “Etruscan Art” (September 1967 to January 1968), “Antichità dall’Umbria a Cracovia” (1989). It was not until the second half of 1963 that it was established, in accordance with the decision of the then manager of the Czartoryski Museum, Dr Marek Rostworowski, that the first-floor room of the Arsenal would become the place for its permanent exhibition. This was possible thanks to an earlier transport of the library collections, which had been located there, to the new building at 17, Św. Marka street. In the renovated Arsenal, an exhibition of the most valuable objects, moved there due to the renovation of the Palace, was held in 1974 – consistently without ancient art (Gorzelany 2010: 203). In later years it was planned to use the hall on the first floor of the Arsenal for an exhibition of militaria, and also for artistic crafts storage. It was only in the early 1980s that preparations for the opening of a permanent exhibition of ancient art began. However, the political and economic situation was not favourable to the financing of new exhibition projects. The work was only completed in 1993. An exhibition by Krystyna Moczulska, organised according to a design by architect Tadeusz Nowak, was held in a separate space in the Princes Czartoryski Museum. The visiting route led from the 1st floor of the Palace through the exhibition rooms in the Monastery to the Arsenal and then back to the painting gallery on the 2nd floor of the Palace. The unique atmosphere of the exhibition was influenced not only by the spacious hall of the Arsenal building, but also by the modern arrangement solutions and enlarged 150 The Overlooked Collection… set of exhibits with the collection of the National Museum in Krakow, objects from the depository of the Potocki Family from Krzeszowice, and a selection of objects from the collection of the Institute of Archaeology of the Jagiellonian University (Fig. 5). The arrangement of the exhibition led the visitors on a route starting from the youngest objects from the late antique era. In the subsequent cabinets there were objects of Roman, South-Italian, Hellenic, Etruscan, Greek, Cypriot-Palestinian and Punic and Egyptian art, as well as some examples of objects related to the cultures of the ancient Middle East. This arrangement corresponded to the territorial and chronological division and, at the same time, to the way archaeologists discovered successive cultural layers, reaching the oldest ones (Gorzelany 2007b). In 2010, a long period of renovation of the Palace initiated by the Princes Czartoryski Foundation began. The need to remove the exhibition reignited “anti-antique” moods, as the Gallery of Ancient Art remained the only exhibition that could still receive visitors. The maintaining of this state of affairs involved a constant struggle with the postulates of curators/art historians to close the hall, transform it into a storage space, or an exhibition of the most valuable monuments from the collection – seemingly, because these were scattered throughout Poland by the Princes Czartoryski Foundation after many temporary exhibitions. There were constant announcements in the media that the Princes Czartoryski Museum was closed due to renovation. At the same time, although there were somewhat contradictory ads about the Ancient Art Gallery open in the Arsenal, this communication chaos meant that promotion of the Ancient Art Gallery encountered serious difficulties and was side-tracked in every aspect of educational and exhibition activities. Every few months, there were again plans to close it, to complement it with freely scattered paintings, artistic craftsmanship objects and militaria, or to display “Lady with an Ermine” by Leonardo da Vinci on the wall by fragments of papyrus with the texts of the Book of the Dead in the Egyptian part of the Gallery. Each of these concepts resulted from unfulfilled ambitions of art historians and a difficulty of accepting the still functioning exhibition of ancient art in a situation of natural suspension of exhibition activities, as is the case with any museum located in an old building, which from time to time requires thorough renovation works. Each of these concepts undermined the safety of the exhibition both in terms of conservation and logistics, and dismissed the substantial value of the collection. Eventually, Rembrandt’s “Landscape with the Good Samaritan” was placed on an easel surrounded by Roman sculptures in 2016, and a year later, after the 151 Dorota Gorzelany-Nowak Ancient Art Gallery closed down, the exhibition called “Most Valuable. Czartoryski Princes Collection” was opened in the Arsenal. This time, the painstaking work on restoring the value of ancient art brought some effect, although it was not without significance that some of the objects had to remain at this new temporary exhibition due to the lack of storage space. The separate perception of the Princes Czartoryski Museum as “proper” in the part located in the renovated Palace and comprising valuable art collections vs. this additional part with the ancient collection in the Arsenal gradually became embedded in the attitudes of both tourists and a growing number of fast-changing employees of the non-substantial departments of the National Museum in Kraków. The last straw in the process was the purchase by the Polish state of the collections and buildings from Prince Adam Karol Czartoryski in December 2016 and the beginning of the widely promoted last phase of the Palace’s renovation. It was financed by the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage as part of the project entitled “The Past for the Future – Renovation and Fitting of the Princes Czartoryski Museum, National Museum in Kraków to Provide Access to a Unique Collection”, which was completed on 20 December 2019. The media message was clear: the Princes Czartoryski Museum is only the Palace building and the exhibition of medieval and modern art (with a small addition of library collections). The publication issued as part of the project, entitled “The Princes Czartoryski Museum” mentioned the ancient art acquisitions of Prince Władysław Czartoryski only briefly (Chełmecka 2019: 24, 35). Also the new homepage of the Princes Czartoryski Museum (accessed 22.09.2020) informs that it is “the most valuable in Poland and one of the most valuable collections in Europe. Lady with an Ermine by Leonardo da Vinci and Landscape with the Good Samaritan by Rembrandt van Rijn, as well as many other masterpieces not only in the field of painting, but also sculpture, craftsmanship, militaria, applied arts, can be seen in 26 exhibition rooms, on two floors of the renovated Palace of the Czartoryski Museum”. More interested Internet users can find in the “Collections” tab four thematic galleries from the time of promotion of the Ancient Art Gallery in 2010–2016. At the time of writing this text, work on a new exhibition of ancient art is in progress. Despite the lack of media coverage, the Arsenal building also received funding from the Social Committee for the Restoration of Krakow’s Monuments (SKOZK) and the Ministry of Culture and National Heritage, allowing for renovation, superstructure and arrangement of the Gallery. Its opening is planned for April 2021 (Fig. 6). However, it is only reconnecting all three build152 The Overlooked Collection… ings of the Princes Czartoryski Museum – after the renovation of the centrally located Monastery – into a single route that can contribute to joint promotion of the entire collection and revival of the collecting idea of Prince Władysław Czartoryski to create in his Museum a picture of the diverse aspects of art development since antiquity. Nec Hercules contra plures: perhaps also generational changes and aspects connected to university education indicating the importance of preserved ancient objects in the development of later art will influence art historians’ perception of Mediterranean archaeology. Bibliography Bieńkowski P. 1919. O rzeźbach klasycznych z marmuru w Krakowie. In: Sprawozdania Komisji Historii Sztuki, t. 10. Kraków: Akademia Umiejętności, pp. 236–297. Bulas K. 1935. Corpus Vasorum Antiquorum, Collections de Cracovie [Pologne 2, Cracovie-fascicul unique]. Varsovie–Cracovie: Academie Polonaise des Sciences et des Lettres. Chełmecka P. 2019. Muzeum Czartoryskich. Historia, ludzie, zbiory. In: K. Płonka-Bałus, N. Koziara (eds.). Muzeum Książąt Czartoryskich. Kraków: Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie, pp. 11–35. Czartoryska I. 1828. Poczet pamiątek zachowanych w Domu Gotyckim w Puławach. Warszawa: Drukarnia Banku Polskiego. Daszewski W.A. 1985. Corpus of mosaics from Egypt. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern. Aegyptiaca Treverensia, Bd. 3. Gorzelany D. 2001. Zwei Tonlampen mit Efeu und Weinranke in Krakauer Sammlungen. In: Ewdoksia Papuci-Władyka, Joachim Śliwa (eds.). Studia Archaeologica. Prace dedykowane Profesorowi Januszowi A. Ostrowskiemu w sześćdziesięciolecie urodzin. Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński, pp. 123–131. Gorzelany D. 2007a. Zwei Gottheiten ‘kurotrophoi’ auf einer Schale des Amasis-Malers in Krakau. Archeologia, 57, 25–31. Gorzelany D. 2007b. Galeria sztuki starożytnej Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie. Przewodnik. Kraków: Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie. Gorzelany D. 2010. „Przeszłość – przyszłości”? Rola Galerii Sztuki Starożytnej Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie w kształtowaniu wiedzy o antyku”. In: E. Kowalska, E. Urbaniak (eds.). Muzeum XXI wieku – teoria i praxis (materiały z sesji naukowej, organizowanej przez Muzeum Początków Państwa Polskiego i Polski Komitet Narodowy ICOM, Gniezno, 25–27 listopada 2009 roku księga pamiątkowa poświęcona profesorowi Krzysztofowi Pomianowi). Gniezno: Muzeum Początków Państwa Polskiego, pp. 200–207. 153 Dorota Gorzelany-Nowak Gorzelany D. 2011. Rozprawy Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie, t. 4, pp. 35–48. Gorzelany D. 2012a. Malarz Nauzykai i Malarz Hefajstosa – manieryzm w greckim malarstwie wazowym. In: J. Friedrich (ed.). Maniera–Manieryzm–Manieryczność. Materiały z LX Ogólnopolskiej Sesji Naukowej Stowarzyszenia Historyków Sztuki, Gdańsk, 24–25 listopada 2011. Warszawa: Stowarzyszenie Historyków Sztuki, pp. 35–47. Gorzelany D. 2012b. The Art of Re-creation: Terracotta Statuettes and Their Copies. About one ‘Tanagra’ from the Princes Czartoryski Museum. Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization, 16, pp. 213–221. Gorzelany D. 2013. The Fatal Power of Aphrodite? Some Remarks on the Iconology of Helen and Paris. Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization, 17, 139–141. https://doi. org/10.12797/SAAC.17.2013.17.12. Gorzelany D. 2014. Europejska moda kolekcjonerska a idea polskiego „zakładu naukowego”. Zbiór sztuki starożytnej księcia Władysława Czartoryskiego. In: K. Kłudkiewicz, M. Mencfel (eds.). Miłośnictwo rzeczy. Studia z historii kolekcjonerstwa na ziemiach polskich w XIX wieku. Warszawa: Narodowy Instytut Muzealnictwa i Ochrony Zbiorów, pp. 240–261. Gorzelany D. 2017. Greek Vase Painting on Exile: the Ixion Painter. Humaniora, 1(17), 15–27. Gorzelany D. 2018. Ekspozycja a koncepcja kolekcjonerska. Casus Muzeum Książąt Czartoryskich. In: T.F. de Rosset, E. Bednarz Doiczmanowa, A. Tołysz (eds.). Muzeum a pamięć – forma, produkcja, miejsce. Warszawa: Narodowy Instytut Muzealnictwa i Ochrony Zbiorów, pp. 159–170. Gorzelany D. 2019. Czartoryski & Torlonia. A Collection of Roman Marble Statues in the Princes Czartoryski Museum. Studies in Ancient Art and Civilization, 23, 243–254. https://doi.org/10.12797/SAAC.23.2019.23.12. Mikocki T. (ed.) 1994. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Pologne, vol. 3, fasc. 1, Les sculptures mythologiques et décoratives dans les collections polonaises. Warszawa: Editions scientifiques de Pologne. Moczulska K. 1988. Sztuka koptyjska (Wystawa w Muzeum Narodowym w Warszawie). Warszawa: Oficyna Wydawnicza “GT Urania”. Cat. nos. 17, 19, 20, 141, 153, 154, 161. Moczulska K. 2005. Deux «souvenirs» antiques de la partie nord de la region de la Mer Noire dans la collection d’Isabelle Czartoryska de Puławy. Études et Travaux, 20, 151–156. Moczulska K., Śliwa J. 1972. Identyfikacja zabytków egipskich ze Zbiorów Czartoryskich z wykazami zakupów z lat 1884 i 1885. Prace Archeologiczne, 14, 85–104. Mycielski J. 1893. Galerya obrazów przy Muzeum Ks. Czartoryskich w Krakowie. Kraków: Księgarnia Spółki Wydawniczej Polskiej. Ostrowski J.A. 1972. Rzymskie malowidło ścienne ze zbiorów Muzeum Narodowego w Krakowie. Studia z Archeologii Śródziemnomorskiej, 1, 61–68. 154 The Overlooked Collection… Parlasca K. 1977. Ritratti di mummie. Repertorio d ‘arte dell’Egitto greco-romano, s. B, vol. 2. Roma: «L’Erma» di Bretschneider. Sadurska A. (ed.) 1990. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Pologne, vol. 2, fasc. 1, Les monuments funéraires: autels, urnes, stéles, divers dans les collections polonaises. Warszawa: Editions scientifiques de Pologne. Sadurska A. (ed.) 1992. Corpus Signorum Imperii Romani Pologne, vol. 2, fasc. 2, Les sarcophages et les fragments de sarcophages dans les collections polonaises. Warszawa: Editions scientifiques de Pologne. Topper K. R. 2015. Dionysos Comes to Thrace: The Mataphor of Corrupted Sacrifice and the Introduction of Dionysian Cult in Images of Lykourgos’s Madness. Arethusa, 48, 139–171. https://doi.org/10.1353/are.2015.0009. Żygulski Z. 2009. Dzieje zbiorów puławskich. Świątynia Sybilli i Dom Gotycki. Kraków: Fundacja Książąt Czartoryskich, Muzeum Nadwiślańskie w Kazimierzu Dolnym. List of illustrations Fig. 1–2. Princes Czartoryski Museum, Room III, 1948. Archive. National Museum in Krakow. Fig. 3. Princes Czartoryski Museum, Room IV, 1929. Archive. National Museum in Krakow. Fig. 4. Princes Czartoryski Museum, Room IV, 1948. Archive. National Museum in Krakow. Fig. 5. Princes Czartoryski Museum, Ancient Art Gallery, 2012. Archive. National Museum in Krakow. Fig. 6. Princes Czartoryski Museum, Ancient Art Gallery, 2021. Archive. National Museum in Krakow. Dorota Gorzelany-Nowak Fig. 1 156 The Overlooked Collection… Fig. 2 157 Dorota Gorzelany-Nowak Fig. 3 Fig. 4 158 The Overlooked Collection… Fig. 5 Fig. 6 159 Part II ColleCting PrehistoriC Antiquities in eighteenth And nineteenth Centuries https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.07 Wojciech Nowakowski (Universität Warschau) die ostPreussisChen sAmmlungen der »vaterländischen alterthümer« im 18 Jh. Abstract Collections of ‘Homelands Antiquities’ from East Prussia in 18th Century In the 18th century the interest in archaeology in East Prussia had grown incredibly. Thus, there was a great development of archaeological collections, even if the collecting was not understood as assembly of “national antiquities”, but rather as gathering the curiosities, testifying an attractiveness of a particular parish or communes. A special role played the clergymen who had the frequent contacts with peasants finding archeological relics accidentally, during the field works. One of the most outstanding collectors was Georg Andreas Helwing, a longtime parish priest in Węgobork (Angerburg). After his death his huge collection was mostly dispersed, although it can be assumed that some of the items were inherited by Ludwig Jakob Pisanski, his grandson and successors in the parish at once. This collection had an exceptional scientific value – later sold in Berlin, became a core of archaeological museum created in the 1830s. Even if other contemporary collections were not so spectacular, they are still a valuable witness of archaeological discoveries at that time. Keywords: archaeological collections, antiquities, numismatic, East Prussia 163 Wojciech Nowakowski Mit der Bezeichnung „archäologische Kollektionen in Ostpreußen“1 sind in erster Reihe Kollektionen griechischer und römischer Antiquitäten bzw. entsprechender Kopien oder sogar Fälschungen gemeint, die dort im 18. und 19. Jh. an den Höfen des Hochadels gesammelt wurden (vgl. Faensen 2011). Parallel zu diesen Sammlungen entwickelte sich damals das Phänomen einer wesentlich bescheideneren Suche nach »vaterländischen Alterthümern«, in deren Verlauf die ehrenwerte Vergangenheit der lokalen Heimat dokumentiert werden sollte, im Einklang mit der damaligen Auffassung der ostpreußischen Intellektuellen, die überzeugt waren: auch die »Entdeckung der Grab-Hügel gereicht einem Lande […] zur besondern Ehre« (Rohde 1725: 404; Hierzu Nowakowski 2004). Diese Erkundungen waren die Domäne der Rittergutsbesitzer, die nicht über die Mittel verfügten, um nach Italien reisen zu können, aber auch der Beamten und Berufsoffiziere, sowie vor allem der Pastoren – gebildeten Leute, die sich im stetigen Kontakt mit Bauern – den potentiellen Entdeckern und zufälligen Ausgräbern von »vaterländischen Alterthümern« – befanden. Mit einem Pastor kann man auch ein symbolisches Anfangsdatum des Sammelns von »vaterländischen Alterthümern« in Ostpreußen verbinden: Im Jahr 1717 wurde nämlich das lateinische Buch unter dem gekürzten Titel Lithographia Angerburgica (Abb. 1) veröffentlicht (Helwing 1717). Sein Autor, Georg Andreas Helwing, Mitglied einer Pastorendynastie, die für mehr als ein Jahrhundert das Amt des Angerburger Probstes monopolisierte, studierte in den 80er Jahren des 17. Jh. in Königsberg und Jena, und setzte seine Studien später in Italien fort. 1691 kam er in seine Heimatstadt zurück, wo er die Stelle des Adjunkten in der Pfarrei seines Vaters übernahm. Nach dem Tod seines Vaters wurde er im Jahr 1705 Probst und bekleidete ferner – ab 1725 bis zu seinem Lebensende – das hohe Amt des Senioren des kirchlichen Distrikts Angerburg-Lötzen (vgl. Toeppen 1870: 351–353; Abramowicz 1989; Faensen 2011: 23). Die wissenschaftlichen Interessen dieses von seinen Zeitgenossen Angerburger Plinius genannten Forschers kreisten um die Naturforschung, weswegen er zahlreiche Mineralien und Versteinerungen sammelte, um sie in seinem oben erwähnten lateinischen Werk zu beschreiben, das für ein gutes Jahrhundert als grundlegendes Handbuch der preußischen Naturwissenschaft galt. Als Naturforscher studierte Helwing v. a. 1 Im vorliegenden Beitrag wird der für das fast gesamte 18. Jh. anachronistische Begriff „Ostpreußen“ benutzt, um das analysierte Gebiet geographisch deutlich zu definieren und gleichzeitig eine Assoziierung mit der wesentlich größeren Domäne der damaligen reges in Prussia zu vermeiden. 164 Die ostpreußischen Sammlungen der »vaterländischen Alterthümer« im 18 Jh. geologische Besonderheiten Ostpreußens – darunter befand sich auch ein sog. »Lapis fulminaris, Ceraunia dictus«, ein angeblicher „Donnerstein”, der zu jenem Zeitpunkt noch als Spur eines Donnerschlags gedeutet wurde. Dem communis opinio zum Trotz bestimmte Helwing die »Cerauniae« – aus der Sicht der heutigen Archäologie ganz korrekt – als vorgeschichtliche Steinbeile und –äxte (Helwing 1717. 79–90; vgl. Abramowicz 1979: 140–146; 1989). Sein Interesse an der Vorgeschichte reichte jedoch wesentlich weiter: In seiner Lithographia Angerburgica beschrieb er auch seine eigenen Ausgrabungen und die in ihrem Verlauf geborgenen »Alterthümer« (vgl. Reusch 1724: 23; Abramowicz 1979: 146). Zu dieser Ausbeute gehören fünf Gefäße und zahlreiche Metallgegenstände, die im Angerburger Hof eines Gasthauses ausgegraben worden seien (Helwing 1717: 90; vgl. Toeppen 1870: 40–41; Abramowicz 1979: 146). Helwing erwähnte in seinem Buch ebenfalls einen Zinnmaßkrug, der bei der Beerdigung seines Onkels im Angerburger Friedhof gefunden wurde und angeblich noch mit dem “Bier” gefüllt war2. Man sollte gleichzeitig betonen, dass Helwings Buch – allen aus heutiger Sicht lächerlichen Ausführungen zum Trotz – bis heute eine wichtige Quelle zu archäologischen Funden aus der »vicina Angerburgensis« bleibt und dass die dort abgebildeten Gegenstände oft den heutigen Klassifizierungen zugeordnet werden können. Ein Beispiel dafür ist eine der auf einer Tafel abgebildeten »orichalceæ fibulaæ cum spinteribus«, die sich der heutigen Typologie gemäß als Augenfibel des Typs Almgren 61 identifizieren lässt (Helwing 1717: Taf. X: 3; vgl. Almgren 1923: 31–32, Taf. III: 61) (Abb. 1). Die archäologischen Untersuchungen Helwings und sein Sammeln von »vaterländischen Altertümern« sind auch nicht als idée fixe eines in seinem Elfenbeinturm verbarrikadierten Gelehrten abzutun: Helwing war der berühmteste Vertreter einer am Anfang des 18. Jh in Ostpreußen sehr populären Forschungsaktivität. Im Jahr 1715, also fast zeitgleich mit der Lithographia Angerburgica, wurde ein Fragebogen veröffentlicht (Fischer 1715), der – genauso wie Helwings Buch – den Besonderheiten Ostpreußens gewidmet war. Der Autor dieser Enquete – Christian Gabriel Fischer, Professor für Physik und Theologie an der Königsberger Universität (Lawrynowicz 1999: 158–159) – fragte zwar v. a. nach »Preußischen Erden, Steinen, Metallen«, aber widmete auch ein ganzes Kapitel den »Alt-Preußischen ausgegrabenen Antiquitäten« (Fischer 1715: 17–20). Die Fragen betreffen Gräber und dort gefundene »Asch-Töpffe«, also Urnen mit Brandbestattung und eventueller Beigabe, wie »alte Ringe, Crohnen, Arm2 »cantharus stanneus operculo clausus […] cerevisia […] impletus« (Helwing 1717: 93). 165 Wojciech Nowakowski Bände, Schnallen, Sporen, Pfeile &c.« (Fischer 1715: 19, no 28). Fischer teilte offensichtlich Helwings Interesse am vorgeschichtlichen „Bier”, weil er fragte: »Wo hat man Gefässe mit Trincken in alten Gräbern angetroffen?« (Fischer 1715: 19, no 29) und gleich danach: »Was und wie war das darinnen enthaltene Getränck« (Fischer 1715: 19, no 32). Die Ergebnisse dieser archäologischen Umfrage sind unbekannt, aber schon die Tatsache, dass man es damals als sinnvoll ansah, die die vorgeschichtlichen Funde betreffenden Punkte in den Fragebogen einzufügen, zeugt von einem großen Interesse an der Vorgeschichte in Ostpreußen des 18. Jh. Aus diesem Grund darf man vermuten, dass die damals »ausgegrabenen Antiquitäteten« von Laienarchäologen gesammelt und aufbewahrt wurden, was letztendlich zur Entstehung zahlreicher kleiner Sammlungen von Altertümern führte. Am Beispiel Helwings ist dabei die große Rolle der Geistlichen in der Anfangsphase der Erforschung der »vaterländischen Alterthümer« zu sehen. Die damals recht oft publizierten Beschreibungen von einzelnen Städten, Kirchen und Kirchspielen mit zahlreichen Notizen über »ausgegrabene Antiquitäten« (vgl. Porschen 1724a; 1724b; Drigalski 1726; Riedel 1726) veranschaulichen deutlich, dass die Probste eine Registrierung solcher lokalen »Merckwürdigkeiten« als ihre wichtige Aufgabe betrachteten. Die in Kirchspielbeschreibungen erwähnten und in Pfarrhäusern aufbewahrten archäologischen Funde lassen sich weder stilistisch noch chronologisch bestimmen: Sie wurden nämlich in der Regel nur – wie bereits oben erwähnt – als »Asch-Töpfe« oder »Urnae« bezeichnet. Zu den wenigen Ausnahmen gehört die Beschreibung der Funde aus der Ortschaft Przerwanken3, wo – dem Bericht von Pastor Paul Drigalski zufolge – »viele Urnae ausgewehet und bloß stehend gefunden sind« (Drigalski 1726: 77). In einem dieser Gefäße wurde demnach »eine Crone mit einem halb Finger dicken Drat rund um bewunden« vorgefunden. Die ziemlich präzise Beschreibung erlaubt es, diese »Crone« als einen sog. Halsring mit umwickelten Enden (also ein typisches Schmuckstück aus dem 3. Jh. n. Chr.) zu deuten (vgl. Godłowski 1970: 53–54, Taf. XI: 20, 23). Leider hat seine zufälliger Entdecker gerade diesen archäologisch identifizierbaren Fund »in Stücken geschlagen und theils an die Juden verkauft, theils von dem übrigen sich einen Leuchter über den Tisch gemachet«, weswegen es Pastor Drigalski lediglich gelang, ein »Stückchen Metall« zu bergen (Drigalski 1726: 78). 3 Przerwanken, Kreis Angerburg – Przerwanki, Pow. Węgorzewo. 166 Die ostpreußischen Sammlungen der »vaterländischen Alterthümer« im 18 Jh. Das Zerstreuen von »ausgegrabenen Antiquitäten« scheint übrigens damals gewissermaßen die Regel gewesen zu sein: Dieses Schicksal ereilte etwa die Funde aus einem Hügelgrab, das 1703 in Stablack entdeckt worden war (Reimer 1723; vgl. Chmielewski 1965). Die angeblich dort in einem »kleinen Töpffchen« gefundenen 30 Groschen des Deutschen Ordens wurden gleich nach der Entdeckung unter den Teilnehmern der Ausgrabung verteilt – in die Hände des Verfassers des Grabungsberichts gerieten nur zwei Münzen. Es konnte aber auch umgekehrt ablaufen: Im Jahr 1725 präsentierte Johann Jakob Rohde – damals »Metaph. & Logicae Professor Ordinarius« – der Königsberger Albertina zahlreiche »curieusen Alterthuemer«, die ein gewisser General-Major von Winterfeldt in einem Hügelgräberfeld auf seinem Landgut Breitenstein bei Tilsit gefunden hatte (Rohde 1725a. Auch als Sonderdruck erschienen: Rohde 1725b). Die Ergebnisse dieser Ausgrabungen scheinen nicht sehr imposant gewesen zu sein: In einem Hügelgrab wurden »nur 2. Asch-Töpffe« und in einem anderen nichts »ausser einem alten Draht oder Haarnadel« entdeckt (Rohde 1725a: 401– 403). Aber Rohde zählte auch zahlreiche weitere Gegenstände auf, ohne ihren genauen Fundplatz zu nennen (Abb. 2): – elf eiserne Lanzenspitzen, – ein einschneidiges Schwert, – zwei zweischneidige Schwerter (davon eines zweifellos aus der Wikingerzeit), – ein eiserner Feuerstahl, – ein bronzenes Tüllenbeil aus der älteren Eisenzeit, – eine völkerwanderungszeitliche sog. Armbrustfibel mit umgeschlagenem Fuß und Ringgarnitur, – zwei große flache Bernsteinperlen aus der jüngeren Steinzeit, – eine blaue Perle aus ägyptischer Fayence, – ein kaiserzeitlicher bronzener Halsring aus gewundenen Drähten, – frühmittelalterliche Hakensporen, Steigbügel und Trense mit tordierten Gebissstangen (Rohde 1725a: 416–423, Taf. I–II). Diese Liste umfasst also Funde aus dem Zeitraum vom Neolithikum bis zum Frühmittelalter, die somit keinesfalls aus einer Nekropole stammen konnten. Höchstwahrscheinlich stellte Rohde in dieser Liste nicht nur die tatsächlichen Funde aus den ausgegrabenen Hügelgräbern, sondern auch einige andere in Breitenstein aufbewahrten »curieusen Alterthuemer« zusammen (Nowakowski 2004: 623–624). Es scheint also, dass die vorgeschichtliche Kollektion des General-Majors von Winterfeldt beinahe das Niveau eines ostpreußischen Kreismuseums aus den 1930er Jahren erreichte. 167 Wojciech Nowakowski Die oben dargestellte „Verbesserung” der Ausgrabungsergebnisse konnte sich damals als gerechtfertigt darstellen, weil im 18. Jh. alle ostpreußischen Funde aus der Zeit vor dem Deutschen Orden als heidnisch, also untereinander zeitgenössisch bewertet wurden. Diese Überzeugung änderte sich erst in der Mitte des 19. Jh. Bis zu dieser Zeit bildeten römische Münzen die einzigen vorordenszeitlichen »Alterthümer«, die man auf einem bestimmten Punkt der Zeitskala platzieren konnte; als eindeutige Spur von Kontakten mit der antiken Welt stellten sie gleichzeitig für die damaligen Sammler die attraktivsten »Antiquitäten« dar (vgl. Faensen 2011: 21–22). Dieses Interesse an Münzen spiegelten die Werke des berühmten Numismatikers Gottlieb Siegfried Bayer (Faensen 2011: 22, Anm. 17) wider, die ursprünglich zwar nur auf Latein (Bayer 1722; 1723a)4, später aber auch auf Deutsch veröffentlicht wurden (Bayer 1723b), um sie auch den Lesern, »die das Latein nicht verstehen«5, zugänglich zu machen. Übrigens wurde den im Land gefundenen römischen Münzen auch eine Frage in Christian Fischers bereits erwähnter Enquete gewidmet (Fischer 1715: 19, 34). Sie bildeten ebenfalls einen kleinen aber zugleich auch gewichtigen Teil der Sammlung Helwings, der in seinem Buch sechs römische Münzen aus seiner Kollektion erwähnte, von denen drei Stücke von Bauern beim Pflügen gefunden worden seien6. Die Münzen gehörten zu den „Prachtstücken“ der Kollektionen von Helwings „Berufskollegen“7, wurden aber nicht immer sorgfältig aufbewahrt. So hatte einer dieser Sammler zwar »zwey Münzen, die unter dem Pflügen entdeckt worden« erhalten, dann aber »eine verlohren, die andere an einen frembden verschencket«8. Ein weiterer Schwachpunkt dieser Münzsammlungen ist die meistens schlechte Dokumentation der aufbewahrten Funde, von denen ein Teil aus den Ortschaften stammen konnte, die außerhalb der Gemarkung des eigenen Kirchspiels bzw. der Gemeinde des jeweiligen Sammlers lagen. In Helwings Samm4 5 6 7 8 In der Veröffentlichungen benutzte Bayer in der Regel eine hellenisierte Version seines ersten Vornamens: Theophilos. Vgl. eine Anmerkung der Redaktion – Bayer 1723b: 417, Anm. (*). »me duos magnitudine floreni ex ære Corinthiaco conflatos, & tertium minorem argenteum Marci Antonini imagines referentes habuisse: qui omnes á ruricolis vomere erati fuere« (Helwing 1717: 94). Vgl. »einige alte kupfferne und auch meßinge Muenzen dann und wann von den Todtengräbern gefunden werden« (Porcius 1724: 234). Vgl. »So hat Herr Willamovius, Pfarrer in Cumehnen, mir erzehlet, wie er zwey Münzen, die unter dem Pflügen entdeckt worden, überkommen, beyde vom M. Antonino. Er hätte davon die eine verlohren, die andere an einen frembden verschencket« (Bayer 1723: 418–419). 168 Die ostpreußischen Sammlungen der »vaterländischen Alterthümer« im 18 Jh. lung lässt sich der zwar ziemlich präzise beschriebene, aber keinen Fundort aufweisende Sesterz von Alexander Severus, mit einer Darstellung von Apollo als Bogenschütze auf dem Revers9, als mit einer Bronzemünze desselben Kaisers mit einem »Bildniß des Gottes Martis, mit Bogen und Pfeilen«10 identifizieren, die der schon erwähnte Pfarrer Drigalski aus dem Gräberfeld in Grodzysko im damaligen Kreis Angerburg11 geborgen und dann Helwing geschenkt hatte. Dieser Münzfund stammt tatsächlich aus der »vicina Angerburgensis«. Zu derselben, angeblich auf Funde aus dem Angerburger Kirchspiel beschränkten Sammlung gehörte aber auch ein republikanischer Denar12, der offensichtlich nicht als römischer Import aus der Epoche nach Masuren kam13, sondern nur infolge eines Austauschs zwischen den Münzsammlern in die Gegend gekommen sein kann14. Trotzdem wurde diese Münze lange Zeit als tatsächlicher Fund zitiert15 und erst in den 1920er Jahren aus der Liste der römischen Importe gestrichen (vgl. Bolin 1926: 205–206). Zu bemerken sei, dass auch den Fundangaben jener in Ostpreußen gefundenen römischen Münzen, die in die großen Kollektionen von „professionellen“ Numismatikern gelangten, keine Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt wurde. Einer Überlieferung des schon oben zitierten Gottlieb Bayer zufolge war im Nachlass des berühmten ostpreußischen Münzsammlers und Königsberger Mathematikprofessors David Bläsing (Faensen 2011: 26) die gesamte Dokumentation der heimischen Münzfunde auf »einen ledigen Zettel mit der Ueberschrift: Im Acker 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 »numus æreus Romani Imperatoris ALEXANDRI SEVERI, ex una parte quidam nomen Alex. Severi inscriptum, cum effigie Appolinis sagittiferi arcum manu tenentis referens« (Helwing 1717: 95). »zwey Müntzen gleiches Schlages von Kupffer oder einem vermengten Matall eines Achzehners groß und eines Thalers dick, da von der einen Seite ein feines junges Mannsbild mit der Ueberschrift: Alexander Imperator Romanus, auff der andern Seite ein Bildniß des Gottes Martis, mit Bogen und Pfeilen« (Drigalski 1726: 76–77). Grodzysko (1938: Eckersberg), Kreis Angerburg – Grodzisko, Pow. Gołdap. »nummus argenteus denarii valore, vere antiquus, sub libera adhuc Romanorum Republica cusus, […] quadrigis currai triumphali adjugatis exornatus« (Helwing 1717: 94). Über den Zufluss der römischen Münzen nach Ostpreußen und den dortigen Mangel an republikanischen Prägungen – vgl. Bursche 1992; vgl. auch Zapolska 2009. Vgl. Fall einer Münze von Kaiser Otho aus der Kollektion des berühmten Königsberger Numismatikers Philipp Jacob Hartmann, die in der Umgebung von Innsbruck vorgefunden wurde (Faensen 2011: 25–26). Vgl. »ein silberner Denarius, der noch zur Zeiten der freier römischen Republik gemünzet, auf welchem ein mit 4 Pferden bespannter Siegeswagen zu sehen, die Umschrift aber verloschten war« (Bock 1783: 611). 169 Wojciech Nowakowski gefundene Müntzen« (Bayer 1723b: 420) beschränkt. Natürlich lässt es sich heute nicht mehr feststellen, ob all diese »Müntzen« tatsächlich »im Acker« entdeckt wurden und woher sie eigentlich stammten. Dennoch waren im 18. Jh. römische Münzen, insbesondere solche, die zusammen mit »vaterländischen Alterthümern« vorgefunden wurden, als wertvoller Fund und einem König würdiges Geschenk anzuerkennen. Folglich erhielt der preußische König Friedrich I. einige Stücke »von Ertz«, die »man in einem Topffe gefunden« hatte (Beyer 1723b: 420) und der ermländische Fürstbischof Ignacy Krasicki schenkte dem polnischen Monarchen Stanisław Poniatowski ebenfalls eine „Urne mit römischen Medaillen“, d.h. mit römischen Münzen (Kolendo 1998: 111–118; 1999)16. Einen passenden Schlussakzent für die Betrachtung der Geschichte der ostpreußischen Sammlungen »vaterländischer Alterthümer« im 18. Jh. bildet das Schicksal der schon mehrfach erwähnten Sammlung von Pastor Helwing. Nach seinem Tod wurde der geologische Teil seiner Kollektion an den polnischen Exilkönig Stanisław Leszczyński verkauft, was ihren großen Wert zusätzlich bestätigt. Den Rest teilten Helwings Erben unter sich auf. Höchstwahrscheinlich erbte Jakob Ludwig Pisanski, ein Enkel Helwings, der auch gleichzeitig sein Nachfolger in der Angerburger Pfarrerei wurde, die »Antiquitäten« und vergrößerte diese Sammlung vermutlich noch. Nach seinem Tod (1810) wurde die gesamte »Antiquitätenkollektion« verkauft und letztendlich an das neugegründete Königliche Museum vaterländischer Alterthümer im Schlosse Monbijou in Berlin übergeben (Nowakowski 1998: 37–39). Innerhalb des Museumsbestands wurde die „Pisanskische Sammlung“ inventarisiert. So konnte man erfahren, dass sie damals fast hundert Tongefäße und mehrere hundert Gegenstände aus Stein, Horn, Bernstein, Bronze, Eisen und Silber umfasste, die fast aus dem gesamten Zeitraum der Vor- und Frühgeschichte – von der jüngeren Steinzeit bis zum Mittelalter – stammen (Abb. 3). Als besonders wertvoll galten die Funde aus der römischen Kaiserzeit sowie Völkerwanderungszeit, die im ersten veröffentlichten Katalog der Museumssammlung besonders exponiert wurden (vgl. Ledebur 1838: 4–11 Taf. I–II). Glücklicherweise überstand die „Pisanskische Sammlung“ den Zweiten Weltkrieg , was es heute ermöglicht, die enthusiastische Einschätzung aus dem Anfang des 19. Jh. hinsichtlich ihres großen Wertes zu verifizieren. Man muss 16 Über Ignacy Krasicki als einen „ostpreußischen“ Antikenliebhaber und – sammler – vgl. Fa- ensen 2011: 39–43. 170 Die ostpreußischen Sammlungen der »vaterländischen Alterthümer« im 18 Jh. zugeben, dass die ehemalige Angerburger Kollektion dieser Prüfung durchaus standhält: Vorhanden sind nicht nur für Masuren typische Funde, sondern auch zahlreiche Exotica, wie etwa provinzialrömische, auf keltische Traditionen zurückgehende Distel- und Kragenfibeln, für die Vergleichstücke im Rhein- und Oberdonaugebiet zu finden sind. Da man im 18. Jh. den archäologischen Wert dieser Funde nicht einschätzen konnte, ist anzunehmen, dass es sich um tatsächliche ostpreußische Funde und nicht um „Tauschware“ handelt17. Die in der Kollektion Helwings gewurzelte „Pisanskische Sammlung“ ist also bis heute ein Stolz des Berliner Museums für Vor- und Frühgeschichte. Sie bildet gleichzeitig einen der größten Komplexe an vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Funden aus Masuren und weist eindeutig darauf hin, dass das Sammeln der »vaterländischen Alterthümer« aus dem 18. Jh. einen großen Fundstoff schuf, der für die heutigen Archäologen eine wichtige Quelle für Studien und erfolgreiche Forschungen sein kann. bibliographie Abkürzungen: Erleutertes Preußen – Erleutertes Preußen oder Auserlesene Anmerckungen Ueber verschiedene Zur Preußischen Kirchen-, Civil- und Gelehrten Historie gehörige besondere Dinge, Woraus die bißherigen Historischen-Schreiber theils ergäntzet, theils verbessert, Auch viele unbekannte Historischen Warheiten ans Licht gebracht werden; ausgeliefert von Michael Lilienthal 1723–1728 (Bände I–IV) und 1741–1742 (Band V), Königsberg. Literatur: Abramowicz A. 1979. Urny i ceraunie. Acta Archaeologica Lodziensia, Łódź: Łódzkie Towarzystwo Naukowe, 27, 7–168. Abramowicz A. 1989. Jerzy Andrzej Helwing jako archeolog. Rocznik Olsztyński, 16, 49–64. Almgren O. 1923. Studien über nordeuropäische Fibelformen der ersten nachchristlichen Jahrhunderte mit Berücksichtigung der provinzialrömischen und südrussischen Formen. Leipzig: Verlag von Cuzt Kabitzsch. Mannus–Bibliothek, 32. Bayer T.S. 1722. Theophili Sigefride Bayeri, Regiomontani, de Numis Romanis in Agro Prussico repertis, commentarius in quo tum numi ipsi ilustrantur, tum allia ex romana et prussica antiquitate traduntur. Lipsiae: Apud Joh. Friderici Gleditschii B. Fil. 17 Mehr dazu: Nowakowski 1999. 171 Wojciech Nowakowski Bayer T.S. 1723. Theophili Sigefride Bayeri, Regiomontani, de Numo Rodio in agro Sambiensi reperto Dissertatio in qua simul quaedam nuper de numis Romanis in agro repretis cogitata retractantur. Regiomonti: Apud Hallervordii heredes. Bayer T.S. 1723. Von denen in Preussen gefundenen Römischen Münzen. In: Erleutertes Preußen, 1(6), vol. 20, pp. 417–447. Bock F.S. [1783]. Versuch einer wirtschaftlichen Naturgeschichte von dem Königreich Ost- und Westpreußen, Bd. 2. Dessau: Auf Kosten der Verlagskasse. Bolin S. 1926. Die Funde römischer und byzantinischer Münzen in Ostpreußen. Prussia. Zeitschrift für Heimatkunde und Heimatschutz, 26, 203–240. Bursche A. 1992. Roman Coinage in the Westbalt Circle. In: Barbaricum, Bd. 2, Studien zur Archäologie der barbarischen Völker aus der Ostseeküste und aus dem Weichselgebiet. Warschau: Universität Warschau, Institut für Archäologie, pp. 231–244. Chmielewski S. 1963 (1965). Czy pruski grób ciałopalny z XV wieku? (Próba interpretacji opisu znaleziska z 1703 r.). Rocznik Olsztyński, 5, 295–320. Drigalski P. 1726. Merckwürdigkeiten des Kuttischen Kirchspiels. In: Erleutertes Preußen Oder Auserlesene Anmerckungen, 4(37), vol. 4, pp. 75–78. Faensen B. 2011. Antikensammlung in Ostpreußen. [Möhnesee]: Bibliopolis. Fischer Chr.G. 1715. Anderer Versuch Vor Die Historie Des Unterirdischen Preußens, Oder: Deutliche Fragen von Preußischen Erden, Steinen, Metallen und ausgegrabenen Antiquitäten, Welche Auf Veranlassung Einiger Hohe Vöhnner und Förderer kürzlich entwerffen, und Allen Curieusen Liebhabern unsers Vaterlandes zur beliebten Beantwortung mittheilen wolle, M. Christianus Gabriel Fischer. Prof. Phys. Extraord. Königsberg: Reußner. Godłowski K. 1970. The Chronology of the Late Roman and Early Migration Periods in Central Europe. Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prace Archeologiczne, 217/11, Kraków: Uniwersytet Jagielloński. Helwing G.A. 1717. M. Georgii Andreæ Helwings, Pastoris Angerburg. & Reg. Scient. Societ. Berolini Membri, Lithographia Angerburgica, sive Lapidium et Fossilium, in Districtu Angerburgensi & eius vicina, ad trium vel quatuor milliarium spatiam, In Montibus, Agris, Arenofodinis & in primis circa lacuum littora & fluviorum ripas, collectorum brevis & succincta, Consideratio Additis rariorum aliquot figuris æri incisis, cum Præfatione Autoris & Indicibus necessaris. Regiomonti: Literis Johannis Stelteri. Kolendo J. 1998. Świat antyczny i barbarzyńcy. Teksty, zabytki, refleksja nad przeszłością, t. 2. Warszawa: Instytut Archeologii Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego. Kolendo J. 1999. Urna z „medalami rzymskimi” znaleziona niedaleko Reszla. Komentarz archeologiczny do korespondencji Ignacego Krasickiego z królem Stanisławem Augustem Poniatowskim. In: M.J. Hoffmann, J. Sobieraj (Hrsg.). Archeologia ziem pruskich. Nieznane zbiory i materiały archiwalne. Olsztyn: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich Oddział w Olsztynie, pp. 15–22. 172 Die ostpreußischen Sammlungen der »vaterländischen Alterthümer« im 18 Jh. Lawrynowicz K. [1999]. Albertina. Zur Geschichte der Albertus-Universität zu Königsberg in Preußen. Berlin: Duncker und Humblot. Abhandlungen des Göttinger Arbeitskreises, 13. Ledebur L. von 1838. Das Königliche Museum vaterländischer Alterthümer im Schlosse Monbijou zu Berlin, Berlin: Königliche Akademie der Wissenschaften. Nowakowski W. 1998. Die Funde der römischen Kaiserzeit und der Völkerwanderungszeit aus Masuren. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin. Bestandkataloge des Museums für Vor- und Frühgeschichte, 6. Nowakowski W. 1999. Cimelia ze zbiorów pastora Jakuba Ludwika Pisanskiego – czy rzeczywiście z Mazur? In: M.J. Hoffmann, J. Sobieraj (Hrsg.). Archeologia ziem pruskich. Nieznane zbiory i materiały archiwalne, Olsztyn: Stowarzyszenie Naukowe Archeologów Polskich Oddział w Olsztynie, pp. 329–337. Nowakowski W. 2004. »Die Entdeckung der Grab-Huegel gereicht einem Lande […] zur besondern Ehre«. Die Archäologie in der Königsberger Literatur des 18. Jahrhunderts. In: Walter A.E. (Hrsg.). Königsberger Buch- und Bibliotheksgeschichte. Köln [Böhlau Verlag GmbH & Cie, Ursulaplatz 1, D-50668 Köln], pp. 615–628. Porcius G. 1724. Nachrichten von der Kirche zu Engelstein. In: Erleutertes Preußen, 2(15), vol. 11, pp. 230–234. Porsch H. 1724. Wahrscheinliche Untersuchung des Alterthums der Stadt Heiligenbeil in Preußen. In: Erleutertes Preußen, 2(14), vol. 5, pp. 123–140. Reimer Chr. 1723. Entdeckung eines alten Preußischen Grab-Hügels. In: Erleutertes Preußen, 1(10), vol. 37, pp. 782–786. Reusch Chr.Fr. 1724. De tumulis et urnis sepulcralibus in Prussia. Ex Amplissimi Philosophorum Ordinis Decreto pro Receptione in Facultatem Philos. disserant M. Christianus Fridericus Reusch. Regiomonti: [Nabu Press]. Reusch Chr.Fr. 1725. Nachricht von Preußischen Grab-Hügeln und Aschen-Töpfe. In: Erleutertes Preußen, 3(32), vol. 17, pp. 539–582. Reusch Chr.Fr. 1726. Kurze Anmerckung über die in Preußen entdeckte Grab-Hügel und daraus gehobene Asch-Töpffe. In: Erleutertes Preußen, 4/38, vol. 5, pp. 79–143. Riedel J. 1726. Historische Beschreibung des Sorquittischen Kirchspiels. In: Erleutertes Preußen, 4(39), vol. 8, pp. 185–219. Rohde J.J. 1725a. Kurze Beschreibung des neulich zu Breitenstein entdeckten GrabHügels, und derer damahls zugleich gefundenen Preußischen Alterthümer. In: Erleutertes Preußen, 3(10), vol. 12, pp. 399–425. Rohde J.J. 1725b. Die in Breitenstein jüngst entdeckten und mit allerhand curieusen Alterthuemern angefuellte Grab-Huegel kuerzlich beschrieben von Jo. Jac. Rohden. Koenigsberg: Reußnerische Schrifften. Toeppen M. 1870. Geschichte Masurens. Ein Beitrag zur preußischen Lands- und Kulturgeschichte. Danzig: Theodor Bertling Zapolska A. 2009. Roman Denarii in the Bogaczewo and Sudovian Cultures. Polish Numsmatic News, 8, 139–165. 173 Wojciech Nowakowski Abbildungen: Abb. 1. Die Titelseite von Lithographia Angerburgica und die Tafel mit den vor- und frühgeschichtlichen Funden (Helwing 1717: Taf. X) Abb. 2. Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Funde aus der Sammlung im Hof Breitenstein (Rohde 1725a: Taf. I–II). Abb. 3. Vor- und frühgeschichtliche Funde aus der „Pisanskischen Sammlung“ im Königlichen Museum vaterländischer Alterthümer im Schlosse Monbijou in Berlin (Ledebur 1838: Taf. I–II). Fig. 1 Die ostpreußischen Sammlungen der »vaterländischen Alterthümer« im 18 Jh. 175 Fig. 2 Wojciech Nowakowski 176 Die ostpreußischen Sammlungen der »vaterländischen Alterthümer« im 18 Jh. Fig. 3a 177 Wojciech Nowakowski Fig. 3b 178 https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.08 Serena D’Amico (Università degli Studi di Catania) united by Context, diVided by ColleCtion The nineteenth Century Collecting of Prehistoric Artifacts from villafrati (sicily, italy) Abstract In the historical framework of the newly unified Italy (1861), in parallel with the collection of the classical age materials, paleoethnological collections came to be defined following different dynamics of formation. Compared to the former, which traditionally occupied the field of the humanities, prehistoric artefacts struggled to be included among the sciences of antiquity, finding their place among the natural sciences instead. Particularly, natural caves proved to be exceptional archaeological contexts offering much more scientific data than the open-air sites about the definition of the most ancient history of Man and, for this reason, privileged places for the recovery of artifacts. The article aims to present the collecting history of the prehistoric materials coming from the caves of Mount Chiarastella, whose collection and formation practices fit into the framework of the Sicilian collecting history of the second half of the 19th century. Many actors were involved as well as purposes for the recovery of the artifacts, a fact that has led to an inevitable consequence, the dispersion of the artifacts in three public museums and the loss of their traces among private collections. Nevertheless, the multidisciplinary approach adopted in the research has made it possible to overcome the problems linked mainly to the lack of documentary sources, allowing the reconstruction of the entire history of research on the site, as well as the first faithful reading of the original archaeological context. Keywords: collecting, Prehistory, 19th century, caves, Sicily 179 Serena D’Amico introduCtion The contents of the research presented here are the result of a deviation in the study path of artefacts from the funerary caves of Mount Chiarastella. The preliminary scientific assumption was indeed to reconstruct the archaeological context of the well-known Villafrati’s Bell Beaker, but the lack of documentary sources oriented the research from its earliest stages towards the reconstitution of the 19th century collecting events related to it. Although it is the methodological practice of archaeology per se to focus on the broad life cycle of artefacts from production to post-depositional transformations, the biological metaphor of artefacts does not end with their recovery, it rather continues in other contexts without their fate can be considered ended. the originAL Context Located inland from Palermo, about 15 km from the coast and along the northsouth road axis linking the cities of Palermo and Agrigento (Fig. 1), the site of Villafrati entered into the archaeological literature in the 1860s thanks to the discovery of the above-mentioned Bell-Beaker (Fig. 2), a particular type of clay artefact, which is part of the delicate transition period from the Final Eneolithic to the Early Bronze Age, still much debated in the scientific world in terms of meaning and function. It was among the first discovered on the island, but it immediately seemed to have those distinctive features that were similarly emerging in the rest of Europe and that led Émile Carthailhac to coin the first definition of vase caliciforme in 1876. Mount Chiarastella is a dolomitic limestone rock rising 668 metres above sea level in the Milicia River Valley.1 One of the many geological factors that make it peculiar is the presence of several karst cavities on the north, north-east 1 The elevation lies within the “Cefalà Diana Baths and Mount Chiarastella Natural Reserve”, set up on 20 November 1997 to protect the fragile fauna and flora (there are as many as six habitats), especially the thermophilic algae in the thermal water ducts, and the underground hydrogeological system consisting of a hot thermal water spring, which gushes out at a temperature of about 35.8–38⁰C. The area is also subject to archaeological constraint to protect the caves, the indigenous Hellenised settlement and the Arab-Norman settlement that includes the remains of the castle and the ‘Cefalà Diana Baths’. 180 United by Context, Divided by Collection … and south-east slopes. Although there are many other caves, modern sources mention only three, the Porcospina, the Buffa I and the Buffa II, which, judging by the evidence of material culture found in them, were used from the end of the Copper Age (2700–2300 BC) to the late Antique period (5th–6th century AD). The frequentation of the mountain and the surrounding area continued in alternate phases even in later centuries, as can be seen from the presence of the Islamic baths, the ruins of the 11th–12th-century castle and the 16th-century farm, located respectively at the north-western feet, on the summit and on the northern side of the hill. The only archaeological investigations, however, have focused on the caves and that is where the collecting has started. history of reseArCh And formAtion of the CoLLeCtions The first group of materials must have been discovered by chance by one of the members of the Filangeri family or, probably, by some peasants working on their estate. Indeed, Mount Chiarastella was part of the “Villafrate” barony, one of the numerous properties of the noble family of Norman descent. Whoever made the discovery, what is certain is that in 1864 Giuseppe Antonio Lanza Filangeri, Baron of Villafrati, Prince of Mirto and Count of San Marco, donated some prehistoric artefacts found into the Porcospino Cave to the Royal Museum of Antiquities and Fine Arts of Palermo (Salinas 1873: 31–32; De Gregorio 1917: 109; Bovio Marconi 1944: 89; Bovio Marconi 1962: 6–7) 2. Once they had been brought to the attention of the President of the Commission of Antiquities and Fine Arts of Palermo, Francesco Di Giovanni, he immediately recognised their prehistoric nature and their scientific potential for more general considerations on the “antiquity of the human race on Earth”. Between 1864 and 1865, he therefore decided to carry out “diligent investigations” in the grottoes, in which a new group of archaeological and anthropological material was recovered. Only a final report on the work carried out by the Commission of Antiquities in Sicily in the years 1863–1865 is preserved (Di Giovanni 2 “In 1864, the Royal Museum of Palermo received as a gift from the Prince of Mirto some shapeless clay vases, hand-worked, without the aid of a wheel, and not fired in the kiln, which had been found in the caves of the Chiaristella hill to the north of Villafrati” (Di Giovanni 1866: 30, 31). 181 Serena D’Amico 1866: 31), but there is no documentation about the finds, topographical references or the state of the site at the time of their discovery. However, there is a reason to believe that the research was concentrated inside the Porcospino cave, the very place of provenance of the Mirto Collection materials. It was at the end of the first excavation campaign that Francesco Di Giovanni, Giovanni d'Ondes Reggio (Director of the National Museum of Antiquities and Fine Arts) and Gaetano Giorgio Gemmellaro (Professor of Geology and Mineralogy at the Faculty of Physical and Mathematical Sciences at the University of Palermo) visited the site of Mount Chiarastella on 28 and 29 December 18653. The shortness of the trip suggests that it was a reconnaissance trip, most likely conducted for showing the site to Professor Gemmellaro, who in those years, from 1865 to 1868, was busy searching for Pleistocene mammal bones (especially elephants and hippopotamuses) in several caves around Palermo. The caves of Mount Chiarastella must have been of some interest, as in the following years he undertook several excavation campaigns in the Porcospino cave. However, his essays, which already rarely engaged in literary speculation reducing themselves mostly to long and plain lists of finds, include neither diaries nor excavation reports. Nevertheless, a small group of ceramic and osteological material was recovered, generating a third set of collections. The 19th-century period of archaeological investigations at Mount Chiarastella ended with Baron Ferdinand Von Andrian-Werburg's excavation of the Buffa II cave. A geologist in the service of the Austrian Crown and co-founder of the Vienna Geographical Society and the Vienna Anthropological Society, he came to Sicily with the intention of clarifying the dynamics of the appearance of man on the island. In effect, since the beginning of the 19th century Sicily was a point of reference for geologists and naturalists from all over Europe interested in acquiring both scientific data and finds to increase their national collections. The most popular scientific themes on the continent in that period insisted on reconstructing the technological advances of the ‘ancient inhabitants’. Austrian scholars, in particular, were especially interested in investigating the supposed relationships between the chipped stone tools and the existence of large mammals (Cultraro 2014: 317–318). 3 The mission is known thanks to a document belonging to the Archival Fond of the Regional Archaeological Museum “Antonio Salinas” (n.682. File “Villafrati 1866–1874”). It is a request for reimbursement of expenses incurred during the visit to the site of Mount Chiarastella; it is dated 9 January 1866, signed by the Museum Director Giovanni d’Ontes Reggio and addressed to the new President of the Antiquities Commission Francesco Paolo Perez. 182 United by Context, Divided by Collection … The debate was not new, rather it was part of the branch of studies concerning Sicilian palaeontology, begun by Francesco Minà Palumbo (1869), but a summary was still lacking. Baron von Andrian's stay on the island lasted a year (1876–1877), facilitated by the kind hospitality of several members of the island’s noble and aristocracy, including Prof. Gemmellaro and the Prince of Mirto (Andrian-Werburg 1878: 1). The Baron knew about the caves of Mount Chiarastella by viewing the collections of both museums in Palermo and through “friendly communications with Mr Gemmellaro” (Andrian-Werburg 1878: 36). Carried out between the summer and autumn of 1876, the research at the Buffa II cave represented one of his most successful activities on the island, together with those carried out on the Syracuse coast, a sort of “methodological laboratory” that allowed him to experience the scientific benefits of a multidisciplinary approach4. However, as he was at the same time occupied with the exploration of other caves in the Palermo area, the conduction of the excavations was assigned to Domenico Reina, an employee of the Cabinet of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy at the University of Palermo. That means that the information about the cave contained in his work Prähistorische Studien aus Sicilien, despite their great detail, provide “second-hand” results, therefore less reliable5. Baron Von Andrian’s return to his homeland put an end to the season of archaeological research at Mount Chiarastella, which in the following century was only affected by brief explorations on the other slopes and on the summit for different research purposes. 4 5 Although through the whole 19th century archaeological activities in Europe were mainly limited to the recovery of objects and the highlighting of buildings, the same century saw the natural sciences develop the laws of superposition and faunal succession, which were crucial in defining the method of geological and then archaeological excavation. At Villafrati, Von Andrian was able not only to apply the most modern research methods of the time by relating, in terms of stratigraphic succession and anthropic processes, the presence of large mammals to the chipped stone industry, but also by making use of the specialised knowledge of the anatomist Emile Zuckerkandl and the observations on faunal remains by Friedrich Joseph Teller. They were the result of descriptions by Domenico Reina, the field guards serving the Prince of Mirto and Prof. Gemmellaro (Andrian-Werburg 1878: 36). 183 Serena D’Amico the soCioeConomiC sCenArio in siCiLy in the seCond hALf of the 19th Century With the proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy in March 1861 with Turin as the capital, the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was abolished, feudalism was formally ended and Sicily became part of a new nation under the reign of Victor Emmanuel II. However, the long-awaited autonomy under the new nation translated into the annexation of Sicily to the legislative, administrative and bureaucratic apparatus of Piedmont, which did not take account of local conditions. This opened a deep rift between the new Italian State and the Sicilian people, fuelled by the economic crisis and the tightening of the tax system, which favoured the birth and growth of criminal phenomena such as the Mafia and banditry. Added to that, there were inadequate infrastructure, illiteracy, language difficulties, malaria, infant mortality and a high rate of emigration. It is certain that in the years after the Unification, Sicilians did not feel Italian and rejected the innovations of the new government. The central power reacted to their dissatisfaction by carrying out, on the one hand, several military repressions and, on the other hand, by sending officials to the island (prefects, subprefects, police chiefs, headmasters, teachers) with the specific task of ‘civilising’ the communities, perceived as barbaric and underdeveloped (Militello 2019: 181). The Risorgimento in Sicily also started a process of modernisation (construction of the first railway lines on the island, strengthening of maritime and road links, communication services such as the post office, start of the first investments in the industrial sector of sulphur refining and salt extraction), but it was not enough to counterbalance the difficult situation. Among the many problems the new Italian state had to deal with there were those related to cultural heritage. In the slow process that led to the creation of a national archaeological system, three main issues were discussed at length: the model for teaching archaeology in the Italian educational system, the management of the archaeological and historical-artistic heritage of the united regions, and the definition of the legal status of archaeological finds and sites. On this latter point in particular, there were already conflicting opinions in the aftermath of the proclamation of the Kingdom of Italy: on the one hand there were supporters of the freedom to hold, export and sell cultural goods, on the other, supporters of the inalienability of cultural goods belonging to the Nation. A first real law protecting cultural heritage actually arrived only in the June of 1902 (enforced since 1909) on the basis of which the most important cultural 184 United by Context, Divided by Collection … goods had to be catalogued and their exports forbidden if they caused great damage to artistic property and history6. This difficulty in reconciling liberal ideology with public interest led, in the forty years between the Unification of Italy and the law of 1902/09, to the adoption of episodic temporary or emergency provisions, such as the expropriation of monuments of private property if they were left in ruins due to neglect (law no. 2359 of 1865) or the alienation of ‘works of art’ and antiquities for the exclusive benefit of the State (law no. 1461 of 1883). Given the lack of a clear, definitive and national law to protect cultural heritage, the Commission of Antiquities and Fine Arts attempted to protect its own heritage by not granting authorisations and study permits, especially to foreigners; the rest was handled by the guardians of the island's museums with imaginative obstructionist solutions7. When the Commission was set up in 1827, it was precisely to prevent any repetition of episodes such as that of William Harris and Samuel Angel at Selinunte, who attempted to transfer the metopes of Temple C to the British Museum. In the philosophical and scientific field, the Unification was achieved through the massive spread of Positivism, which conceptually united Italians from all regions and provinces, whether moderate or progressive. Positivism represented the culture of the bourgeoisie, firmly installed in the power of the new State, but also of the Sicilian nobility, who perceived the decline and aimed at new forms of survival, protecting their authority and at the same time contributing to the construction of a new citizenship made up of shared ideals. Numerous illustrious figures became active protagonists of change in Sicilian institutions and culture; many of them had the opportunity to study and work in the most important European capitals: one thinks of Francesco Saverio Cavallari and his Arabist friend Michele Amari, who shared an unshakeable revolutionary and anti-Bourbon creed; of equal depth and civil passion were the disruptive modernist and liberal approaches of the archaeologists Antonio Salinas and Paolo Orsi. Even some Sicilian antiquarians, such as Barons Corrado and Ippolito Cafici, had international standing. No less important were the 6 7 The Nasi Law of 12 June 1902 no. 185 later modified and formalised by Law no. 364 of 20 June 1909 (Rosadi-Rava Law) on the inalienability of Antiquities and Fine Arts (G.U. 28 June 1909, no. 150). An exemplary case of the difficulties encountered by foreigners in order to gain access to the study of materials in Sicilian museums is that experienced by the German archaeologist Otto Benndorf, in the company of his colleagues Richard Schöne and Eugen Bormann, on their brief trip to Sicily in 1867, reported with great lucidity in Szemethy, Militello 2019. 185 Serena D’Amico Sicilian scholars who worked in the field of natural sciences, including Gaetano Giorgio Gemmellaro, Francesco Anca, Francesco Minà-Palumbo, Filippo Parlatore, Francesco Tornabene, Nicolò Pietro Calcara, Enrico Pirajno di Mandralisca and many others. the 19th-Century CoLLeCtions The “Mirto gifts” In addition to the lack of knowledge about who discovered the prehistoric site of Mount Chiarastella, it is also unknown how long the artefacts remained in the Filangeri family collection before being donated to the National Museum (exReal Museum of Antiquities and Fine Arts) of Palermo. The possible hypotheses for this are: 1) the vessels were discovered in 1864 and shortly afterwards given to the museum; 2) the vessels were added to the Filangeri family's private collection between 1694 and 18638, and only in 1864 they were made part of the museum's collection. In the second case, it is likely that the materials were brought to the city in the historical residence of Palazzo Mirto in Palermo to be displayed in the showcases of one of the large, elegant rooms on the first floor; indeed, this was the noble floor where the official ceremonies and festivities that marked noble life took place, exalting the indisputable prestige of the family and reiterating membership to an exclusive class. However, it is not excluded a priori that these archaeological materials may have remained in the small rural settlement of Villafrati within the baronial residence built in the first half of the 18th century by Vincenzo Filangeri Cottone, used mainly for administering business and hunting parties. However, some more fragmentary or less representative prehistoric vases from the caves of Mount Chiarastella had to remain in the family collection, at least until 19179. 8 9 The purchase of the Farmhouse ‘de Villafrades’ by the doctor Don Vincenzo Spuches dates back to 1596. In 1694, his daughter Francesca De Spuches married Don Pietro Filangeri, beginning a dynasty that survived until 1982 (Oddo 1986: 19–24). “Many objects I believe the Prince of Mirto also has” (De Gregorio 1917: 109); “The Count of S. Marco and Prince of Mirto [Ignazio Lanza Filangeri] has a few and various archaeological objects in his palace and some prehistoric ones […]. The Count of S. Marco and Prince of Mirto [Ignazio Lanza Filangeri] possesses in his palace a few and varied archaeological 186 United by Context, Divided by Collection … The “Mirto gifts” constituted the first entirely prehistoric collection of the National Museum of Palermo, which at that time still included few other core collections: the “Salnitriana” of the Jesuits, the “Martiniana” of the Benedictine Fathers of Palermo, and the “Astuto” of Noto10. The artefacts were physically brought to the Museum of the Royal University of Palermo, located in the former House of the Theatine Fathers of San Giuseppe in Maqueda Street. It occupied two exhibition halls on the ground floor; in other rooms of the same building, locked in crates, the rest of the material was stored.11 At the current state of research there is no documentary source that clarifies whether the Mirto collection was exhibited or temporarily kept in the warehouses. Even the precise amount of the donation is not known; however, among the inventory folders from the 1940s compiled by Jole Bovio Marconi, Director of the Museum, three of them have an annotation written in pencil: “Mirto gifts”12. Matching research between the current inventory and the one from the 1940s has isolated three vases: a small globular cup and two globular jugs. However, the idea that only three vases were donated seems unconvincing; it is likely, rather, that the research she carried out at the Museum's Historical Archives could not fill all the gaps and that, prudently, she wrote “Mirto gifts” only on those cards she was certain of13. 10 11 12 13 objects and some of them even prehistoric […] Finally, the Prince possesses a broken vase from the Porcospino Cave of Villafrate, of which I have illustrated in this iconography some much more important and better-preserved artefacts housed in the University of Palermo” (De Gregorio 1917: 154, 155). Some protohistoric artifacts were already present, mainly bronzes, from the ‘Salnitrian’ collection of the Jesuits in Palermo and from the Astuto collection in Noto (Bovio Marconi 1963: 6, 7). “Until 1866, it only occupied two badly organised and dimly lit rooms on the ground floor of the University building, where the objects it owned before the new acquisitions were confused and bundled up. All these objects, still closed in their boxes, were stored in different rooms with the danger of deteriorating or dispersing. Nothing was more urgent, therefore, than the choice of a capacious and suitable room to the need” (Cavallari 1872: 12). Ufficio Catalogo of the Archaeological Regional Museum “Antonio Salinas” of Palermo, “Villafrati” in Bovio Marconi-Museo Nazionale Files (drawer 18 B) and Form 32. The lettering “Mirto gifts” or “Mirto collection” is however inappropriately used, being more correct to call it “Filangeri Collection”. The General Registers of Entry kept in the Museum’s Archival Fund, indeed, date from 1869, so nothing is known about acquisitions between the establishment of the National Museum in 1860 and the creation of the first Register of Entry. 187 Serena D’Amico Research into the Mirto collection has also been carried out inside the historical residence in Palermo, which is still perfectly preserved in terms of layout and furnishings. On the first floor, the so-called “Saletta dei reperti” (Room of the finds) houses ninety-one typologically heterogeneous archaeological finds from the 6th century BC to the Islamic period, whose provenance is known only for a few specimens found on the family's property or purchased on the antiques market. However, none of them is prehistoric or protohistoric, suggesting a specific collecting choice made by the Filangeri family in the 20th century. The Collection of the National Museum of Palermo The “diligent investigations” carried out in the Porcospino Cave between 1864 and 1865 by the Commission of Antiquities and Fine Arts of Palermo led to the creation of a second nucleus of material which also flowed into the National Museum (formerly the Royal Museum of Antiquities and Fine Arts) of Palermo. The findings from Villafrati were still housed in the rooms of the Royal University Museum until 1867, when, following the suppression of the religious orders and the confiscation of the church endowments, the museum was finally moved to the 16th-century house of the Filippini Fathers in the church of S. Ignazio all’Olivella14. Once the work of adapting the building to the museum's needs was completed, all the art objects, antiquities and the Picture Gallery were transferred15. The passage from one seat to the other, however, was not without consequences: a new inventory of the finds was made, which cancelled out the previous one and confused the material recovered during the Commission’s excavations with those of the Mirto Collection16 (Fig. 3). 14 The ecclesiastical complex was confiscated and assigned as museum space by operation of the Law dated 7 July 1866 (De Vido 2001: 744; Pelagatti 2001: 610; Palazzotto 2015: 72). Since its transfer, the museum institution has acquired greater prominence and independence, becoming a reference point for the collection of antiquities not only from the city, but also and mainly from the whole western Sicily. Still today, the former house of the Philippine Fathers is the seat of the Regional Archaeological Museum “Antonio Salinas” of Palermo. 15 The National Museum finally became an archaeological museum only in 1954, when the medieval and modern collections were separated from the archaeological ones, and the 15th-century Palazzo Abatellis, formerly a monastery, was elected as the new seat of the Gallery of Medieval and Modern Art of Sicily, inheriting the Picture Gallery, the prints, the drawings, the Islamic collection and the medieval and Renaissance works of art. 16 This is confirmed by the typological uniformity of the first inventory labels stuck on the vessels’ surfaces. 188 United by Context, Divided by Collection … The fate of Villafrati’s prehistoric collection at the National Museum of Palermo became known a few years later, when the new President of the Commission of Antiquities and Fine Arts, Gaetano Daita, decided to exhibit the most representative finds of Sicilian prehistoric antiquity at the first Italian Exhibition of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology17. The exhibition was held in Bologna in the autumn of 1871 collaterally to the 5th International Congress of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology, which had the merit of showing how, in Italy too, prehistoric archaeology had by now reached a scientific level not inferior to that of other European countries and how the process of national unification had been completed also on a cultural level (Cavani 2008: 204). The importance of this scientific event was confirmed by the participation of the greatest anthropologists, geologists, specialists in prehistoric archaeology, scientists and naturalists from seventeen European and two non-European countries. Among the more than fifty collections on display, representative of all Italian regions, the section of prehistoric antiquities from Sicily was curated by the leading exponents of Sicilian palaeoethnology of the time, the Professor Gemmellaro and the Baron Francesco Anca18. Unfortunately, the exhibition report (Exhibit 1871) does not include the photographic catalogue, so at the present stage of the research it is not possible to identify exactly the individual artifacts that were chosen. The Collection of the Geological Cabinet of Palermo The ceramic and osteological materials recovered from inside the Porcospino cave during the excavations of Professor Gemmellaro between 1865 and 1868 were incorporated into the museum annexed to the Institute of Geology of Palermo, which continued to occupy a large hall on the second floor of the University Palace in Maqueda Street19. 17 “The Commission took care that these very ancient remains [from the caves of the Chi- aristella hill] were included in the Bolognese exhibition of prehistoric antiquities” (Salinas 1873: 32). From the report of the Exposition we know that the artifacts chosen to represent Sicily belonged largely to the Dalla Rosa Collection, made up of objects heterogeneous in material, chronology and origin. The rest of the materials came entirely from the collections of the Archaeological Museum and the Museum of Geology and Mineralogy of Palermo (Exhibit 1871: 13–15, 32, 33). 18 For further information about the contributions given to the discipline by Baron Francesco Anca – see Cultraro 2020. 19 It inherited the collections of the former Cabinet of Natural History of Palermo, which were reorganised and expanded thanks to the clever purchases and frantic field research by 189 Serena D’Amico Research carried out in the storerooms of the present Geological Museum of Palermo has led to the identification of a small corpus of material consisting of three fictile objects (a small jug with painted geometric decoration (Fig. 4a); a small saucepan (Fig. 4b) and an ovoidal achromatic beaker) and a large quantity of human bones belonging to five individuals. All the artifacts have stickers referring to an inventory from 1880, but there is no trace of the entry register for previous years, so it is not clear whether these materials represent only a part or the whole original collection. It is quite likely, however, that the materials from Villafrati kept in the Geological Cabinet of Palermo appeared together with those from the National Museum at the Bologna Exhibition of 1871; several factors lead one to believe this: one of the curators was Gaetano Giorgio Gemmellaro, who was responsible for the excavation that led to their discovery; the jug is one of the very few of all the fictile objects to bear a painted decoration, constituting one of the most diagnostic pieces from the Mount Chiarastella site; among the human osteological materials from the Porcospino cave there are two skulls curiously embedded in the limestone breccia (Fig. 5), index of specific methodological choices of excavation and preservation of the finds20. The Von Andrian Collection At the end of his explorations in Sicily in the winter of 1877, Ferdinand von Andrian returned to Austria with a lot of about 350 pieces (including pottery, lithic and bone industry, not to mention human and animal osteological remains) from all over the island21. Their legal status is not known, but it is quite likely Gaetano Giorgio Gemmellaro. In just a few years, the result was one of the most prestigious geological and paleontological museums in Europe, to the point of being ranked second after the British Museum in London by scholars of the time. It was not until 1970 that the Institute of Geology moved to Corso Tukory 131, which is still the site of the “Giorgio Gemmellaro Geological Museum” of Palermo. 20 A comparable limestone concretion containing ceramic fragments and flints, extracted from a cave on the island of Favignana by Marquis Guido Dalla Rosa, is mentioned in the report on the Italian Exhibition of Prehistoric Anthropology and Archaeology (1871: 14): […] the Jury praised in a particular manner the care taken to dig in such a way that, where possible, the worked flints and pottery sherds from those caves were preserved, at least in part closed in the breccia where they were wrapped, as to maintain intact that seal which confirms with the greatest evidence the antiquity and origin of the objects themselves. 21 In his Prähistorische Studien aus Sicilien, the author himself mentions some pieces of his collection; in 1917 the Marquis Antonio De Gregorio quoted the materials from Monte Chi- 190 United by Context, Divided by Collection … that the collection remained private, although available to the anthropological societies of Vienna and Berlin, on whose behalf the mission was carried out. The same years saw the realisation of Ferdinand von Hochstetter's scientific project of the new Museum of Natural History in Vienna, which included not only the reunification of the great zoological, mineralogical and botanical collections of the Imperial Court assembled between 1851 and 1876, but also the creation of a new department of Anthropology, Ethnography and Prehistory (Feest 1995: 122–126). At different times the artifacts from Villafrati were added to the collections of the newly established museum: the animal remains were added to the already existing zoological collection inherited from the Cabinet of Natural History of Vienna; the osteological material was acquired by the museum in 1890 and ended up in the Anthropology Department (Szilvàssy, Kentner 1978: 32), while the pottery, lithic and bone industry were acquired by the Naturhistorisches Museum only in 1909 and assigned to the Prehistory Department22. The relevance given by Von Andrian to the excavation of Grotta Buffa II can be deduced from the number of illustrative plates he dedicated to it (five out of eight). According to what is reported in his work, the total amount of artifacts from Villafrati would amount to about 60–70 ceramic sherds, 22 stone tools, some chips, three gems and a small amount of faunal remains. However, a count of the materials mentioned in the text suggests that there are many more of them and not only in a fragmentary state of preservation23. The De Gregorio Collection A private collection containing prehistoric artefacts from the caves of Villafrati had to be in possession of Antonio De Gregorio, Marquis of the Royal Park, arastella under the heading “Sicilian prehistoric collections from outside Sicily” in his Iconography (De Gregorio 1917, p. 24); in the 1940s, Bovio Marconi noted that “Objects from Buffa II seem to have been in the possession of von Andrian” (Bovio Marconi 1944: 89). Recent reviews of archival documents and archaeological materials by Veneroso (1994) and Cultraro (2014) conducted at the Naturhistorishes Museum in Vienna finally confirmed the export of these materials to the Austrian capital. 22 The sale took place in a personal capacity; it was indeed the same Baron von Andrian to sell the collection for the sum of 1,700 crowns, 1,300 less than what he had asked for at the beginning of the negotiations (Cultraro 2014: 321). 23 Two almost intact bell beakers for instance are documented in the Historical Archive and the storerooms of the Natural History Museum of Vienna (Veneroso 1994: 475, 476, fig. 8–10; Cultraro 2014: 322, fig. 3). 191 Serena D’Amico Prince of San Teodoro. The illustrious Palermitan geologist and palaeontologist, Professor Gemmellaro's former assistant, acquired the collection in a different way from the others; at the present state of research there are no documents attesting excavations carried out at Monte Chiarastella under his direction. Rather, we must think of donations, friendly exchanges (with Ferdinand von Andrian24 or Giorgio Gemmellaro), or purchases on the Sicilian antiquities market. Notes on the existence of the De Gregorio collection can be found in his Iconografia delle collezioni preistoriche della Sicilia (De Gregorio 1917)25. Here, Mount Chiarastella is mentioned in four sections, which are of fundamental importance to the reconstruction of the original collection nuclei today: – Section “Prehistoric collections of the National Museum of Palermo,” within which we find the entry “Palaeolithic remains of Chiarastella (Villafrate)”. (Tables XXVII and XXVIII) – Section “Prehistoric collections of the Royal University of Palermo” [Geological Museum] and within it “Palaeolithic clays of the Porcospino cave of Villafrate” (Table LV) – Section “Collections of the Prince of Mirto in Palermo” – Section “Prehistoric collections from outside Sicily” In the work, the most representative artefacts are described and illustrated, both operations done by observing the materials from the showcases of the National Museum26; unfortunately, there is no graphic representation of those in his possession. While the palaeontological collection was donated by his son Camillo De Gregorio to the Royal Geological Cabinet of Palermo in the years immediately following the marquis's death, the De Gregorio archaeological collection con24 “I remember vividly that around 1876 Baron von Andrian came to Sicily with his wife (daugh- ter of the famous author of Robert the Devil). I was then in the Geology Department as assistant of Professor Gemmellaro together with Professor Di Blasi. The foreign scientist, who was kindly received, came to the University for several days with his wife; he sat next to me in the Museum lecture room, precisely next to the first window on the right as you enter. He wrote part of his work (Pràhistorische Studien) here, drawing himself the fossil remains he had collected in various parts of the island ” (De Gregorio 1917: 62) 25 “I also possess some objects from the same locality”; “I also have a few specimens” (De Gregorio 1917: 47); […] I own some material from Chiaristella in my cabinet; I have other pieces in my private cabinet (De Gregorio 1917: 67). 26 Looking at them from such a distance inside the cabinet, where they are located, it is not easy to evaluate […]. (De Gregorio 1917: 47). 192 United by Context, Divided by Collection … tinues to be owned by the family, kept at Palazzo De Gregorio al Molo in Palermo, still the residence of the heirs. The collection currently consists of 892 artefacts, heterogeneous in type and origin, covering a chronological span from Prehistory to the Middle Ages27. Research carried out in the halls of the piano nobile did not reveal the presence of any prehistoric material, but since the death of the Marquis in 1930, most of the finds were deposited in the attic and it is there that the artefacts from Villafrati are most likely to be stored. ConsiderAtions The remains from the caves of Mount Chiarastella are therefore traceable in three archaeological collections today: 1) Collection of the Regional Archaeological Museum “Antonio Salinas” in Palermo, containing pottery and lithic tools from the Mirto/Filangeri donation and the excavations by the Commission of Antiquities. 2) Collection of the Gemmellaro Geological Museum in Palermo, containing pottery and human remains from the excavations conducted by Professor Gemmellaro. 3) Collection of the Naturhistorisches Museum in Vienna, containing pottery, lithic tools, human and faunal remains from the Von Andrian mission in Sicily. In all three cases, these collections are public, although they were made up of initially private nuclei (the Mirto and Von Andrian collections) which then changed their legal status once they were acquired by the national museums. Instead, there is no tangible evidence of the De Gregorio and Mirto prehistoric collections from Villafrati kept in the family's possession, remaining only attested in the documentary sources (De Gregorio 1917: 47, 67, 109, 154, 155). At this point, it is necessary to consider the reasons behind this dispersal, which are largely to be ascribed to the socio-political conditions in which collectors and institutions of the time operated. The donation made by Giuseppe Antonio Lanza Filangeri to the National Museum of Palermo can be explained by his desire to make a personal contribution to the cultural formation of the country, following in the footsteps 27 For an early catalogue of the De Gregorio collection – see Aleo Nero, Ferruzza 1997. 193 Serena D’Amico of many other illustrious exponents of the nascent entrepreneurial bourgeoisie and of the cultured and refined aristocracy, who saw in the Unification a hope of change and social affirmation28; other factors, however, may have been added to this main reason, such as family circumstances29 or friendly relationships. The dynamics that led the finds recovered by the Commission of Antiquities and Professor Gemmellaro to end up respectively in the National Museum and the Cabinet of Natural History of Palermo are, on the other hand, inherent in the nature of the research activities and of the public places designated for the conservation of the materials. Anyway, it is odd that the only three clay artefacts housed in the Geological Museum were not transferred to the Archaeological Museum, as already pointed out in the 1940s by the former director, later Superintendent of Western Sicily Jole Bovio Marconi30. It means that the historical nature of the collection, rather than the archaeological character of the artefacts, have prevailed in the museum choices. The reasons behind Ferdinand von Andrian's expedition to Sicily are different, although always of a scientific nature. Taking into account the aims pursued and the way in which the trip was carried out, it is possible to classify the mission within the erudite-naturalistic typology: the Baron was in fact motivated by a strong palethnological curiosity that resulted in the drafting of a technical report of the data acquired, shared with colleagues and incorporated into the work Prähistorische Studien aus Sicilien. The mission could be considered a joint one, since in the year of his departure he was a member of the board of both the Vienna and Berlin Societies of Anthropology, Ethnology and Prehistory. It is likely that he undertook this expedition on behalf of both, in the name of renewed scientific collaboration and friendship between them: the archaeological materials in fact remained in Vienna, but the work was published in the Berlin journal Zeitschrift für Ethnologie. Whether the real intention of his trip was to increase the collections of the Natural History Museum in Vienna cannot be stated, since the pieces were acquired by the museum only in 1909, but it could be closer to the truth if we refer 28 It does not seem, however, that the Filangeri family have been affected in a determining way by the change of government. Despite the abolition of feudalism, as a matter of fact, the members of the family were indeed able to integrate into the municipal administration continuing to manage their properties. 29 In 1864, the same year as the donation, Donna Vittoria Filangeri, the mother of Giuseppe Antonio, died. 30 “[…] and it is regrettable that the material at least of the Porcospina is not all at the Museum” (Bovio Marconi 1944: 89). 194 United by Context, Divided by Collection … to the collections of the Anthropological Society of Vienna. It is then unclear whether the Baron negotiated the sale with the Naturhistorisches Museum as the owner of the collection or as the legal representative of the Vienna Anthropological Society. As for the fact that the Baron succeeded in taking the artefacts out from Italy, in legislative terms there was not yet a law establishing the inalienability of the nation's Antiquities and Fine Arts, which would only come about thirty-one years later (Law No. 364 of 20 June 1909). From this point of view, it is questionable whether it is a coincidence that the Von Andrian collection was sold to the museum of Vienna in the same year that this law was passed. A further oddity occurs in the way Von Andrian mentions in his work the artefacts he brought with himself to Vienna. In effect, in the illustrative tables he chose to represent, with the sole exception of four ceramic fragments, all the materials from the National Museum's collection of Palermo; on the other hand, it is known that he took with him at least two other almost intact bell beakers (Veneroso 1994: 475, fig. 8; 476, fig. 10; Cultraro 2014: 322, fig. 3). A similar tendency can be read between the lines of the work of Marquis Antonio De Gregorio, who, despite being more explicit than Von Andrian in claiming the possession of artefacts from Villafrati, in Tables XXVII, XXVII and LV he limited his depiction to those kept in the National Museum and in the Geology Cabinet of Palermo31. An explanation for these omissions is in part provided by the authors themselves, who found in the better state of conservation of the archaeological remains housed in the Palermo museums the motivation for such a graphic choice, only referring in the text to the typological similarities of these materials with those in their possession32. Although these reasons may be considered realistic, it is also assumed that the omission of the real extent of these collections might be a veiled attempt to protect them from possible expropriation by the State, especially at such a delicate time as that following the Unification, which was animated by the heated debate on the fate of public and private Cultural Heritage. 31 De Gregorio (1917: 154, 155): […] Porcospino cave of Villafrate about which I have illustrat- ed in this Iconografia some much more important and better-preserved artifacts belonging to the University of Palermo. 32 Andrian-Werburg (1878: 38): […] the collections preserved in Palermo, considerably richer in well-preserved clay remains; Idem (1878: 40): The Buffa II, provided the same forms as those of the Porcospina Cave. 195 Serena D’Amico ConCLusions This physical separation has inevitably resulted in the impairment of the archaeological evaluation and the distorted reading of the context. This research must be considered as a preliminary to the achievement of a broader aim, the creation of a digital catalogue bringing together the various collections from the caves of Mount Chiarastella. The case study of the prehistoric collections of Villafrati has shown how fruitful the research can be if it is carried out from a multidisciplinary perspective. In the absence of excavation reports and other technical-scientific documentation functional to the reconstruction of the original archaeological contexts, in fact, the overall revision of the published bibliography, consultation of the archival documentation, photographic and cartographic material (historical and modern), a new translation of Baron von Andrian's work, the study of artefacts, inventories and repeated surveys in the site have allowed the definition of the collecting events, which has become a method allowing the reconstruction of the history of studies and excavations at the site. From the combination of the data obtained, a rather complex archaeological picture emerges, which requires a new reinterpretation of the use of caves in a diachronic key and of the Bell Beaker phenomenon in the area in question, and which could contribute to shed new light on the understanding of Sicilian Prehistory. Bibliography Andrian-Werburg F. von. 1878. Prähistorische Studien aus Sicilien. [Vienna: s.n.]. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, Bd. 10. Aleo Nero C., Ferruzza M.L. 1997. La collezione archeologica del marchese Antonio De Gregorio. In: Archeologia e Territorio. Palermo: G.B. Palumbro, pp. 417–445. Amico V. 1859. Villafrate. In: Dizionario topografico della Sicilia, vol. 2. Palermo: P. Morvillo. Avellone G. et al. 2007. Aspetti geologici e geomorfologici dell’area di Pizzo Chiarastella (Sicilia settentrionale). In: Atti del 2° Seminario Internazionale di Studi su: Il Carsismo negli Iblei e nell’Area sud-Mediterranea (Ragusa 28–30 Maggio 2004). Ragusa: Centro ibleo di ricerche speleo-idrologiche, pp. 237–246. Speleologia Iblea, 12. Bagnera A., Nef A. 2018. I bagni di Cefalà (secoli X–XIX). Pratiche termali d’origine islamica nella Sicilia Medievale. Roma: École française de Rome. Collection de l'Ecole française de Rome, 538. 196 United by Context, Divided by Collection … Bagnera A. 2000. Le cosiddette ‘Terme arabe’ di Cefalà Diana (Palermo): Relazione preliminare sulle indagini archeologiche. In: Atti I, Terze Giornate Internazionali di Studi sull’Area Elima (Gibellina, Erice, Contessa Entellina 23–26 ottobre 1997). Pisa–Gibellina: [s.n.]. Battaglia G. 2014a. Contestualizzazione delle grotte nell’Archeologia del Paesaggio della Provincia di Palermo. Prospettive di ricerca. In: D. Gullì (a cura di). From cave to dolmen. Ritual and symbolic aspects in the prehistory between Sciacca, Sicily and the central Mediterranean. Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology. https://doi. org/10.2307/j.ctvqmp11h.17. Battaglia G. 2014b. La preistoria e la protostoria in provincia di Palermo. In: S. Vassallo (a cura di). Archeologia: la storia: dalla Preistoria al Medioevo. Palermo: Regione Siciliana, Assessorato dei Beni culturali e dell'Identità siciliana, pp. 6–12. Le mappe del tesoro, 1. Battaglia G. 2018. I materiali preistorici e protostorici: ceramica e industria litica. In: A. Bagnera, A. Nef (a cura di). I bagni di Cefalà (secoli X–XIX): pratiche termali d’origine islamica nella Sicilia medievale. Roma: École francaise de Rome, pp. 356–359. Bovio Marconi J. 1944. La cultura tipo Conca d’Oro nella Sicilia Nord-Occidentale. Monumenti Antichi dei Lincei, 40, 88–96, Tav. XIII, XIV. Bovio Marconi J. 1952. Il riordinamento del Museo nazionale di Palermo dopo le distruzioni del 1940–44: Soprintendenza alle antichità per la Sicilia occidentale. Palermo: Tip. F.lli De Magistris e C. Succ. V. Bellotti e F. Bovio Marconi J. 19623. La collezione pre e protostorica del Museo Nazionale di Palermo. Giglio di Roccia. Rassegna di vita siciliana, 18, pp. 7–14. Caruso E., Nobili A. 2001. Le mappe del Catasto Borbonico di Sicilia. Territori comunali e centri urbani nell'archivio cartografico Mortillaro di Villarena (1837–1853). Palermo: Regione Siciliana, Assessorato dei Beni Culturali ed Ambientali e della Pubblica Istruzione. Cavallari F.S. 1872. Relazione sullo stato delle antichità di Sicilia, sulle scoverte e sui ristauri fatti dal 1860 al 1872. Palermo: Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione. Cavani V. 2008. Note preliminari per una revisione della storia della Paletnologia in Romagna. Le origini (1867–1891). IpoTesi di Preistoria, 1(1), pp. 200–210. Cultraro M. 2014. “Nel freddo inverno del 1877 che ricorda la mia Vienna…”. Il viaggio del barone Ferdinand von Andrian-Werburg e la prima esplorazione sistematica della preistoria siciliana. In: M. Congiu, C. Miccichè, S. Modeo (a cura di). Viaggio in Sicilia. Racconti, segni e città ritrovate, Atti del X Convegno di Studi (Caltanissetta, 10–11 maggio 2013). Caltanissetta: Salvatore Sciascia editore, pp. 313–329. D’amore G. Et al. 2001. Su alcuni resti umani di età neolitica rinvenuti nella grotta del Porcospino (Palermo). In: Riassunti del XIV Congresso degli Antropologi Italiani. Cosenza: [s.n.], p. 214. D’angelo F., Filangeri C., Trasselli C. 1969. Cefalà o Chiarastella?. Sicilia Archeologica, 2(5), 11–17. 197 Serena D’Amico De Gregorio A. 1917. Iconografia delle collezioni preistoriche della Sicilia. Annales de géologie et de paléontologie, 33–34. Palermo: Stabilimento tipografico Virzi, pp. 22– 23, 47–48, 62–63, 67, 154–155, Tav. XXVII, XXVIII, LX. De Vido S. 2001. Mostrare la storia. Palermo e il suo museo. In: Mélanges de l'École française de Rome. Italie et Méditerranée, t. 113, n 2. Antiquités, archéologie et construction nationale au XIXe siècle, Journées d’études (Rome 29–30 avril 1999, Ravello 7–8 avril 2000). Roma: École française de Rome, pp. 739–758. https://doi.org/10. 3406/mefr.2001.9828. Di Benedetto G. 2019, Palermo Tra Ottocento e Novecento. La città entro le mura nella collezione fotografica di Enrico Di Benedetto, 2. ed. – Palermo, Grafill (eds.). Di Giovanni F. 1866, Sui lavori intrapresi e sulle scoverte fatte negli antichi monumenti di Sicilia dal giugno 1863 al luglio 1865, Brani di una relazione del Presidente della Commissione di Antichità e Belle Arti di Palermo al Ministero della Pubblica Istruzione, Palermo 1866, pp. 30-31. Ebert M. 1924. Villafrati. In: Reallexikon der Vorgeschichte unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Fachgelehrter. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, p. 460. Exhibit 1871. Relazione sulla Esposizione Italiana d’Antropologia e d’Archeologia Preistoriche. Bologna: [s.n.]. Exhibit 1873–1874. Catalogo “L’Esposizione Universale di Vienna del 1873 illustrata”, vol. 1–2, Milano: Edoardo Sonzogno. Fatouretchi S. 2009. Die Achse Berlin-Wien in den Anfängen der Ethnologie von 1869 bis 1906 (Diplomarbeit). [Wien]: Univeristät Wien. Feest C. 1995. The Origins of Professional Anthropology in Vienna. In: B. Rupp-Eisenreich, J. Stagl (eds.). Kulturwissenschaften im Vielvölkerstaat: zur Geschichte der Ethnologie und verwandter Gebiete in Österreich, ca. 1780 bis 1918. Wien–Weimar– Köln: Böhlau, pp. 113–131. Ethnologica Austriaca, 1. Gambino R., Pulvirenti G. 2019. Die Sizilienreise zwischen Grand Tour und Romantik. In: H.D. Szemethy, P.M. Militello (a cura di). “… ich habe die Sicilianer herzlich satt…”. Otto Benndorfs archäologische Reise auf Sizilien am Morgen der Einheit Italiens. Vienna: Phoibos Verlag, pp. 151–178. Grasso P. 2016. Dalla Casa dei Padri Filippini dell'Olivella al Museo Archeologico Regionale. In: Progetto didattico: Cultural Heritage e Merchandising museale. Palermo (2 edizione): Assessorato dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali e dell’Identità Siciliana. Heischkel-Artelt E. 1953. Andrian-Werburg Freiherren. In: Neue Deutsche Biographie, vol. 1, Aachen – Behaim. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot, p. 287. Heinrich A. 1995–1996. Vom Museum dem Anthropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien zue Prähistrorische Sammlung in k. k. Naturhistorischen Hofmuseum (1870–1876– 1889–1895). Mitteilungen der Antropologischen Gesellschaft in Wien (MAGW), 125(126), 11–42. 198 United by Context, Divided by Collection … Lobitzer H., Kukal K. 2010. Ferdinand Freiherr von Andrian – Altaussee, Böhmen und der Rest der Monarchie. Geologische Bundesanstalt, 150, pp. 455–462. Lo Iacono G., Marconi C. 2002. L’attività della Commissione di Antichità e Belle Arti in Sicilia, parte 5, n 8. Palermo: Regione Sicilia, Assessorato dei beni culturali e dell'identità siciliana, Dipartimento dei beni culturali e dell'identità siciliana. Quaderni del museo archeologico regionale Antonino Salinas. Supplemento, 6. Marconi P. 1932. Il Museo Nazionale di Palermo: sezione archeologica. Roma: La Libr. dello Stato a. X e.f. Itinerari dei musei e monumenti d’Italia, 11. Maurici F. 1983a. Chifala e Chasum. Approccio storico-topografico ad una campagna medievale siciliana. In: Atti dell’Accademia di Scienze Lettere e Arti di Palermo, s. 5, vol. 2 (1981–1982), Palermo: [s.n.], pp. 7–62. Maurici F. 1983b. Le due Cefalà. Sicilia Archeologica, 51, pp. 71–80. Maurici F., Lesnes E. 1993. Un château, un territoire: Cefalà. Mèlanges de l’École francaise de Rome. Moyen–Age, 105(1), 231–263. https://doi.org/10.3406/mefr.1993.3286. Mazzola V.O. 1994. Archivio del Museo Archeologico di Palermo. In: Gli archivi non statali in Sicilia. Palermo: Soprintendenza archivistica per la Sicilia, pp. 33–107. Messina A., Sineo L. 2007. Tre siti minori del panorama preistorico della Sicilia Occidentale. Grotta del Porcospino (Vilafrati, PA), Grotta del Ferraro (Monte Pellegrino, PA), Abisso del vento (Isnello, PA). Archivio per l’Antropologia e la Etnologia, 137, pp. 259–272. Militello P.M. 2019. Die Archäologie in Sizilien am Beginn der Einheit Italiens und die Reise Otto Benndorfs im Jahr 1867. In: H.D. Szemethy, P.M. Militello (a cura di). “… ich habe die Sicilianer herzlich satt …”, Otto Benndorfs archäologische Reise auf Sizilien am Morgen der Einheit Italiens, Vienna: Phoibos Verlag, pp. 179–225. Minà Palumbo F. 1869. Paleoetnologia Sicula delle armi in pietra raccolte in Sicilia. In: Biblioteca del Naturalista Siciliano, fasc. VII. Palermo: Stabilimento Operai Tipografi. Oddo G., Miccichè G., Carbone F. 1986. Lo sviluppo incompiuto. Storia di un comune agricolo della Sicilia occidentale. Villafrati 1596–1960. Palermo: Dharba. Pace B. 1919. Materiali preistorici del Museo di geologia in Palermo. Ausonia 9(1). Palermo: Priulla, pp. 1–12. Palazzotto P. 2015. Dal Museo della Regia Università al Museo Nazionale di Palermo. In: (a cura di) G. Barbera. 1954–2014: Sessanta anni della Galleria e delle sue collezioni a Palazzo Abatellis. Messina: [s.n.], pp. 66–73. Pelagatti P. 2001. Dalla Commissione Antichità e Belle Arti di Sicilia (CABAS) alla amministrazione delle Belle Arti nella Sicilia post-unitaria. Rottura e continuità amministrativa. In: Mélanges de l'École française de Rome., t. 113, n 2, Italie et Méditerranée. Italie et Mèditerrannèe, Antiquités, archéologie et construction nationale au XIXe siècle. Journées d’études (Rome 29–30 avril 1999 et Ravello 7–8 avril 2000). Roma: École française de Rome, pp. 599–621. https://doi.org/10.3406/mefr. 2001.9818. 199 Serena D’Amico Salinas A. 1865. Dello stato attuale degli studi archeologici in Italia e del loro avvenire (Prolusione letta addì 12 dicembre 1865 nella R. Università di Palermo). In: Rivista Nazionale, 1. Palermo: [s.n.], pp. 195–212. Salinas A. 1873. Del Real Museo di Palermo. Palermo: Stabilimento Tipografico Lao. Salinas A. 1874. Del Museo Nazionale di Palermo e del suo avvenire. Palermo: Stabilimento Tipografico Lao. Spatafora F., Gandolfo L. 2014. Del Museo di Palermo e del suo avvenire. Il Salinas ricorda Salinas 1914–2014 (Palermo 8 luglio – 4 novembre 2014). Palermo: Regione Siciliana, Assessorato dei Beni Culturali e dell'Identità Siciliana, Dipartimento dei Beni Culturali e dell'Identità Siciliana. Strobel P. 1878. Bibliografia (recensione a Prähistorische Studien aus Sicilien di Andrian-Werburg barone Fernando). Bullettino di Paletnologia Italiana (BPI), 4(5–6), pp. 89–94. Szilvássy J., Kentner G. 1978. Beschreibung der Osteologischen Sammlung anHand der Inventarbucher. In: Anthropologie: Entwicklung des Menschen. Rassen des Menschen. Führer durch die anthropologische Schausammlung. Wien: Naturhistorisches Museum. Veröffentlichungen aus dem Naturhistorischen Museum Wien, Neue Folge, 16, p. 32. Tamburello I. 1970. Come si è formato il Museo nazionale di Palermo. Sicilia Archeologica, 3(12), 31–35. Trasselli C. 1968. Ocra e ossidiana nel neolitico siciliano. Sicilia Archeologica, 1(1), 24–31. Vassallo S. 1996. Pizzo Chiarastella. In: G. Nenci, G. Vallet (a cura di). Bibliografia Topografica della Colonizzazione Greca in Italia e nelle isole tirreniche, vol. 14. Pisa– –Roma–Napoli: Scuola normale superiore–Ecole française de Rome–Centre J. Berard, pp. 25–27. Veneroso P. 1994. Osservazioni tecniche sulle ceramiche campaniformi siciliane. In: S. Tusa (a cura di). La preistoria del Basso Belice e della Sicilia meridionale nel quadro della preistoria siciliana e mediterranea. Palermo: Società siciliana di storia patria–Istituto di archeologia, Facoltà di Lettere, pp. 461–480. Zocchi P. 2011. Natura e patria. I congressi della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali nel processo di costruzione dell’identità nazionale. Atti della Società Italiana di Scienze Naturali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Milano, 152(2), 123–156. https://doi. org/10.4081/nhs.2011.123. 200 United by Context, Divided by Collection … List of illustrations Fig. 1. Localization of Villafrati’s archaeological site on the map of Sicily (above) and the elevation of Mt. Chiarastella on the topographic map (below) (from D’Angelo et al. 1983: 12). Fig. 2. Regional Archaeological Museum of Palermo. Bell Beaker with bands of impressed oblique dotted lines decoration from the Porcospino Cave, Mt. Chiarastella, Villafrati (image used by permit of the Regional Archaeological Museum ‘Antonino Salinas’ of Palermo). Fig. 3. Regional Archaeological Museum of Palermo. Fictile spoon and mug from the Porcospino Cave, Mt. Chiarastella, Villafrati, on whose surfaces it is possible to notice the different types of inventorial marks, tags and plates affixed from 1864 to the 1970s (image used by permit of the Regional Archaeological Museum ‘Antonino Salinas’ of Palermo). Fig. 4. Geological Museum of Palermo. Small jug with painted geometric decoration (at left) and two-handled pot (at right) from the Porcospino Cave, Mt. Chiarastella, Villafrati (image used by permit of the Geological Museum ‘Gemmellaro’ of Palermo). Fig. 5. Geological Museum of Palermo. Limestone breccia with embedded human bones from the Porcospino Cave, Mt. Chiarastella, Villafrati (image used by permit of the Geological Museum ‘Gemmellaro’ of Palermo). 201 Serena D’Amico Fig. 1 202 United by Context, Divided by Collection … Fig. 2 Fig. 3 203 Serena D’Amico Fig. 4 Fig. 5 204 Part III silesiA AntiquA. ColleCting Antiquities in the nineteenth-Century wroCłAw And the lower silesiAn AreA https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.09 Magdalena Palica (Trier City Research Library) Antiquities CoLLeCtions in siLesiA – terrA inCognitA? Abstract Our cultural memory is shaped by museums and monuments. There are many regions, and Silesia is one of them, where during WW2 and in the post-war period the artistic and intellectual heritage was devastated – and the collective memory suffered as well. The history of collecting artefacts in Silesia is a case of a selective historical amnesia in post-war Europe. There are many reasons why this field still remains a terra incognita. The manors and palaces which used to house the art collections were abandoned or emptied more than 70 years ago, with many of them falling into ruins. The works of art were dispersed, and even if they found their way into museums, there were neither showed to the public nor subjected to research for over half a century. The situation changed with political upheavals of 1989, which reshaped European remembrance of the past centuries. Some significant art collections are slowly reappearing in the collective memory. This case study will be dedicated to the collections of the Ingenheim and Minutoli families. Keywords: art collections, Silesia, remembering, Alexander Minutoli, Gustav Adolf von Ingenheim In “The Book of Laughter and Forgetting”, Milan Kundera wrote: “The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting” (Kundera 1983: 22). The process of forgetting is rather complicated. The specialist in this field, Paul Connerton, a scholar in the Department of Social Anthropology at 207 Magdalena Palica the University of Cambridge, has addressed these issues in several books, including “How Societies Remember” and “How Modernity Forgets” (Connerton 2009). Last year, I read his essay “Seven Types of Forgetting” (Connerton 2011: 33–50) and a couple days later a colleague of mine, Ms. Urszula Bonczuk-Dawidziuk called me and asked if I would participate in this conference. Dear Urszula, thank you very much, I’m very grateful to speak about the antiquities collection in Silesia. The history of collecting in Silesia is also a history of forgetting. I was born in Wrocław and already in kindergarten I realised that there is something strange about the past in this city. There was a term that was used, when people described something that was old – poniemiecki – the literal translation would be “post-German” and the meaning was neutral, it meant “built by Germans”. For me, when I was little, it meant simply “old”. When I used this word once when we were on the trip with our distant relatives in Cracow, when I saw an old palace or church, it caused the indignation of my family. They were shocked I could have said something like that; it was a “Polish monument” they said, a part of “our culture”. I was shocked too, because Wrocław was “my city,” not Cracow, and I did not quite understand what they meant, but I decided not to ask or argue. They were already angry with me. It took time until I realised that I lived in a city, in a region, that had at least two identities in the recent history. Studying art history was very helpful to understand this dichotomy. In the first year we had classes in “introduction to the history of architecture”. We were to describe a building, it was the “White Stork Synagogue”. I remember standing there and thinking for the umpteenth time “I still don’t know my city, my post-German, post-Jewish city”. Like I said, the history of art collecting in Silesia is also a history of forgetting. The collections were dispersed several decades ago, and the region became a “terra incognita” that now needs to be rediscovered by the researchers. The shaping of the collective memory in Silesia right after the World War II had many faces. The formation of the new identity for the Ziemie Odzyskane – the so called Recovered Territories, literally Regained Lands, was essential. In the destroyed cities, deserted villages and emptied palaces, the national narrative was important and for a long time the only one that mattered. How hard the new begging was, is shown in the book by Gregor Thum “Die fremde Stadt: Breslau nach 1945” (Thum [2003]) – in English translation “Uprooted – How Breslau Became Wrocław during the Century of Expulsion”. 208 Antiquities Collections in Silesia – Terra Incognita? There are many regions, and Silesia is one of them, where during WW2 and in the post-war years the artistic and intellectual heritage was devastated – and the collective memory suffered as well. Cultural forgetting in Silesia started with renaming the streets, removing the monuments, purifying the commons space. It was seen as necessary after the destructive, violent past. The Silesian palaces, castles and villas, once housing art collections, were emptied and used for other purposes. The art collections and their creators have one thing in common. Their nature is ephemeral, they exist only for a certain amount of time. The next generations are responsible for their commemorating and remembering. The history of collecting artefacts in Silesia is a case of a selective historical amnesia in postwar Europe. There are many reasons why this field remains a terra incognita, except for some topics, such as the beginnings of collecting antiquities, rediscovered by researches like Michal Mencfel. The manors and palaces which used to house art collections were abandoned or emptied more than 70 years ago, with many of them falling into ruins. In the case of Jewish families, the owners perished in the concentration camps (Palica 2010b). The works of art were dispersed, and even if they found their way into museums, they were neither showed to the public nor researched for over half a century. The inventories of the collections and other documentation were mostly destroyed during the war. The situation changed with the political upheavals of 1989, which reshaped European remembrance of the past centuries. Some significant Silesian art collections are slowly reappearing in the collective memory, as we will see at the examples of the Ingenheim and Minutoli Family. Essential for the reconstruction of the collections of antiquities are the inventories or any other sources that allow us to understand how the collection was created, what were the most important artefacts, how they were presented. When I started to research various collections in Silesia, I met the descendants of the Ingenheim Family, whose private archive survived the war. They shared with me the inventory of the collection; some other list I discovered in the Secret State Archives Prussian Cultural Heritage. It was the beginning of the “new land” expedition for me. The impressive collection of art was created by Gustav Adolf von Ingenheim (Palica M. [2015]). The big part of it was stored in the palace in Reisewitz/Rysiowice until World War II. Gustav Adolf von Ingenheim, born in 1789, was an illegitimate son of Prussian King Friedrich Wilhelm II and a noble lady Julia 209 Magdalena Palica von Voss. Brought up in the court circles, Gustav Adolf was destined for a clerical career, during which he reached a position of a regular privy counsellor in service of his stepbrother, king Friedrich Wilhelm III. After the last phase of the Napoleonic wars. Count von Ingenheim decided to pursue his true passion – art collecting. His keen interest in Italian art, reinforced by his studies and a journey to Italy with one of the most renowned specialists in that matter at the time, Aloys Hirt, resulted in including the Count in the group of experts who were charged with the task of purchasing Italian works of art for the newly established museums in Berlin. Remaining in royal service between 1816 and 1826, Count von Ingenheim amassed an impressive collection of paintings and antiquities at the same time, while financially supporting several artists as well. In his residences Villa Ingenheim in Potsdam and Palazzo Poniatowski in Rome he ran artistic salons of sorts, frequented by artists such as Bertel Thorvaldsen, Karl Friedrich Schinkel and Christian Daniel Rauch. He organised trips for the artist, like the “big breakfast” in Pompei that Schinkel described in his dairies. Converting to Catholicism in 1826, against the king’s explicit request, resulted in Count von Ingenheim’s banishment from Prussia and severe limitation of his financial means for pursuing his collector’s passion. The collection created by Ingenheim was moved to Silesia over two decades after his death. His ashes were moved and buried in the chapel erected close to the family palace in Rysiowice. The important part of the art collection of Gustav Adolf von Ingenheim was the collection of antiquities. He was acquiring the statues from the noble Roman families like Vescovali. There is also a letter in Secret Vatican Archives written by a German diplomat Josias Bunsen, asking Count Ingenheim to start archaeological excavations at the Via Gabina. I could not find a reply to it in the archives. We know that Ingenheim was also acquiring the antiquities in Naples, that he also visited Capri, Possilippo and Paestum, where he probably bought a set of terracotta figurines for his collection. Aloys Hirt, the already mentioned art historian and archaeologist of Ancient Greek and Roman architecture was his advisor. He wrote in 1825 a booklet on a Greek vase from the Ingenheim collection (Hirt 1825). The young count, who was also a gifted artist, was sending his drawings of the ancient artefacts to the famous scientists of the time, including Karl August Böttiger. To perform the restoration of the sculptures from his collection, he was commissioning the best artists, such us like Thorvaldsen or Rauch. 210 Antiquities Collections in Silesia – Terra Incognita? After his conversion to Catholicism, von Ingenheim had to sell part of his collection to the Museum in Berlin. Today we can admire those artifacts in the Altes Museum – the Old Museum in Berlin. Over 130 artworks, including Greek vases, Roman sculptures and gems, the terracotta figurine from Paestum, inherited by his son Franz von Ingenheim, were moved to the family manor in Rysiowice in Silesia, where they probably remained until 1945. Some paintings from the collection were sold in the early 1910s. I couldn’t find any evidence of the same happening to the antiquities collection as well. I have not managed to locate any of the antique artworks listed in the inventory of the castle in Rysiowice so far. The great library from the castle in Rysiowice has been lost as well. According to the archive files, over 37,000 volumes including bookshelves were loaded on a train and transported on 10 May 1947 eastwards, but those books are still missing, as well as the antiquities collection once housed in Rysiowice. The second great antiquities collector, whose collection was displayed until 1945 in one of the Silesian castles, was Heinrich Minutoli, a Prussian generalmajor, explorer and archaeologist. He and Ingenheim probably knew each other, they were both involved in purchasing the works of art for the Museums in Berlin, and had some mutual friends, for example Alois Hirt or Eduard Gerhard, both renowned archaeologists. The collection of antiquities was inherited by his son Alexander von Minutoli and exhibited in Biedrzychowice/Friedersdorf on Queiss (Palica 2010a: 515–530; Minkels, Karig 2019). One of the landscape paintings once displayed in Biedrzychowice found its way to Ägyptisches Museum in Berlin. It shows an oasis in Egypt and in the middle Heinrich Minutoli. After many years in the Prussian military service and as a teacher to the son of the Fredrich Wilhelm III, Carl, he was entrusted with the direction of an expedition to Egypt in 1820. Accompanied by renown scientists, such as Wilhelm Friedrich Hemprich and Christian Gottfried Ehrenberg, he put together a big collection that formed the foundation of the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. Regrettably, the big part of the shipment never arrived in Berlin. On the night of 11/12 March 1822, the ship ‘Gottfried’ wrecked off the Germany’s north coast. It carried a cargo of Egyptian antiquities, collected by general Minutoli and destined for the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. The ship went down somewhere between Helgoland and Cuxhaven. Until today sunken Egyptian treasure, sarcophagi, mummies, Fayum mummy portraits, steles and reliefs are often the subject of articles and 211 Magdalena Palica films. In you want to learn more about it, there is a fairly good documentary in the ZDF Mediathek. The wife of Heinrich Minutoli, Wolfradine Auguste Luise von Minutoli, born as Gräfin von der Schulenburg, was a writer and she accompanied her husband in the Egyptian expedition. She was one of the first European women exploring ancient Egypt. Her travel diaries “Recollections of Egypt by the Baroness von Minutoli” were published in London and in Philadelphia in 1827, and also in Germany, France and England (Minutoli 1827). Heinrich published his diaries as well, richly illustrated (Minutoli 1824). The couple had three sons: Julius, Adolph and Alexander. The youngest one inherited the collector’s passion from his father. Alexander von Minutoli was educated as a lawyer and an economist. However, his interests were focused on fine arts, as confirmed by numerous publications. In 1834, he took an office position in Liegnitz/Legnica, and around the same time he started assembling a collection of arts and crafts items and works of art. Alexander Minutoli created an enormous collection (estimated at over 28,000 objects), which consisted mostly of applied arts items. His intention was to prepare a template book of sorts for contemporary artisans, which is why he pursued the plan of exhibiting the collection in public. Thanks to the support of the Prussian King Frederic William IV, exhibition rooms were made available to Minutoli in the castle in Legnica. Not surprisingly, Alexander Minutoli looked for a new way to express his passion. His parents and older brother were esteemed authors, and he wrote a couple of books himself, but he still was not satisfied. Inspired by the pattern book Vorbilder für Fabrikanten und Handwerker by Karl Friedrich Schinkel and Christian Peter Wilhelm Beuth, he decided to give the idea of a pattern book and his collection a new dimension – a solution that allows us to admire his collection today, despite the fact that it has been dispersed. In 1854–1855, Minutoli, with the assistance of photographer Ludwig Belitski, published a monumental book “Vorbilder für Handwerker und Fabrikanten” featuring selected objects from his collection in 4,500 photographs (Anon 1821–1837). Some of them showed antiques, an important source of the classical motifs. It took over 10 years to prepare those daguerreotypes. In 1858, during an exhibition in the castle in Legnica, 28,000 artefacts were showed. The visitors came from all over Europe to see this great presentation. In 1875, the collection had to be removed from the castle. Minutoli moved it to the 212 Antiquities Collections in Silesia – Terra Incognita? palace in Biedrzychowice, which he had bought over 10 years earlier. Some of the exhibits were stored in two other buildings, also located at Minutoli’s estate. The Minutoli collection was dispersed after the WW2. Some Egyptian artworks are exhibited in the National Museum in Warsaw. Several glass dishes of historical value from the collection in Biedrzychowice can be seen in the National Museum in w Poznań. The painting gallery consisted of several hundred objects, 199 of which were auctioned in 1899. Gemäldegalerie in Berlin and Kunsthistorisches Museum of Vienna acquired some of those. The paintings that were on display in Biedrzychowice until 1945 can be seen today in the National Museum in Wrocław, the castle in Oporów and the National Museum in Warsaw. Large parts of the two collections were housed until 1945 in the family manors in Rysiowice and Biedrzychowice. During and shortly after the WW2, the collections dispersed, and from time to time its items are appearing on the art market, like the painting “Minutoli in Oasis Siwah” that was acquired by the Egyptian Museum in Berlin in 1987. But this case was an exception; most of the artworks from the Silesian collection offered on the market have unknown provenance and establishing it will take years of research. In the history of the forgetting and remembering there is sometimes a lack of something, that keeps out curiosity alive. The most visited exhibition in Germany in the autumn 2019/2020 was the presentation “Making van Gogh” in the Städel Museum in Frankfurt, and one of the most photographed objects was an empty painting frame (Eiling et al 2019). Not that the visitors were not allowed to take pictures of famous painting, on the contrary. Expecting many visitors, the museum put online a free audio guide, to be downloaded on mobile phones. Most of the visitors were constantly taking pictures. The empty frame showed in the exhibition in Städel was once framing the famous Portrait of Dr Gachet. The painting was owned by Städel Museum and sold during the Nazi period. Only a few insiders know where the portrait is today, and it was not possible to show the painting at the exhibition. Nevertheless, the curators asked the journalist Johannes Nichelmann to prepare a fiveepisode podcast about the missing painting (Finding van Gogh…). The podcast “Finding van Gogh” was nominated to the Goldenen Blogger 2019 Award in Germany. I recommend it, it is really an interesting story. The situation of antiquity collections in Silesia is very similar to the history of the Portrait of Dr Gachet. Only few insiders know where the missing pieces 213 Magdalena Palica are today. The only artefact that the visitors can see today is the empty frame or an empty castle. On the other hand, the biggest difference between the two is that everybody knows who van Gogh is, and his missing masterpiece is well known as well. Portrait of Dr Gachets, created shortly before the painter died, belongs to the most googled pieces of art. In comparison, not many people know about the collections of Ingenheim and Minutoli. It is a question of remembering about what we choose to forget as a society. Do we want to share the amnesia about the collections of art in the Prussian Silesia, or do we want to contribute to our collective memory? Indeed, the almost forgotten stories about the two collectors are so interesting that could be turned into a podcast script or even a Netflix series. Silesia is called the land of a thousand castles and palaces. Many of them housed different art collections, Kunstkabinetts, libraries. Many of them are still standing and an increasing number of them have been restored. They are like empty frames, once containing artworks. You can see those artworks in many famous museums today, and some of them you have probably seen without even knowing it. To me, the empty villas and empty castles are like the frame of the van Gogh painting asking: ‘Do you want to know what was once here?’. bibliography Anon 1821–1837. Vorbilder für Fabrikanten und Handwerker. Berlin: Petsch. Connerton P. 1989. How Societies Remember. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511628061. Connerton P. 2009. How Modernity Forgets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511627187. Connerton P. 2011. Seven Types of Forgetting. In: The Spirit of Mourning: History, Memory and Body. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511984518. Eiling A., Krämer F., Schroll E. (eds.) 2019. Making van Gogh: A German love story. München: Hirmer. Finding van Gogh: Auf der Suche nach dem legendären „Bildnis des Dr. Gachet“ (podcast 12.10.2019). In: Städel Museum. https://www.staedelmuseum.de/de/podcastfinding-van-gogh, accessed on 5.04.2021. 214 Antiquities Collections in Silesia – Terra Incognita? Hirt A. 1825. Die Brautschau. Zeichnung auf einem griechischen Gefäss. In einem Sendschreiben an Se Excellenz den Herrn Grafen von Ingenheim. Berlin: F.A. Herbig. Kundera M. 1983. The Book of Laughter and Forgetting. London: Penguin Books. Minkels D., Karig J. 2019. Heinrich Menu von Minutoli und seine herausragende Familie. Berlin: Norderstedt BoD. Buch-Reihe der Minutoli-Gesellschaft Berlin e.V., 1. Minutoli W. von 1827. Recollections of Egypt. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea and Carey. Minutoli H.F. von 1824. Reise zum Tempel des Jupiter Ammon und nach Oberägypten in den Jahren 1820 und 1821. Berlin: August Rücker. Palica M. [2015]. Il conte von Ingenheim tra arte e religione. Un collezionista prussiano in Italia. Predella, 34. Palica M. 2010a. Die Kunstsammlungen des niederschlesischen Adels in preußischer Zeit. In: Adel in Schlesien, Bd. 1, Herrschaft – Kultur – Selbstdarstellung, J. Harasimowicz, M. Weber (hrsg.). München: Oldenbourg, pp. 515–530. Schriften des Bundesinstituts für Kultur und Geschichte der Deutschen im östlichen Europa, 36. Palica M. 2010b. Od Delacroix do van Gogha. Żydowskie kolekcje sztuki w dawnym Wrocławiu. Wrocław: Atut. Biblioteka dawnego Wrocławia, 7. Thum G. [2003]. Die fremde Stadt Breslau nach 1945. München: E-Books der Verlagsgruppe Random House GmbH. (English Translation: 2011. Uprooted: How Breslau Became Wroclaw during the Century of Expulsion. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400839964. https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.10 Agata Kubala (University of Wrocław) from greeCe to wroCłAw eduard schaubert’s Antiquities Collection Abstract Among the collections of artefacts owned by German collectors and transferred to Polish museums after the Second World War, the set of objects created by Wrocław-based architect and antiquities collector Eduard Schaubert (1804– 1860) clearly stands out. The collection was created over the period of twenty years that he spent in Greece and was brought to Wrocław by Schaubert in 1850. After his death, in 1861, the objects, along with a collection of drawings and handwritten accounts documenting them, were partly sold and partly donated by his heirs to the Royal Museum of Art and Antiquity at the University of Wrocław (then the University of Breslau). The collection, which at the time it was handed over to the Wrocław museum numbered more than 300 objects, fits into the collecting culture of the era in which it was created, and Schaubert himself is a representative of the international community of philhellenic collectors dominating the landscape of European collecting in the first half of the 19th century. The vast majority of objects that were once in Schaubert’s collection have not survived to this day due to the Second World War and the post-war turmoil. These preserved are scattered in two museums today. The preliminary reading of the published inventory lists of the antiquities’ collection owned by Schaubert, prepared by August Rossbach who recorded the original state of the collected set, and a brief analysis of the preserved objects reveal the collection’s heterogeneity. Diversity was probably part of the original idea, from the moment Schaubert started his collection. It is also significant that the artefacts included in the collection were usually mass produced in series and either purchased or discovered privately, that is, acquired without precise archeological data. These are the main features that distinguish a typical philhellenic collection of antiquities, that is, a collection created from the philhellenes’ need to contact the 217 Agata Kubala ancient original as “touching the past” and to preserve the material remains of the glorified “cradle of art and knowledge” – ancient Greece. Keywords: Eduard Schaubert, Philhellenism, collecting antiquities, nineteenth century introduCtion Until the nineteenth century, the interest in collecting objects of antique provenance was rather insignificant in Wrocław. Silesian collectors of the modern era, the vast majority of whom were aristocracy and scholars, had always included such objects in their collections, but the pan-European fascination with antiquity in Silesia mainly manifested through antique coins added to collections – their presence has been documented since the sixteenth century (Mencfel 2010: 81f). One of the first such collections was the one created by Bishop Johann von Turzo, an enthusiasts of ancient history, who collected Greek and Roman coins that he purchased during his stay in Rome at the court of Pope Alexander VI Borghese (Paulinyi 1931: 4). The collections of the very few Wrocław-based antiquities collectors in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, in addition to ancient coins, also comprised other single antique artifacts from the Mediterranean, including the Egyptian mummy owned by a well-known collector, Laurentius Scholz, which was studied and described by a Wrocław poet and surgeon, Andreas Gryphius (Gryphius 1662). However, we should emphasize that the antiquities in the Silesian collections of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries were mainly local findings, extracted from prehistoric burial grounds. Although there were collections in which the antiquities were dominant in terms of number of exhibits1, no collection was exclusively composed of such items. Until the nineteenth century, there was not a single collection in Silesia limited only to antique objects, and antiquities other than coins were rare in Silesian collections in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Mencfel 2010: 95). The rapidly growing interest in antiquity, observed in the eighteenth-century Europe, which manifested also in Greek and Roman antiquity collections becoming more popular, did not seem to affect Lower Silesia, perhaps, as noted by Michael Mencfel (2010: 96), not only because such artifacts were only 1 For example, the collection of Wrocław-based scholar Christian Stieff or the pastor of Massel, Leonhard David Hermann, cf. Mencfel 2010: 93nn. 218 From Greece to Wrocław… available at exorbitant prices in Europe, but also, and perhaps above all, because there were no suitable role models. The situation remained unchanged in the first half of the nineteenth century. Published in Breslau in 1826, the work by Johann Georg Knie and J.M. Melcher listed several significant local collectors, but none of them owned antiquities (Knie, Melcher 1826: 902f). There were also no such specimens in public museums established in Wrocław at that time. The collection of Greek and Roman antiquities created by Eduard Schaubert, which he brought to Wrocław in 1850, was thus the first of its kind in his native city. Therefore, Schaubert, an architect educated in Berlin, was the first collector of antiquities from Wrocław, whose active participation in this field is evidenced by the preserved, albeit only in a small part, collection that he created during his stay in Greece between 1830 and 1850. Before we discuss his collection, I suggest we take a look at its creator, who played a significant role not only in the history of nineteenth-century antiquities collection-making, but also in the history of Greek archaeology. In this context, it seems important to relate basic facts of his life, and especially twenty years that he spent in the “Hellenes’ country,” which could have sparked the idea of collection-making and prompted Schaubert to start and gradually expand his collection. eduArd sChAuBert – from An ArChiteCt to the enthusiAst And CoLLeCtor of Antiquities Schaubert (Fig. 1) was born in 1804 and began his education at a grammar school in his native city, Wrocław, which at that time was called Breslau and was part of the Prussian state, where a thorough education reform by Wilhelm von Humboldt had already been in place. Von Humboldt, in a manner typical for the first decades of the nineteenth century, loved ancient Greece. His reform, introduced in 1810, emphasized a thorough study of the language and history of ancient Greece (Junkiert 2013: 19). Schaubert, like his peers, thus received a thorough classical education, which was one of the characteristics, along with a general and boundless admiration for classical Greek antiquity, of those who participated in social discourses in Germany, in the first half of the nineteenth century. His studies in Berlin, which in the 1820s was the center of German philhellenism, undoubtedly contributed to his increased interest in Greek antiquity, 219 Agata Kubala which had been instilled in him in grammar school (gymnasium) – especially since his main academic teacher was then the leading philhellenist architect of that period, Karl Friedrich Schinkel2. Berlin was thus, most probably, the place where the young architect from Wrocław developed firm philhellenist ideas. However, on his first study trip following graduation, he visited not Greece, which had just regained its independence and opened up to Western travelers, but Italy. It was only there that he decided to go to Greece. Most likely, the decision was made under the influence of his friend from Berlin and his travel companion, Stamatios Kleanthes who himself hailed from Greek Macedonia. It is possible that General Carl Wilhelm von Heideck, a philhellenist involved in the struggle for Greek national liberation, whom Schaubert met in Rome, also played a role in convincing him to visit the country. It is very likely that he told Schaubert and Kleanthes about career prospects opening up for architects in Greece, completely destroyed by the war. We cannot rule out that this ultimately convinced Schaubert to leave and start his career in the “Hellenes’ country”. His activities in the first years of his stay in Greece seem to indicate his strong affiliation with philhellenist ideas. He certainly came to Athens with an ideal image of the city as it used to be in antiquity, and which significantly influenced the plan of modern Athens he prepared together with Kleanthes for the newly formed Greek government (Papageorgiou-Venetas 1994: 515). However, after completing that assignment, along with a few more in which he was involved during his first years in Greece, his authentic interest in Greek antiquity, described by his collaborator and friend, German archaeologist Ludwig Ross (Minner 2006: 91), has led him to stop practicing his learned profession. From that moment, Schaubert devoted all his energy and time to archaeological work, which included both excavations and restoration work on the Acropolis in Athens, and drawings executed to document the surviving ancient structures in Greece. The initial phase of Schaubert’s collecting work seems to be related to the situation which he witnessed in Athens right after his arrival. He must have been very impressed by what he saw: fragments of antique structures lying everywhere in the streets, as rubble from ruined buildings, once incorporated into the walls of old town houses, which were then reduced to rubble during the national liberation war. Schaubert wrote about it in a letter to his friends dated January 1832 (von Quast 1834: 1f). The fact that he started his collection could 2 For a wider perspective on German philhellenism see Marchand 1996. 220 From Greece to Wrocław… therefore be linked to his desire to rescue the relics of the glorified Greek classical past from complete destruction, but it also fulfilled his wish for philhellene self-creation. In this context, it is also significant that some of these architectural fragments came from the Acropolis in Athens, which was the ‘Mecca’ of the nineteenth century Western European philhellenes, whose common feature was the almost fanatical idealization of ancient Greek art. Already in the eighteenth century, we can see a sharp increase in the interest in antiquity. A very important impulse was certainly provided by the discoveries of Old Roman centers, Pompeii and Herkulaneum. However, in the second half of that century, there was a clear turn towards the art of ancient Greece, and especially the Greek classical “golden age”. This was due to Johann Joachim Winckelmann and his monumental work Gedanken über die Nachahmung der griechischen Werke in der Malerei und Bildhauerkunst (1755). The belief in the absolute superiority of Greek art of the classical period, expressed in this work, imbued this period in the history of Greek art with a mythical quality, which in the first two decades of the nineteenth century led to a firm primacy of ancient Greece over Rome among Western Europeans. This mythical vision persisted throughout that century, shaping artistic tastes of subsequent generations of Europeans. One of the effects brought by this special phenomenon – which by then was dubbed philhellenism, and, spreading in a new form and with new strength in Europe at the beginning of the nineteenth century, formed an uncontested engine of cultural change – was the popularization of Greek antiquities collections. Thus, Greece – perceived as a true source of European art – became the natural destination for expeditions, which were also driven by the availability of original artifacts sought by collectors. In the first decades of the nineteenth century, the boundless and almost uncritical admiration for Greece‘s classical past transformed into an almost pan-European epidemic. The growing wealth of the society at the beginning of that century led to the emergence of a large number of private collectors who had the means to collect items corresponding to their tastes (MacGregor 2007: 237), and these tastes had by then been shaped mostly, but not exclusively, by Greek antiquities, which suddenly became easily accessible. One way of acquiring them, much easier from 1830 when Greece regained its independence, was to travel to the cradle of European civilization. The spread of philhellenist ideas in Europe resulted in a rapid influx of Western travelers into Greece, most of whom were keen to collect artifacts, whenever an opportunity arose (Tsigakou 1981: 24). Tempted by the opportunities offered by the newly established, pro-European country where collectors could acquire 221 Agata Kubala by then highly desirable Greek originals, newcomers competed with each other in the rush to collect the ancient remains and they were prepared to pay high prices for these items in an increasingly active antiquarian market in Athens. The fact that Schaubert started collecting antiquities almost immediately after his arrival in the Greek capital and then gradually expanded his collection, like many other philhellenes, seems to prove that he was indeed one of them. His twenty-year stay in the „the Hellenes’ country“ allowed him to create a collection of considerable size, which he brought to Wrocław when he returned to the city in 1850. The collection most probably started with ancient architectural details collected during Schaubert‘s strolls through the ruined streets of Athens. These old shards were, as he wrote himself, scattered on all the streets in the city, often [originating] from very beautiful monuments (von Quast 1834: 2). The same situation was reported by another eyewitness, Ludwig Ross, mentioned above, who arrived in Athens in the summer of 1832 (Ross 1863: 149). Seeing a large number of easily accessible relics of the classical past, which featured so prominently in his upbringing, could certainly be the impulse that prompted Schaubert to start his collection, especially as his education was also imbued with veneration of all that was part of the Greek antiquity. This process probably began just after his arrival in Athens, as in the letter, quoted above, dated only two months following his arrival (von Quast 1834: 2), Schaubert described the architectural bits used as ornaments in a large atelier of the newly constructed house. This was confirmed by a drawing made two years later by a Danish architect and Schaubert’s collaborator, Christian Hansen, depicting this atelier (Fig. 2). Another evidence of the early presence of architectural details in the collection is provided by Hansen‘s drawings of the antefixes, made during his close cooperation with Schaubert, that is, between 1834 and 1836. The objects represented in the drawings are almost identical to those preserved as part of the Wrocław architect‘s collection. One of them, made in Athens in February 1834 – like the atelier drawing – has even been signed as one of Schaubert‘s possessions (Bendtsen 1993: 240, no. ChrH.208, ChrH.209). The painting made in the same year, also ascribed to Hansen (cf. Fig. 1), indicates that the “spoils” consisted not only of architectural fragments of the destroyed antique buildings, but included other objects of ancient provenance. They were undoubtedly part of the collection, which must have already existed at the time when Hansen executed both of his artworks. One vessel, a ladle depicted first from the left, has 222 From Greece to Wrocław… survived to this day as the only one of the antiquities represented in the painting, albeit it has been damaged (Fig. 3). However, the objects depicted in Schaubert‘s portrait, like his other additions to the collection, could also have been acquired in other ways, not only by searching through the rubble lying on the streets of Athens. In the first half of the nineteenth century, selling antiquities was a common practice in Greece, done by the local people in response to the rapidly growing demand for ancient objects. This phenomenon intensified in the 1830s, after Greece regained its independence, and was driven by the growing number of Western aficionados of ancient artifacts visiting the “land of the Hellenes”. The accounts of Western European travelers (cf. e.g., Ross 1855: 57; Bracken 1975: 53; Haugsted 1996: 305) and Greek citizens (Wünsche 1993: 44) who witnessed such practices leave no doubt as to what happened. Schaubert probably also received offers to buy antiquities – he mentioned one such instance in his diary of excavations carried out together with Ross at the site they suspected to be the grave of Koroibos (Lehmann 2003: 166). While he noted the finding of the brown Corinthian helmet, he also wrote: About six months ago, I was offered to buy a very similar, perfectly preserved one, which was allegedly found in a grave in Mycenae. It should now be in Denmark3. However, there is a possibility that the helmet mentioned by Schaubert never reached Denmark and was finally bought by him. Among the surviving items in his collection, there is a very well-preserved Corinthian helmet (Fig. 4), which, according to the information given by Schaubert himself to his relatives, was found in Mycenae. This is noted by August Rossbach, who in 1856–1898 was the director of the Royal Museum of Art and Antiquity, where the Wrocław architect’s collection was sent after Schaubert’s death (1877: 123, no. 1), and who received that information from the collector’s nephew, Otto Schaubert. This would mean that Schaubert used every opportunity to enrich his collection with new objects, including those he purchased. Such an opportunity, in addition to offers that were addressed directly to him, also arose while he was purchasing antique objects for the Royal Museums in Berlin, as commissioned by the management of this institution between 1843 and 1848 (Bończuk-Dawidziuk 2012: 323f). During this assignment he probably used – as many other collectors4 and agents acting on behalf of major European museums did – 3 4 Quoted from Koepp 1890: 146, footnote 65, translated from German by the author. As we can conclude from autobiographical considerations of an Austrian diplomat and collector Anton Prokesch von Osten, published by his son, the creating of a varied and impres- 223 Agata Kubala a well-developed network of local antiquities merchants and the so-called grave diggers, who were then working either legally or illegally in Greece (Galanakis 2012). The first antiquities store was established in Athens in 1840 by a certain Pavlos Lambros. He was soon followed by other merchants, and many similar shops mushroomed in the Greek capital (Galanakis 2012). However, we do not have any information to determine whether Schaubert cooperated with any of the antiquities traders active in Athens during his stay in the city. We also don’t know whether he made private purchases in addition to official transactions for the Berlin museum. The opportunities to enlarge his collection were provided by his private journeys in Greece, both mainland and islands, as evidenced by the drawings made during these expeditions and mentions in the texts published by his fellow travelers or, finally, by the information included in surviving Schaubert’s travel diaries.5 Two expeditions in particular were noteworthy. The first one was a trip Schaubert made with Ross to the Aegean Islands in 1843, during which they visited, among others, Thera and Melos. In the diary published two years later, in an entry from 8 August, Ross mentioned finding a terracotta relief sculpture depicting Helle riding on a ram in one of the graves discovered there (Ross 1845: 19). It is now kept in Berlin, like other objects from the German archeologist collection (Jacobsthal 1931: 18, pl. 18). An identical relief sculpture, differing only in its stage of preservation, was part of Schaubert’s collection and is now among the artifacts which survived to this day (Kubala 2019: 413, cat. 33, il. 37). It is therefore very likely that both came from the same source, although Ross did not mention finding another identical relief sculpture. In the second chapter of another publication of his (referenced as Ross 1855), while discussing the finding of terracotta reliefs in the graves of Melos and Aegina, Ross mentioned the fragments of terracotta figurines from the same source that he had in his possession. In the same context, he also mentioned he had small terracotta figures found in Plataia. He added that objects of this type, although of much better quality, coming from gravel located in Aegina, Melos and Attica, were in the possession of other collectors, Baron Rouen, Count Prokesch von Osten and 5 sive collection was possible through collaboration with a large number of assistants, with whom he kept in touch, both in Greece and in the Middle East. Cf. Bertsch 2005: 467. They are currently kept at the Altes Museum in Berlin, so far unpublished. I wish to thank Martin Maischberger, PhD, the deputy Director of the museum for making them available to me to read. 224 From Greece to Wrocław… Consul Gropius. Although the German archaeologist did not mention Schaubert, we can assume that at least some examples of terracotta figurative art from his collection (Rossbach 1877: 120ff) came from the same locations, given that they visited these sites together. From another trip to Boeotia in 1848, Schaubert certainly brought new objects for his collection. Their descriptions and drawings are included in the diary he kept during that trip6. On page XI, under number 47, he sketched the vessels he found in the graves in Teumessus, located on the plain of Thebes. The fact that they were part of his collection is confirmed by a list of collected objects made by Rossbach (1877: 116, no. 2). Two of the seven vessels shown in the drawing have survived to this day (Kubala 2019: 405, Catalogue no 16 and 17, il. 19, 20). Below the vessels, on the same page of the diary, there is another drawing, numbered 48, representing a scarab found, according to the information provided, in Schimatari near Tanagra. Next to the drawing there is a short description of the finding. Currently considered missing, the scarab was listed by August Rossbach among the objects from Schaubert’s collection transferred to the museum (Rossbach 1877: 125, no 1). The objects that were added to Schaubert’s collection could have been found not only in ancient graves he discovered during his travels in the Greek islands, but also in Athens and its surrounding area. In one of his publications, mentioned above, Ross also described his exploration of graves in Piraeus. He was then accompanied by Schaubert, who made drawings of the grave stelae found during these explorations (Ross 1855: 43). In this context, Ross mentioned two white-ground lekythos from his own collection, which may have come from these graves (Ross 1855: 45). It cannot be ruled out that three vessels of this type from Schaubert’s collection (cf. Rossbach 1877: 118f, no. 1–3), of which one has survived to this day (Fig. 5), came from the same place, as did the alabastrones recorded in the collection inventory made by August Rossbach (1877: 119, no. 5.1). According to Ross’ account (1855: 25), they were frequently found in the graves discovered in this port town. The objects found in the graves of Attica discovered together with Ross could also have been added to Schaubert collection. In the graves they explored, Ross (1855: 39ff) records the presence of small vessels, mainly lekythos, and brown tools of small size, including strigilis. At least some of them could have made it to Schaubert’s collection and to those owned by other collectors. This was probably not a rare practice at that time. Precious furnishings of one of the graves discovered by Ross in Athens 6 Reise in Böotien. Sommer 1848, Altes Museum, Berlin, reg. no 49/49 (unpublished) 225 Agata Kubala were gifted to Queen Amalia of Greece (Ross 1855: 37), equally valuable items found by him in the tomb of the “servant of Isis” were offered to King Louis I of Bavaria, the father of the Greek monarch (Ross 1855: 39). In fact, the practice of taking some of the objects found in the graves to add to his own collection has been declared by Ross himself, albeit not directly. When discussing the graves discovered on Aegina, he reported that an “interesting little vessel” was found in one of them, depicting Heracles and Iolaus fighting against the Lernaean Hydra (Ross 1855: 47f). The vessel, which has been lost, was certainly part of Schaubert’s collection, as confirmed by a list made by August Rossbach, recording the same place of origin (Rossbach 1877: 117, no. 5), and in publications by Clemens Konitzer (referenced as Konitzer 1861) and Otto Rossbach (1889: 6ff), who discussed the list. Interestingly, Ross never mentioned the fact that the vessel was finally added to the collection owned by his friend and collaborator. This means, in fact, that both the island and Attica necropoles explored with Ross could have been the source of the vast majority of objects from Schaubert’s collection: vessels, both clay and stone, bronze artifacts or figurative terracotta art, stamps, coins and engraved gems, for which there are no record of where they have been found. All these items were mentioned by Ross (1855: 11–72) as being part of the graves he discovered, or which had previously been uncovered. Many of the items in Ross’s collection and collections of many other philhellenes probably had the same origin. The German archaeologist noted that many of the graves he examined had already been opened. As an example, he brought up the island of Aegina, where more than 1,000 ancient burial sites were thus uncovered in the 1830s. The objects they contained, he added, were scattered around the world. Among those who purchased antiquities from Aegina, Ross mentioned a well-known collector, Baron de Rouen (Ross 1855: 47). Ross (1855: 57f) also described the necropoles dug up by local farmers in the 1840s in the area of the famous Peloponnese antiquity sites, Corinth, Sparta, Sicyon or Tenea, from which they extracted objects, mainly vases and small bronze artifacts, and sold them to visitors. The time that elapsed between the first (confirmed by a letter from the beginning of 1832, cf. von Quast 1834: 1f) and the last (a diary of the journey to Boeotia in 1848) confirmed cases of acquiring objects for the collection indicates that the collecting process took several years. The gradual expansion of the collected set with new acquisitions was most probably done in two ways – through exploration both in Athens and other regions of Greece, carried out either independently or together with Ross, and by purchasing the new items from both legal 226 From Greece to Wrocław… and illegal sources. The surviving diaries of Anton Prokesch von Osten, who stayed in Greece at the same time as Schaubert, reveal that the author created his own collection of antiquities using such methods (Bertsch 2005: 507f). sChAuBert’s CoLLeCtion of Antiquities In Schaubert’s collection, apart from Greek antiquities, there were also items of Egyptian and Roman provenance. Schaubert never visited Egypt. Together with Hansen, they planned such a trip, but never implemented the plan (Haugsted 1996: 146). He most likely acquired Egyptian antiquities in Athens. This was certainly the case with the objects of Egyptian origin from Hansen’s collection, which were purchased by him in that city in 1846 (Bundgaard et al. 2011: 116, note 21). At least some objects of Roman provenance were acquired by Schaubert during his trip to Italy in 1854. They complemented his rich collection brought four years earlier from Greece. His visit was recorded in the Paßregister der preußischen Gesandtschaft zu Rom 1816–1870. This information was provided by Friedrich Noack in a publication about Germans in Rome (referenced as Noack 1927), who used the above register as one of his sources. He noted Schaubert‘s visit to the Eternal City from 19 June to 14 July 1854 (Noack 1927: 516). Richard Foerster (1867: 5) mentioned that, according to his knowledge, Schaubert brought some artifacts from Italy, but these were only insignificant and worthless items. Foerster‘s approach is interesting – as a scientist, he probably evaluated the artistic and historical value of the findings, probably not understanding their proper value, markedly emotional for Schaubert as a Philhellene. After the collection was brought to Wrocław, Schaubert did not part with it for the next ten years, until his death in 1860, keeping the collected objects in his family house at 15, Blücherplatz (now Plac Solny), where he settled after his return. A year after his death, the collection was transferred, partly as a gift, partly by way of purchase, to the then Royal Museum of Art and Antiquity, which in 1862, following the acquisition of this spectacular collection, was renamed the Archaeological Museum of the University of Breslau (Bończuk-Dawidziuk, Palica 2015: 233). The original composition and the number of items that the collection included are well known. The collection of around three hundred pieces of antique 227 Agata Kubala art7 and 1,437 coins, was until the start of the Second World War a very precious part of the items kept at the University of Breslau’s archeological museum. While the collection was being transferred, it turned out that a certain batch of objects was destroyed. The missing parts were replaced with other fragments. This was the case, for example, with the relief from Melos depicting Helle riding on a ram (cf. Kubala 2019: 413, cat. 33, il. 37). The missing head of the animal was replaced with a horse’s head from another relief of the same kind. As a result of the war or the postwar turmoil, a large part of the collection has disappeared. Only about one-fifth of the original collection (except coins) was preserved and is currently scattered between two museums. In 1946, the vast majority of the surviving objects were transferred to the National Museum in Warsaw. The remaining surviving items are kept in the Museum of the University of Wrocław, the heir to the pre-war institution to which the collection was transferred following Schaubert’s death. A preliminary reading of the published inventory of Schaubert’s collection of antiquities, made by August Rossbach (cf. Rossbach 1861; 1877) and recording its original composition, or even a cursory look at the preserved objects allows us to see its great heterogeneity. Such heterogeneity was most probably intended already when Schaubert initiated his collection, which is partly signaled by two preserved iconographic registers of certain parts of the collection, namely the painting (Fig. 1) and the drawing (Fig. 2) representing the Wrocław architect in his Athens atelier. Both were made in 1834, that is, in the first years of the collection. The heterogeneous character of the collection is a major feature but does not constitute the only distinguishing characteristics of the antiquity collection typical for the first half of the nineteenth century. Equally important is the fact that the artifacts that make up the collection belong to the category of mass products, made in series, purchased or acquired through private search, and thus ones for which there were no exact archaeological data. In addition, philhellene collections created in Greece after regaining its independence, in contrast to those created in the late eighteenth and the first three decades of the nineteenth century, are marked by an almost complete absence of “marbles” and other spectacular works of Greek art, due to restrictions in line with which Greek officials were obliged to reclaim all such objects for the future 7 We cannot determine their exact number. The author of both surviving inventories of the collection, A. Rossbach sometimes listed several objects under one item, without specifying their number, see e.g. Rossbach 1861: 45, no 121; Rossbach 1877: 125, no 5. 228 From Greece to Wrocław… national museum. This is reported, for example, by the Danish Consul General in Athens, Christian Tuxen Falbe, who in 1834 attempted to acquire, as he himself described it, something really valuable for the collection of the Danish successor to the throne, the later ruler, Christian VIII, an avid collector of antiquity (Bundgaard et al. 2002: 172). The collections created after 1830 consisted mostly of small objects of everyday use or small pieces of larger works. They were sometimes supplemented with plaster casts and drawings of inaccessible originals. The objects that once made up the collection of the Wrocław architect satisfy, as we will see, these criteria, thus fitting into the model of philhellenist antiquities collecting. Schaubert’s collection contained over 40 metal items. The most numerous set within this category were bronze objects. Among them, there were Greek mirrors, figurines or their fragments, vessels, a Corinthian helmet, tools or arrow heads. Within the ‘metal’ collection, there was also one unidentified iron object and fragments of gold products. Only fourteen bronze objects survived the turmoil of war and now are part of the collection held at the National Museum in Warsaw as examples of Greek artistic craftsmanship. Due to the regulations introduced in Greece during the rule of Otto Friedrich Ludwig, or because of Schaubert’s personal belief that they should be kept in a museum, his collection did not include monumental marble sculptures. It only included small marble artifacts, none of which were higher than 14 cm, according to August Rossbach (1877: 122). The ‘marble’ group consisted of eight objects, seven fragments of figures and one complete small statue. The only surviving artifact, currently in the collection of the Museum of the University of Wrocław, is a plinth depicting human feet and a fragment of tree trunk with a trace of snake still discernible on it. The context of the representation suggests that the statue was most probably a representation of Apollo. Pottery constituted an important part of Schaubert’s collection. Within the set of more than sixty items, the majority were small vessels. One exception was one of the three white-ground lekythos, preserved until today (cf. Fig. 5), which is almost 48 cm in height. The majority of the collected vessels were examples of Greek oriental and black- and red-figure pottery (Kubala 2019: 404ff, cat. no. 15–31). The oldest vessel is a ladle representing Mycenaean ceramics of the late Bronze Age or early Iron Age (cf. Fig. 3). The terracotta items were only slightly less numerous. There were fifty-five of them, small in size and with preserved traces of polychrome ornaments. Twenty of these objects have survived, including relief sculptures from Melos and architectural details such as antefixes, waterspouts, or fragments of simas and cornice. Among the items 229 Agata Kubala that did not survive, there were complete representations of human figures, deities or other mythological figures, and animals (Rossbach 1877: 120ff, no. 1–17, 19–22, 24–30). The extensive collection of the Wrocław architect also contained a number of carved gems, including those in the form of scarabs, made of various types of precious and non-precious stones and glass, decorated mainly with images of realistic and fantastic animals. Apart from the above categories of objects, Schaubert’s collection also included an impressive set of Greek, Roman and Byzantine coins. None of them have survived, but we know the types of coins that were in it, since in 1868 the collection was studied by a numismatist Julius Friedländer, the Director of the Royal Numismatic Cabinet at the Berlin University, who drew attention to the collection’s chronological and topographical diversity8. To make the picture of Schaubert’s collection complete, I need to mention the presence of plaster casts of sculptures, relief sculptures and architectural details, made in Athens, Rome and Naples during Schaubert’s stay in Italy in 1854. The collection catalogue lists, among others, copies of the chapiter and an upper fragment of the Monument of Lysicrates, the statue of Pan, the torso of the statue of Athena and fragments of grave stellae made in the capital of Greece, as well as copies of the sculptural pairing of the Tyrannicides and the Capitoline Venus brought from Italy (Rossbach 1877: 13ff). However, it seems that they were not as important for Schaubert as the ancient originals, because after they had been brought to Wrocław, he kept them in the basement of his house, from where they were only removed after his death (Rossbach 1877: 114). The analysis of the collection leads to yet another conclusion. Creating his collection of antiquities, the Wrocław architect meticulously acquired not only entire objects, but even small fragments of antique art pieces, all of which he collected considering as superior not their category or quality of workmanship, but their authentic ancient origin. Such an approach fits well the new model of collection-making, sparked by the increasingly widespread idea of philhellenism. The emergence of the independent Greek state created favorable cir8 Friedländer’s catalogue has not been published. It was included in the handwritten inventory of coins belonging to the collection of the University of Breslau’s Archeological Museum at that time, made in 1872, cf. Inventare des archäologischen Museums an der Königlichen Universität zu Breslau, II. Catalog der Münzen, which is now kept at the Archeological Museum in Wrocław, ref. no. DzDN-AN, MA/A/364. 230 From Greece to Wrocław… cumstances not only for the realization of romantic visions created by Western European philhellenes, based on the assumed idealistic image of Greece and their declared love for everything hailing from Greece. This allowed the philhellenes to satisfy their own desire to own ancient Greek artifacts. Schaubert thus appears to be a typical nineteenth-century collector, the philhellene, whose behavior was decidedly marked by his love for antiquity and whose collection was the material expression of this attitude. The antiquities collection created by the architect from Wrocław – or rather the circumstances and the way in which it was put together (this particular set, like other, similar collections was, among other factors, the result of field research) – reflect not only changes in the antiquities collection-making at the turn of the centuries and in the first half of the nineteenth century, but also the contribution of the Philhellene collectors, including the architect from Wrocław, to the development of both field archeology and theoretical archaeology9. The latter had been supplied by them with plentiful research material long before the professional archeologists started to appreciate the significance of excavation (along with the emergence of new fieldwork methods) for proper reconstruction of the past. Bibliography Bendtsen M. 1993. Sketches and Measurings. Danish Architects in Greece 1818–1862. Copenhagen: Kunstakademiets Bibliotek. Bertsch D. 2005. Anton Prokesch von Osten und Griechenland. Vom Kriegsberichterstatter des griechischen Freiheitskampfes zum ersten österreichischen gesandten. In: H.-D. Blume, C. Lienau (eds.). Der fremde und der eigene Blick. Reisen und Reisende in Griechenland. Choregia. Münsterische Griechenlandstudien, Heft 4. Münster, 61–102. Bończuk-Dawidziuk U. 2012. Eduard Schaubert. Schlesische Lebensbilder, 11, 323–332. Bończuk-Dawidziuk U., Palica M. 2013. Zbiory dzieł sztuki. In: J. Harasimowicz (Ed.). Księga Pamiątkowa Jubileuszu 200-lecia utworzenia Państwowego Uniwersytetu we Wrocławiu, Tom II: Universitas litterarum Wratislaviensis 1811–1945. Wrocław: Uniwersytet Wrocławski, 529–545. Bracken C.P. 1975. Antiquities Acquired. The Spoliation of Greece. London: David & Charles. 9 Some artifacts from Schaubert’s collection were studied by experts, the results of this research were published, see e.g. Konitzer 1861; Foerster 1867; Rossbach 1889. 231 Agata Kubala Bundgaard Rasmussen B., Jensen J.S., Lund J. (Ed.) 2000. Christian VIII and the National Museum. Antiquities, Coins, Medals. Copenhagen: [The National Museum of Denmark!]. Bundgaard Rasmussen B., Lund J. 2002. On the Creation of the Collection of Classical Antiquities in the Danish National Museum. Pharos. Journal of the Netherlands Institute in Athens, 10, 169–178. Galanakis Y. 2012. Of Grave Hunters & Earth Contractors: A Look at the “Private Archaeology” of Greece. [online]. Available from: http://www.chs-fellows.org/2012/11/15/ of-grave-hunters-earth-contractors-a-look-at-the-private-archaeology-of-greece/, accessed on 10.11.2020. Gryphius A. 1662. Mumiae Wratislavienses. Wratislaviae: Sumptibus Viti Jacobi Drescheri. Haugsted I. 1996. Dream and Reality. Danish Antiquaries, Architects and Artists in Greece. London: Archetype. Jacobsthal P. 1931. Die melischen Reliefs. Berlin: Heinrich Keller. Junkiert M. 2013. Historyzm wobec starożytności w dziełach J.J. Winckelmanna, W. von Humboldta i F. Schlegla. Próba rekonstrukcji i zarys polskiej recepcji. Slavia Occidentalis, 70/2, 7–25. Knie J.G., Melcher J.M. (eds.) 1826. Geographische Beschreibung von Schlesien preußischen Antheils, der Grafschaft Glatz und der preußischen Markgrafschaft oberLausitz, Erste Abtheilung, Heft 5, Breslau: Größel. Koepp F. 1890. Eduard Schauberts handschriftlicher Nachlaß, Archäologischer Anzeiger, 5, 129–148. Konitzer C. 1861. Herakles und die Hydra. Beschreibung der Schaubert’schen Vase “Herakles und die Hydra” im königlichen Museum für Kunst und Alterthum an der Universität Breslau. Gruss zur Feier des 50jährigen Jubiläums der Universität Breslau im Namen der archäologischen Gesellschaft. Breslau. Kubala A. 2019. Filhellenizm a rodząca się nowoczesność. Kolekcja starożytności Eduarda Schauberta w świetle zachodzących zmian. Kraków-Wrocław: Księgarnia Akademicka. MacGregor A. 2007. Curiosity and Enlightenment. Collectors and Collections from the Sixteenth to the Nineteenth Century, New Haven-London: Yale University Press. Marchand S.L. 1996. Down from Olympus. Archaeology and Philhellenism in Germany, 1750–1950. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Mencfel M. 2010. Skarbce natury i sztuki. Prywatne gabinety osobliwości, kolekcje sztuki i naturaliów na Śląsku w wiekach XVII i XVIII. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG. Minner I.E. 2006. Ewig ein Fremder im fremden Lande. Ludwig Ross (1806–1859) und Griechenland. Peleus. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Griechenlands und Zyperns, Bd. 36. Mannheim-Möhnesee: Harrassowitz Verlag. Noack F. 1927. Das Deutschtum in Rom seit dem Ausgang des Mittelalters, Bd. 2. Stuttgart-Berlin-Leipzig: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt. 232 From Greece to Wrocław… Papageorgiou-Venetas A. 1994. Athens: The Ancient Heritage and the Historic Cityscape in a Modern Metropolis. The Archaeological Society at Athens Library, 140. Athens. Paulinyi O. 1931. Johann von Turzo, Bischof von Breslau. Schlesische Lebensbilder, Bd. 4: Schlesier des 16. bis 19. Jahrhunderts, Breslau, 1–6. Quast A.F. von. 1834. Mittheilungen über Alt und Neu Athen. Berlin: George Gropius. Ross L. 1855. Archäologische Aufsätze. Leipzig: Von B.G. Teubner. Ross L. 1863. Erinnerungen und Mittheilungen aus Griechenland. Berlin: Rudolph Gaertner. Rossbach A. 1861. Verzeichnis der Gypsabgüsse und Originalien antiker Bildwerke im Königlichen Museum für Kunst und Alterthum an der Univeristät Breslau. Breslau: Grass, Barth und Comp. Rossbach A. 1877. Das archäologische Museum an der Universität zu Breslau. Breslau: Buchdruckerei Lindner. Rossbach O. 1889. Griechische Antiken des Archaeologischen Museums in Breslau. Breslau: Victor Zimmer. Tsigkakou F.-M. 1981. The Rediscovery of Greece: Travellers and Painters of the Romantic Era. London: Thames and Hudson. Wünsche R. 1993. Antiken aus Griechenland – Botschafter der Freiheit. In: R. Heydenreuter, J. Murken, R. Wünsche (eds.). Die erträumte Nation. Griechenlands Wiedergeburt im 19. Jahrhundert. München: Biering & Brinkmann GbR. List of illustrations Fig. 1. Hans Chr. Hansen, Eduard Schaubert, c. 1834, oil on paper on canvas, 36 x 43 cm, Photograph: Kit Weiss. Courtesy of the Museum of National History, Frederiksborg castle. Fig. 2. Hans Chr. Hansen, Eduard Schaubert in his atelier, February 1834, pencil on paper, 15 x 8.7 cm, Copenhagen, Danish Royal Academy of Fine Arts, sketchbook 18541. After Haugsted 1996: 228. Fig. 3. Ladle. Height with the handle 15 cm. Late Helladic III. Photograph: Wojciech Małkowicz. Courtesy of the Museum of the University of Wrocław. Fig. 4. Corinthian helmet. Bronze. Height 23 cm. Last quarter of the seventh century BC. Photograph: Piotr Ligier. Courtesy of the National Museum in Warsaw. Fig. 5. Attic white-ground lekythos by the Triglyph Painter. Height 47.7 cm. Between 430 and 420 BC. Photograph: Piotr Ligier. Courtesy of the National Museum in Warsaw. 233 Agata Kubala Fig. 1 234 From Greece to Wrocław… Fig. 2 Fig. 3 235 Agata Kubala Fig. 4 Fig. 5 236 https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.11 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk (Museum of the University of Wrocław) ColleCting Antiquities at the Archaeological museum of the royal university in wrocław in the second half of the nineteenth Century Abstract In the second half of the nineteenth century, the museum at the University in Wrocław (formerly Breslau) was reorganised. As a result, the institution was granted a new name and a new – archaeological – profile. The changes were initiated by August Rossbach (1823–1898), professor of classical philology and archaeology, director of the museum from 1856 to 1898. Through his efforts, the university museum started to professionally specialise in Antiquity. Above all, Rossbach significantly developed the collection of copies of ancient art, which were used as research and teaching tools. Through his efforts, the collection of the Archaeological Museum grew rich with some original pieces, including the collection of Eduard Schaubert (1804–1860), terracotta figurines from Taranto, and ceramic vessels from the collection of Carlo d’Ottavio Fontana of Trieste. The museum also took care of a coin collection catalogued by a famous numismatist, Julius Friedländer (1813–1884), upon Rossbach’s request. Thanks to Rossbach, in the 1870s, the museum boasted one of the largest German university collections in archaeology. At that time, the institution was an important research, educational, and cultural centre in Wrocław. Keywords: August Rossbach, Wrocław, Breslau, museum, university, collecting antiquities, nineteenth century 237 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk introduCtion The Archaeological Museum at the Royal University in Wrocław (former Breslau) was founded in 1862 as a result of the reorganisation of the Royal Museum of Art and Antiquities, an institution established at the University in Wrocław after the secularisation of convents, monasteries, and collegiate churches in Silesia in 1810. At that time, part of the nationalised church property was incorporated into the holdings of the University in Wrocław. Thus, the alma mater of Silesia gained interesting research and teaching material. Holdings seized from monasteries, convents, and collegiate churches were truly diverse. The rich archive and library collections were allocated to two institutions – the Provincial Archives and the University Library. The art and archaeology collections were allocated to the Museum. They covered fine arts (painting and sculpture), artisanal handicraft, as well as coins, medals, and archaeological artefacts. Individual copies of works of art in the form of plaster casts of ancient sculptures completed the collection. The museum was located in the university library building on Sand Island (Wyspa Piasek) in Wrocław, in a building having housed the monastery of Canons Regular of Saint Augustine before the secularisation (Fig. 1). In the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the Museum’s holdings grew in two types: on the one hand, the head of the institution, Johann Gustav Gottlieb Büsching (1783–1829), a pioneer in the study of prehistoric artefacts, collected original archaeological objects testifying to human activity in prehistoric times; on the other hand, he bought plaster casts of the most famous works of ancient art, which were to serve as teaching tools at the university. Neither Büsching nor his successors would develop the collection of paintings, so, in the middle of the nineteenth century, it became clear that the university museum with a gallery of paintings no longer fulfilled its role from a few decades before, when the exhibition was the only public gallery of paintings in Wrocław (regularly open to the public since 29 June 1815). In fact, other fine arts exhibition venues had opened. The university conducted scientific research based on archaeological artefacts from the museum’s collection and developed didactics based on plaster casts (for example: in classical philology classes). Therefore, in 1853, the first step was taken to shift the museum’s profile towards antiquity: 82 paintings were placed on permanent deposit in the Wrocław Picture Gallery at the State House (Bildergalerie im Ständehaus). Further action was taken after the university senate decided upon the institution’s reorganisation, which was carried out by August Rossbach (1823–1898), professor of classical philology and 238 Collecting Antiquities… archaeology and, since 1856, director of the Royal Museum of Art and Antiquities in Wrocław (Fig. 3). Following the reorganisation, works of medieval art, artisanal handicraft items, military memorabilia, medieval and modern coins, the rest of the paintings, and the prehistoric collection described as ‘Germanic-Silesian grave antiquities’ were taken care of by the Society of the Museum of Silesian Antiquities (Verein für das Museum Schlesischer Alterthümer) in 1862. Interestingly, Rossbach rented space to the Society to house the collection of the new museum, which provided additional income to the university museum. In 1879, those objects were transferred to the collection of the newly established Museum of Silesian Antiquities (Museum Schlesischer Alterthümer) in perpetuity1. In 1862, the university museum hosted archaeological artefacts from the Mediterranean Basin and plaster casts of ancient art, changing its name to the Archaeological Museum at the Royal University in Wrocław. Antiquities from eduArd sChAuBert’s CoLLeCtion The decision to shift the university museum’s profile towards antiquity was supported by an extremely academically appealing collection that had arrived at the museum a year earlier, in 1861. It was an antiquity collection of Eduard Schaubert (1804–1860), an architect living in Athens since 1830 and working for King Otto of Greece (Bończuk-Dawidziuk 2012). This collection, extremely important in the history of Wrocław collecting, was donated to the University by Schaubert’s heirs after his death. Partly as a gift and partly by purchase, the Royal Museum of Art and Antiquities in Wrocław acquired the collection of antiquities gathered by Schaubert during his 20-year stay in Greece. The collection included antique architectural elements, sculpture and reliefs, artisanal handicraft, numismatic items, as well as architecture and urban planning documentation (Koepp 1890. Foerster 1908–1909, reprinted in: PapageorgiouVenetas 2001: 179–182). The collection reflected the typical fascinations of nineteenth-century philhellenes who – in pursuit of contact with an actual historic artefact perceived as a witness to events from the distant past – collected objects of all kinds, from 1 For more about the reorganisation of the Museum, refer to Zofia Bandurska (Bandurska 1998), Johanna Kinne (Kinne 2010: 249, 255), Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk (Bończuk-Dawidziuk 2020). 239 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk large-scale marble sculptures depicting popular gods (like Greek Athena or Roman Venus) to small fragments of arrowheads from the fields of Marathon. Such a typical philhellenic collection included items truly diverse in typology and material but bound by one common feature: their origin was in ancient Greece or Roman Italy. The uniqueness of Schaubert’s collection lay not in its content but in its geographical location: at that time, there were no original artefacts of this type in Wrocław (Kubala 2019: 135). Schaubert’s collection was added to the museum’s collection in 1861, and a list of its constituents was published by Rossbach later that year (Rossbach 1861: 38–48). A comprehensive study presenting the identification and dating of the artefacts was published by Rossbach in a revised and expanded catalogue edition from 1877 (Rossbach 1877: 114–128). It states that Schaubert’s collection included: 23 architectural elements, about 55 terracotta figurines, 22 terracotta lamps, eight marble sculptures, 13 polished marble pieces, 47 bronze, lead and iron casts, 18 arrowheads, 35 black-figure vessels and 20 red-figure vessels, seven gemstones and 47 engraved base stones, 15 non-antique stones, 1,437 Greek, Roman and Byzantine coins, 10 coin casts, a certain number of seal impressions, seven miscellanea, as well as architectural drawings, maps, plans, and documents (Rossbach 1877: 114–128). The collection was scattered during and after the Second World War, and only a portion of it has been identified to date2. But even this small portion illustrates the collector’s interests and expertise. For example, it is known that architectural elements interested Schaubert mainly because of their preserved polychrome, which is still visible on the pieces from his collection in the holdings of the University in Wrocław (Fig. 4). However, other objects, like some of the bronze pieces from his collection are of such high quality and rarity that they are among the most valuable state holdings in Poland today. The uniqueness of some of the artefacts in the Schaubert collection is evidenced by the fact that several of them were the subject of separate publications issued 2 Owing to my research carried out from 2010 to 2012, it was possible to identify many objects from Schaubert’s collection in the National Museum in Warsaw and in teaching collections of the University of Wrocław. More detailed information can be found in: Bończuk-Dawidziuk, Palica 2015. In consequence of that research, the collection came to the attention of Agata Kubala, PhD, from the Institute of Art History of the University of Wrocław, who wrote a book related to it (Kubala 2019). In 2020, I successfully identified more items from Schaubert’s collection in the holdings of the National Museum in Warsaw – refer to Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk (Bończuk-Dawidziuk 2021). 240 Collecting Antiquities… already in the nineteenth century (Konitzer 1861; Foerster 1867: artefact currently in the holdings of the National Museum in Warsaw, inv. no. 198294); Rossbach 1889). Some of these flattering opinions were confirmed in studies after the Second World War. Let us take for example an item from the collection of the National Museum in Warsaw (inventory number 198308): a holder of a standing mirror in the form of a caryatid, which was recognised as globally unique by an American researcher in 1966 (Keene Congdon 1966: 161–165, tables 43–44). Other opinions – of only historical value today due to the objects being lost – are still awaiting contemporary verification. For instance, Schaubert’s collection of Greek coins, formerly highly regarded, was lost after the Second World War. It contained 1437 Greek, Roman, and Byzantine numismatic items, including 1089 Æ, 265 AR, 4 AV, 86 of unspecified material. A famous Berlin numismatist, Julius Friedländer, examined this collection and highly valued the Greek coins in the number of 1255 pieces (including 912 Æ, 262 AR, 2 AV, 86 of unspecified material) (Bończuk-Dawidziuk 2011). Friedländer pointed out that Schaubert’s Greek coins were chronologically and topographically diverse and in a good state of preservation. Thus, the collection aspired to be an independent didactic tool as regards Greek numismatics. The expertise of the Wrocław collector is further evidenced by the fact that the Berlin researcher could not find any counterfeit coins in Schaubert’s collection3. other Antiquities The antiquities from Schaubert’s collection were the most valuable items at the university museum and clearly dominated other museum artefacts, both artistically and historically. But original antiquities had been kept in the museum since its establishment. From the beginning, Büsching, its first director, strove to transfer archaeological artefacts found in Silesia to the collections of the museum in Wrocław. Conducting amateur research on antiquities, Johann Gottlob Worbs (1760–1833) from Przewóz, the Superintendent of Duchy of Sagan, learned about nine bronze bracelets and 20 bracelet fragments having been 3 Manuscript of the coin catalogue from 1872 entitled: Inventare des archäologischen Museums an die Königlichen Universität zu Breslau / II. Catalog der Münzen, Muzeum Archeologiczne Oddział Muzeum Miejskie Wrocławia [Archaeological Museum, Branch of the City Museum of Wrocław], inv. no. MA O.MMW: DzDN-AN, MA/A/364. 241 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk discovered in a field in Gozdnica (Sagan County). Already in 1817, he led to the transfer of the greater part of the treasure (seven bracelets and 12 bracelet fragments) to the collection of the Royal Museum in Wrocław (Inv. No B. d. 2–7, 9, 45)4. Nowadays, those artefacts, formerly believed to be Roman, are dated to the Late Bronze Age (1200–1000 BCE) and attributed to the Urnfield culture (former Lusatian culture)5. Büsching also sought to acquire specimens from royal collections in Berlin. And so, in 1822, 12 Italic vases came from Berlin to Wrocław (Kinne 2010: 52). In the same year, the Wrocław collection received from Berlin one object that was part of a treasure trove of bronze weapons and tools discovered in Alt Plestlin near Demmin in Vorpommern. It was a bronze socketed axe with a loop, currently dated to the Late Bronze Age (1100–900 BCE). Although being a prehistoric specimen, it is worth mentioning in this listing: in Büsching’s time, it was not possible to fit antiquities into the relative chronology of prehistory and historical periods6. 1822 proved to be a year exceptionally abundant in terms of the growth of the museum collection of the University in Wrocław. In autumn, Erich Neumann, the curator of the University in Wrocław and a government counsellor (Regierungsrat), paid 36 thalers for Roman antiquities discovered in Świdnica and offered for sale by Major von Kanitz from Kassel (Kinne 2010: 52–53). They were absorbed by the museum’s collection and described in professor Friedrich Kruse’s Budorgis (Kruse 1819: 117–120). Finally, in December 1822, the museum received a donation of 13 antiquities found in Italy in different places (Kinne 2010: 53). Another group of antiquities was documented in 1827. According to a preserved archival source, 16 pieces of Roman clay antiquities were delivered to the collection of the Wrocław museum on 10 March 1827. They included vessels 4 5 6 Schlesische Provinzial-Blätter, 66 (1817: 2) p. 516; Seger 1936: 127; Kinne 2010: 51. One of the brancelets is preserved in the Archaeological Museum, Branch of the City Museum of Wrocław (Muzeum Archeologiczne Oddział Muzeum Miejskie Wrocławia, inventory number: B.d.45). I wish to thank Mr Krzysztof Demidziuk from the Archaeological Museum, Branch of the City Museum of Wrocław, for his help in determining details of the artefact from Alt Plestlin based on preserved archival materials: Verzeichnis der auserhalb Schlesien gefundenen heidnischen Altertümer aller Art, die sich in der Sammlung der Breslauer Hochschule finden. C., no. XXIV (Muzeum Archeologiczne Oddział Muzeum Miejskie Wrocławia, inv. no. DzDN-61). 242 Collecting Antiquities… such as jugs, urns, bowls, and cups of the terra sigillata type. It is known from later source accounts that Roman originals found in Italy, the Rhineland, Lüneburg, and Hungary also entered the collection during Büsching’s time. Those were mainly clayware (vessels, lights) and glassware. The four Greek terracotta heads mentioned in this group are of particular interest (Rossbach 1861: 49). Under Franz Passow, Büsching’s successor, the holdings included two ancient marble sculptures: a torso of a young man and a small head of a woman. Both sculptures were donated to the museum by Toussaint von Charpentier (1779– 1847), geologist and entomologist, on the occasion of his moving from Silesia to Dortmund in 1830 (Kinne 2010: 125). In the same year, professor Schultze donated ancient originals, including a Roman mosaic, to the museum (Kinne 2010: 125). More antiquities arrived at the university museum in Wrocław in the second half of the nineteenth century through the efforts of professor Rossbach. Apart from Schaubert’s collection, there were two other significant collections of antiquities. One of them was a collection of 46 terracotta figurines from Taranto, which had belonged to Dressler’s collection in Rome. The collection was dominated by small heads (some in an archaic style), but it also included fragments of figurines and reliefs. These high-end items were listed by Rossbach in his 1885/86 annual report. On this occasion, the ministry also donated six terracotta pieces from Myrina to the academic museum (Kinne 2010: 304). The second acquisition included 82 ceramic vessels from the collection of Carlo d’Ottavio Fontana (1774–1832) of Trieste, which were donated to the Wrocław university museum in 1888 by the Prussian ministry of culture (Ministerium der geistlichen, Unterrichts- und Medizinalangelegenheiten), at that time headed by Gustav Konrad Heinrich von Goßler (1838–1902) (Bończuk-Dawidziuk, Palica 2013: 534–535). Whether those vessels were Etruscan, South Italic, or Greek, is unknown. Etruscan and South Italic vessels made certainly part of Fontana’s collection. For it is known that in the same year, 110 South Italic vessels from the collector’s legacy inherited by his son Carlo Antonio went to the Academic Art Museum in Bonn (Akademische Kunstmuseum zu Bonn), and seven other vessels landed in Berlin (Zimmermann 1974: 63–64). However, Johanna Kinne states that Greek vases from his collection arrived in Wrocław (Kinne 2010: 304; 2013: 279–280). 243 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk Coin ColleCtion The collection of antiquities at the university also included numismatic items. In addition to the aforementioned – mostly Greek – coins from Schaubert’s collection, the University also held Roman (and to a lesser extent Greek) coins gathered under the name of the Old Collection (in German: Alte Sammlung) (Rossbach 1877: 127). When August Rossbach became the director of the museum, he found that both coin collections had never been assessed by a specialised numismatist, so – with the approval of the Prussian ministry – he sent the coins to Julius Friedländer (1813–1884), famous numismatist and director of the Coin Cabinet at the Emperor Frederick Museum in Berlin (Münzcabinet an der Königliche Museen zu Berlin). Friedländer elaborated on Schaubert’s numismatic items in 1868, created a catalogue of the Greek coins, and scientifically revised the ‘Old Collection’7 (Fig. 5). On this basis, in 1872, Rossbach compiled a catalogue of Roman coins belonging to the ‘Old Collection’. Rossbach relied on the verification sent by Friedländer but also considered an inventory document drawn up in January 1846 by the previous director of the museum, Joseph Julius Athanasius Ambrosch (1839–1856), and completed in subsequent years. His two-volume document was entitled ‘Entwurf eines neuen Katalogs der akademischen Münzkabinets’ and constituted a compilation of artefacts mentioned in older catalogues issued by two universities that merged in 1811: the Academia Leopoldina in Wrocław (Catalogus et Descriptio Numorum Universitatis Leopoldinae Vratislaviae) and the University Viadrina in Frankfurt an der Oder (Catalogus nummorum Universitatis Viadrinae Francofurto allatorum nec non eorum, qui abolitis casibus religiosis e quibusdam Silesiae conventibus et monasteriis collecti sunt). Rossbach undertook to compare Ambrosch’ inventory with the coins in the boxes. He then stated that the order of the coins in the boxes did not match the order in Ambrosch’ inventory. Besides, as Ambrosch had already noted8, some coins were missing, and some had not been registered at all. Perhaps the coins not included by Ambrosch were, among other things, part of collections acquired during the secularisation period. For it is known that 259 Roman coins and 472 other coins were seized from the Augustinian monastery in Żagań and 169 coins – from the Augustinian monastery on Wyspa Piasek (Sand Island) in 7 8 Manuscript of the coin catalogue from 1872…, pp. 2–3. Ibid., p. 2. 244 Collecting Antiquities… Wrocław (Prittwitz 1881: 282). Moreover, the Lubiąż monastery secularisation report mentions a numismatic cabinet consisting of 600–700 coins9. But it is not known how many of the numismatic coins nationalised from clergy collections after 1810 found their way into the royal collections, and how many of them were scheduled to be melted down into contemporary coins. Summarising, the so-called Old Collection consisted of coins acquired as a result of the secularisation of Silesian convents and monasteries in 1810 and the merger of the collections of the Viadrina and Leopoldina Universities in 1811, as well as through individual donations and purchases.9 From source-documented donations of coins, we may mention two of them. The first one was made in 1823: Büsching received 54 Roman coins from Neuwied (Kinne 2010: 53). The second one was made in 1844 or 1845, when a state court assessor, Klingenberg, donated his numismatic collection to the museum, including the Roman coins 58 Æ and 5 AR (Kinne 2010: 203–208). In 1861, the ‘Old Collection’ contained 72 Greek coins and about 1500 Roman coins (Nadbyl 1861: 88); in 1872, ‘Old Collection’ contained 1191 coins, mostly Roman (1097 pieces, including 669 Æ, 363 AR, 1 AV, 64 of unspecified material10, and Greek coins (94 pieces, including 58 Æ, 36 AR11). The discrepancy in the figures reported in 1861 and 1872 is probably due to Friedländer’s verification, who harshly evaluated the ‘Old Collection’ and separated from it as many as 741 coins that were either counterfeited (198) or in poor condition (543). His final judgement was resolute: ‘The Roman coins from the Old Collection are almost all worthless or in a poor state of preservation. The only pieces of value are [second-century imperial] denarii of Pescennius Niger ([Ambrosch’] catalogue of the Old Collection, part I, p. 56, no. 448) and of Pertinax’12. In Rossbach’s catalogue from 1877, the coins from the Old Collection were generally discussed in the subsection on the Coin Cabinet. According to the catalogue, the museum’s ‘Old Collection’ contained almost exclusively Roman coins (Rossbach 1877: 127). As the numismatic holdings of the university museum in Wrocław have not survived to the present day, a certain idea of the collection of Roman coins from the so-called Old Collection is given by the preserved manuscript catalogue, in Wrocław University Library, Department of Manuscripts, cat. number IV. F. 267, vol. 2: Acta manualia die Uebernahme der Bibliotheken, Kunstsammlungen & Archive in den aufgehobenen Klöstern Schlesiens betreffend, sheet 113. 10 Manuscript of the coin catalogue from 1872…, pp. 315–538. 11 Ibid., pp. 10–284 12 Ibid., p. 8. 9 245 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk which the following are discussed one by one: republican coins, coins of Roman families in alphabetical order (Aquilia, Cassia, Porcia, etc.), and imperial coins of Tiberius, Caligula, Nero, Marcus Aurelius, Julia Domna, etc13. Towards the end of the Wrocław university museum’s activity period mentioned, its holdings included coinage from the collection of Richard Leonhard, who collected numismatic artefacts at Cythera and donated them to the museum on 1 August 1899. The inventory presents 21 items, including three Greek coins minted at Cythera, nine Roman coins, three Byzantine coins, and six Dalmatian coins with images of lions from Saint Mark’s Basilica in Venice. In the museum, the coins from Leonhard’s collection have been assigned to the so-called New Collection14. CoPies of AnCient Art Since its establishment, the museum was collecting copies of ancient art in the form of plaster casts and, more rarely, metal casts. Six casts of sculptures came from the post-secularisation collection: Apollo Belvedere, Laocoön (only the father figure), Borghese Gladiator from Paris, two heads of Venus and one head of Antinous (Kinne 2010: 345). Basing on this modest set, Büsching, the first director of the museum, began to develop a didactic collection for teaching students in classical philology. In 1825, he ordered 40 new casts of ancient art (17 sculptures, 15 busts and heads, 6 reliefs, 2 torsos) for the collection, and a year later he also added a cast of the Praying Boy (Kinne 2010: 345–347). These purchases initiated a systematic collection of plaster casts at the state university in Wrocław and thus made the academic museum in Wrocław went down in history as one of the first university museums with a collection of this type in former Germany, after Göttingen (1767), Bonn (1818/1820), and Königsberg (1824). Successive directors of the museum, who were classical philologists, expanded this part of the collection, treating it as an important teaching tool. 13 Manuscript of the coin catalogue from 1872… Refer to the catalogue study in: Bończuk- -Dawidziuk 2011. 14 Manuscript of the coin catalogue from 1872… At the end of the inventory book, between unpaginated pages, there is a loose sheet with a stamp ‘Archäologisches Museum an d. K. Universität in Breslau’ and a handwritten note stating on donating R. Leonhard’s collection of coins to the museum. 246 Collecting Antiquities… In 1848, the casts of ancient art in the museum at the university amounted to 259 copies of sculptures, busts, and vessels (Kinne 2010: 213). The real flourishing time for the plaster cast collection came in the second half of the nineteenth century under director August Rossbach, who took over as head of the museum in 1856, and held the position for 42 years until his death in 189815. Especially in the initial period, he proved his initiative and intensity of activities. Sources say that he was introduced to the museum in ‘a modest and neglected condition’16, so he immediately began to raise more funds for this institution, as well as to acquire more premises. What seemed important was the adaptation of the first floor of the library building garden wing for museum purposes, and Rossbach’s furnishing of a lecture hall (known as the Auditorium) where he taught and where students were exposed to copies of ancient sculptures. His main task was to complete the presented material to enable tracing the history of sculpture from the archaic to the post-classical period on this basis. Thanks to the concentration of the annual source of income, financial support from the university’s curator Baron Johann Eduard von Schleinitz (1798–1869), and donations by director of the Royal Museums in Berlin Ignaz von Olfers (1793–1871) (Nadbyl 1861: 88), the collection of ancient casts was multiplied by as much as a third by 1861 (Nadbyl 1861: 88). Rossbach published two catalogues for collections of plaster casts (in 1861 and 1877). One includes 328 numbers, mostly larger and smaller statues, while the other 439 casts17 arranged in chronological order, and it is known that by the year of the professor’s death, 1898, the collection had grown by about 100 more pieces. Rossbach also used the chronological order preferred for didactic purposes in the newly arranged seven-room exhibition. Two of them are devoted to the art of the archaic period, three – to classical sculpture (including the works of Phidias, Polykleitos, Scopas, Praxiteles and Lysippos), one displayed Pergamonian, Rhodian and Attic objects, and the last one – Roman artefacts18 (Fig. 2). 15 From 1868 on, he also lived in the museum, occupying a service apartment, which he paid for (initially 70, and starting from 1873 – 80 thalers per year) [according to:] Kinne 2010: 255. 16 From August Rossbach’s letter to his children, Wrocław, 16 October 1878 (from private collection). 17 These numbers apply to all – not just antique – copies of works of art. 18 The sketch belongs to the holdings of Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preußischer Kulturbesitz in Berlin. Repr. Kinne 2010: 274. 247 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk Rossbach’s efforts for the Archaeological Museum at the University in Wrocław were so extensive that he was called the second founder of the institution. In 1861, having conducted his own comparisons, Rossbach stated that the academic museum in Wrocław was second only to Bonn among all Prussian university museums (Nadbyl 1861: 88). This judgement was confirmed in 1898 by his successor as museum director, Richard Foerster (1843–1922) (Foerster 1898). From today’s perspective, we must admit that the museum was indeed an important academic institution in the second half of the nineteenth century and could boast one of the richest collections of plaster casts among German universities. For comparison, in 1877, it stored more than 400 plaster casts (not including casts of engraved gems and coins), while – in the same year – the Munich museum catalogued 302 plaster casts in its collection (Rossbach 1877; Kurzes Verzeichnis… 1877). summAry The history of the Archaeological Museum at the Royal University in Wrocław in the second half of the nineteenth century shows the process of profiling the collections of this institution towards Antiquity and the subsequent expansion of the collections in two main directions: original objects (archaeological artefacts) and copies of works of art, artisanal handicraft, coins, and engraved gems (plaster and metal casts). The preserved collection catalogues and archives, as well as reports on the museum’s activities published in the university yearbooks, give a relatively coherent picture of the policy of shaping the collections of the university museum in Wrocław in the second half of the nineteenth century when it was headed by August Rossbach, professor of classical philology. Definitely, he was a key figure in the reorganisation of the museum and shifting its profile towards Mediterranean Antiquity. Once August Rossbach came from Tübingen to Wrocław, his professional career progressed successfully. He was a popular lecturer, he conducted research and published his papers. In addition to his activities for the academic community, he also contributed to the cultural life of the city. He was a cofounder and organiser, and then the first and long-time chairman, of Verein für Geschichte der bildenden Künste. This Society was founded in 1862 for mutual support and exchange of knowledge about the fine arts; its members were art248 Collecting Antiquities… ists, experts, and amateurs. Meetings combined with lectures and discussions were held every two weeks in the auditorium of the museum on Wyspa Piasek island (Foerster 1898). Thus, the Archaeological Museum at the University in Wrocław was at the centre of educational and cultural life in Wrocław. It was blooming. Neither earlier nor later had a comparable splendour been recorded. Shortly after Büsching established the museum, the holdings were heterogeneous and random, as the collection core consisted of artefacts acquired through the secularisation of Silesian convents and monasteries. In the following years, professors of classical philology multiplied the holdings with plaster casts of ancient art, but it was August Rossbach who began buying items on a large scale. This was due to the fact that Rossbach’s financial means differed from those of his predecessors. As a result of the museum reorganisation, he shifted its profile towards archaeology, and at the same time, by renting space to a new museum in Wrocław, he gained funds for the purchase of new artefacts for the university museum under his management. This modern management approach was possible, among other things, because Rossbach was an active promoter of science and culture in Wrocław. He chaired several prominent societies and created a periodic meeting place in the museum on Wyspa Piasek island for many members of the societies in which he was active. His participation in the scientific, educational, and cultural life of the city gave him an understanding of the prevailing relations and an appropriate response to the needs of the public. He strengthened the status of the institution under his leadership by significantly expanding the exhibition space, multiplying the collections, and making them accessible to researchers, artists and students, well as to a wider audience. In the absence of a Wrocław institution competing in this field with the Archaeological Museum, his actions led to success. In the 1870s, the museum boasted one of the largest German university collections in archaeology. At that time, the institution was an important research, educational, and cultural centre in Wrocław. In the second half of the nineteenth century, when new museums began to appear in the cultural landscape of the city of Wrocław, the Archaeological Museum gave way to their leading position among the city’s museum institutions. It survived until 1945, also due to the collection profiling by Rossbach, which made it possible to find a permanent audience of students, researchers, and artists19. 19 For information on the post-war history of the collection, refer to Agata Kubala and Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk (Kubala, Bończuk-Dawidziuk 2018: 9–18). 249 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk Finally, it is worth mentioning that the antiquities mentioned herein can only be found – with very few exceptions – mainly in archival materials. It is extremely difficult to present the exact shape of the collection due to the dispersion of the Wrocław Archaeological Museum’s holdings during the Second World War. At that time, the original objects were hidden throughout the Lower Silesia region. After the War, some of them were taken to Warsaw and incorporated into the collection of the National Museum, others were lost. The plaster casts left in Wrocław were mostly destroyed during the bombardment of Festung Breslau at Easter 1945. Several dozens of them were excavated from the ruins of the museum building by Kazimierz Majewski (1903–1981), a professor of classical archaeology who came from Lviv. Those casts were included in the teaching aid materials of the Polish university being established in post-war Wrocław. At present, they are displayed on permanent exhibition in the Museum of the University of Wrocław. Bibliography Bandurska Z. 1998. Königliches Museum für Kunst und Altertümer. In: P. Łukaszewicz (ed.). Kunstmuseen im alten Breslau. Wrocław: Muzeum Narodowe, pp. 27–36. Bończuk-Dawidziuk U. 2011. Rękopis katalogu monet Muzeum Archeologicznego przy Królewskim Uniwersytecie we Wrocławiu z roku 1872. Silesia Antiqua, 47, 287–298. Bończuk-Dawidziuk U. 2012. Eduard Schaubert (1804–1860). In: J. Bahlcke (ed.). Schlesische Lebensbilder, 11. [S.n.]: Insingen Degener, pp. 323–332. Bończuk-Dawidziuk U., Palica M. 2013. Art Collections. In: J. Harasimowicz (ed.). Commemorative Book for the 200th Anniversary of the Establishment of the State University in Wrocław, vol. 2, Universitas litterarum Wratislaviensis 1811–1945. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, pp. 528–545. Bończuk-Dawidziuk U., Palica M. 2015. Kolekcja zabytków starożytnych architekta Eduarda Schauberta (1804–1860) ze zbiorów dawnego wrocławskiego muzeum uniwersyteckiego. In: J. Harasimowicz (ed.). Commemorative Book for the 200th Anniversary of the Establishment of the State University in Wrocław, vol. 4, Uniwersytet Wrocławski w kulturze europejskiej XIX I XX wieku. (Materiały Międzynarodowej Konferencji Naukowej, Wrocław 4–7 października 2011 r.). Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, pp. 231–238. Bończuk-Dawidziuk U. 2020. Muzeum Archeologiczne przy Uniwersytecie we Wrocławiu w drugiej połowie XIX wieku w świetle akt ze zbiorów Augusta Rossbacha i jego syna Ottona. In: M. Hałub, A. Mańko-Matysiak (eds.). Śląska Republika 250 Collecting Antiquities… Uczonych/Schlesische Gelehrtenrepublik/Slezská Vědecká Obec, vol. 9. Dresden– Wrocław: Oficyna Wydawnicza ATUT - Wrocławskie Towarzystwo Oświatowe, pp. 84–110. Bończuk-Dawidziuk U. 2021. Z Aten do Wrocławia. O Eduardzie Schaubercie (1804– 1860) i jego kolekcji starożytności. Rocznik Muzeum Narodowego w Warszawie. Nowa Seria/Journal of the National Museum in Warsaw. New Series, 10(46), (in press). Foerster R. 1867. Die Hochzeit des Zeus und der Hera. Relief der Schaubert‘schen Sammlung in dem K. Museum für Kunst und Alterthum in Breslau. Breslau: Druck von Grass, Bart u. Comp. Foerster R. 1898. August Rossbach. Schlesische Zeitung, no. 595, 26 August, pp. 2–3. Foerster R. 1908–1909. Ein schlesischer Architekt im Lande der Hellenen. Schlesien. Illustrierte Zeitschrift für die Pflege heimatlicher Kultur, 2, 139–145. Keene Congdon L.O. 1966. Two Bronze Mirror Caryatids in the National Museum of Warsaw. American Journal of Archeology, 70(2), 161–165. https://doi. org/10.2307/502152. Kinne J. 2010. Die klassische Archäologie und ihre Professoren an der Universität Breslau im 19. Jahrhundert. Eine Dokumentation. Dresden: Dresden Neisse. Kinne J. 2013. Classical archaeology. In: J. Harasimowicz (ed.). Commemorative Book for the 200th Anniversary of the Establishment of the State University in Wrocław, vol 2, Universitas litterarum Wratislaviensis 1811–1945. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego, pp. 270–291. Koepp F. 1890. Eduard Schauberts Handschriftlicher Nachlass. Archäologischer Anzeiger, 129–148. Konitzer C. 1861. Herakles und die Hydra. Beschreibung der Schaubert‘schen Vase ‘Herakles und die Hydra’ im königlichen Museum für Kunst und Alterthum an der Universität Breslau. Gruss zur Feier des 50jährigen Jubiläums der Universität Breslau im Namen der archäologischen Gesellschaft. Breslau: Univers. Buchdruckerei. Kruse F. 1819. Budorgis, oder etwas über das alte Schlesien vor Einführung der Christlichen Religion besonders zu den Zeiten der Römer nach gefundenen Alterthümern und den Angaben der Alten. Leipzig: Hartknoch. Kubala A., Bończuk-Dawidziuk U. 2018. The Art of Ancient Greece and Rome. The Catalogue of Plaster Casts it the University of Wrocław Collection. Wrocław: Oficyna Wydawnicza Atut – Wrocławskie Wydawnictwo Oświatowe. The Treasures of University Collections, vol. 3. Kubala A. 2019. Filhellenizm a rodząca się nowoczesność. Kolekcja starożytności Eduarda Schauberta w świetle zachodzących zmian. Kraków–Wrocław: Księgarnia Akademicka. https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381381123. Kurzes Verzeichnis des Museums von Gypsabgüssen klassischer Bildwerke in München, München: [s.n.] 1877. Nadbyl B. (ed.). 1861. Chronik und Statistik der Königlichen Universität zu Breslau. Breslau: Königliche Universität zu Breslau. 251 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk Papageorgiou-Venetas A. 2001. Eduard Schaubert 1804–1860. Der Städtebauliche Nachlass zur Planung der Städte Athen und Piräus. Mannheim–Möhnesee: Bibliopolis. Peleus. Studien zur Archäologie und Geschichte Griechenlands und Zyperns, 11. Prittwitz B.V. 1881. Zweiter Theil: Das Museum schlesischer Alterthümer. Schlesiens Vorzeit in Bild und Schrift, 3, 281–296. Rossbach A. 1861. Verzeichniss der Gypsabgüsse und Originalien antiker Bildwerke im Königlichen Museum für Kunst und Alterthum an der Universität Breslau. Breslau: Grass, Barth und Comp. Rossbach A. 1877. Das Archäologische Museum an der Universität zu Breslau. Breslau: Buchdruckerei Lindner. Rossbach O. 1889. Griechische Antiken des Archäologischen Museums in Breslau. Breslau: Victor Zimmer. Seger H. 1936. Schlesische Hortfunde aus Bronze- und frühe Eisenzeit. Altschlesien, 6, 85–182. Zimmermann K. 1974. Reviewed Work: Corpus vasorum antiquorum. Italia. Fasc. 43: Civico museo di storia e darte di Trieste. B.M. Scarfi (a cura di), Gnomon 46(1), 63–66. list of illustrations Fig. 1. Carl Jander. Sand Island in Wrocław, etching reprinted on the postcard, ca. 1910. Museum of the University of Wrocław, inv. no. MUWr-463. Fig. 2. The interior of one of the exhibition halls in the Archaeology Museum of the Royal University of Wrocław, photography, 1891. Museum of the University of Wrocław, inv. no. MUWr-1365. Fig. 3. Portrait of August Rossbach, photography, ca 1870. Museum of the University of Wrocław, inv. no. MUWr-1367. Fig. 4. Corner section of a cornice adorned with a swastika meander motif, Athens (?), 5th c. BCE (?), terracotta. University of Wrocław, inv. no. UWr-78-VIIj-6, photo by Wojciech Małkowicz. Fig. 5. Coin catalogue of the Archaeology Museum of the Royal University in Wrocław, 1872, manuscript notes sewed together, City Museum of Wrocław, Branch: Archaeological Museum, Department of Scientific Documents, inv. no. MA/A/364, photo by Tomasz Gąsior. 252 Collecting Antiquities… Fig. 1 Fig. 2 253 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk Fig. 3 254 Collecting Antiquities… Fig. 4 255 Urszula Bończuk-Dawidziuk Fig. 5 256 Part IV Chosen obJeCts from euroPeAn ColleCtions of Antiquities https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.12 Gaius Stern the PieCes of the ArA PACis Abstract Workmen repairing the foundations of Palazzo Ottoboni Almagià (today Palazzo Fiano) in 1569 discovered nearly a dozen relief panels from Imperial Rome. The Cardinale di Montepulciano purchased most of them at auction for the Grand Duke of Tuscany, however a few pieces escaped his grasp and ended up in other hands. Three hundred years later, in 1879 and 1881 Friedrich von Duhn realized that these panels and other fragments then displayed in four different museums all belonged to the same lost monument, the Ara Pacis Augustae. He overcame the very steep challenge of associating the many scattered pieces (one of which was used as a tombstone!) without the aid of photographs by laboriously learning the origin of each panel. This paper traces where each piece was displayed, how pieces of another monument were accidentally mixed into the early efforts to reconstruct the Ara Pacis, and when each museum turned over its panels, mindful that to this day the Louvre keeps an original piece. Keywords: relief panels, Ara Pacis, Palazzo Ottoboni-Fiano From its discovery in 1569, the Ara Pacis has been considered fit for the wealthiest private collectors of Italy, and it was broken up and auctioned off to several private collectors very shortly after. The many pieces of the Ara Pacis had a diverse set of histories ranging from the highlights of three private collections to serving as a tombstone before being reunited in one museum in 1936, at which time several more pieces were excavated from under Palazzo Ottoboni-Fiano (formerly Palazzo Peretti) to join the rest for the 1938 grand opening of the Ara Pacis Museum. In fact, one of the few good things the dictator Benito Mussolini 259 Gaius Stern accomplished, which others before him had failed, was to reunite the pieces of the Ara Pacis into a single museum, by means of charm and heavy handed authoritarianism, when patriotic appeals failed. The discovery of the exterior of the Ara Pacis is generally dated to 1568, although an undocumented, earlier discovery of some fragments in 1530 is suspected1. Workmen reinforcing the foundations of the southern façade of the palazzo then called Peretti2, near the church of San Lorenzo in Lucina dis1 2 Courbaud (1899: 78), accepts the 1530 excavation, likewise Petersen (1902: 197–202); Avena (1904: 849); Cannizzaro (1907: 2); Dissel (1907: 1); Lanciani (1908: 27) does as well, but the reliefs he cites may not belong to the Ara Pacis. A brief history of Palazzo Peretti and its owners: Pope Martin IV gave cardinal Hugo of Evesham, an English scholar in philosophy, alchemy, and medicine, the see of San Lorenzo in Lucina. Evesham built the church and the nearby palazzo before dying of plague in Rome on 27 July 1287. A French cardinal, Jean Le Jeune de Contay of Picardy (bishop of San Giovanni di Moriana, died 1451), completed the palazzo. Nibby mistakenly thought Le Jeune was Portuguese, an error that entered the literature and history of the Ara Pacis. Le Jeune’s successors, Filippo Calandrini, cardinal of Santa Susanna 1448–76, and the elderly Giorgio da Costa Portuguese, renovated the palazzo. Hence, the nearby Arch of Marcus Aurelius (often called Tres facicellae or Tripoli), took the name Portugalo, and even after it was demolished in 1662, the area retained the name. Cardinal Francesco Gonzaga (died 1566) hired Taddeo Zuccari to paint frescoes for the palazzo. Gonzaga’s successor was Alessandro Damasceni Peretti (died 1623). Don Michele Peretti, prince of Venafro, then bought Palazzo Peretti on 14 Sept. 1624 for 36,000 scudi. Prince Don Niccolò Ludovisi (1610–1664) obtained the palazzo (at an unknown date) and passed it to his third wife, Donna Costanza Panfili (1627–1665). Her daughters sold it for 55,000 scudi on 21 October 1690 to Marco Ottoboni (1696–1752), whose elder daughter, Maria Francesca, married Pier Gregorio Boncompagni Ludovisi (1642 –1707). Their descendants are the Dukes of Fiano, who owned the palazzo until 1939. The Guida Monaci (1900), 316, adds the following. Palazzo Fiano-Ottoboni, eretto sotto Eugenio IV e successivamente trasformato e ampliato fino ai nostri giorni con disegno di Francesco Settimi. Nel cortile sono alcuni avanzi dell’Arco eretto da Augusto alla Pace. Seguendo la via a sinistra, detta delle Convertite, si giunge alla chiesa di S Silvestro in Capite che esisteva nel VII secolo e venne rifabbricata da Paolo I. Fu riedificata nel 1286 e quindi nel 1690 da Giovanni De Rossi. L’annesso vastissimo monastero è stato totalmente trasformato nel Palazzo della Posta e dei Telegrafi sotto la direzione di Giovanni Malvezzi nel 1878; nella parte che s inoltra in via della Mercede è stato costruito il Ministero dei Lavori pubblici. “Palazzo Fiano-Ottoboni, erected under Eugenius IV and subsequently transformed and enlarged to the present day with a design by Francesco Settimi. In the courtyard are some leftovers from the Arch erected by Augustus to Peace. Following the street on the left, called ‘of the Converted,’ you reach the church of San Silvestro in Capite which existed in the seventh century and was rebuilt by Paul I. It was rebuilt in 1286 and then revised in 1690 by Giovanni De Rossi. The vast monastery annex was totally transformed into the Palazzo della Posta and dei Telegrafi under the direction of Giovanni Malvezzi in 1878; the 260 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis Scipione Pulzone (ca. 1567), Cardinal Giovanni Ricci Angelo Bronzino (1545), Cosimo I de’ Medici covered a group of ten marble panels of an unknown ancient monument. Because of a series of misnomers, the fragments were wrongly associated with an Arch of Domitian in the area and the name Portugallo was also attached to the zone where they were found. Our primary source for the discovery, Cardinal Giovanni Ricci da Montepulciano (1498–1574), wrote to his patron, Ministry of Public Works was built in the part forwarding in via della Mercede.” Page 327, 527, impressively lists Palazzo Fiano as one of the principal palazzi of Rome: “Fiano, p. in Lucina 4, di proprietà del duca di Fiano” and lists the incumbent Duke of Fiano among the “consulta araldica” as a senatore – Boncompagni Ludovisi Ottoboni, Marco, duca di Fiano. … La Consulta Araldica è stabilita presso il Ministero dell Interno ed è istituita per dare pareri ed avvisi al Governo sui diritti guarentiti dall art 79 dello Statuto fondamentale del regno e sulle domande e questioni concernenti materie nobiliari ed araldiche R Decreti 2 e 5 luglio 1896 N 313 e 314. “The Heraldic Council is established at the Ministry of the Interior to give opinions and warnings to the Government on the rights guaranteed by Art. 79 of the Fundamental Statute of the Kingdom and on the questions and questions concerning noble and heraldic matters (Royal Decrees, 2 and 5 July 1896, N 313 and 314).” It also lists several businesses on the ground floor of Palazzo Fiano including the office of the Ambassador of Portugal. Von Reumont 1883: 551–554; Idem 1885: 549–554; Guida Monaci 1900; Barksdale Maynard 2010 (all translations by Gaius Stern unless otherwise stated). 261 Gaius Stern the Duke of Florence Cosimo I de’ Medici (soon Grand Duke of Tuscany3), a series of letters describing their discovery and purchase and planned shipment, although some panels did not go to Florence until the eighteenth century. In the meantime, they remained in Villa Medici on the Pincio in Rome, which is now l’Académie de France à Rome until 1780, and the festooned internal panels stayed there permanently (Von Duhn 1881/82: 319). Cardinal Ricci outbid his competitors for most of the ten marble blocks 4 and later prepared them for shipment to Cosimo de’ Medici, by sawing them on a vertical axis to make them easier to transport. Thus, the workmen cleaved the processional exteriors from the interior bucrania and garland sides. Some panels were cut into three slabs, and the middle slab was repurposed. Several anonymous drawings from the sixteenth and seventeenth show which panels stayed in Rome and show their condition prior to restoration of lips, ears, hands, etc. (Von Duhn 1881/82: 303–304, 309–324; Michaelis 1891; Foresta 2002) 5. Meanwhile, Cardinal Andréa della Valle (1463–1534) was collecting masterpieces of Roman art, including three or more panels possibly from the Ara Pietatis 3 4 5 Cosimo I de’ Medici was the Duke of Florence from 1537–1574. On 21 August 1569 Pope Pius V elevated him to become Grand Duke of Tuscany. The letters from Cardinal Ricci begin in Feb. 1569 before the elevation. Petersen 1902: 5–6, claimed the Cardinal acquired nine, large, two-sided, decorated blocks he would cut up for transport. But only two of them seem to have come to Florence. Petersen numbered them (Florentine panels) 2, 3, 6, 7 Tellus; and maybe 4. Cardinal Ricci of Montepulciano “in the beginning of 1569 wrote to the secretary of the Grand Duke of Tuscany that he had acquired nine, large, two-sided, decorated blocks he would cut up for transport. But only two of them seem to have been brought to Florence. “Two others were lost, and one conjectures under what conditions they left the site or returned, as the remaining five were housed in the Villa Medici. A few years later in 1584 the Medici family acquired the greater part of the Valle Capranica collection and also the five della Valle Reliefs, which then also were transferred to the Villa on the Pincio, and there on the back fanciful work in stucco was added to them. They remained there during the 1569 transaction and only in 1780 came to Florence.” Von Duhn 1881–1882, 317–319, thought the Louvre panel had gone unsold in 1569 due to the damage and remained at palazzo Peretti. See Cannizzaro 1907: 3: “These drawings include an anonymous woodcut from the end of the 1500s in the Barberini Library (X, I, 5, fol. 251), whose original is believed to be in London with A.W. Francks (fol. 228) of a restoration project, ordered, but not accepted by Cardinal Ferdinando De’ Medici. Other designs emigrated to England to the Windsor Castle Library (II.23) and foglio 228 of Francks. Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720–1778) Antichità Romane (Rome 1756) drew it as the 38th table of his engravings.” See also the Codex Vaticanus. 262 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis Ara Pacis SW front, Left half unearthed in 1569; Right half in 1859.6 (Sieveking 1907: 178–180, 189–190)7, although the cardinal did not know their true identity. According to Mariano Cannizzaro, the cardinal also had in his collection some small pieces of the Ara Pacis that had been discovered in 1530 (Cannizzaro 1907: 2). This collection was displayed in Palazzo Valle, which was then a famous museum of antiquities. When Cardinal della Valle died, the collection passed to Bishop Bruto della Valle, while Palazzo Valle passed to the cardinal’s nephew Camillo Capranica and was renamed Palazzo Valle-Capranica. Then in 1584, the Capranica heirs sold the antiquities collection to Cardinal Ferdinand de’ Medici (Michaelis 1891: 231; Cannizzaro 1907: 3), including three panels now thought to be from the Ara Pietatis (but in 1900 scholars included them as part of the Ara Pacis, infra) (Von Duhn 1879; Michaelis 1891: 231; Courbaud 1899: 78–79; Petersen 1902: 112–20; 1906: 305–307, passim; 1906: 301; Strong 1907: 46–47, 53–54, plates 8–10, 16)8. Having acquired the five exterior wall panels of the Ara Pacis formerly in Palazzo Valle, the Medici family displayed them from the sixteenth century until 1769 in Villa Medici. Many of the 6 7 8 All photos of the Ara Pacis come from The Ara Pacis On-line Library: http://www.arapacis library.net Followed by Studniczka 1909: 901 ff; Bloch 1939: 81–120. Jones 2005 argues it is not the Ara Pietatis at all. The della Valle panels were excluded through the forceful argument of Sieveking 1907, based on style and subject matter. For discussion of the exclusion, see Rizzo 1919: 15–16; 1926: 467 and note 10; Strong 1928: 165; Moretti 1937: 43–44; 1948: 287; Petersen 1910: 691, 695, was reluctant to accept the truth. 263 Gaius Stern interior garland panels were secured to the garden walls of the villa and some remain there today. Thus, the panels of the Ara Pacis and of the Ara Pietatis were displayed together in the Villa Medici, an accident of fate that led Friedrich von Duhn (and others after him) to assign the pieces of both monuments to the long-lost Ara Pacis Augustae in his brilliant 1879 discovery that restored a lost major Roman monument to the world. This error was easy to make, for all of the panels are of fine Carrara marble, the people are of the same size, and the sculpture is of superb quality on the panels of both monuments. In 1857, the Duke of Fiano hired an architect/engineer of Swiss origins, Cav. Gioacchino Ersoch (also written Herzog or Erzoch) to stabilize Palazzo Ottoboni Fiano and to alter façade (the latter project was not realized). During the works of August to November 1859, totally unexpectedly, on 7 September, Ersoch uncovered several works of Roman art 5.5 The head of Mars m. below the pavement (Dissel 1903: 2; Avena 1904: 850; Cremona 2013: 23–25). The two most notable finds were the other half of the south west front panel of the sow sacrifice and the helmeted head of a man or god, later called the head of Mars. However, it was smuggled out of the site and had a career on the antiquities black market9. Otto Benndorf came upon it in an antique store in Rome ca. 1890 but did not buy it (Appendix 2) (Petersen 1895: 138–139). A collector bought it for £85 (Lire) and took it home to Vienna, where it remained in private hands. Giulio Emanuele Rizzo, one of the leaders of the 1903 excavation, lamented, It will be difficult, however, to get back the beautiful head of Mars that almost certainly comes from the excavations of 1859, when the architect Ersoch strengthened the foundations of Palazzo Fiano. The head was stolen by some workers and went onto the antiquarian market in Rome and then to a private collector in Vienna, where it was until a few years ago, but I do not know if it is still there, or where it ended up. (Rizzo 1919: 10, 17; Cf. Rizzo 1926: 461, 463). 9 Petersen 1894: 54 ff: “Block VIII – Tellus offerings (the reverse Fig. 25). Found in 1859 (p. 135 f.), Remained unsawed at first in Palazzo Fiano, came to the Museo Nazionale in 1898” The sow sacrifice was already in Museo delle Terme, Cannizzaro 1907, 10. 264 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis Happily, however, the philanthropic art historian, Ettore Modigliani (1873– 1947), found it in Vienna in the 1920s and purchased it from its owner with his own money (Paribeni 1931: 3). He then passed it to the Kingdom of Italy10. Curiously, several scholars remained unaware of his coup and assumed the head of Mars was still in private hands as late as 193411. Most of the other finds of 1859 were fragments of the vegetal frieze on the lower register of the exterior. Some of them remained in situ on display in the courtyard of Palazzo Fiano, until the Italian Government purchased them from the Duke of Fiano in 1898 and incorporated into the Museo delle Terme di Diocleziano, but two pieces went to the Vatican, one to the Louvre, and a piece with swans had gone to England (it is now believed lost in private hands) (Cannizzaro 1907: 3)12. At first, the panel with the old man sacrificing was thought to represent a sacrifice by the Senate to Tellus. But in 1907, Johannes Sieveking proposed that it shows Aeneas sacrificing to the Penates when he first arrived in Italy (1177 BC) (Sieveking 1907: 186–187). Sieveking’s proposal instantly gained near universal acceptance due to the association with the Aeneid, despite the many incongruities13. Although Ersoch’s own records of the discovery of the Ara Pacis fragments do not survive, he wrote about the discovery in a letter dated 6 July 1860 to the Duke of Fiano14. He mentioned that lost letter to Rudolfo Lanciani in 1883 when interviewed about the 1859 discovery. Lanciani, in turn, inspired Angiolo Pasqui and Eugen Petersen to seek the letter from the Duke of Fiano. In 1903, 10 Despite Modigliani’s many and widely praised accomplishments in repatriating art to Italy, 11 12 13 14 in 1938 he was expelled from the state in accord with the racial laws and had to go into hiding until 1944. After the war ended, he was reinstated, Brunelli 2016: 90–91, n 2. See for example Cecchelli 1925: 67; Rizzo 1926: 461. Its sale in England was documented in Cavaceppi 1768. Few have read Sieveking’s case, but it is very thin, and many features speak against Aeneas. For example, the sow has no piglets. Nowhere else in Roman art does Aeneas wear a toga, but he always wears either the Phrygian cap or armor. Not every pig sacrifice in Roman art is that of Aeneas, and this one has no marker that confirms Sieveking’s proposal. Most importantly, Aeneas is never associated with Peace. Lawrence Richardson and the late Paul Rehak disputed Sieveking, Rehak 2001: 190–208; Stern 2006: 440–454. They propose that the relief instead shows a man wholly associated with Peace, sacrificing the animal ritually associated with peace, a pig: king Numa Pompilius. Richardson had proposed Numa first, but he did not publish it. The magic of Vergil’s name led Sieveking astray. Avena (1904: 850) dates this letter to 6 July 1859, but that would be before the work even began. I have amended it to 1860, accordingly. 265 Gaius Stern the Duke’s son found it and shared it with Pasqui (see Appendix 1)15. This letter provided a few useful details about the 1859 excavation, most of all the location of the pieces still under ground. The discovery of the Ara Pacis, which was then distributed in many locations, occurred in the late 1870s. In 1878, Hans Dütschke wrote a museum guide for the Uffizi and correctly described three panels (from the South frieze) as Augustan Age reliefs from an unknown monument (Dütschke 1878). These panels were later sent from the Uffizi to Rome’s Museo delle Terme di Diocleziano and were included in the Esposizione Internazionale di Roma of 1911 (Catalogo della Mostra… 1911: 164–168). A young German archaeologist, Friedrich von Duhn (1851–1930), was already considering a number of Roman friezes, including the panels in the Uffizi Dütschke had described. Just one year later, in 1879, von Duhn published his brilliant discovery, “Agrippa, Eastern prince, Julia, Tiberius, background figure, Varus’ leg, Antonia, Germanicus, Drusus”, identifying Roman artwork from three different museums (Vatican, delle Terme di Diocleziano, Uffizi), the Villa Medici, the Belvedere in the Vatican, and palazzo Fiano, as the Ara Pacis Augustae, the Augustan monument associated with the Pax Romana (Von Duhn 1879; 1881; 1885). Von Duhn proposed a partially correct virtual reassembly of the Ara Pacis and recognized the veiled, central figure as Agrippa, but he changed his mind and regarded him to be the genius of Agrippa, Eastern prince, Julia, Tiberius, background figure, Varus’ leg, Antonia, Germanicus, Drusus 15 Pasqui (1903: 555, n. 1) reproduced the letter. 266 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis the Divine Julius (!) (Dütschke 1880: 1–7). Dütschke then realized that the panels parade members of the Augustan court grouped in families. He reaffirmed his earlier findings in a public lecture, subsequently published, and identified the family of Drusus the Elder, Antonia, and Germanicus. In 1881, von Duhn documented a history of each panel, and in 1885, published a supplement, Copies of the panels from the della Valle Capranica collection stored in the Villa Medici with panels from the Ara Pacis. 267 Gaius Stern adding the Louvre Panel, which he had realized was his lost Aldobrandino Panel as soon as he saw it16. Von Duhn’s errors were to include the Divine Julius and several, unrelated panels from the Villa Medici. A coincidence of fate led him astray. The della Valle Capranica collection in the Villa Medici happened to store friezes from two different monuments together. Von Duhn and others after him assumed they all came from the Ara Pacis, but in fact, five panels in the Villa Medici collection came from an altogether, different monument from the Claudian era17. Two of them show bull sacrifices before temples. A third presents a group of lictors around a flamen, thought now to be Claudius in his youth. The fourth depicts a boy carrying a Lar with a crowd of men behind him. The fifth shows a temple and fits onto a bull sacrifice. Two pieces of the Ara Pacis left Italy entirely, the aforementioned Head of Mars in the 1890s and the Louvre Panel in the 1860s. For a time, the Louvre Panel stayed in the courtyard of Palazzo Ottoboni (Fiano). Later it was mounted in the courtyard of Villa Miollis in Quirinale, which was then the property of the Aldobrandino family, so it was called the Aldobrandino Panel (Visconti 1814: 34, 129; Von Duhn 1881/82: 315; Catalogo della Mostra… 1911: 164–168). General Sextius Alexandre François de Miollis (1759–1828), the Governor of Rome during the Napoleonic Era, purchased it in 1804, but then it was sold in about 1835 to the Marchese Giampietro Campana (1808–1880) (Von Duhn 1881: 309–311; 1885: 320–321; Catalogo della Mostra… 1911). He hired Annibale Malatesta to restore some of the missing parts of the relief with plaster, but Malatesta added a beard on the first figure. Not only is she female, she is either Octavia or Julia! After the downfall of Marchese Campana, Napoleon III brought it to Paris in 1861, and it joined the Louvre collection by 1863, although it was not at once recognized as the Aldobrandino Panel. Thus, when von Duhn realized what he was seeing, he was able to establish its provenance through the records of its sales. It is still in the Louvre; a near perfect copy has been inserted into the frieze of the Ara Pacis Museum. 16 Von Duhn 1885: 320: “Nel Museo del Louvre a mia non lieve sorpresa ho ritrovato il bas- sorilievo già Aldobrandini, il quale credeva scomparso sino dal 1833, quando l’Urlichs l’avea veduto per l’ultima volta nel palazzo di Villa Aldobrandini.” In the Louvre Museum, to my not slight surprise, I found the Aldobrandini bas-relief, which was believed to be lost since 1833, when Urlichs had seen it for the last time in the palazzo of Villa Aldobrandini. 17 See note 7. 268 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis Villa Medici boy carrying a Lar. The author and the Louvre Panel, photo Ben Stern (April 2003) In the mid-1890s, another German archaeologist, Eugen Petersen, assumed the mantle of champion of the Ara Pacis from von Duhn. Petersen published two articles in 1894 and 1895 explaining how he thought the Ara Pacis should be reconstructed, and he wrote the first book on the Ara Pacis in 1902, including a virtual reconstruction close to his 1895 plan (Petersen 1894; 1895; 1902). Two more articles followed in 1903 and several reviews of other scholars’ works thereafter (Petersen 1903a; 1903b; 1908). However, like von Duhn, he included the panels from the Villa Medici collection in his reconstructions. Petersen urged the government of Italy to undertake further excavations under palazzo Fiano, but when those excavations finally took place in 1903, with his participation, they invalidated many of the predictions in his book. Nevertheless, he applied a very impressive multi-disciplinary approach, using textual evidence, other works of sculpture, wall murals, coins, and more, even if these non-textual examples were sometimes used in dead ends to justify futile claims. In 1898, the Italian government purchased most or all of the fragments discovered in 1859 on display in palazzo Ottoboni Fiano and moved them to the Museo delle Terme in August 1905, along with several panels (from the South Frieze of the Ara Pacis) from the Uffizi in Florence. There they stood on display until 1936, in preparation for the 2000th anniversary of Augustus’s birth, the Mostra Augustea della Romanità for the Bimillenario Augusteo. Most of the interior walls of the Ara Pacis with bucrania and garlands that did not go to Villa Medici were considered lost. However, by a stroke of luck, the festooned, interior side of the Vatican panel was discovered in 1899. It was 269 Gaius Stern found on the floor of the Chiesa di Bambino Gesù, where it was lying upside down as a grave marker for Monsignor Sebastiano Poggi, who had died in 1623 (Cannizzaro 1907: 2–3). It fits its better half, the block commencing the procession on the North Frieze, from which it had been sawn in two (not three) pieces – perhaps not on Cardinal Ricci’s orders. Today, a copy of the Vatican panel still hangs in the Vatican Museum, but the original is in the Ara Pacis Museum (Helbig 1899: 92)18. Both panels came to the Ara Pacis Museum in the 1950s. Although Petersen mostly correctly arranged the procession on the North wall, an unavoidable empty void occupied space ahead of the two flamines on the South wall, where the missing, then still-underground panel fit. Furthermore, following von Duhn, Petersen inserted several foreign panels into his reconstruction, one of which presents the emperor Claudius as a flamen. The chart below shows where Petersen located each panel on the Ara Pacis in 1902 and includes the figured Villa Medici panels (from the Ara Pietatis, marked by *). In his book, Petersen predicted the presence of several missing participants in the empty spaces. He also centered the Pax Panel (the so-called Tellus Relief) within the East wall where a doorway actually opened and placed within the West wall two other, Claudian era panels from the Villa Medici (originally from the della Valle collection). The 1903 excavations undermined both his predictions and diminished his credibility to overly hasty modern scholars19. In retrospect, it is unfair to diminish Petersen’s contribution. He was the driving force that pushed for further excavations in 1903, and, more than anyone else, he popularized the Ara Pacis and its importance as a work of Augustan Age state art. His mistakes were to follow von Duhn’s lead over the della Valle reliefs without considering their composition as did Sieveking and to misdate the event depicted to 9 BC. 18 On the Vatican Panel: “almost all of the heads have been restored, only the cheeks and part of the back of the head of the first figure and the face (except the nose of the third figure from the left are authentic. Only the head of the second figure from the right on the upper part (heavily revised), a part of the head of the third figure from the left (almost the entire face is modern), and the upper part of the head of the first figure are authentic.” 19 I give my Berkeley under-graduate students paper copies of each panel of the Ara Pacis and assign them to work in groups of four to reconstruct the monument without any guidance. One out of four groups does not reassemble the panels in the proper sequence. My appreciation for Petersen grew when I saw how difficult the task is. 270 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis 1902 Ara Pacis Layout 271 Gaius Stern The chart below registers the names and designations of the panels of the Ara Pacis as well as their locations in 1900. Some parts of the Ara Pacis were still underground. Vatican Dütschke Von Duhn Petersen Codex # # # # 5. 4. 4. 3b. 3439 f96 31 3. 3a,3c 3439 f95 32 2. 2. 3439 f93 1. 1. 3439 f93 34 33 35 35 7 6 6 7 6b. 6a. VII. 5. a-f g Stern numeral & nickname 1900 location N-1 Vatican Panel Vatican N-2 Uffizi Panel (2) Uffizi – 1905 N-3 Uffizi Panel (3a) Uffizi – 1905 N-4 Uffizi Panel (3b) Uffizi – 1905 N-5 Louvre Panel Louvre 1863-now N-6 End of North wall (lost) NE Roma Panel underground SE Tellus Relief/Pax Relief Uffizi –1937 S-6 (Drusus Panel) Museo Naz. delle Terme S-5 (Julia-Tiberius Panel) Museo Naz. delle Terme S-4 Pontifex/Agrippa Panel Museo Naz. delle Terme S-3 Flamines panel underground S-2 Augustus & lictors Panel underground Ara Pietatis Flamen Villa Medici S1a, b Lictors Panel underground SW Aeneas/Numa Sacrifice* ½ Delle Terme, ½ P.Fiano Villa Medici bull sacrifice 2 Villa Medici NW Lupercal panel (fragments scattered) Villa Medici bull sacrifice 1 Villa Medici Interior, festooned panels Villa Medici Interior, festooned panel Museo Naz. delle Terme 1903 Discoveries: Augustus and Four Lictors 272 Gaius Caesar The Pieces of the Ara Pacis The long-awaited excavations under Palazzo Ottobani Fiano began under the direction of Giulio Rizzo, Angiolo Pasqui, and Mariano Cannizzaro on 27 July 1903 and yielded several finds. On 9 September, the “shoulder of Faustulus” and trunk of the oak tree (ilex) and other vegetal pieces from the lower register were extracted from under Palazzo Fiano (Pasqui 1903: 556–557). Additionally, in mid-September, an important discovery was made of a large slab with several lictors and a majestic figure, quickly recognized as Augustus (Pasqui 1903: 563). Another discovery was a headless boy, wearing a bulla, whom John Pollini and Brian Rose now think is Lucius Caesar, but his size better suggests he is Gaius Caesar (Pasqui 1903: 566; Pollini 1987: 23, 25–26, 28; Rose 1990: 453–467; Stern 2006: Chapter 8, 409–410). The greatest discovery occurred on 8 November in the presence of the Minister of Education, Vittorio Orlando, the future Prime Minister who led Italy through World War I after the disaster of Caparetto (Ibid., 573). This panel had two flamines on the right and several more priests who are looking to the right. The upper, left edge of this panel connects to the head and neck of Augustus. However, due to its weight and size, it was impossible to remove this panel without opening a new hole to the surface and without threatening the stability of palazzo Fiano, which rested upon it. This unexcavated panel is twice as thick as most of the other panels then known, seven or nine of which were sawn in half at the order of Cardinal Ricci di Montepulciano. Then, unfortunately, in December water flooded the site and halted the excavation. The project halted, officially only temporarily, but years turned into decades without the resumption of work. All in all, 35 pieces were removed and brought to the surface, including the figure of Numa/Aeneas, at that time identified as the Senate, from the front of the Ara Pacis20. Pasqui, Petersen, and Flamines block (full thickness) Rizzo each lamented the unfinished (Sieveking 1907: 176) 20 The Numa piece fit(s) perfectly to the half then in the Vatican Museum of the pig led to sacrifice by two boys. 273 Gaius Stern excavation as a terrible loss for archaeology and for Italy (Pasqui 1904; 1913: 284; Petersen 1906: Rizzo 1919; 1926). The 1903 excavation revealed that the Ara Pacis had two doorways, contrary to Petersen’s plan. This meant the Pax Panel did not belong in the center of the East wall, as Petersen envisioned. The final blow to his reconstruction came in 1907, when Sieveking powerfully argued against the inclusion of the panels from the Villa Medici collection in the Ara Pacis, because they differed too greatly from the other figured panels of the procession in both style and composition. In the same article, Sieveking also proposed that Aeneas performs the sow sacrifice21. Petersen readily accepted Aeneas, but he was slow to accept Sieveking’s first argument and stubbornly refused to omit the della Valle reliefs for several more years until he finally conceded the truth. The expectation that work would soon resume under Palazzo Ottoboni characterized scholarship for another decade, but World War I put a halt to any possibility of a new excavation. Other contributions came from scholars largely forgotten today, such as Alberto Avena, Karl Dissel, Alfred Domaszewski, Victor Gardthausen, Emanuel Löwy, Emil Reisch, and Eugenia Sellers Strong 22. Immediately after the war ended, a movement swept Italy to build a monument to commemorate the peace that ended “the war to end all wars”. For many, the Ara Pacis perfectly symbolized that vision. The call was raised to reunite the scattered pieces of the Ara Pacis in one national monument, whose exact location in Rome was also a topic of much debate23. It is, therefore, ironic that a monument that celebrates peace was restored only in the mid-1930s by the warmonger Mussolini. Seeking to appropriate the glory of the Roman Empire for Fascist Italy, Il Duce decided to reunite the pieces of the Ara Pacis. He compelled Uffizi to send the Tellus Relief (then often identified as Italia) to Rome. Since he was unable to bully or persuade the 21 See n. 19–21. 22 The author has edited the Ara Pacis Wikipedia page to provided recognition for several of these scholars and translated into English their scholarship on the Ara Pacis in the Ara Pacis Online library at academia.edu. 23 Bollettino della Società Piemontese di Archeologia e Belle Arti, 1920. Rizzo 1919 was among the forefront of those who urged the Ara Pacis be rebuilt. Cecchelli 1925 urged that a museum be built for the Ara Pacis on the Campodoglio. Another proposal was within the Mausoleum of Augustus. After World War II, Fasolo 1949 renewed Cecchelli’s cause, but the Ara Pacis remained in the same location, even after Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo’s glass museum was taken down and Richard Meier’s new design was built in its stead. 274 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis Louvre or the Vatican to part with their panels, copies had to be made. All of the other pieces were united together for the planned 1937 celebration in the Mostra Augustea della Romanità, except the fragment of a swan in England, which is lost. Curiously, a photograph from 7 May 1938 shows the respected, anti-fascist archaeologist Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli showing the Pax Panel to Mussolini and Hitler, who utterly fail to appreciate its significance. The photograph is ironic for three reasons, most of all because Mussolini and Hitler could not comprehend the merits of peace or the fine points of Bianchi Bandinelli’s analysis, secondly because Bianchi Bandinelli did not enjoy the opportunity to meet the two dictators and explain ancient history and ancient art to them, an opportunity which others would have jumped to have, and thirdly because unlike most other classical archaeologists of his day and now, Bianchi Bandinelli was not especially enthusiastic about the Ara Pacis and underestimated its importance as a document in Augustan propaganda and innovation in Roman art. A much more enthusiastic archaeologist and scholar had been chosen to reassemble the Ara Pacis for the Bimillenario Augusteo, Giuseppe Moretti, who had recently supervised the museum collections in Le Marche and in Croatia and was thought to be a loyal fascist (Brunelli 2016: 91, n. 8). Moretti was assigned to reassemble the Ara Pacis for the grand opening (originally planned for 23 September 1937) and to excavate under Palazzo Fiano24, despite the challenges that had doomed the 1903 excavation. Moretti faced the simultaneous tasks of running a new excavation and rebuilding the Ara Pacis inside a museum, while that museum was being built. Despite a number of alternate suggestions, including placing the Ara Pacis on via dei Fori Imperiali, Mussolini and the Minister of National Education, Giuseppe Bottai selected a location on the Lungotevere between the Tiber River and the Mausoleum of Augustus for the Ara Pacis. To extract the many newly discovered pieces without water flooding the site, a brilliant solution was engaged to freeze the earth and thereby create a frozen fire wall, so to speak. Although the work was long and arduous, Moretti uncovered many new fragments, including the panel with Augustus and two flamines. After cleaning it meticulously, Moretti fit it perfectly in between the slab with Augustus’s head and the two flamines ahead of Agrippa. It has half of Augustus’s body, two flamines, several lesser priests, and an obscure figure in the third row that resembles M. Lepidus. With this formerly inaccessible panel, 24 Although the Duke of Fiano was initially cooperative, he was forced to leave Italy and forfeit any financial stake in the findings, Maynard 2010. 275 Gaius Stern Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli explains the significance of the Ara Pacis to Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, 7 May 1938. The dictators look confused. https://www.scielo.cl/scielo. php?pid=S0717-69962015000200004&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en Moretti was able to reassemble two-thirds of the South wall and offer a virtual reconstruction of the first third, where he assumed a dozen lictors preceded Augustus, running up to the start of the frieze. Moretti’s version of the start of the South wall differed greatly from that of Petersen, who predicted that Livia and Gaius Caesar opened the procession a short space ahead of Augustus the flamen (sic). Racing time, Moretii had to transform his virtual reconstruction into stone in a museum that was currently under construction to open by the deadline Mussolini had set. He had to take certain short cuts, for example, he incorrectly pushed together two fragmentary priests on the North wall. More egregiously, he confirmed in stone the damage Carradori had done in 1769 when he grafted the right leg of the consul Varus at the right end of the Julia-Tiberius panel to Antonia on the left end of the Drusus panel. Moretii saw what Carradori had done, and he read from his diary that he had applied acid to the two edges to increase the illusion that the panels join here, but Moretti retained the falsehood, owing to his time constraint, and put up a velvet rope barrier (stanchion) to prevent visitors to the museum from seeing the error. When one looks head on, one sees the join of the two panels in only two dimensions and does not catch the flaw, but when one looks at an angle or comes close, one can see the planes of the two panels do not match. Carradori murdered Varus, and Moretti covered up the crime. 276 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis The Ara Pacis Museum opened on 23 September 1938 to great fanfare, to conclude the Two Millennium celebration. Mussolini attended, after having toured the Ara Pacis Museum in advance to make sure that everything was proper. The museum itself was a glass shell, designed by Vittorio Ballio Morpurgo that let in natural light to enhance visibility. As soon as Italy entered the World War II, Rome became a target for Allied attacks. Photographs taken during the war show sandbags surrounded the Varus’s leg grafted onto Antonia Ara Pacis to protect it. The monument suffered no significant damage, despite numerous attacks, and reopened after V-E Day. Moretti died in 1945, his giant book on the Ara Pacis nearly complete (Moretti 1948)25. Mussolini tours the museum in advance. https://www.romasparita.eu/foto-roma-sparita/ tag/ara-pacis 25 His son finished it. 277 Gaius Stern The museum opening, 23 September 1938. https://www.inexhibit.com/mymuseum/ ara-pacis-museum-rome-richard-meier/ ePilogue Over time, the incessant traffic on Lungotevere began to rattle the entire museum. The city eventually held a contest to replace Morpurgo’s glass museum with a new design, and the mayor of Rome, Walter Veltroni, chose Richard Meier’s project. The Ara Pacis Museum closed in 1999, allegedly for three years, but in fact when the Massimo D’Alema’s government fell, Giuliano Urbani, the new Minister of Cultural Heritage under Silvio Berlusconi, was able to delay work on the new museum for years. Critics claimed Meier’s design did not fit in the neighborhood and that it is an eyesore. Work came to a halt, and the Ara Pacis sat inside protective wrap for six years. It might as well have been underground again. But after Meier modified the design, work finally resumed and the new Ara Pacis Museum opened in 2006. Since its discovery, the Ara Pacis has been a treasure fit for collectors but worthy of a museum. Today the Ara Pacis sits just a mile from its original location. On the one hand, it is a fitting tribute to Augustus that the Ara Pacis Museum now protects his most famous, revived monument, beside his empty Mausoleum, for by waging only foreign wars, Augustus brought a form of limited peace to the Roman Empire. On the other hand, the panels dispersed almost immediately after their discovery, and their reassembly occurred only due to the vainglory of a dictator, who took Italy into four wars (Abyssinia, Spain, Albania, World War II) that ruined his country and cost the lives of millions of Italians. In the days after World War I, the movement to reu278 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis nite the pieces of the Ara Pacis and create a museum that would forever remind Italians to stay at peace correctly sums up the modern message of the Ara Pacis in the proper medium: it is a museum of national memory. Since 1946, Italy and all Europe have enjoyed unprecedented peace and prosperity, which was also the original goal of Augustus’s Golden Age. Richard Meier’s new Ara Pacis museum APPendix 1 On the letter from Ersoch to the Duke of Fiano Petersen, Röm. Mitt. (1894: 172): “berichtete Pellegrini. In den Röm. Mitt. konnte ich einige Angaben des Architekten Herzog oder Erzoch abdrucken, welche dieser, der Leiter jener Arbeiten, R. Lanciani gemacht und dieser mir mitzutheilen die Güte gehabt hatte. Dem Duca di Fiano verdanke ich die Abschrift eines kurzen Berichtes, den derselbe Architekt ihm schon am 6 Juli 1859 geschrieben hatte. Beide seien hier wiederholt, weil sie einen gewissen urkundlichen Wert haben. Die Angaben, welche Herzog um das Jahr 1883 R. Lanciani machte, lauten folgendermaßen: La scoperla dei frammenti Fiano avvenne il 7 Settembre 1859 nell’ angolo rientrantc del palazzo in via Lucina fra i n. 16 B, 16 C. I frammenti giacevano alla profonditä di m. 5.50 e giacevano su d’ un piano lastricato di tavole di candido marmo. II piano si estende per un buon tratto d’ intorno essendo stato ritrovato 279 Gaius Stern anche in altri scavi di sottofondazioni. Gli scavi durarono sino alla fine di nov 1859. Non tulti i pezzi furon estratti per l’ augustia del sito e pel timore di meliere in pericolo i muri del palazzo. Der von Herzog selbst am 6 Juli geschriebene Bericht lautet Nell’ eseguire la sottofondazione del muro di prospetto del Palazzo al Corso che guarda Via in Lucina e nell’ apprqfondare il cavo all’ oggetto di rinvenire un piano solido sul quale plantare la nuova rifondazione sonosi scoperti vari fratnmenti di marmi antichi cotne avanzi dt un monumento crollalo in quella locatitä e scolpiti di ornati in bassorilievo ed altri con modinature. Tali pregevoli avanzi spurgati dalle terre sono stati con ditigenza estratti, onde sgombrar il cavo, per quanto occorreva alle nuove fondazioni. Di fatto non ci durò lunga fatica a rintracciare sotto di essi 1m muramento di calce che per l’ ampiezza e spessore del muro di prospelio soprastantc mi per misc pianlare la nuova rifondazione senza occupare e carcerare ninno delle vestigia di altri massi che circondano il perimetro del cavo aperto, die letzten Worte künftiger Grabung günstiger als die obigen. I was able to print some information from the architect Herzog or Erzoch, who was the leader of the project. Rudolfo Lanciani was kind enough to tell me about him. I am indebted to the Duce of Fiano for the transcript of a short report written by the same architect on 6 July 1860. Both are repeated here because they have a certain documentary value. The details which Herzog made in 1883 for Lanciani are as follows: “The discovery of the Fiano fragments occurred on 7 Sept. 1859 in the corner of the palazzo on via Lucina between n. 16 B and 16 C. The fragments lay at the depth of 5.50 m. on a paved slab of white marble paneling. The plan extends around for a good tract, having been re-found also in other excavations under the foundations. The excavations lasted until the end of November 1859. Not all the pieces were extracted due to the narrowness of the site and for fear of an endangered in putting the walls of the building in greater danger.” The report written by Herzog himself on 6th July reads “In carrying out the underpinning of the façade wall of the palazzo on Corso, which looks down on Via in Lucina and in the preparation of the cable to the object of finding a solid plane on which the new foundations were planted, several portions of ancient marbles were discovered of a monument that collapsed in that location, carved with bas-relief decorations, others with moldings. These valuable leftovers pulled from the earth were carefully extracted, in order to clear the cavern, as needed for the new foundations. In fact, it did not take us long to trace 1-m lime masonry beneath them, due to the width and thick280 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis ness of the overhanging wall to mix the new foundation without occupying and imprisoning the remains of other boulders that surround the perimeter of the open cavern, the last words regarding a future, more favorable excavation than the above.” Avena, Rivista d’ Italia 7 (1904: 850): the architect Erzoch, who was in charge of the re-foundation project wrote to the Duke of Fiano on 6 July 1859 (sic). Tali pregevoli avanzi — scrive il 6 giugno del 1859 – al duca Fiano l'architetto Erzoch, incaricato delle opere di rifondazione — spurgali dalle terre sono stati con diligenza estratti, onde sgombrar il cavo, per quanto occorreva alle nuove fondazioni, che furono piantate, senza occupare e carcerare ninna delle vestigia di altri massi che circondano il perimetro del cavo aperto. “Those valuable scraps have been cleared from the earth and extracted with diligence in order to clear the cavity, as needed for the new foundations, which were planted without taking anything or locking in the remains of other masses that surround the perimeter of the open cave.” The letter from the Duke of Fiano: “Livorno, 20 Aug. 1903 Ciò che posso dire come schiarimento sugli avanzi dell Ara Pacis rinvenuti sotto il mio palazzo nel 1859 è che quando fui avvertito di quella preziosa scoperta, fatta in occasione dei rinforzi della parte antica del palazzo dal mio architetto cavallo Erzoch, mi recai ad osservarli ancora giacenti nel luogo ove erano stati rinvenuti (angolo rientrante del palazzo antico, in via in Lucina, di faccia a via del Giardino) ed allora potei osservare pure altre simili lastre di marmo scolpito che s incastravano sotto il piano stradale della via in Lucina e proseguivano su per la via del Giardino, la cui montuosità, seguita immediatamente dal declivio dello Sdrucciolo e via della Missione, altro probabilmente non ò che un cumulo di rovine di monumenti esistiti nei dintorni del Campo Marzio. Prova ne è, che là (credo in via della Missione) fu ritrovata in tempi recenti la colonna, innalzata in piazza di Spagna pel monumento della Concezione. Quello dunque che a me sembra l’ indirizzo più pratico per nuove fruttuose ricerche si è di rivolgere i tasti e gli scavi verso i luoghi suindicati; ma per ciò fare, credo che converrebbe indagare pure le fondamenta del fabbricato, già scuderie Chigi, ora Caffè Olympia. 281 Gaius Stern What I can say as a clarification of the remains of Ara Pacis found under my palazzo in 1859 is that when I was told of that precious discovery, made on the occasion of the reinforcements of the ancient part of the palace by my architect Sir Erzoch, I went to look at them still lying in the place where they were found (corner of the ancient palazzo on via in Lucina, overlooking via del Giardino) and then I could observe other, similar, carved marble slabs, which were attached to the street floor of via in Lucina and continued on under Via del Giardino, whose unevenness followed immediately by the decline of the downward slope and in via della Missione, in high probability is no more than a cumulus of ruins of monuments that existed in the vicinity of the Campus Martius. The proof of it is, that a column was recently found (I believe in via della Missione), raised in the city of Spain for the monument of the Conception. So, what seems to me to be the most practical location for new fruitful research is to direct the excavation to the aforementioned places; but to do that, I think it would also be necessary to investigate under the foundations of the building, then called the Chigi stables, now Caffé Olympia.” APPendix 2 An additional piece, called “The head of Mars” was apparently smuggled out of the site when workmen under the engineer Herzoch were restabilizing Palazzo Ottoboni Fiano in 1859. Otto Benndorf came upon it in an antique store in Rome ca 1890 but did not buy it. A private collector bought it for £85 (Italian Lire) II Benndorf, alla cui amicizia debbo questo gesso, aveva ben riconosciuto a qual monumento appartenesse la testa, aequistata a Roma ed oggi di proprieta privata in Vienna. L'antiquario romano, presso cui si trovava sporca e negletta nel £ 85, la disse proveniente dal palazzo Fiano; e seguendo tal cenno il Benndorf non poté non accorgersi dell'unita di stile fra la nostra testa e gli altri avanzi dell' Ara Pacis riconosciuti dal ch. v. Duhn (1), specialmente le bellissime lastre scolpite che si conservano nel detto palazzo, frutto dell'ultimo scavo fattovi nell'anno 1859, nella quale occasione senza dubbio' anche quella testa torná alia luce, per esser rubata, come suol farsi, da uno degli operai. Professor Benndorf, to whose friendship I owe this plaster, had well recognized to what monument the head, acquired in Rome and now private property in Vienna, had belonged. The antiquarian shopkeeper in Rome, in whose store it 282 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis was both dirty and neglected at £85, said it came from near Palazzo Fiano; and following this mention, Benndorf could not fail to notice the unity of style between our head and the other remains of the Ara Pacis recognized by Friederich von Duhn, especially, of course, the very beautiful carved slabs that are conserved in the aforementioned palazzo, the fruit of the last excavation made in 1859, on which occasion without doubt this head also came to light, to be stolen, as is commonly done, by one of the laborers. Lanciani (1908: 27): In the notes Alessandro Sarti, A.S.R.S.P. 9, 496 [Archivio della Società romana di storia patria], has recorded this “Then when the side of Palazzo Fiano, which is on Corso, was reduced to the present condition, the bookseller Scalabrini told Fossati that he had seen under the foundations an immense, colossal capital and some columns, he did not say if they were intact or broken up, and that everything was left there without taking care of it.” bibliography Avena A. 1904. Ara Pacis Augustae. Rivista d’ Italia, 7. Roma: Tipografia dell'Unione Cooperativa Editrice, pp. 845–865. Barksdale Maynard W. 2010. Italy’s Antiquities and U.S. Museums: A Q&A with Edoardo Almagià ’73. Princeton Alumni Weekly, 7 July, https://paw.princeton.edu/ article/italy%E2%80%99s-antiquities-and-us-museums-qa-edoardo-almagi%C3% A0-%E2%80%9973, accesed on 16.10.2021. Bloch R. 1939. L’Ara Pietatis Augustae. Mélanges d'Archéologie et d'Histoire, 56, 81–120. https://doi.org/10.3406/mefr.1939.7298. Bollettino Della Società Piemontese Di Archeologia E Belle Arti, 4 (Jan–Dec. 1920), 1–28. Brunelli S. 2016. Twenty Years of the Archaeological Museum in Zadar in the Documents of the Department for Antiquities of Marche, Abruzzi, Molise and Zadar. Il capitale culturale, 14, 89–130. Cannizzaro M.E. 1907. Ara Pacis Augustae. Bollettino d’Arte, 1, 1–17. Catalogo della Mostra Archeologica nelle Terme di Diocleziano for the Esposizione Internazionale di Roma 1911. Bergamo: Istituto italiano d'arti grafiche 1911. Cavaceppi B. 1768. Raccolta d'antiche statue busti bassirilievi ed altre sculture restaurate da Bartolomeo Cavaceppi scultore romano, vol. 1. Roma: [Generoso Salomoni]. Cecchelli C. 1925. L’Ara Della Pace sul Campidoglio. Capitolium, 1, 65–70. Courbaud E. 1899. Le bas-relief romain à représentations historiques: étude archéologique, historique, et littéraire. Paris: A. Fontemoing. 283 Gaius Stern Cremona A., Impiglia C., Pentiricci M., Ronchetti E. 2013. Gioacchino Ersoch Architetto Comunale Progetti e disegni per Roma capitale d’Italia. Roma : Palombi Editori. Romarchitettonica. Dissel K. 1907. Der Opferzug der Ara Pacis Augustae. Hamburg: Lütcke und Wulff. Duhn F. von 1879. Über einige Basreliefs und ein romisches Bauwerk der ersten Kaiserzeit. Misc. Capit. Fetschr. D. Iuvenes Capit. Z. 50th Bestehen d. Arch. Inst., 11–16. Duhn F. von 1881/82. Sopra alcuni Bassirilievi che Ornavano un Monumento Pubblico Romano dell’ Epoca di Augusto. Mon. dell’ Inst., 1, 302–32, & tables 34–36 V and W. Duhn F. von 1885. “Supplemento al’ Articolo Inserito negli Annali del 1881, p. 302–32,” tav. 34–36, Annali dell' instituto di corrispondenza archeologica 57, 320–22. Fasolo V. 1949. Una visione romana l’Ara Pacis sul Campidoglio. L'Urbe, 12(2), 19–21. Foresta S. 2002. I fregi con processione dell’Ara Pacis Augustae: osservazioni sull’attuale ricostruzione. Bulletino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 103, 43–66. Helbig W., Reisch E. 1899. Führer durch die öffentlichen Sammlungen klassischer Altertümer in Rom. Leipzig: Karl Baedeker. Jones A. 2005. An Altar Imagined. A Historical Survey of the Construction and Deconstruction of the Ara Pietatis Augustae. Ricerche di storia dell’arte, 87, 5–12, Lanciani R. 1908. Storia degli scavi di Roma e notizie intorno le collezioni di antiquità, 3, 24–31. http://cdigital.dgb.uanl.mx/la/1080016996_C/1080016997_T3/1080016997 _57.pdf, accesed on 16.10.2021. Michaelis A. 1891. Römische Skizzenbücher nordischer Künstler. [Jahrbuck], 218–238. Monaci T. 1900. Guida Monaci. [s.n.]. Moretti G. 1975. The Ara Pacis Augustae, transl. by V. Priestley. Rome (4th ed.): Istituto Polifgrafic dello Stato, Libreria dello Stato. L’Ara Pacis Augustae (1948). Paribeni R. 1931. Novità Intorno All’Ara Pacis Augustae. Boll. d’Arte, 25 (July), 3–7. Pasqui A. 1903. Scavi dell’ Ara Pacis Augustae. Notizie degli Scavi, 549–574. Pasqui A. 1913. Per lo studio dell’ Ara Pacis Augustae: Le origine ed il concetto architettonico del monument. Studi Romani, [1.5], 283–304. Petersen E.A.H. 1894. L’Ara Pacis Augustae. Röm. Mitt., 9, 171–228. Petersen E.A.H. 1895. Il Fregio dell’Ara Pacis. Röm. Mitt., 10, 138–145. Petersen E.A.H. 1902. Ara Pacis Augustae. Vienna: [s.n.]. Petersen E.A.H. 1906. Die Ara Pacis Augustae. Jahreshefte des Österreichischen Archäologischen Instituts = JÖAI 9, 298–315. Petersen E.A.H. 1908. Der Altar Des Kaiserfriedens Ara Pacis Augustae (review of Gardthausen). In: Deutsche Literaturzeitung, 43 (24 Oct.), 2722–2723. Petersen E.A.H. 1910. Zur Ara Pacis (review of Studniczka). In: Berliner Philologische Wochenschreft, 30(22) (May), 690–697. Pollini J. 1987. The Portraiture of Gaius and Lucius Caesar. New York: Fordham University Press. 284 The Pieces of the Ara Pacis Rehak P. 2001. Aeneas or Numa? Rethinking the Meaning of the Ara Pacis Augustae. The Art Bulletin, 83(2) (June), 190–208. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177206. Reumont A. von 1883. Varietà. In: Archivio della Società romana di storia patria, vol. 6. Roma: [s.n.]. Reumont A. von 1885. Il palazzo Fiano di Roma e Filippo Calandrini cardinale. In: Archivio della Società romana di storia patria, vol. 7. Roma: [s.n.]. Rizzo G.E. 1919. Pro Ara Pacis Augustae. Atti della Reale Accademia di Lettere e Arti di Napoli, 7, 3–21. Rizzo G.E. 1926. Per la ricostruzione dell’ Ara Pacis Augustae. Capitolium, 2(8), 457–473. Rose C.B. 1990. Princes’ and Barbarians on the Ara Pacis. AJA, 94, 453–467. https://doi. org/10.2307/505797. Sieveking J. 1907. Zur Ara Pacis Augustae. JÖAI, 10, 175–190, Stern G. 2006. Women, Children, and Senators on the Ara Pacis Augustae: A Study of Augustus’ Vision of a New World Order in 13 BC (doctoral thesis). Berkeley: University of California. Strong E.S. 1928. Art in Ancient Rome. New York: C. Scribner, pp. 137–143. Ars una: species mille. General history of art. Studniczka F. 1909. Zur Ara Pacis. Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Gesellschaft, 25(3), 901 ff. Visconti E.Q. 1814. Indicazione delle sculture e della galleria de’ quadri esistenti nella Villa Miollis al Quirinale. Roma: Nella stamperia de romanis. https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.13 Anna Głowa (Catholic University of Lublin) Joanna Sławińska (Jagiellonian University Museum Collegium Maius) the ColleCtion of lAte Antique textiles from egyPt Acquired in 1893 by the Archaeological Cabinet of the Jagiellonian university in the Context of the early interest in “Coptic” weaving Abstract Since 1883, when Theodor Graf (1840–1903) exhibited in Vienna a collection of Late Antique textiles from Egypt, a new trend in collecting antiquities was born. In the next decades, thousands of such textiles got to museums and private collections throughout the world. Some treated them as curiosities, others as examples of ancient craft to serve educational purposes, still others valued them as objects that enriched the knowledge of the daily life and culture in the centuries of the transformation of the ancient civilization. One of the oldest collections of this kind in Poland is an assembly of 52 textiles acquired in 1893 by professor Józef Łepkowski (1826–1894) for the Archaeological Cabinet of the Jagiellonian University (currently the Jagiellonian University Museum). The paper presents the Archaeological Cabinet’s collection of textiles on a broader background of the 19th-century interest in this specific kind of objects. Keywords: late Antique textiles from Egypt, Archaeological Cabinet of Jagiellonian University, Józef Łepkowski, Robert Forrer 287 Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska 1. beginnings of the interest in the lAte Antique textiles from egyPt And the motiVAtions of the first ColleCtors Fascination with ancient Egyptian culture and collecting Egyptian antiquities has a long history, reaching back to the antiquity itself (Lloyd 2010; Bednarski 2010; Humbert 2015). The interest in Roman and especially Late Antique period in the history of the Land on the Nile is much younger (O’Connell 2014). Only in the last decades of the 19th century, the cemeteries from Roman and Byzantine times began to be systematically explored and the objects found there started to be valued and desired, both by professional scholars and amateur collectors. The textiles the deceased were buried in belong to the most characteristic artifacts unearthed in Late Antique graves (Thomas 2007; O’Connell 2014: 171), which is related to the changes in burial customs. In this period, the traditional mummification process was simplified and eventually completely abandoned. Instead of the former practice of sophisticated bandaging of the naked mummified body with stripes of linen, now the deceased was deposited in a grave dressed in his garments and wrapped in the shrouds, which were typically reused furnishing textiles such as hangings and covers. Depending on the wealth and status, the dead entered the afterlife swathed in several or more layers of textiles and wrapped around with bands (Dunand, Lichtenberg 2006: 123–130; Dunand 2007: 169–179). The most typical garments of that time – not only in Egypt but also in other parts of Late Roman and Early Byzantine world – were tunics, mantles, and shawls made of linen and decorated with woolen insets of various shapes woven in a tapestry technique (Pritchard 2006: 29–145; Pennick Morgan 2018). Besides linen and wool, silk is another material used in Late Antiquity and sometimes found in Egyptian archaeological sites. Patterned fabrics were made of it, most typically weft-faced compound twill (samit). Among other techniques occurring in clothing and furnishing textiles, quite common is a weft-loop pile weaving (bouclé), brocading (broché), weft-faced compound tabby (taqueté); much less often resist-dyeing, painting, printing and embroideries are encountered (Colburn 2012; Fluck, Helmecke 2012: 244–245). Thanks to the preservative qualities of the hot and dry sands of the Egyptian deserts, many of those textiles survived in a good condition. Brought to light at the end of the 19th century, they allowed for a better comprehension of various aspects of everyday life in Late Antiquity, such as weaving techniques, fashion, and 288 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… interior design, that previously had been known almost exclusively from written and iconographical sources. Furthermore, studies of the textiles enhanced the general picture of this period from the historical, sociological, and economical points of view, mirroring various processes going on in a multicultural and changing Late Antique world. Two men started a boom for collecting Late Antique textiles from Egypt: Joseph von Karabacek (1845–1918) and Theodor Graf (1840–1903). Karabacek was a professor of the History of the Orient at the University of Vienna and later the head of the K.K. Hofbibliothek (now the Österreichische Nationalbibliothek); Graf was carpets and antiquities dealer with premises in Vienna and branches in Egypt (Hunger 1962: 7–9). On Karabacek’s request, Graf started acquiring the Late Antique papyri for him, which had just begun to be discovered in large quantities (Karabacek 1883a: 7–9). Karabacek was also interested in Oriental textiles (especially Persian rugs) and strived to study as old history pertaining to them as possible. He incited Graf to search for Late Antique cemeteries, on “a prediction that the discovery of such graves would lift the veil that hides the textile art of antiquity from the eyes of modern scholars” (Karabacek 1883b: 2. Bock 1886: 2). After three years of prospecting the Egyptian grounds, in 1882, Graf was able to satisfy the wish of Karabacek and send him an impressive body of the textiles (Karabacek 1883a: 24; Hunger 1962: 25ff). In 1883, they exhibited part of the assembled objects (455 textiles and 295 papyri) in the k.k. Österreichischen Museums für Kunst und Industrie (today Museum für Angewandte Kunst) in Vienna. Joseph Karabacek delivered an introductory lecture on the findings and compiled a catalogue of exhibited objects (Karabacek 1883a; 1883b). The Viennese Museum of Art and Industry, created in 1863, was the second of this kind in Europe after the South Kensington Museum (today Victoria and Albert Museum) in London, established in 1852. Both institutions, as well as museums of “arts and crafts” that soon followed the London and Viennese model in other European countries,1 had a mission to promote a reform of design (Rampley 2010). The elites of the 19th century deplored a crisis of style and a lack of “taste” in the arts and artistic crafts of their time. This crisis was 1 An early example of this kind of institution, modelled directly on South Kensington Museum, was Muzeum Techniczno-Przemysłowe (Museum of Technique and Industry) founded in 1863 in Krakow by Dr Adrian Baraniecki; in the 1870s, such museums were created also in Warsaw and Lvov (Szczerski 2002: 200–220). Very vital – and important for collecting ancient textiles – was a design reform and development of Kunstgewerbemuseums in Prussia (Szczerski 2002: 123–156). 289 Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska considered to arise among others from industrialisation and mass production. The main purpose of assembling examples of ancient crafts was to educate the general public and inspire artists and designers (Houze 2016). This was undoubtedly one of the reasons why the Viennese Museum bought 769 textiles from Theodor Graf immediately after the exhibition in 1883 (Hunger 1962: 45– 46). A catalogue of this collection was prepared by Alois Riegl (1858–1905), an art historian at the Vienna University and a curator in the Viennese Museum of Art and Industry (Riegl 1889). Both Karabacek’s and Riegl’s publications are symptomatic for the intellectual atmosphere of the time. Karabacek expressed his admiration for technological qualities of the textiles which “can compete with our fabrics produced in the age of Jacquard machine” (Karabacek 1883a: 30).2 He stated emphatically that “the very appearance of the tapestry works just discussed should give a new impulse to our entire textile industry, an impulse which consequently will make us realize to what extent these grave finds have not only contributed to the perfection of our textile arts but also to the refinement of our taste” (Karabacek 1883a: 38).3 Riegl, as a representant of the famous Vienna School of History of Art, which staked on the Wissenschaftlichkeit of the field, described all the technical issues in painstaking detail (Riegl 1889: 8–16; Houze 2016: 94). In addition to the technical point of view, both publications reflect on the general character of Late Antique art. Karabacek as the Orientalist could not but connect those textiles with later Persian art and see oriental influences both in techniques and ornaments (Karabacek 1883a: 31–39). Riegl, instead, highlighted the features of classical Greco-Roman art in a process of transformation (Riegl 1889: 17–24), typical for what he defined elsewhere as Late Antique “Kunstwollen” (Riegl 1893. Idem 1901). Both Karabacek’s and Riegl’s voices are representative of important new lines in academic research of the end of the 19th 2 3 “Mehr aber noch als diese die Costümkunde der Alten bereichernde Ausbeute fesseln uns vom Standpunkte der reinen Webertechnik die mannigfachen Stoffarten, welche unser Fund aufzuweisen im Stande ist, Gewebe, welche die Concurrenz mit unseren im Zeitalter der Jacquard-Maschine gefertigten Stoffen gleicher Art wohl siegreich zu bestehen vermöchten”. “Was ich aber zu guter Letzt noch auf dem Herzen habe, ist, dass meines Erachtens gerade durch die soeben besprochene Erscheinung unserer Gobelinwerke ein neuer Impuls unserer gesammten Textilindustrie gegeben werden dürfte, ein Impuls, welcher in seinen Consequenzen uns erkennen lassen wird, in welch’ hohem Grade diese Gräberfunde nicht nur zur Vervoll kommnung unserer textilen Künste, sondern auch zur Veredlung unseres Geschmackes in ihren Gebilden bestimmend mitgewirkt haben”. 290 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… century: on the one hand, oriental studies and on the other, a problem of continuity and change of Roman tradition in the art of the period between Antiquity and the Middle Ages.4 After the success of the Vienna exhibition, a new trend in collecting was launched. Graf kept acquiring textiles in Egypt and selling them to museums and private collectors around the world and soon others followed in his footsteps. Until now, it remains uncertain where the first Graf’s textiles derived from as the site was kept secret by him and Karabacek to the point that the digs were conducted at night (Karabacek 1883a: 25; 1883b: 2; Hunger 1962: 27, 31),5 but soon further discoveries of the Late Antique necropolises occurred. Of special importance was the discovery made by Gaston Maspero (1846–1916), the director of the Egyptian Service of Antiquities in the years 1881–1886 and 1899–1914. In 1884, Maspero identified Late Antique cemeteries in Akhmim, ancient Panopolis (Maspero 1885: 210–212; 1886: 77–78, 83–90). During the following years, this site proved to be a fruitful source of textiles for collectors such as Graf, Franz Bock (1823–1899), Vladimir de Bock (1850–1899), Robert Forrer (1866–1947) and others, who in turn supplied textiles to many museums in Europe and North America (Fluck 2008: 211–213). The cemeteries of Arsinoe in the Fayum Oasis (Fluck 2014: 3; Smalley 2014: 4–10) and of Antinoopolis in Middle Egypt (Calament 2005; Fluck 2014: 5) were other important findspots of the textiles. Several other sites also functioned as “mines” of textiles in the 1880s and 1890s (Török 1993: 13), but the above mentioned provided the largest amounts and the most interesting examples of textiles. In the contemporary publications of those findings, another factor gained importance besides the features that had already been highlighted by Karabacek and Riegl: the “Christianness” of the textiles (Bock 1886; 1887; Forrer 1891a; 1893; Gayet 1902a; 1902b).6 Some of the textiles were even considered to be the earliest known examples of liturgical vestments (Maspero 1886: 211–212) and monastic habits (Gayet 2002a: 56). This seems to be the motivation for one of the most important textile collectors and dealers of this time, Franz Bock 4 5 6 Those two “poles” would soon find an eloquent expression in a book by Joseph Strzygowski (1901) with a telling title Orient oder Rom: Beitrag zur Geschichte der spätantiken und frühchristlichen Kunst, where textiles played a substantial role. Riegl (1889: 5) discloses that their findspot was Saqqara, but today some scholars suspect that it was more likely Arsinoe in the Fayum Oasis. See Fluck 2014: 4. Already Riegl mentions the textiles with depictions of Christian symbols and figural motifs but he does not go deeper into this topic – Riegl 1889: 23. 291 Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska (1823–1899), a theologian and art historian, canon of Aachen Cathedral. He was associated with the Rhineland reform movement which was developing in the mid-19th century and aimed to revive medieval traditions in church art. Bock initially collected ancient embroidery and textiles to present them to manufacturers of parameters, silk weavers and embroiderers as templates for their works. Inspired by the exhibition of Theodor Graf’s collection, in 1885 Bock visited Egypt for the first time and purchased a substantial number of textiles. In the following years, he continued acquiring and selling them to numerous museums (Paetz gen. Schieck 2002: 15–17).7 Soon, the textiles started to be perceived not only as samples of ancient weaving techniques and ornamentation to be emulated by contemporary artists and craftsmen but also as witnesses of everyday life in the Early Christian times, which could “complement the knowledge offered by Roman catacombs” (Forrer 1891a: 5; Forrer 1893: 4). Despite the fact that the textiles from Egypt illustrate the universal – and not only local – fashion of the Late Roman and early Byzantine Empire and that they show the influences of various foreign traditions, not to mention that some of them might have been produced outside Egypt and imported, the designation “Coptic” was more and more commonly applied to the whole corpus of these objects.8 The authors of the publications mentioned above were aware of the intricacies of the textiles’ “identity”, but it seems that what appealed to the imagination of the general public was a connection of the textiles with the beginnings of Christianity on the Egyptian soil. Very telling in this respect are the reflections of Mrs. Anna Szawłowska-Neumann (1854–1918), a Polish writer and journalist. She spent eight years in Egypt, accompanying her husband Theodor, who was appointed Austrian Consul in Cairo in 1882–1891. In her mémoires, Mrs. Neumann mentions “Coptic” textiles, noting that “the elaborated textiles of that time, made of linen and wool with colorful woven patterns, are interesting relics as well; with the precision of the drawing, some 7 8 It is little known that also one of the Polish institutions, Muzeum Przemysłu Artystycznego (Museum of Artistic Industry) in Lvov acquired textiles from Franz Bock, namely, a complete child’s tunic and 17 fragments of various decorative parts of garments purchased in 1888 (Трубинов 1991: 148 on commenting a mistake made by Гонтарь 1991: 114, who confused Franz Bock with Russian Egyptologist Vladimir de Bock). Before World War II, when Lvov was within Polish borders, the textiles were published by Gąsiorowski (1928: passim), but he did not mention their provenance. On the problems connected to the usage of the word “Coptic” with reference to the Late Antique textiles, see for example Stauffer 1995: 5; Thomas 2010: 1062. 292 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… of them resemble gobelins and depict biblical scenes, which proves they were the work of Christians. As is well known, the Egyptians were one of the firsts to receive the teachings of Christ; their mind, accustomed to mystical reflection, grasped and comprehended the truth more readily than Hellas, infatuated with sensuality, and proud Rome, stubbornly worshipping the old gods” (Neumann 1892: 41).9 The alleged association of the Late Antique textiles from Egypt with the Christian heritage became one more reason behind purchasing them by private collectors and public institutions. This seems to be also the case of the Archaeological Cabinet, whose inventory described the textiles with a simple phrase: “cloths from Christian graves”. lAte Antique textiles from egyPt in the ArChAeologiCAl CAbinet of the JAgielloniAn uniVersity And their ProVenAnCe Most of the textiles in the museums in Europe and North America come from the abovementioned first outburst of excavations in the 1880s and 1890s (Thomas 2007: 137–142). The methods of conducting archaeological excavations in those times were far from today’s standards, especially when it came to preserving or at least documenting the context of the findings. Besides the official excavation, illegal digs, undertaken by local “treasure hunters”, were going on a massive scale, irretrievably devastating the sites (Forrer 1895: 31–32). Neither professional scholars nor antiquities dealers hesitated to cut large textiles into smaller fragments to meet the growing demand and increase their income. As a result, most of the textiles acquired in this period are pieces of bigger wholes, deprived of any archaeological context. Museum documentation is often lacking the information on the findspot, let alone details about the circumstances of the findings (Schrenk 2006: 9–14; Thomas 2007: 137). In consequence, nowadays a scholar interested in Late Antique textiles faces two “jigsaw puzzles”. 9 „Również zajmującą pamiątką są misterne tkaniny z tegoż czasu pochodzące, z lnu i wełny w barwne wzory tkane; niektóre dokładnością rysunku przypominają gobeliny i przedstawiają sceny z biblijnej historyi, co dowodzi iż zawdzięczają je pracy chrześcijan. Jakoż wiadomą jest rzeczą, iż Egypcjanie jedni z pierwszych naukę Chrystusa przyjęli; umysł ich nawykły do mistycznych rozmyślań, łacniej pojął i zrozumiał prawdę niż rozkochana w zmysłowości Hellada, niż dumny Rzym uparcie starym bogom hołdujący”. 293 Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska First, he has to put back together fragments of a garment or furnishing textile that was cut in pieces and scattered in the collections all over the world. Second, he has to combine the histories of the singular collections and the biographies of the collectors into a broader picture of the early interest in objects of this kind. A deeper knowledge of one piece or one collection allows to understand better others. Such is also the case of 52 fragments purchased by the Archeological Cabinet of the Jagiellonian University. The textiles are attached to the cartoon cards which are bound together to form an album (inv. no. 9352; fig. 1). These are small pieces of decorative bands and round, rectangular or star-shaped insets. Most of them represent the tapestry technique; there are also examples of loop pile weaving and brocading. The majority of the tapestries exemplify what is called “monochrome style” of decoration, which consists of using dyed wool in dark blue, dark red or brownish-violet10 to weave the motifs, and light linen thread to trace the inner contours and details in the so-called “flying shuttle” technique. The monochrome tapestries usually reproduce geometric and vegetal motifs; figural ones are present to a lesser extent. Most typical are complicated interlaces and knots (e.g., inv. no. MUJ 750:35–38, 750:40, 750:47–49, fig. 2), as well as vegetal rinceaux (e.g., MUJ 750:21–23, 750:28), sometimes with rabbits, lions or other animals inscribed in the curves (e.g. MUJ 750:20, 750:27, 750:29–30). There are also polychromatic tapestries with floral ornamentations (e.g., MUJ 750:1, 750:3, 750:7, 715:13b, 750:14 – fig. 3) or figural representations subjected to a lesser or bigger degree of abstraction (e.g., MUJ 750:12, 750:17–18). Two examples of brocading show the rhomboidal pattern (inv. no. MUJ 750:25) and a simplified bird (inv. no. 750:50 – fig. 4). Besides, the album contains three examples of loop pile weaving (inv. nos. MUJ 750:6, 750:43, 750:51), which was especially popular in furnishing textiles. Altogether the collection forms a very basic set of the most common techniques and motifs, representative enough to illustrate the typical decoration of Late Antique garments and furnishing textiles. So far, the textiles have been published twice (Gąsiorowski 1928: passim11; Ostrowski 2007b), but the question of their provenance remained under-re10 The most common red and blue dyes detected in Late Antique textiles from Egypt were madder and indigo. When used together, they imitated the color of true purple dye obtained from Murex mollusk, which was a luxury product beyond the reach of average people (Colburn 2012: 162). 11 The paper covers all the collections of Late Antique textiles from Egypt in Poland, but it does not consider them as basic entities – instead, individual textiles from all collections are ar- 294 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… searched and uncertain.12 The investigation of the archival documents of the Jagiellonian University (UJ) did not help to elucidate this matter. The inventory of the Archaeological Cabinet describes the textiles as “cloths from Christian graves”, with annotations “acquired with the funds of the Cabinet”, and “bound in a book”. The year of the purchase was 1893. No information on the source of the acquisition is given. A clue to search for this particular information was provided by parallels to some of the UJ pieces (e.g. MUJ 750-50 – fig. 4) in publications of the textiles from a collection of Robert Forrer (1866–1947), an Alsatian archaeologist based in Strasbourg (e.g., Forrer 1891a: Taffel XII.14; Forrer 1893: Taffel VIII.14; fig. 5).13 Further investigation in Forrer’s archive in Strasbourg proved that the UJ textiles indeed derived from him. Forrer was one of the most prominent figures in the early interest in the Late Antique textiles from Egypt. He started collecting them in 1889 (Schnitzler 1999). In the following years, he published a series of studies in which he atranged chronologically as well as by type of decoration. The UJ textiles are described on the following pages: 248–249 (fig. 11), 255–256 (fig. 19), 257–258 (fig. 22, 23), 260–262 (fig. 26, 27), 263–265 (fig. 29, 30, 31), 273–277 (fig. 41, 42, 45, 46, 50), and 284–285 (fig. 60, 61). 12 Gąsiorowski (1928: passim) does not approach this question at all. Ostrowski (2007b: 192) makes an erroneous supposition that the textiles were donated to the Cabinet by Henryk Loewenfeld (1859–1931), a businessman, who according to Ostrowski presented similar textiles also to the Musuem of Technique and Industry in Krakow. Yet, according to the documentation in the archives of the Jagiellonian University and the National Museum in Krakow, Loewenfeld was a donor of Late Antique textiles from Egypt to the Czapski Museum (now the branch of the National Museum in Krakow) in 1921 and there are no traces of his donations to Archaeological Cabinet or to the Museum of Technique and Industry. Ostrowski also says (without referring any sources) that Loewenfeld in turn acquired the textiles from Robert Forrer in 1894. As described further, Forrer’s collection was indeed the source of the Archeological Cabinet’s purchase, but the transaction was made directly with him in 1893. The Museum of Technique and Industry also bought their textiles directly from Forrer, one year later, in 1894. The name of Loewenfeld does not appear in Forrer’s register of his sales at all. 13 “Siblings” of the UJ textiles can be found in the museum collections in Berlin (Wulff, Volbach 1926: cat. no. 9042, p. 141, taff. 128), Brussels (I. Errera, Collection d’anciennes étoffes égyptiennes, Bruxelles 1916, cat. no. 342), Moscow (R. Shurinova, Coptic Textiles: Collection of Coptic Textiles, State Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow, Leningrad 1967, cat. no. 227), and Madrid (A. Cabrera and L. Rodríguez, The collection of Coptic textiles in the Museo Nacional de Artes Decorativas, Madrid: the results of the dye analysis and 14C, in: A. de Moor, C. Fluck eds., Methods of dating ancient textiles of the 1st millennium AD from Egypt and neighbouring countries, Tilet: Lanoo 2007, 131, fig. 2a). It is worth mentioning that the one in Berlin was also bought from Robert Forrer. 295 Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska tempted to systematize information about the style and iconography and introduce a basis for dating the objects (Forrer 1889; 1891a; 1891b; 1893). Unsatisfied with the information on the context of findings provided by the merchants, in 1894 Forrer decided to conduct his own excavations in Akhmim. The observations made during the dig helped him to illuminate several questions and to refine his typology and dating of the textiles. Some of his methods and conclusions are of less value in light of the current state of research (El-Sayed 2018: 183–184), nevertheless, Forrer’s letters, which relate his excavations in a reportage manner, are one of the rare examples of the detailed description of the circumstances of the late 19th century discoveries of the textiles (Forrer 1895). From the very beginning, Forrer was not only collecting textiles but also selling them. As Laszlo Török (1993: 13) put it, “there can be no doubt that not only his publications but also Forrer’s sales of both large and small groups of textiles, composed with certain didactical and historical considerations in mind, have greatly contributed to the constant rise of professional and public interest in the art of post-pharaonic Egypt”. Forrer kept detailed records of all the transactions, purchases and sales in a notebook entitled Verkaufs und Einkaufs und Notizbuch über Koptische Stoffe Geschäft Achmim, which is now kept in the archives of the Archaeological Museum of Strasbourg.14 This notebook confirmed the supposition that the textiles for the Archaeological Cabinet of UJ were purchased from Forrer. He gives the exact date of transaction (31 October 1893) and the name of professor Józef Łepkowski (“Lepkowsky”), who was a founder of the Archaeological Cabinet, as the contracting party. Forrer divided both his purchases and sales into separate “lots”. Each lot in the purchases corresponds to the lot affixed with the same number in sales. Thanks to this accurate system of registering the transactions, we can take one more step backwards in the history of the objects purchased by Łepkowski and find out that Forrer, in turn, bought them from a merchant named Tano (lot no 8 in Forrer’s notebook). Tano held one of the most successful businesses of the Egyptian antiquities trade in Cairo (Hagen, Ryholt 2016: 266–267) and his name spins another web of connections between the UJ ensemble of textiles and other European collections.15 14 At this point, we would like to express our gratitude to Mrs. Bernadette Schnitzler. Without her kindest assistance in researching Forrer’s archive, the provenance of the Archeological Cabinet’s textiles would still remain unknown. 15 Textiles acquired from Tano family are among others in the collections of Louvre, Musée des Tissus in Lyon and Musée Archéologique in Marseille. 296 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… How the textiles got into the possession of Tano and what their findspot was is a question to be answered in the course of further research. In the title of his notebook, Forrer used the name “Achmim” referring it to all the textiles – not only to the ones that he himself unearthed in this site but also bought from merchants like Tano. It is tempting to assume that this was indeed the place of origin of the textiles, especially that – as said above – the cemeteries of the ancient Panopolis were providing the most abundant “crops” of textiles in this time. Nevertheless, not knowing on what premises Forrer ascribed all the textiles acquired by him to this site, one has to be cautious. The name of Akhmim had already become famous for its textiles, so the merchants could have been claiming it was a findspot of the pieces they wanted to sell at the best prices (Fluck 2008: 213; Schrenk 2006: 10). the textiles in the Context of the CAbinet’s mission Józef Łepkowski (1826–1894) – “Lepkowsky” in Forrer’s notebook – was an art historian and archaeologist interested mainly in prehistoric, mediaeval, and early modern past of Poland. He was the first professor to introduce, in 1863, archaeology as a discipline at the Jagiellonian University. In 1867, he created Archaeological Cabinet to house exhibits which served as visual aids for the lectures (Ostrowski 2007a). Due to the limited funds, at the beginning the Cabinet consisted mostly of the Łepkowski’s private collection and the donations from affluent patrons, such as baron Edward Rastawiecki and counts Alexander and Konstanty Przeździecki, who enriched Cabinet’s collection with numerous archaeological findings from the territory of Poland, or princes Władysław and Marceli Czartoryski, to whom the Cabinet owed most of the Mediterranean artifacts in its collection (Kohn 1877; Gałczyńska 1964; Ostrowski 2007c). In the 1870s, the Cabinet included three sections: prehistorical objects, “classical world” (Greece, Rome and pharaonic Egypt) and “diversa” (Kohn 1877: 152; Żmigrodzki 1877). Besides the Jagiellonian University, Łepkowski was involved with numerous cultural institutions and societies. The one especially worth mentioning is the Princes Czartoryski Library and Museum, which he headed as director for many years (1866–1884) (Ostrowski 2007a: 46). Taking into consideration the Cabinet’s mission, the questions arise: Why did Łepkowski decide to invest the Cabinet’s funds in objects of this specific 297 Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska kind? Could they have been used as illustrative material during any lectures at the University? The Cabinet was not the first Polish museum to acquire the Late Antique textiles from Egypt. As early as 1888, Muzeum Przemysłu Artsytycznego (Museum of Artistic Industry) in Lvov purchased a complete child’s tunic and 17 fragments of textiles from Franz Bock (Трубинов 1991). In Krakow, prince Władysław Czartoryski housed in his museum several interesting pieces obtained in winter 1889/90 during his journey in Egypt and in summer 1891, in Paris. Czartoryski’s “Coptic” purchases were influenced by French archaeologists and collectors (Głowa 2019a). Łepkowski must have known those collections, especially the Czartoryski’s, but he did not use the contacts to the dealers from whom the purchases in Lvov and Krakow derived. Why did he decide to turn to Robert Forrer? At that time numerous museums, especially in the German-speaking countries, had already purchased textiles from Forrer, for example, Prussian museums of arts and crafts in Wrocław and Gdańsk (Breslau and Danzig at the time), archaeological and arts and crafts museums in Berlin, Nürnberg, Würzburg, Mainz, Münich, Dresden, Leipzig, Magdeburg, Stuttgart, Düsseldorf, Mitau, Königsberg, and others, as well as Austro-Hungarian museums in Budapest and Prague.16 Łepkowski was a member of the archaeological societies in several of the mentioned cities (Budapest, Prague, Berlin, Nürnberg, Königsberg, Wrocław) as well as in Vienna (Lepszy 1894: 177). It cannot be excluded that he encountered the Forrer textiles in one of the museums or their divisions. Besides, textiles from Forrer had one important merit that other dealers’ offers did not have: they were provided with scholarly apparatus in the form of Forrer’s publications. Both in the Cabinet’s inventory and in Forrer’s archives in Strasbourg,17 there are records of Łepkowski’s purchase of Forrer’s books: Römische und byzantinische Seiden-Textilien aus dem Gräberfelde von AchmimPanopolis and Die frühchristlichen Alterthümer aus dem Gräberfelde von Achmim-Panopolis. For the didactical purpose – which the exhibits in the Cabinet 16 Information based on Forrer’s ledger Verkaufs und Einkaufs und Notizbuch über Koptische Stoffe Geschäft Achmim. We only mention here the institutions in the countries neighboring with Poland and the purchases earlier than Łepkowski’s. Apart from them, there are many more museums and private collectors that acquired textiles from Forrer in those and later years. 17 Forrer recorded the sales of his publications in a separate notebook, which is also kept in the archives of the Musée Archéologique in Strasbourg. 298 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… were intended to serve – Forrer’s textiles and publications constituted a perfect “teaching set”. An idea of buying the textiles might have come from Marian Sokołowski (1839–1911), an art historian, who was Łepkowski’s colleague in two institutions: the Jagiellonian University and the Princes Czartoryski Museum. In 1884, he succeeded Łepkowski on the position of the director of the latter one, and since 1894, after Łepkowski’s death, he was in charge of the Archaeological Cabinet (Roztworowski 1998). As the director of the Czartoryski Museum, Sokołowski wrote a paper describing the whole collection with several pages devoted to the Late Antique textiles from Egypt purchased by prince Władysław. He reported the original discoveries of the textiles by Graf and other pioneers in this field, ascertained the meaning of those discoveries for historical studies, mentioned the changes in the burial customs in Late Antiquity and the appearance of the typical clothing of this period, and described the examples in possession of Czartoryski. Sokołowski highlighted the place of those textiles in the history of civilization as a mark of the transition from “classical ancient world to the Christian times” and opening “a new era in the history of art” (Sokołowski 1892: 264). “They”, he went on to say, “bear infallible Christian feature and take our thoughts back to the first centuries and forms of developing Christianity” (Sokołowski 1892: 267). It may be added that in the 19th-century inventory of the Czartoryski Museum the textiles were described in a similar way: “fragments of textiles from the early Christian times”.18 It must be emphasized that identifying all the Late Antique textiles from Egypt with Early Christian culture is a simplification and today scholars avoid labelling them “Coptic”, nevertheless the point of this paper is to show how the textiles were perceived at the time when they were first brought to light, why they were attractive for the collectors and important for scholars. As already mentioned, Łepkowski specialized in Polish archaeology and his lectures did not go beyond Slavic territories. Sokołowski’s ambition, as expressed in the program presented during his habilitation, was to provide a cycle of lectures that would cover the history of art starting from ancient Near East, Greece, and Rome through the Middle Ages and ending with the Rennaissance 18 These are the words used in case of first acquisions (made in Egypt on the turn of 1889/90); in case of the second purchase (made in Paris in 1891) the words “form the first centuriers of Christianity” are crossed out and the dates “VIII–IX century” as well as information “from Fayoum and Akhmim” is added. 299 Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska (Kunińska 2014: 74–87). Based on the indexes of lectures given at the Jagiellonian University,19 it seems that Sokołowski was trying to carry out this plan in the 1880s. He lectured general history of art complemented by classes dedicated to individual periods. Of a particular interest, he delivered lectures titled The History of Early Christian Art (1881/82) and The General History of Christian Art (1886/87). The current state of research does not allow to analyze Sokołowski’s interests in this period, which might connect the decision of purchasing Late Antique textiles for the Cabinet with Sokołowski and clarify if the acquisition was made with a specific purpose in mind or was simply motivated by keeping up with the latest discoveries and trends in collecting antiquities. résumé The Late Antique textiles from Egypt acquired by the Archaeological Cabinet of the Jagiellonian University in 1893 from Robert Forrer are an interesting example of an early collection of this particular sort. The textiles themselves still deserve attention for the same reasons that attracted people to them in the time of their discovery: they illustrate materials and techniques typical for the Late Antique weaving, styles of decoration in dress and interior design, the processes of formal and iconographical evolution characterizing all branches of art in this period. They stimulate imagination by providing – metaphorically but in this case also literally – a “cutaway” of everyday life in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Empire. Besides the qualities contained in the individual textiles, there are additional cognitive values of the collection as a whole. One is strictly museological and concerns the way of storing and exhibiting the textiles in the 19th century. The Jagiellonian University album exemplifies a typical for this time practice of arranging the textiles on cardboards and binding them together to form a kind of sampler book, which suited one of the basic functions that the textile collections had in the era of the design reform: providing a template of weaving techniques and ornaments typical for a certain period. Another advantage of studying this collection is that it gives an insight to the intellectual atmosphere at the end of the 19th century – the crisis (not only of style but also 19 Spis wykładów mających się odbywać w c.k. Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim published for each academic year. 300 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… in other spheres) and growing interest in the periods in the history of civilization (and art) that were undergoing “critical” changes, too. Worth special attention is how the fascination in those textiles mirrors the flourishing interest in Early Christian archaeology, however, this issue goes beyond the scope of the current paper. bibliography Archival sources Forrer R. Verkaufs und Einkaufs und Notizbuch über Koptische Stoffe Geschäft Achmim – a notebook in the archives of the Archaeological Museum in Strasbourg. Inventory book of the Archaeological Cabinet of the Jagiellonian University – manuscript in the archives of the Jagiellonian University Museum. Katalog starożytności zagranicznych – manuscript in the Czartoryski Library, inv. no. 12779. Published primary sources Bock F. 1886. Kunstgeschichtliche Beiträge über die vielfarbigen Gobelin-Wirkereien und Purpurstickereien der spätrömischen und frühbyzantinischen Kunstepoche (3.–4. Jahrhundert) aufgefunden in altkoptischen Begräbnisstätten Oberaegyptens im Frühjahr und Sommer 1886. Düsseldorf: Druck von August Bagel. Bock F. 1887. Katalog der frühchristlichen Textilfunde des Jahres 1886. Beschreibung von Gobelin-Wirkereien in verschiedenfarbiger Purpurwolle und von vollständig erhaltenen Bekleidungsgegenständen der spätrömischen und früh-byzantinischen Kunstperiode (4.–8. Jahrhundert) aufgefunden in koptischen Begräbnisstätten Oberägyptens. Düsseldorf: Druck von August Bagel. https://doi.org/10.5479/sil.184570.39 088006312540. Forrer R. 1889. Versuch einer Klassification der antik-koptischen Textilfunde von R. Forrer. Antiqua, 8(9), 57–68. Forrer R. 1891a. Die Gräber- und Textilfunde von Achmim-Panopolis. Strassbourg: E. Birkhäuser. https://doi.org/10.5479/sil.183811.39088006312425. Forrer R. 1891b. Römische und byzantinische Seiden-Textilien aus dem Gräberfelde von Achmim-Panopolis. Strassbourg: E. Birkhäuser. Forrer R. 1893. Die frühchristlichen Alterthümer aus dem Gräberfelde von Achmim-Panopolis. Strassbourg: E. Birkhäuser. Forrer R. 1895. Mein Besuch in El-Achmim: Reisebriefe aus Aegypten. Strassbourg: Verlag von Fritz Schlesier. Gayet A. 1902a. Antinoë et les sépultures de Thaïs et Sérapion. Paris: Société française d’éditions d’art. 301 Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska Gayet A. 1902b. L’Art copte. École d’Alexandrie, architecture monastique, sculpture, peinture, art somptuaire. Paris: E. Leroux. Hunger H. (ed.) 1962. Aus der Vorgeschichte der Papyrussammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek: Briefe Theodor Grafs, Josef von Karabaceks, Erzherzog Rainers und anderer. Wien: Georg Prachner Verlag. Karabacek J. 1883a. Theodor Graf ’schen Funde in Aegypten, Wien: [Verlag des K.K. Österreichischen Museum]. Karabacek J. 1883b. Katalog der Theodor Graf ’schen Funde in Aegypten. Wien: Verlag des K.K. Österreichischen Museum. Kohn A. 1877. Das archäologische Cabinet der Jagiellonischen Univeristät in Krakau. Zeitschrift für Ethnologie, 9, 151–155. Lepszy L. 1894. Dr Józef Łepkowski. Wiadomości Numizmatyczno-Archeologiczne, 2(1–2), 177–180. Maspero G. 1885. Sur les fouilles executées en Egypte de 1881 à 1885. Bulletin de l’Institut Egyptien, 2. Ser. 6, 3–91. Maspero G. 1886. Rapport à l’institut Ègyptien sur les fouilles et travaux exécutés en Égypte pendant l’hiver de 1885–1886. Bulletin de l’Institut Egyptien, 2. Ser. 7, 196–251. Neumann A. 1892. Obrazki z życia nad Nilem (II). Kronika Rodzinna, 2, 36–41. Riegl A. 1889. Die ägyptischen Textilfunde im K. K. Oesterreichischen Museum. Wien: R.v. Waldheim. Sokołowski M. 1892. Muzeum XX Czartoryskich w Krakowie. Lwów. Żmigrodzki M. 1877. Pamiątki przeszłości. Parę godzin spędzonych w Gabinecie Archeologicznym Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Tygodnik Ilustrowany, 3(63): 151; 3(64): 164–167; 3(65): 186. Secondary sources Bednarski A. 2010. The Reception of Egypt in Europe. In: A.B. Lloyd (ed.). A Companion to Ancient Egypt. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1086–1108. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781444320053.ch47. Calament F. 2005. La révélation d’Antinoé par Albert Gayet, vol. 1–2. Cairo: Bibliothèque d’études coptes. Carroll D.L. 1988. Looms and Textiles of the Copts. Seattle–London: California Academy of Sciences. Colburn K. 2012. Materials and Techniques of Late Antique and Early Islamic Textiles Found in Egypt. In: H.C. Evans, B. Ratliff, (eds.). Byzantium and Islam: Age of Transition. New York–New Haven: The Metropolitan Museum of Art–Yale University Press, pp. 161–163. Dunand F., Lichtenberg R. 2006. Mummies and Death in Egypt. New York: Cornell University Press. 302 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… Dunand F. 2007. Between Tradition and Innovation: Egyptian Funerary Practices in Late Antiquity. In: R.S. Bagnall (ed.). Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300–700. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 163–184. El-Sayed R. 2018. Spätantike Fundobjekte aus Ahmim-Panopolis (Ägypten) in Nürnberg. In: Beitrag zur Sammlungsgeschichte des Germanischen Nationalmuseums und zur Rekonstruktion der ehemaligen Collection Robert Forrer, Anzeiger des Germanischen Nationalmuseums 2016. Nürnberg: Verlag des Germanischen Nationalmuseums, pp. 183–204. Fluck C. 2008. Akhmim as a source of textiles. In: G. Gabra, H. Takla (eds.). Christianity and Monasticism in Upper Egypt, vol 1: Akhmim and Sohag. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, 211–223. https://doi.org/10.5743/cairo/9789774 161223.003.0019. Fluck C., Helmecke G. 2014. Egypt’s Post-Pharaonic Textiles. In: G. Gabra (ed.). Coptic Civilization: Two Thousand Years of Christianity in Egypt. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, pp. 237–260. Fluck C. 2014. Findspot known: Treasures from excavation sites in Egypt in the Museum für Byzantinische Kunst, Berlin. British Museum Studies in Ancient Egypt and Sudan, 21, 1–30. Gałczyńska C.Z. 1964. Historia zbioru zabytków archeologicznych w Muzeum Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Meander, 19(10), 452–463. Gąsiorowski St. J. 1928. Późnohellenistyczne i wczesnochrześciańskie tkaniny egipskie w zbiorach polskich. Prace Komisji. Historii Sztuki PAU, 6, 251–292. Głowa A. 2019a. “French connection”. The contacts of Władysław Czartoryski in Egypt and his acquisition of late antique textiles – the background for the history of the collection. In: A. de Moor, C. Fluck, P. Linscheid (eds.). Egypt as a textile hub. Textile interrelationships in the 1st millennium AD. Tielt: Lannoo Publishers, pp. 192–201. Gontarʹ T.A. 1991. Koptskie tkani v sobranii Lʹvovskogo Muzeâ Ètnografii i Hudožestvennogo Promysla an USSR. Sovetskaâ ètnografiâ, 1, 114–119. Hagen F., Ryholt K. 2016. The Antiquities Trade in Egypt 1880–1930. Copenhagen: Det Kongelige Danske Videnskabernes Selskab. Houze R. 2016. Textiles, Fashion, and Design Reform in Austria-Hungary Before the First World War. New York: Routlege. Humbert J.-M. 2015. Egyptomania: Fascination for Egypt and Its Expression in the Modern World. In: M.K. Hartwig (ed.). A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 465–481. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118325070.ch24. Kunińska M. 2014. Historia sztuki Mariana Sokołowskiego. Kraków: Universitas. Lloyd A.B. 2010. The Reception of Pharaonic Egypt in Classical Antiquity. In: Lloyd A.B. (ed.). A Companion to Ancient Egypt. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 1067– 1085. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444320053.ch46. O’Connell E. 2014. The Discovery of Christian Egypt: From Manuscript Hunters toward an Archaeology of Late Antique Egypt. In: G. Gabra (ed.). Coptic Civilization: 303 Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska Two Thousand Years of Christianity in Egypt. Cairo: The American University in Cairo Press, pp. 163–176. Ostrowski J. 2007a. Profesor Józef Łepkowski (1826–1894) – twórca uniwersyteckiego Gabinetu Archeologicznego. In: J. Śliwa (ed.). Egipt, Grecja, Italia…: zabytki starożytne z dawnej kolekcji Gabinetu Archeologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, pp. 43–48. Ostrowski J. 2007b. Antyczne tkaniny znad Nilu w zbiorach Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. In: J. Śliwa (ed.). Egipt, Grecja, Italia…: zabytki starożytne z dawnej kolekcji Gabinetu Archeologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, pp. 188–192. Ostrowski J. 2007c. Książęta Czartoryscy darczyńcami Gabinetu Archeologicznego UJ. In: J. Śliwa (ed.). Egipt, Grecja, Italia…: zabytki starożytne z dawnej kolekcji Gabinetu Archeologicznego Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Kraków: Księgarnia Akademicka, pp. 91–96. Paetz gen. Schieck A. 2002. Textile Bilderwelten. Wechselwirkungen zwischen Ägypten und Rom. Untersuchungen an `koptischen´ Textilien unter besonderer Berücksichtigung unbearbeiteter Sammlungsbestände in Nordrhein-Westfalen (PhD thesis). [S.n.]: Universität zu Köln, https://kups.ub.uni-koeln.de/2130/, accessed on 12.11.2021. Pennick Morgan F. 2018. Dress and personal Appearance in Late Antiquity. The Clothing of the Middle and Lower Classes. Leiden–Boston: Brill. Late Antique Archaeology (Supplementary Series), vol. 1. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004353466. Pritchard F. 2006. Clothing culture: Dress in Egypt in the First Millennium AD. Manchester: The Whitworth Gallery, The University of Manchester. Rampley M. 2010. Design Reform in the Habsburg Empire: Technology, Aesthetics and Ideology. Journal of Design History 23(3), 247–264. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdh/ epq021. Roztworowski M. 1998. Kraków, [cz. 3]. In: Z. Żygulski (ed.). Muzeum Czartoryskich. Historia i zbiory. Kraków: Muzeum Narodowe w Krakowie, pp. 158–162. Schnitzler B. 1999. Robert Forrer (1866–1947): Archéologue, écrivain et antiquaire, Strasbourg: Société Savante d’Alsace et Musées des Strasbourg. Schrenk S. 2006. Introduction. In: S. Schrenk (ed.). Textiles in situ. Their Find Spots in Egypt and Neighbouring Countries in the First Millennium CE. Riggisberg: Abbeg Stiftung, 9–14. Smalley R. 2014. Identifying Provenance: Flinders Petrie’s Textile Collection at the Victoria and Albert Museum. Journal of the History of Collections, 27(2), 1-12, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/jhc/fhu055. Stauffer A. 1995. Textiles of Late Antiquity. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art. Szczerski A. 2002. Wzorce tożsamości. Recepcja sztuki brytyjskiej w Europie Środkowej około roku 1900. Kraków: Universitas. 304 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… Śliwa J. 2017. Archeologia śródziemnomorska w Uniwersytecie Jagiellońskim (1897– 1998). Meander, 72, 143–163. Thomas Th.K. 2007. Coptic and Byzantine Textiles Found in Egypt: Corpora, Collections and Scholarly Perspectives. In: R.S. Bagnall (ed.). Egypt in the Byzantine World, 300–700. Cambridge–New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 137–162. Thomas Th.K. 2010. Egyptian Art of Late Antiquity. In: Lloyd A.B. (ed.). A Companion to Ancient Egypt. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 1032–1063. https://doi. org/10.1002/9781444320053.ch45. Török L. 1993. Textiles. In: Coptic Antiquities, vol. 2. Roma: L’erma di Bretschneider. Bibliotheca archaeologica (Rome, Italy), 11–12. Trubinov Û.V. 1991. Po povodu odnoj publikacii. Rossijskoj arheologii, 6, 148. Woźny M., Dzięgielewski K. 2018. 150 years of the Jagiellonian University Archaeological Cabinet. Past and present. Recherches Archeologiques. Nouvelle Serie, 9, 185– 208. https://doi.org/10.33547/RechACrac.NS9.07. Wulff O., Volbach W.F. 1926. Spätantike und koptische Stoffe aus ägyptischen Grabfunden in den Staatlichen Museen, Kaiser-Friedrich-Museum, Ägyptisches Museum, Schliemann-Sammlung. Berlin: Werlag Ernst Wasmuth. Гонтарь Т.А. 1991. Коптские ткани в собрании Львовского Музея Этнографии и Художественного Промысла ан УССР. Советская этнография, 1, 114–119. Трубинов Ю.В. 1991. По поводу одной публикации. Российской археологии, 6, 148. list of illustrations Fig. 1. A textile album acquired in 1893 by the Archaeological Cabinet of the Jagiellonian University (now the Museum of the Jagiellonian University; textiles inv. nos. MUJ 750:19; 750:20, 750:21). Fig. 2. Monochrome tapestries with geometrical and floral designs (inv. nos. MUJ 750:45, 750:46, 750:47). Fig. 3. Polychrome tapestries with vegetal and figural motifs (inv. nos. MUJ 750:15, 750:16, 750:17, 750:18). Fig. 4. A simplified bird brocaded with wool on linen tabby ground (inv. no. MUJ 750:50). Fig. 5. A plate from Robert Forrer’s publication Die frühchristlichen Alterthümer aus dem Gräberfelde von Achmim-Panopolis (Forrer 1893). Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska Fig. 1 Fig. 2 306 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… Fig. 3 307 Anna Głowa, Joanna Sławińska Fig. 4 308 The Collection of Late Antique Textiles from Egypt… Fig. 5 309 https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.14 Annarita Martini (Societa` Italiana di Storia delle Religioni, Rome) from the CAPitoline hill to the louVre: the Journey of A reLief of mithrAs Abstract The history of the Borghese Collection is closely linked to the establishment of the Louvre in Paris and the history of both of them includes a small story about a magnificent relief. The relief represents the god Mithras in the act of killing a Bull; it was found on the Capitoline Hill and testifies to the cult of Mithras in the religious and political center of Ancient Rome. The relief was included in the Borghese Collection and remained attached on the north façade of the main building of Villa Borghese until the sale of the bulk of the collection to Napoleon in 1808. Once in Paris, the relief was placed in the Hall of the Four Seasons of the Musée Napoléon, later to become the Louvre. Now it is still part of the Louvre collection and can be admired in the branch of the Museum in Lens. Keywords: Mithras, tauroctony, Borghese Collection, Capitoline Hill, the Louvre introduCtion This study is part of wider on-going research into the evidence related to Mithras from the Capitoline Hill and especially the items preserved in the Capitoline Museums in Rome1. 1 I would like to thank Dr. Eloisa Dodero and Prof. Gaius Stern for the fruitful exchange of ideas and for their useful suggestions. 311 Annarita Martini The history of the Borghese Collection is closely linked to the establishment of the Louvre in Paris (Fabréga-Dubert 2009). The history of both of them includes a small story about a magnificent relief that represents the god Mithras in the act of killing a Bull. The present study is an attempt to understand its history (Fig. 1). desCriPtion And dAting the tAuroCtony of the Borghese CoLLeCtion This white marble relief is one of the biggest, possibly the biggest known. It measures 2,54 m in height and 2,65 m in breadth. Mithras is represented in the usual position and attire, killing the bull in a grotto. The dog is licking the wound of the bull, the serpent crawls in the lower part of the scene and the scorpion bites the bull’s testicles. On the left, Cautes “clasps with his left hand the ears” rising from the bull’s tail and “lifts with the right hand his torch” (Vermaseren 1956: 176). On the right, Cautopates holds his torch pointed downwards. Both the dadofori (torchbearers) are standing and are not cross-legged. On the left, perched in a cavity of the rocky vault, stands the raven (restored as an owl)2. On the left, above the top of the grotto, Sol, wearing a flying shoulder cape, drives the quadriga. He is preceded by “a naked child with an upraised torch (Phosphorus)” (Vermaseren 1956: 176). On the right, Luna, holding a billowing veil, “descends in a biga” (Vermaseren 1956: 176), originally probably pulled by bulls (horses are almost universally results of restorations)3. She is also driven by a naked child holding “a torch pointed downwards (Hesperus)” (Vermaseren 1956: 177). Between the two groups stand “three twisted trees” (Vermaseren 1956: 177). The relief around the main scene is open and a light source, when placed behind it, could have given a luminous effect to the representation. The relief was restored many times and often quite badly. For example, the head of Mithras is not original; in all probability the god used to look back2 3 See the description of Cumont (1896: 193), Vermaseren (1956: 177). Ibid. 312 From the Capitoline Hill to the Louvre: The Journey of a Relief of Mithras wards. The right arm of Mithra was restored together “with a great part of the dagger, the left arm and a part of his right leg; the front part of the bull’s head; the heads and torches of both torchbearers, moreover the left leg of Cautopates and his left hand with a bunch of grapes, the right leg of Cautes; the greater part of the dog and a part of the serpent; the head of Sol and the foremost part of his horses; the head of Luna; the heads of the two children” (Vermaseren 1956: 177). This relief has a significant inscription on the bull’s neck and body and on the lower border of the relief (the plinth)4: Closed to the bull’s wound: nama sebesio On the body of the animal: deo•soli invicto•mitrhe on the plinth: c •caufidii•ianuarius ///////////5 On the body, there are further letters not yet interpreted definitely: nam//////ne cs6 Cumont proved that the graffiti on the thigh are modern, AMYCUS•SERONESIS; M. •ANTONIUS•AL •TERIUS7 Likewise, the graffiti of the same type on the body of the bull and on the femur and the garment of Mithras are more recent. According to Fröhner, they are no longer visible, with the exception of BONONiensis (CIL VI 30819), which may be another way to read SERONESIS. The relief is dated to the 2nd century BC (Vermaseren 1956: 177) and according to Cumont to the beginning of the 3rd century BC (Cumont 1896: 105). 4 5 6 7 CIL VI 719; 30819; MMM II No. 62 i. e. Cumont (1896: 105); Vermaseren (1956: 177) CIL VI 719; Vermaseren agree about the first two inscriptions, but for the third suggests: C(aii) Aufidii Ianuarius [et…Vermaseren (1956:177). A. Héron de Villefosse read so that there may have been an a after nam, then there is place for 6 letters and then ne (or ve). These letters are old, while cs are more recent. That was noted by Ch. Huelsen in CIL VI 30819. Vermaseren read nam/a/ necs, see Vermaseren (1956: 177) CIL VI 30819, after Vermaseren SERONE(N)SIS Cumont (1892: 96), Cumont (1896: 105). 313 Annarita Martini identifying the tAuroCtony’s mithrAeum The ancient relief comes from a mithraeum located in the religious heart of Rome on the Capitoline Hill. There is some evidence about the discovering of this piece from the 1500s and it has been the object of passionate descriptions. The first evidence that the relief was known to Roman humanists is the signature (?) of Marco Antonio Altieri (1450–1532). Marcus Antonius Alterius (de Altieriis) was a member of a prominent family of the Roman municipal aristocracy, a pupil of Pomponio Leto and possibly a member of his sodalitas. He has been also an important conservatore of the municipality of Rome (1511–?) (Asor Rosa 1960; Modigliani 2020). It is not surprising that the inscription of Altieri was believed to be authentic; he was used to such forgery, like the epitaph found on the via Appia, preserved today at the Museo Nazionale Romano 8. The oldest drawing of the tauroctony was made by Amico Aspertini between 1531–1535 (London, BM, P&D, Aspertini Skb. I, fol. 39 v – 40 r, 40 r. A). He represented Mithras as Hercules, who was indeed a more familiar subject to him, but in this way he unknowingly evoked the assimilation of these two deities, as was usual for the ancients9. The position of Hercules looking forward instead of backwards may have inspired the bad restoration of the head of Mithras. Then, the Dutch antiquities scholar Martinus Smetius (Martin Smet), who stayed in Italy between 1545 and 1551, studying antiquities and collecting transcripts of inscriptions (his work was published in 1588 by Justus Lipsius [Lajard 1828: 5–6; Vagenheim 2018: 1]), was very clear in locating this relief in a cave in the Capitoline Hill. Smetius described it in this way: Sub Aracaeli, in ea Capitolij parte, quae Aquilonem spectat, templum subterraneum est, ubi Mithrae simulacrum perelegans est et magnificum, superiori non absimile, licet infinito maius et alicubi mutilum capitéque truncatum. Stant utrique viri duo, supra quos stellae singulae, Oriens scilicet et Occidens (Smetius 1588: fol. 21, n. 15)10. Lajard believed that the inscription on the thigh was authentic, see Lajard (1828: 32–35). About this epitaph, see Modigliani in the previous note. 9 About the rule of the cult of Hercules in the iconography of Mithras, see Martini (1915: 57–78), Ceci, Martini [in press]. 10 Translation: Under [the church of] Araceli, in this part of the Capitol that looks North, there is an underground temple in which one finds a superb figure of Mithra, of very elegant workmanship, similar to other [bas-reliefs of Mithras], but infinitely bigger and several parts were mutilated and the head is missing. On each side is placed a male figure with single stars above, i.e., East and West. 8 314 From the Capitoline Hill to the Louvre: The Journey of a Relief of Mithras In c. 1554, Waelscapple relates that this relief was in Capitolio in crypta anno (15)48 aperta denuo (On the Capitoline Hill in a cave open again in 1548) (Henzen CIL VI, n. 719; Cecchelli 1938: 139–140). Another Dutch scholar of antiquities, Pighius (Pigge, Steven Wynkens), visited the same cave a few years later and saw the relief as well and had it drawn (Lajard 1828: 6). Two drawings of the tauroctony are connected to this work of Pighius: that by Anonymus Pighianus (active 1550–1555), who illustrated the Codex Pighianus (ms. lat. fol. 61, fol. 2r Berlin, Staatsbibliothek),11 and that by Anonymus Coburgensis (1550–1555) for the Codex Coburgensis (HZ II178 Coburg, Veste Coburg, Kupfrstichkabinet).12 A cave in Capitoline Hill with a relief also appears in the writings of the artist Flaminio Vacca (born in 1538 and died during the papacy of Clemens VIII, 1592–1605)13 (Golzio 1937). He mentioned the memories of his master Vincenzo de Rossi (1525–1587), in Rome from 1536–1541to the early 1560s. Between 1555 and 1556, he made the monument of Pope Paolo IV for the Audience Hall of the Conservatori right on the Capitoline Hill, which was set in 1558 but destroyed a month after, following the death of the Pope (Giannotti 2017). According to Vacca, in a cave on the Capitoline Hill, on the side of the church of Aracoeli, de Rossi saw the portrait of Europa on the bull/Jovis. Probably it was the body of the god Mithras who, without his head and dagger, looked like a woman in the darkness of the cave. According to de Rossi, the relief was on a wall along the way that led from the Arch of Septimius Severus through the mons Tarpeius (the entire hill was so called at that time) and may have been still detectable at the time of Vacca, if the ruins of the Capitol had not hidden it14. Unlike Smetius and Pighius, de Rossi and later Vacca did not recognize the figure of Mithras. However, the relief should have been well known and admired at that time, since in the 1560s, both Pirro Ligorio and Étienne Du Pérac reproduced this tauroctony15. Likewise, a drawing by an artist of the circle 11 https://iconographic.warburg.sas.ac.uk/vpc/VPC_search/record.php?record=56385; in this drawing is the indication: In Cripta Subterranea Capitolina (in Capitol underground cave). 12 https://iconographic.warburg.sas.ac.uk/vpc/VPC_search/record.php?record=43966; Bober (1957: pl. XXXVII, fig. 85). 13 The life of Flaminio Vacca, see Golzio (1937). His mention of the relief, see Vacca (1594: 12). 14 Concerning the testimony of Vacca reported by Montfaucon, see Lajard (1828: 7–9). For the original text of Vacca, see Vacca (1594: 12). 15 For Ligorio’s works, see BNN, Ms XIII B 7, fol. 011 v, B. For Du Pérac’s works, see Paris, Louv- re, Cabinet des designs, Illustration, book 3, inv. 26419 r, B. 315 Annarita Martini of/copyist of Ligorio or circle of Onofrio Panvinio can be dated to the second half of the 16th century.16 Ligorio transcribed the inscription on the body of the bull with the name of the god and probably saw the monument still “inside” the Capitoline Hill, as he wrote, In opera dentro al monte capitolino dedicato da li antichi in un’ speleo over grotto 17. According to Henzen and Cecchelli, he wrote also, In antique spelaeo sub monte Capitolino ad huc suo loco non motus, which means that at the time of Ligorio, the relief was still in the cave18. The presence of a cave inside the Capitoline Hill dedicated to a cult of the god Mithras appears to be attested to by very ancient legends, such as that of St. Sylvester and another of the place where Julius Caesar was killed19. The toponym lo perso (the Persian) used by Ciriaco di Ancona and by the Sylloge Signoriliana refers to this place20. The position of this cave on the Capitoline Hill is controversial, but sources from the mid-16th century onwards that point to an underground place next to the Aracoeli related to a mithreum multiply, like in the case of the story of friar Callisto da Mantova of 1550. He tells about his visit to a cave beneath the church of the Aracoeli, where he saw “a white bull caught by the horns by a man in horseback” (Tucci 2019: 133–134). Actually, Giovanni Severano, a source from the first half of the 17th century, tells that during the construction of a new loggia by the Aracoeli, that is the portico of Palazzo Nuovo, at the time of Pope Clemens VIII (1603), many stones 16 Roma, Città del Vaticano, BAV, Codex Ursinianus, fol. 121 r, A. 17 Translation: “Inside the Capitol Hill dedicated by the antique peoples in a caving or cave”. The drawings of Ligorio, Du Pérac and of the anonymous draughtsman of the drawing of Codex Ursinianus, see ensus. bbaw. de/detail?eadb_frame=EZDB_5f6330b8d87 da&easydb=rss709a739br4kksv20pnbntl7&detail_grid=CS_MonumentViewer&grid_ id=9807&table_id=68&select_id=158026&currframe=EZDB_5f632f454b101&cid=deta il_CS_DocumentViewer&parent_select_id=158026, accessed on 17.09.2020). 18 Henzen CIL VI, n. 719; Cecchelli (1938: 140). 19 Relating the life of Pope Sylvester I and how he defeated the dragon that lived in a grotto in the mons Tarpeius (Capitol), Duchesne writes that this story could be connected with the cave on the Capitoline Hill, where the Louvre Mithras relief was kept. See Duchesne, Lib. Pont. I, CXI note n. 1. The legend of St. Sylvester and this relief, see also Henzen in CIL, VI, n. 719, Cecchelli 1938: 157–173, and Luciani (2018: 607–625). 20 Henzen in CIL, VI, n. 719; The presence of this toponym in a document of Giovannangelo Amati (A. S. C. anno 1456, 31 mai prot. 253) reported by Lanciani with some doubt (Lanciani 1913: 209) is due to a reading error. See Tucci (2019: 134, note 72). Confirmed to me by Dr. C. Falcucci in charge at the Archivio Storico Capitolino, where this document is preserved. 316 From the Capitoline Hill to the Louvre: The Journey of a Relief of Mithras were found near some walls and one of them was engraved with “Mithras” (Severano 1630: 27)21. We do not know whether it was the tauroctony, but it is possible. At the end of the 19th century another relief of Mithras was found on the Capitoline Hill. Much smaller than the Borghese/Louvre tauroctony, the relief was not highly regarded and it was reused as the step of a staircase at via delle Tre Pile (Visconti 1873. Lanciani 1873). As already suggested by Colini, I believe that the two reliefs belonged to the same mithraeum, the presence of several cult images in the same temple being widely attested22. It is very likely that a mithraeum in the political and religious center of Rome could have had more than one relief with Mithras tauroctonos23. Recently, Tucci has proposed room no. 21 of the house beneath the Aracoeli as the location of the mithraeum (Tucci 2019: 134–135). However, Severano’s testimony about the positioning of the cave clearly suggests that the mithraeum was at least partially destroyed by the foundations of the Palazzo Nuovo24. 21 On one of this was sculpted the image of Mithras, i. e. the Sun represented by the Persian like a lion that weakens the bull horns. Severano knew the words of Statius in Thebaide Lib. I: seu Persaei sub rupibus antri / indignata sequi torquentem cornua Mithram. He knew also the words of the commenter to Statius: Est enim in Spelaeis Persico habitu, leonis vultu cum thiara, utriusque minibus bovis cornua comprimens. For the extract, see Raffei (1821: 138). Fra’ Callisto describes the same image and the same was drawn by Amico Aspertini in 1531–1535 (London, BM, P&D,AspertiniSkb. I, fol. 39v–40r, 40r. A. (Census. bbaw. de/detail ?eadb_frame=EZDB_5f6b96013686b&easydb=ju2qmhdsbs1bm6jp848s0cvi00&detail_ grid=CS_DocumentViewer&grid_id=15179&table_id=82&select_id=56201&currframe=EZ DB_5f6b95815d0f2&cid=detail_CS_MonumentViewer&parent_select_id=56201, accessed on 23.09.2020. 22 See Colini (1938: 259) who take the example of the Mithraeum of Palazzo dei Musei (today called Mithraeum of Circo Massimo), that he excavated. Two tauroctonies were found in the Mitrauem of Dura Europos as well, see Vermaseren (1956: 62–65). 23 Alternatively, Lanciani and Visconti thought that the small cave the staircase led to could be a small, private mithraeum, even though they admitted there was no other evidence (see above). Furthermore, Lanciani wrote that there were four mithraea on the Capitol Hill, one called lo perso and noted by Vacca, where the bigger tauroctony was found, the second described by Severano and two other found after the end of the 16th century (Lanciani 1913: 209–210). 24 See also Arata (1997: 146); Arata (2010: 47). 317 Annarita Martini the Journey of the tAuroCtony The construction of Palazzo Nuovo on the Capitoline Hill started from the Portico (nuova loggia) in 1603, but the work was interrupted by the death of Pope Clemens VIII in 1605 (Benedetti 2001: 27–31). In his comments about the illustrations of Cartario, Lorenzo Pignoria said that he saw the tauroctony on the Capitol Hill nella piazza di Campidoglio (in Campidoglio square) in 1606 and reproduced its inscriptions adding for the first time “AMYCUS SERONESIS”. Perhaps, thanks to the new display of the relief on the square after it was taken out of the dark cave, the inscription was easier to decipher (Pignoria 1615: 505). It is possible that the walls of the mithraeum, discovered and destroyed in the early 17th century, were originally linked to the more recent phase of a still existing room with niches, accessible from the courtyard of Marforio25, whose function is still debated and that has been referred to by Francesco Paolo Arata as the Sacellum for Juppiter Conservator or a private building26. No image of the relief displayed on the Capitoline piazza has yet been found, thus suggesting that the tauroctony did not remain there for long; however, there are several images of the Palazzo Nuovo during its construction, such as the plan of the building with the caption “PORTICO” (fig. 2, B. A. V. Chigi P. VII, 13 f. 5v. -6r, see also Benedetti 2001: 18, fig. 25) and Greuter’s 1618 engraving showing Piazza del Campidoglio with the foundations of Palazzo Nuovo in front of the Marforio fountain27. In 1617, Josse de Rycke (Ricquius) reported that in the grotto of Mithras on the Capitoline Hill, reliefs with the image and inscription of the god were found28. At that time, the relief certainly was no longer displayed in the square. Presumably, during the papacy of Paul V (born Camillo Borghese and pope from 25 See also Colini (1938: 259) reported by Vermaseren (1956:176). 26 For the use of this Sacellum, see Tucci (2019: 134 and no. 71) and Arata (1997: 131–162), Arata (2010: 53–60). P. Mazzei instead identifies this hall as the Mithraeum itself, see Mazzei (2019: 608–618), but it is indeed very narrow and could not have housed the huge tauroctony of the Capitol. 27 See Ensoli Vitozzi, Parisi Presicce 1991: fig. 18 at p. 30 and Benedetti 2001: 30, fig. 34. 28 “Persici MITHRAE specum fuisse etiam in Capitolio, præter Tabulas Marmoreas laceras cum effigie & inscriptione eius Dei in cauerni sibi sub terraneis repertas, mihique in Vrbe tum agenti saepiùs confpectas” (Rycke 1617: 153). 318 From the Capitoline Hill to the Louvre: The Journey of a Relief of Mithras 1605 to 1621), the relief was transferred to the new villa (Fig. 4) of his nephew Scipione Borghese outside Porta Pinciana, where the Galleria Borghese is located today, to be mounted on the north façade of the main building (casino nobile) (Lanciani 1913: 209). In 1650, in his description of Villa Borghese. Manilli mentioned this relief along with four other big reliefs on the north façade of the casino nobile (Fig. 5). He alluded to it as La statua grande dell’ Agricoltura (Henzen CIL VI; 719), missing its connection with Mithras (Manilli 1650: 44). In 1700, both Montelatici (1700: 162) and Filippo Del Torre (1700: 159) referred to a Mithras relief on the north façade of the casino nobile. One century later, Zoega not only listed the relief still in Villa Borghese, but also reported that it came from a cave in the Capitoline Hilland transcribed the inscription (Zoega 1817: 148). Therefore, at the beginning of the 1700s the Capitoline tauroctony became part of the Borghese collection and remained in the Villa for almost a century until the sale of the bulk of the collection to Napoleon in 1808. M.-L. Fabréga-Dubert has reconstructed the circumstances under which the sale took place and thanks to her research it is possible to confirm that the Louvre tauroctony was not the only Mithraic relief mounted on the façade of the Borghese casino nobile (Fabréga-Dubert 2009). As a matter of fact, there were four tauroctonies, two on the north façade and two on the south (Fabréga-Dubert 2009: 83–91). Fabréga-Dubert acknowledged the idea to produce an impression of balance and order through the arrangement of the reliefs on both of the side facades (Fabréga-Dubert 2009: 111–121). The Capitoline tauroctony occupied a prime position, attached on the façade in the private part of the Villa, and was flanked by two representations that archival documents describe as “five figures including two veiled, probably priests, camilli etc.” and “two women playing a musical instrument and one child” (Fabréga-Dubert 2009: 83). The sculptural decoration of the Borghese façade was valued at 300. 000 Francs (Fabréga-Dubert 2009: 50). As documents studied by Fabréga-Dubert confirm, the relief was split in halves and transported in two crates. In the inventory of the crates prepared for the transport from Villa Borghese in August 1808, the Capitoline tauroctony is described as “the most considerable we know”. One crate (no. 268) contained the upper section of the relief including the top of the cave, the head of the Mithras as well as the piedouche of coralline breccia from a large bust that had 319 Annarita Martini been on the ground floor of the east façade of the casino nobile29. The second crate (no. 238) contained the body of the god, the bull, and the dadofori30. In a letter/report to Napoleon in 1808, the Interior Minister explained that transport by ship was preferred as the coast from La Spezia to France was considered safer and well-defended against enemy vessels. The ships themselves were armed (Fabréga-Dubert 2009: 320). As some documents of the time reveal, it was not an easy job to separate the relief of Mithras from the façade. A document of 29 March 1808 describes the operation as rather difficult and reports that a scaffolding was set up to detach the reliefs and later to fill the holes left by them (Fabréga-Dubert 2009: 505). The following report of 30 March says, C’est un terrible bloc que ce Mithra dans sa caverne. Il n’a pu encore être descendu aujourd’hui (It is a terrible block with Mithras in his cave. It cannot be removed today) (Fabréga-Dubert 2009: 505). A document of January 1809 attests that both the crates with the sections of the tauroctony were to be shipped from Civitavecchia (Fabréga-Dubert 2009: 629–630). The two crates were among those stored at Civitavecchia in January1810 (Fabréga-Dubert 2009: 691–692). Crate no. 238 was part of the convoy of 7/10 August 1810, crate no. 268 of that of 18 November 1810 (Fabréga-Dubert 2009: 50). Once in Paris, the relief was placed in the Hall of the Four Seasons of the Musée Napoléon (Fig. 6, Lajard 1828: 2, n. 2), now the Louvre. Now it is part of the collection of the Louvre Museum and can be admired in the branch of the Museum in Lens31. 29 This crate measured 4’1’’6’’ x 9’5’’ x 2’8’’ feet, was 35. 46 ½ piaster baiocchi and weighed 6000 roman pound. See Fabréga-Dubert (2009: 404). 30 This crate measured 6’6’’ x 9’8’’6’’’ x 2’9’’6’’’ feet, was 47. 00 ½ piaster baiocchi and weighed 14000 roman pound. See Fabréga-Dubert (2009: 405). 31 The tauroctony of the Borghese Collection, now in the Louvre (Louvre MR 818, n. usuel 1023), 2nd century BC (from https://www.louvrelens.fr/work/relief-representant-mithradieu-iranien-soleil-sacrifiant-taureau/, accessed on 1.10.2020. 320 From the Capitoline Hill to the Louvre: The Journey of a Relief of Mithras ConCLusion The tauroctony found on the Capitol is one of the most important finds of this type. It is remarkable not only for its dimensions that often surprise viewers but also its provenance: the religious and political hearth of the ancient Rome! The mithraeum played of course an important role and it would be interesting to investigate its relationship with imperial power. If it were possible to confirm Tucci’s suggestion that the house under the Aracoeli was an imperial property (Tucci 2019), this mithraeum, which was close to it, could have had a direct connection with imperial power. This cave continued to arouse fascination throughout the Middle Ages and it did not escape the attention of Renaissance scholars and artists who visited the Capitoline grottos. Its mysterious inscription, linking it to Sabazios, another eastern divinity, also worshipped on the Capitol Hill (Gatti 1892a: 343; 1892b: 364), was reproduced many times and it appears even on a false reliefthat was allegedly found in Tivoli but dated to the late Renaissance by Cumont (Cumont 1892).32 Only after the beginning of the construction of Palazzo Nuovo was this masterpiece brought to light and deemed worthy to be displayed on the Capitol. Scipione Borghese included it in his collection and it was attached to the north façade of the main building of Villa Borghese, where it continued to amaze visitors in the following centuries. Despite the difficulties of detachment and transport, it was included in the sale of the Borghese collection to Napoleon. Now on display in the Louvre Lens, it continues to be the focus of the attention for visitors and scholars. bibliography Arata F.P., Balderi G., Palombi G. 1997. Un “sacellum” d’età imperiale all’interno del Museo Capitolino: una proposta di identificazione. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 98, 129–162. Arata F.P. 2010. Osservazioni sulla topografia sacra dell’Arx capitolina. Mélanges de l’École française de Rome Antiquité, 338, 117–146. https://doi.org/10.4000/mefra. 32 It would not be surprising to find a connection with M. Antonio Altieri, the author of an inscription on the Capitoline tauroctony as well as of a famous false epitaph (see above). 321 Annarita Martini Asor Rosa A. 1960. Altieri, Marco Antonio. In: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 2, https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/marco-antonio-altieri_%28DizionarioBiografico%29/, accessed on 8.10.2020. Benedetti S. 2001. Il Palazzo nuovo nella piazza del Campidoglio. Dalla sua edificazione alla trasformazione in museo. Roma: Quasar. Bober P.P. 1957. Drawings after the Antique by Amico Aspertini, vol. 21. London: Warburg Institute. Buora M. 2015. Pignoria, Lorenzo. In: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 83, http://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/lorenzo-pignoria_%28Dizionario-Biografico %29/, accessed on 12.06.2020. Buddensieg T. 1969. Zum Statuenprogramm im Kapitolsplan Pauls III. Paul Künzle zum Gedächtnis. In:Zeitschrift für Kunstgeschichte, 32(3/4), 177–228. https://doi. org/10.2307/1481816. Cecchelli C. 1938. S. Maria del Sole e i mitrei del Campidoglio. In: Studi e documenti sulla Roma sacra, vol. 1. Roma: [s. n.], pp. 135–157. Miscellanea della R. Deputazione Romana di Storia Patria, 10. Ceci F., Martini A. [in press]. Le fatiche su un vaso: l’uso iconografico del mito di Ercole in contesti cultuali di origine orientale (Atti del Convegno: “Le 12 Fatiche di Herakles. Tra Iconografia e Letteratura” Velletri, 5–8 giugno 2019). Coarelli F. 1979. Topografia mitraica di Roma. In: U. Bianchi (ed.). MysteriaMithrae. Atti delSeminario Internazionale sulla specificità storico-religiosa dei Misteri di Mithra con particolare riferimento alle fonti documentarie di Roma e Ostia (Roma– Ostia 28–31 Marzo 1978). Roma: [s. n.] pp. 70–80. Etudes préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’Empire romain, 80. Colini A. M. 1938. Campidoglio: Mithraeum. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 66, 258–259. Colonnese F. 2018. L’immagine del Campidoglio e le pratiche di manipolazione visiva tra XVI e XVIII secolo. Eikonocity. Storia E Iconografia Delle Città E Dei Siti Europei, 3(1), 31–51, https://doi.org/10.6092/2499-1422/5513. Cumont Fr. 1892. Note sur un grand bas-relief mithriaque du Louvre et sur une pierre de Tivoli. RevPhil, 16, 96–98. Cumont Fr. 1896–1899. Textes et Monuments figurés relatifs aux Mystéres de Mithra, vol. 1–2. Bruxelles: H. Lamertin, Libraire. Duchesne L. 1886. Le Liber Pontificalis. introduction et commentaire par l’Abbé L. Duchesne L., vol 1. Paris: Ernest Thorin. EnsoliVittozzi S., Parisi Presicce C. 1991. Il reimpiego dell’antico sul Colle Capitolino sotto il pontificato di Sisto V. In:L. Spazzaferro, M. E. Tittoni (ed.). Il Campidoglio e Sisto V. Roma: Carte Segrete, pp. 85–115. Fabrega-Dubert M.-L. 2009. La collection Borghèse au musée Napoléon, vol. 1–2. Paris: Musée du Louvre éditions. Histoire des collections du musée du Louvre. Gatti 1892a: VI. ROMA. Nuove scoperte nella città e nel suburbio. Notizie degli scavi di Antichità, 16, pp. 342-349. 322 From the Capitoline Hill to the Louvre: The Journey of a Relief of Mithras Gatti G. 1892b: Notizie di trovamenti risguardanti l’epigrafia urbana. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 20, pp. 361-375. Giannotti A. 2017. Rossi, Vincenzo di Raffaello di Bartolomeo. In:Dizionario biografico degli italiani, vol. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Romahttps://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/vincenzo-di-raffaello-di-bartolomeorossi_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/, accessed on 15.10.2020. Golzio V. 1937. Vacca, Flaminio. In: Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani, https://www.trec cani.it/enciclopedia/flaminio-vacca_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/, accessed on 11.06.2020. Henzen W. 1876. Inscriptiones Urbis Romae Latinae. In: Bormann E., Henzen W., Rossi G. B. de (ed.). Inscriptiones sacrae. Augustorum, magistratuum, sacerdotum. Latercula et tituli militum, Corpvs Inscriptionvm Latinarvmvol. 6, pars 1, 719. Huelsen Ch. 1902. Inscriptiones Urbis Romae Latinae. Additamenta, Corpvs Inscriptionvm Latinarvm, pars 4 , 30819. Lajard F. 1828. Nouvelles Observations Sur Le Grand Bas-Relief Mithriaque De La Collection Borghèse, actuellement Au Musée Royal De Paris. Paris: F. Didot. Lanciani R. 1873. Scoperte alla salita detta delle Tre Pile. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 1, 138–150. Lanciani R. 1913. Storia degli Scavi di Roma, vol. 4, Roma: [s. n.]. Luciani N. 2018. Silvestro ad Infernum. Memoria degli spelaea mitraici sul Campidoglio in un mito di fondazione cristiano. In:M. P. Castiglioni, R. Carboni, M. Giuman, H. Bernier-Farella (ed.). Héros fondateurs et identités communautaires dans l’Antiquité entre mythe, rite et politique. Perugia: Morlacchi, pp. 607–625. Manilli J. 1650. Villa Borghese fuori di Porta Pinciana descritta da Iacomo Manilli romano guardarobba di detta villa. Roma: Per Lodovico Grignani. Mariani L. 1938. Un piccolo documento del sec. sul mitreo del Campidoglio. Bullettino del R. Istituto di archeologia e storia dell’arte, 8, 85–87. Martini A. 2015. Tra Ercole e Dioniso. Iconografia e storia di un cratere di ceramica invetriata da Roma. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma,116, 57–78. Mazzei P. 2019. Il Campidoglio. Dalle origini alla fine dell’antichità, 1. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Bullettino della Commissione archeologica comunale di Roma. Supplementi, 26. Modigliani A. 2020. Marco Antonio Altieri. In:Repertorium Pomponianum, www.repertoriumpomponianum.it/pomponiani/altieri_marco_antonio.htm, accessed on 10.06.2020. Montelatici D. 1700. Villa Borghese fuori di Porta Pinciana. Rome: Gio. Francesco Buagni. Pignoria L. 1615. Le vere e noue imagini de gli dei delli antichi di Vicenzo Cartari reggiano. . . . Cauate da’ marmi, bronzi, medaglie, gioie, & altre memorie antiche; con esquisito studio, & particolare diligenza da Lorenzo Pignoria padouano. Aggionteui le annotationi del medesimo sopra tutta l’opera, & vn discorso intorno le deita 323 Annarita Martini dell’Indie orientali, & occidentali, con le loro figure tratte da gl’originali Padova: Nella stampa del Pasquati. Raffei S. 1821. Ricerche sopra un Apoilline della villa dell’ eminentissimo sig. Cardinale Alessandro Albani. Dissertazione I. del P. Stefano Raffei della compagnia di Gesu’ da servire di supplemento all’ opera dei Monumenti antichi inediti di Giovanni Winckelmann. Roma: [Dai torchj di Carlo Mordacchini]. Rycke J. de. 1617. De Capitolio Romano commentarius. Ghent, C. Marius. Severano G. 1630. Memorie sacre delle sette chiese di Roma, e de gl’altri luoghi, che si trouano per le strade di esse. Parte seconda. In cvi si tratta del modo di visitar le dette chiese. Composte da Giovanni Severano, Roma. Smetius M. 1588. Inscriptionum antiquarum quae passim per Europam, liber. Accessit auctarium à Justo Lipsio, Leiden: Ex officina Plantiniana, apud F. Raphelengium. Tucci P.L. 2019. Living on the Capitoline Hill: The domus of the Aracoeli and Its Sculptural and Painted Decoration. Papers of the British School at Rome, 87, pp. 71–144. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068246218000351. Vacca F. 1594. Memorie di varie antichità trovate in diversi luoghi della città di Roma, scritte da Flaminio Vacca nell’anno 1594. Roma: at the cost of Gio. Lorenzo Barbiellini Libraro, 1741. Vagenheim G. 2018. Gli errori nel codice epigrafico di Martinus Smetius (1527–1578). In: F. Gallo, A. Sartori (ed.) L’errore in epigrafia. Milan: Biblioteca ambrosiana. Ambrosiana graecolatina, 10. Vermaseren M.J. 1956. Corpus Inscriptionum et Monumentorum Religionis Mithriacae. Hagae Comitis: Nijhoff. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-0512-3. Visconti C.L. 1873. Bassorilievo mitriaco scoperto al Campidoglio, e tazza mitriaca. Bullettino della Commission e Archeologica Comunale di Roma, 1, 111–122. Zoega G. 1817, Abhandlungen. Göttingen: Dieterich, 1817. list of illustrations Fig. 1. The tauroctony of the Borghese Collection, now in the Louvre (Louvre MR 818, n. usuel 102333), 2nd century BC (Crédit photo: photo © Musée du Louvre, Dist. RMN-Grand Palais / Philippe Fuzeau). Fig. 2. Foundations of Palazzo Nuovo with the caption “PORTICO” (from Benedetti 2001: 18, fig. 25). Fig. 3. M. Greuter Piazza del Campidoglio with the foundations of Palazzo Nuovo in front of the Marforio fountain (from Ensoli Vittozzi, Parisi Presicce 1991, fig. 18, p. 30) 33 For the different inv. no. see Fabrega-Dubert (2009: 50). 324 From the Capitoline Hill to the Louvre: The Journey of a Relief of Mithras Fig. 4. Charles Percier (1764–1838) – Façade of the casino of Villa Borghese, 1786–1791, Paris, bibliothèque de l’Institut, Album “Voyage à Rome”. Croquis fait hors des murs e Rome. Ms 1008 fol. 23 (from Fabrega-Dubert 2009). Fig. 5. Reconstruction by Fabrega-Dubert of the decoration of the north façade of the main building of Villa Borghese in 1807 (from Fabrega-Dubert 2009). Fig. 6. Gioacchino Serangeli (1768–1852), Napoleon I receives the deputies of the army in the Louvre after the coronation of 8 December 1804. Chateaux de Versailles et de Trianon, MV 1505 (Fabrega-Dubert 2009). Annarita Martini Fig. 1 326 From the Capitoline Hill to the Louvre: The Journey of a Relief of Mithras Fig. 2 327 Annarita Martini Fig. 3 Fig. 4 328 From the Capitoline Hill to the Louvre: The Journey of a Relief of Mithras Fig. 5 329 Annarita Martini Fig. 6 330 https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.15 Eliška Petřeková (Masaryk University, Brno) luxury souVenir or PreCious originAl The Case of the Bronze tripod from the real museo Borbonico Abstract A newly discovered and unique exchange of correspondence between Baron Franz von Koller and the competent Neapolitan authorities about making a copy of bronze tripod which is exhibited in the royal museum in Naples captures what exactly was necessary to build a collection of antiquities at the turn of two epochs, while abiding by the official protocols and observing royal decrees. Baron Koller served as a general intendant in Naples between 1815 and 1826 and in this time, this educated diplomat became an accomplished collector of antiques and an amateur archeologist. Although he did not obtain the required permission, the inventory of his collection actually includes two different copies of bronze tripods “created after the original from the Real Museo Borbonico”. Koller’s desire to own the most accurate copy of the exhibited piece proves that it was not supposed to be a mere showpiece that catches the general atmosphere but a serious collectable original item. Keywords: collecting antiquities, bronze tripod, Franz von Koller, Royal Bourbon Museum The rediscovery of the ancient cities of Pompeii and Herculaneum in the mid18th century was a sensation. The sudden archaeological boom led to an increased interest in ancient culture and antiques; suddenly, everyone wanted to have a piece of Pompeii at home. However, the collectors market of the time 331 Eliška Petřeková was open only to the most influential and wealthy figures (with some antiques remaining out of reach even to them), so the majority of the public began to look for various collectable alternatives. Many artists responded quickly and flexibly to this demand and sculptors specialized in creating these fashionable or hard-to-find antiques. As a result, in addition to authentic antiques, objects that only served to replace or supplement the originals started appearing in many museum and private collections. However, there are also works of art among them which, with their luxurious execution and unusual way of acquisition, reveal further motivations of the collectors of that time. The State Archives of Naples holds proof of one such influential and powerful collector and an enigmatic bronze tripod1. On November 16, 1823, Baron Franz von Koller (1767–1826) sent a letter addressed to Marquis Giuseppe Ruffo (1771–1839), the director of the Royal Secretariat and Ministry of the Royal Palace in Naples, in which he requests permission to copy a bronze tripod on display in the exhibition spaces of the Real Museo Borbonico in Naples. In this letter, Koller expresses his ambition to create a perfect copy of this bronze tripod and politely asks the marquis for his intercession with the director of the royal museum in Naples. It may seem like a very ordinary message, just one of the many bureaucratic formalities common at this time. However, as the following correspondence shows, Koller’s request triggered a discussion in the highest state and institutional circles, revealing unexpected links and a new understanding of the significance of antiques and their copies for collectors. In the following letter, marked as “confidential”, Marquis Ruffo from the Royal Secretariat asks the director of the museum in Naples, Michele Arditi (1746–1838), whether the exhibited piece of the bronze tripod had already been published or not. In his reply to the marquis, Michele Arditi stated and stressed by underlining the title of the publication, the name of its author, the volume, page numbers and also the illustration, where the requested tripod can be found. In one of the following letters, secretary Ruffo consults with Carlo M. Rossini (1748–1836), bishop of the Pozzuoli cathedral and chairman of the Royal Bourbon Society, and they debate about the reasons the permission to copy the tripod should not be granted to Koller. Ruffo emphasizes that it is not a sculp1 Archivio di Stato di Napoli (ASN), Ministero degli affari interni, Inventario II – Antichità e Belle Arti, bb. 1966–2147, b. 2020, fasc. 67, Permesso al Barone Koller di far eseguire il disegno di un tripode di bronzo, 1824. 332 Luxury Souvenir or Precious Original… ture or a bas-relief, but an object which can be captured in drawing along with all its dimensions, so it is possible to use a drawing to make any kind of copy or imitation that Koller desires. Furthermore, the marquis fears that frequent copying may result in damages or unsolicited changes, especially harm to the patina. Lastly, he feels it is a problem that the object would be absent from the exposition of the royal museum for several days. This letter is then followed by the final preserved official document which communicates to Arditi the permission to let Koller copy the desired tripod only in drawn form. A preserved inventory of Koller’s collection, which was compiled after his death by Raffaele Gargiulo (1785–1870), reveals, however, that Baron Koller’s wish to own a copy of the famous bronze tripod from the royal collections was eventually fulfilled2. What did the powerful delegate of the Emperor of Austria need a copy of an exceedingly valuable tripod for? Why did he even have to make a request to create a copy? Why did the director of the museum mention the tripod’s publishing? What did the museum look like at the time? Why did Koller even want a copy made from the original and was not satisfied with the supply of upscale copies on the market? And which tripod is he specifically concerned with in the first place? (Fig. 1) Franz von Koller was not only a prominent figure of Austrian politics in the post-Napoleonic era but above all a significant collector of antiquities, an amateur archaeologist, and an enlightened erudite. In 1815–1818 and 1821–1826, he served as a general intendant in Naples, where he oversaw the restoration of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies and the return of the Bourbons to the throne. He could not have wished for a more convenient time and place for his activities. It was right near Naples where excavations of perhaps the most significant archaeological and historical locations of the time, Pompeii and Herculaneum, were just taking place. These locations immediately became a sought-after destination of a number of travelers, specialists, scholars, and other curiosity seekers. Apart from his young age, education and social position – which undoubtedly directed Koller toward his future career of a collector – it was especially the atmosphere of archaeological research and collecting which led Koller, while 2 Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung, Archiv Rep. 1 Abt. A Inv. 41, Raffaele Gargiulo: Inventario della collezione de Antichitá, cioè Vasi Italo-Greci, Terre-cotte, Vetri, Bronzi e Marmi, non che una raccolta di Monumeti Egizzi ad altri oggete di belle arti di priprieta della famiglia di Koller. 333 Eliška Petřeková fulfilling his political duties, to succeed in creating a valuable collection of antiquities, comprising of about ten thousand items. From testimonies of the period and the preserved documentation, we can infer that in creating his art collection, Baron Koller carefully adhered to official protocols and royal decrees concerning not only archaeological excavations, but also trade of antiquities. Furthermore, we can find evidence regarding the official process of managing the archaeological work in the state archive in Naples and in Koller’s estate. There we can discover official documents in which the director of the royal museum, Michele Arditi, grants Koller permission to carry out archaeological excavations in specific areas3. The Prussian scholar, Eduard Gerhard (1795–1867), writes that Koller behaved as tactfully as possible, in a manner becoming of a diplomat, although collecting was only his personal hobby (Gerhard 1829: 170). Koller’s civil behavior was emphasized precisely because at that time unauthorized practices were often prevalent at ancient locations, as well as in the trade of antiquities. What did the royal decrees and prohibitions actually contain? Where did these regulations come from and what exactly led the king to enact them? Several rulers sat on the throne during the period of excavations, and all claimed the most significant discoveries for themselves4. From the very beginning of excavation activities, Charles VII planned to keep all of the valuable discoveries for the consolidation of the glory and prestige of the royal crown, and with this intention, he had a museum built near the royal palace in Portici where he was going to store and further enlarge his art collection (Venuti 1750: 37). Fearing too much popularity, which would undoubtedly attract a flock of curious explorers lusting for wealth and adventure, the king repeatedly issued orders prohibiting the free movement of visitors in the uncovered parts of the city; and to enter this museum, a visitor not only needed a special permit but 3 4 The Museum of Czech Literature Literary Archive in Prague, fund of Franz von Koller, unprocessed fund, license issued on the November 14, 1825, sent on May 14t 1826. – ASN, Ministero degli affari interni, Inventario II – Antichità e Belle Arti, bb. 1966–2147, b. 2030, fasc. 312, Permesso al Barone Koller di fare scavi di Antichità, 1824. Starting with Charles VII of Naples (1716–1788; reigned between 1734–1759), who stood at the onset of the uncovering of the city, through his successor Ferdinand IV (I) (1751– 1825; reigned intermittently between 1751–1825) to Napoleon’s brother Joseph Bonaparte (1768– 1844; reigned in 1806–1808) and later his brother in law General Joachim Murat (1767–1815; reigned between 1808–1815). 334 Luxury Souvenir or Precious Original… was not allowed to make any notes or drawings. Due to this royal monopoly over the excavations and exhibited art, all visitors had to request a license and also needed a personal custodian. Archaeological excavations and discoveries were scrupulously guarded for many decades, and only selected sculptures and paintings could be copied and published. However, the effort to protect treasures of the ancient world from meddlers had an opposite effect and the less they were shown to the public, the more the public craved any information on them (Allroggen-Bedel 1993: 37). Thus, the number of artists copying the collection kept increasing and because it was impossible to monitor each of them, they were constantly reminded of the regulations about the prohibition of copying and drawing issued by Charles VII. Regardless of all these orders, a number of documentary illustrations depicting particular antiquities were secretly appearing as early as the 1760s. Many tripods were drawn, copied and published by a number of authors. They all appeared collectively and separately not only in albums of prints and illustrated publications but also on drawings of many artists (Fig. 2). However, before we can take a look at the artists that rendered Koller’s desired tripod, it is necessary to make sure exactly which tripod he was actually requesting. Although there exist plenty of correspondence, records, inventories, and drawings devoted to bronze tripods from the royal collection, it is not ultimately clear which object they are referring to. In his letter, Baron Koller requests permission to create a copy of the tripod which is by his own words located in the “Galleria de’bronzi minuti,” but he does not specify it closer in any way. According to the aforementioned guide Guida per Real Museo Borbonico, only one tripod was situated in this section of the museum during Koller’s time in Naples – a richly decorated tripod with sphinxes. Most scholars still firmly contend that this piece was found in the Pompeiian ruins of the Temple of the goddess Isis which was uncovered in 1765. However, by thorough research of period documents, I have discovered that this tripod appears as early as 1753 in a publication titled Observations Upon the Antiquities of the Town of Herculaneum, Discovered at the Foot of Mount Vesuvius, which not only changes the date of the discovery of the object but also refutes Pompeii as the place it was found in (Bellicard, Cochin 1753: pl. 22). The three sphinxes are seated atop richly decorated supports with lion paws at the bottom which bear a vessel with a fine relief depicting bucranium. This “tripode bellissimo con tre sfingi” also appears in Raccolta dei monumenti piu interessanti del Real Museo Borbonico by Raffaele Gargiulo, the chief court restorer (and a controversial figure of the 335 Eliška Petřeková trade of antiquities at the time), who played an essential part in Koller’s collecting. Apart from that, it had seen publication in 1842 within the royal catalogue of antiquities (Pistolesi 1842: 360; Gargiulo 1845). As referred to above, in his response to Koller’s request, Michele Arditi points instantly to a specific page in the Voyage Pittoresque ou Description des Royaumes de Naples et de Sicile from 1782, where the requested stool should be printed (Saint-Non 1782: fig. 13). However, there are two tripods on this particular page, neither of which are decorated with sphinxes. The first one has a relatively simple shape and ornamentation; the second is decorated with three satyrs. It is precisely this latter tripod that is mentioned in the Guida per Real Museo Borbonico, which marks it as a discovery from Herculaneum, but in contrast to the tripod requested by Koller, it places it in the so-called “Gabinetto degli oggetti Riservati” (Fig. 3). Was it, therefore, Arditi’s mistake? Or was the tripod with sphinxes located in the same section as the tripod with satyrs at the time of Koller’s stay? The decision of director Arditi to withdraw all the antiquities of “pornographic nature” and the creation of a new section called “Gabinetto degli oggetti osceni”, renamed in 1823 to “Gabinetto degli oggetti riservati”, could have played a part in this. All artworks with an erotic motif were exhibited in one of the halls with access restricted to adult men of pure character. We can search for answers in the aforementioned inventory of Koller’s collection. In its section of bronzes, under the inventory number 691, we discover a bronze tripod including an annotation denoting it is a modern copy after the original from the Real Museo Barbonico. Gargiulo’s description clearly states that esso è composto da tre fauni, it is therefore without question a copy of the tripod with satyrs. Nevertheless, the seemingly resolved enigma is complicated again by the following item, number 692: Tripode è conformato da tre branche di leoni che posano su di essi altrettante sfince con vari arabeschi e ornate di rilievo e bassorilievi. Thus, Baron Koller obviously acquired copies of both tripods for his collection: the one with satyrs, as well as the one with sphinxes. Whether Baron Koller requested permission to copy either of these tripods in the revealed correspondence, the piece must have been one of the most famous objects of its kind at that time, which was frequently reproduced, copied, appeared in popular historical scenes from ancient times and even served as an example in the education of craftsmen and industrialists5. Their appearance 5 For the function of both tripods as models for contemporary education of design, see e.g. Henry Moses, Vorbilder für Fabrikanten und Handwerker 1/2, 1821–1830, img. 18 (Vier 336 Luxury Souvenir or Precious Original… varies fairly radically on a number of reproductions. In the case of the tripod with satyrs, it is nevertheless apparent that it is not only a problem of different technical level of individual reproductions; the difference in the musculature of the satyrs or in their faces, which are sometimes smooth and youthful and in other instances bearded and mature, are particularly striking (Fig. 4) How did the artists go about the restrictions? They were forced to draw from memory, as was the case of Charles-Nicolas Cochin (1715–1790) and JérômeCharles Bellicard (1726–1786), or alternatively, they worked with previous drawings or prints, which explains why they made and repeated various mistakes. Similarly, Giovanni Battista Piranesi (1720–1778) created an engraving of the tripod with sphinxes for his famous 1778 cycle Vasi, candelabri, cippi, sarcofagi, tripodi… after a considerably sketchy and imprecise drawing by Vincenzo Brenna (1747–1820). The strict royal decrees also made Anne Claude de Caylus (1692–1765) acknowledge only one of his assistants called Boutin and withheld the rest of the creators of the model drawings. Thus, clearly, part of the depictions of the tripods could not meet the modern requirement for documentary accuracy of records, which could be the main reason Koller asked for access to the original. As a result of the obstacles which were posed in the way of collectors and publishers by strict Neapolitan royal officials, a number of seemingly authentic depictions of discoveries including tripods often vary significantly from each other and therefore do not stand up to the demands of documentary accuracy. A comparison of drawings of another chair, which was located in the royal museum, can serve as evidence. It is a foldable portable tripod found in Herculaneum, labelled by Raffaele Gargiulo as one of the “most interesting” objects of the royal museum in Raccolta dei piu monumenti interessant del Real Museo Barbonico. The stool was included in the catalogue of the Real Museo Borbonico as well. Here, it is described as a mensa di marmo con piedi di bronzo and, surprisingly, has one more leg than in Gargiulo’s drawing. A similar example can be found in an illustration from 1782 where the painter Louis Jean Desprez (1743–1804) depicted the transfer of the discovered antiques to the new royal museum in Naples. A detail of this illustration shows that both the tripod with satyrs and the tripod with sphinxes were among the most important and prestigious antique discoveries, but on closer inspection, Dreifüße aus Bronze aus Pompeji und Herculaneum), In: Kupferstichkabinett der Staatlichen Museen zu Berlin, inv. no. 34.19–1991. 337 Eliška Petřeková we can see that the “tripod” with satyrs has four legs. These and other examples show that at least among the older generation of antiquarians and after among the public, the perception of authenticity and documentary accuracy was in many regards peculiar. The specific form was not as important as uniqueness and the nature of the material (Fig. 5). Later researchers perceived modern copies as having little value as collection items, serving better as educational aids. According to some Czech researchers (Sklenář 1989: 101; Dufková 2016: 21–41), Koller´s tripods were acquired “not because of material or scientific value, but as proof of how progressively Koller saw his future museum – they are ‘visual aids’ and exhibition accessories: copies, casts of bronzes and vessels predominantly from the Museo Borbonico, and especially three-dimensional models of buildings and excavations”6. If Koller’s tripod were merely supposed to complement the exhibition hall and evoke an atmosphere of the ancient world, the baron would probably have chosen a more comfortable way and acquired cheap copies, so popular and easy to get all over Italy7. He, however, made the effort to request officially a bronze copy of an object from the royal museum, which had to take considerable time and money. Therefore, in my opinion, the case of Koller’s tripod is a clear illustration of how erudite collectors were not easily satisfied with cheap copies available on the market or inaccurate drawings, because to them, these objects, instead of being only exhibition supplements meant to convey an atmosphere, were collectable items and real works of art8. Translated by Anna Jaegerová 6 7 8 For the new interpretaion of Koller’s collection, see Eliška Petřeková 2019. Baron Koller did not choose cheap local copies either, nor was he satisfied by the luxurious realization of brothers Luigi and Francesco Manfredini, supplemented by gold, marble and lapis lazuli, often used as diplomatic gifts; Emperor Napoleon himself received this elegant and costly copy as a gift from Eugène de Beauharnais (1781–1824), the then Viceroy of Italy (Vergano B.G. di 2002). Both copies of the bronze tripods from Naples were later acquired from Koller’s estate by the Prussian royal collections in Berlin (tripod with sphinxes, inv. no. Fr. 2417, tripod with satyrs, inv. no. Fr. 2437), where they were exhibited until 1888 in the Altes Museum. They were then moved to the Berlin Museum of Applied Arts (inv. no. K 9456 a, b), from where they were lost (apparently during World War II). The acquisition was reported as early as 1829 by Jakob Andreas Konrad Levezow 1829: 10. For more information on the history of the collection after Koller´s death, see Petřeková E. 2017. 338 Luxury Souvenir or Precious Original… Bibliography Primary sources Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Ministero degli affari interni, Inventario II – Antichità e Belle Arti, bb. 1966–2147, b. 2020, fasc. 67, Permesso al Barone Koller di far eseguire il disegno di un tripode di bronzo, 1824. Archivio di Stato di Napoli, Ministero degli affari interni, Inventario II – Antichità e Belle Arti, bb. 1966–2147, b. 2030, fasc. 312, Permesso al Barone Koller di fare scavi di Antichità, 1824. Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Antikensammlung, Archiv Rep. 1 Abt. A Inv. 41, Raffaele Gargiulo: Inventario della collezione de Antichitá, cioe Vasi Italo-Greci, Terre-cotte, Vetri, Bronzi e Marmi, non che una raccolta di Monumeti Egizzi ad altri oggete di belle arti di priprieta della famiglia di Koller. The Museum of Czech Literature Literary Archive in Prague, fund of Franz von Koller, unprocessed fund, License issued on the November 14th, 1825, sent on May 14th, 1826. Secondary sources Allroggen-Bedel A. 1993. Gli scavi di Ercolano nella politica culturale dei Borboni. In: Ercolano 1738–1998: 250 anni di ricerca archeologica (Atti del Convegno Internazionale Ravello-Ercolano-Napoli-Pompei 30 Ottobre – 5 Novembre 1988). Roma: L’Erma’ di Bretschneider, pp. 35–41. Bellicard J.Ch., Cochin Ch.N. 1753. Observations Upon the Antiquities of the Town of Herculaneum, Discovered at the Foot of Mount Vesuvius. London: Wilson & T. Durham. Caylus A.C.P. de 1759. Recueil d’antiquités égyptiennes, étrusques et romaines, t. 3, Paris: Desaint & Saillant. Dufková M. 2016. The History of the Ceglie Vases. In: Kästner U., Saunders D. (ed.) Dangerous Perfection: Ancient funerary vases from southern Italy. Los Angeles: J. Paul Getty Museum, pp. 21–41. Gargiulo R. 1845. Raccolta dei monumenti piu interessanti del Real Museo Borbonico e di varie collezioni private, vol. 1. Napoli: da Raffaele Gargiulo–Museo reale Borbonico. Gerhard E. 1829. Bullettino degli Annali dell’Instituto di Corrispondenza Archeologica per l’anno 1829. Roma: Dalle stampe del Salviucci, p. 170. Giustiniani L. 1824. Guida per lo Real Museo Borbonico. Napoli: Tipografia francese. Levezow K. 1829. Ueber die freiherrlich von Kollerschen Sammlungen klassischer Alterthümer, als neuste Bereicherung des königl. Museums der Alterthümer zu Berlin. In: Berliner KunstBlatt, Heft 1, pp. 4–14. Pistolesi E.(ed.) 1838–1844. Real Museo Borbonico, vol. 1–8. Roma: Roma Tipografia delle belle arti. 339 Eliška Petřeková Piranesi G.B., Piranesi F. 1778. Vasi, candelabri, cippi, sarcofagi, tripodi, lucerne, ed ornamenti antichi. Rome: [G.B. and F. Piranesi]. Petřeková E. 2017. Osudy antické sbírky barona Františka Kollera (bachelor’s thesis). Brno: Masaryk University. Petřeková E. 2019. Franz von Koller and the enigma of the bronze tripod from the Real Museo Borbonico in Naples. In: Opuscula historiae artium, 68(1), 2–21. Saint-Non J.-C.R. de 1782. Voyage Pittoresque ou Description des Royaumes de Naples et de Sicile, pt. 2. Paris: Impr. de Clousier. Sklenář K. 1989. Z Čech do Pompejí. Příběhy a objevy českých archeologů ve světě. Praha: Československý spisovatel. Edice Spirála. Venuti M.N. di 1750. A description of the first discoveries of the ancient city of Herculaneum. London: R. Baldwin, jun. at the Rose in Pater-Noster-Row, 37. Vergano B.G. di 2002. La manifattura dell’Eugenia dei fratelli Manfredini. In: G. Beretti (a cura di) Splendori del Bronzo. Mobili e oggetti d’arredo tra Francia e Italia 1750/1850. Catalogo della mostra. Turin: Omega. List of illustrations Fig. 1. Giovanni Battista Piranesi after Vincenzo Brenna, Antique bronze tripod from the royal collections in Portici, 1778. In: Giovanni Battista Piranesi. Vasi, candelabri, cippi, sarcofagi, tripodi, lucerne, ed ornamenti antichi, vol. 1. Rome 1778, pl. 44, https://archive.org/details/gri_33125011110869/page/n92, accessed on 11.11.2021. Fig. 2. Jérôme Charles Bellicard, Tripod with sphinxes, 1753. In: Jérôme Charles Bellicard, Charles Nicolas Cochin. Observations Upon the Antiquities of the Town of Herculaneum, Discovered at the Foot of Mount Vesuvius. London 1753, pl. 22 – Anne Claude de Caylus, Tripod with sphinxes and satyrs, detail, engraving, 1759. In: Anne Claude de Caylus, Recueil dʼantiquités égyptiennes, étrusques et romaines, 3. Paris 1759, pl. 38 – Giovanni Battista Piranesi after Vincenzo Brenna, Antique bronze tripod from the royal collections in Portici, 1778. In: Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Vasi, candelabri, cippi, sarcofagi, tripodi, lucerne, ed ornamenti antichi, vol. 1. Rome 1778, pl. 44 – Elie-Honoré Montagny, Tripod with sphinxes and satyrs, detail, pen drawing on paper, 1804–1805. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, inv. 2638–745, fol. 15 – Francesco Piranesi, Tripod with sphinxes found in Herculaneum, engraving, 1805–1807. In: Francesco Piranesi, Antiquités de la Grande Grèce, aujourd’hui Royaume de Naples, vol. 1. Paris 1807, pl. 11. https://archive.org/details/observationsupon00bell/page/n85/mode/2up, accessed on 11.11.2021. https://bibliotheque-numerique.inha.fr/viewer/5660#page=231&viewer=picture& o=bookmark&n=0&q=, accessed on 11.11.2021. 340 Luxury Souvenir or Precious Original… https://archive.org/details/gri_33125011110869/page/n92, accessed on 11.11.2021. https://digitalmontagny.inha.fr/en/record/montagny15v03b, accessed on 11.11.2021. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/piranesi1807bd1/0016, accessed on 11.11.2021. Fig. 3. Pierre-Philippe Choffard after Pierre-Adrien Pâris, Antique lamps, tripods and musical instruments found in Herculaneum and deposited in the museum in Portici, engraving, 1782. In: Jean-Claude Richard de Saint-Non. Voyage Pittoresque ou Description des Royaumes de Naples et de Sicile, vol. 2. Paris 1782, pl. 13. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/saintnon1782/0097/, accessed on 11.11.2021. Fig. 4. Anne Claude de Caylus, Tripod with sphinxes and satyrs, detail, engraving, 1752. In: Anne Claude de Caylus, Recueil dʼantiquités égyptiennes, étrusques et romaines. Paris 1752, pl. 38 – Pierre-Philippe Choffard after Pierre-Adrien Pâris, Antique lamps, tripods and musical instruments found in Herculaneum and deposited in the museum in Portici, detail, engraving, 1782. In: Jean-Claude Richard de Saint-Non, Voyage Pittoresque ou Description des Royaumes de Naples et de Sicile, vol. 2. Paris 1782, pl. 13 – Elie-Honoré Montagny, Tripod with sphinxes and satyrs, detail, pen drawing on paper, 1804–1805. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, inv. 2638–745, fol. 15 – Francesco Piranesi, Tripod with satyrs found in Pompeii, engraving, 1805– 1807. In: Francesco Piranesi, Antiquités de la Grande Grèce, aujourd’hui Royaume de Naples, vol. 1. Paris 1807, pl. 12. https://bibliotheque-numerique.inha.fr/viewer/5660#page=231&viewer=picture& o=bookmark&n=0&q=, accessed on 11.11.2021. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/saintnon1782/0097/, accessed on 11.11.2021. https://digitalmontagny.inha.fr/en/record/montagny15v03b, accessed on 11.11.2021. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/piranesi1807bd1/0017/, accessed on 11.11.2021. Fig. 5. Louis Jean Desprez, Antiquities Found at Herculaneum Being Transported to the Naples Museum, pen and black ink and watercolor, ca. 1782. London: British Museum, inv. 1864,1210.502. ©Trustees of the British Museum. Eliška Petřeková Fig. 1 342 Fig. 2 Luxury Souvenir or Precious Original… 343 Eliška Petřeková Fig. 3 344 Fig. 4 Luxury Souvenir or Precious Original… 345 Fig. 5 Eliška Petřeková 346 https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.16 Giulia Moretti Cursi (University of Rome Tor Vergata) the dionysiAn AnCient reliefs of the CArdelli ColleCtion A Product of seventeenth Century Classicism or an interpretative Paradigm? Abstract The paper aims to consider Cardelli collection of antiquities as a minor example pertaining to a mechanism of emulation and social ascent of the great 17th-century collections of antiquities in Rome. With this mind, we can see the reflection of the debate between the two opposite ideals of iudicium and ingenium. The oscillation between these two poles of philological practice is reflected on what has been defined by I. Faldi as the “mystification of the ancient.” One of the major representatives of this new stream was Orfeo Boselli, a pupil of Cristoforo Stati and François Duquesnoy, who restored the Dionysian reliefs preserved in the Cardelli palace in Rome. Accordingly, both ancient and pseudo-antique works will be presented along the transcription of archival texts from the Cardelli Archive kept in the Capitoline Historical Archive in Rome that are relevant to the acquisition, cataloguing, and restoration of the objects. Keywords: emulation, iudicium, ingenium, mystification, pseudo-antique works introduCtion Between the 16th and 17th centuries, Rome lived as a cosmopolitan city in which the interest in antiquarian culture merged with its continuous and surprising urban transformation favored both by the papacy and the noble families who decided to establish their residences there. The taste of adorning and decorating 347 Giulia Moretti Cursi palaces and grand villas with ancient sculptures and archaeological finds was spreading more and more. This resulted in an increasing motivation towards the restoration, integration, and completion of ancient works of art. Artists continued to be salaried by noble families with the ultimate goal of restoring the integrity of the pieces of ancient art, a requirement deemed essential for their display. In this period, they were also commissioned to produce new works which were to be exhibited next to the old ones. Whereas on the one hand, the ideological attitude of these sculptors towards the ancient is similar to that of the previous generation and remains heavily influenced by the myth of the perfection of classicism, on the other hand, there appear first symptoms of a culture in which artists feel free to distinguish themselves from their predecessors. They are no longer dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants, but creators of their own world. As a tangible sign of power and social prestige, these new collections of antiquities, mostly sculptures, constituted a sort of proof of nobility (Cugnoni 1883: 674 n. 51)1 for their owners who were able to jump into the tradition of the illustrious Roman families of the antiquity.2 As for the ideological position of Baroque artists in general (not only sculptors), it is important to remember that a Baroque theory was never formulated.3 Unlike, therefore, the classicists, who since the beginning were provided with a set of theoretical principles (Félibien 1666–1668; Bellori 1672; Agucchi 1947) elaborated within their own circle and delineated the conceptual foundations for their creations, in the case of Baroque artists it is only from their own verbal testimonies that we must try to extract their ideas on art wherever they have been handed down to us. It is, however, interesting to note that for all substantial diversity in the artistic works modelled after the antique taken by the sculptors of the 17th century, there is a considerable similarity of theoretical positions. The differences are mainly limited to the way of interpreting the ancient and to the choice of the 1 2 3 According to the humanist Enea Silvio Piccolomini, the proof of nobility lies in protecting and preserving antiquities instead of destroying them; Daltrop (1989: 58); Picozzi (1998: 56 nn. 11–12). See the Roman residence of the Colonna family in Piazza Ss. Apostoli on the slopes of the Quirinale Hill who erected a building on the remains of the substructures of the Serapeum staircase equipped with a loggia decorated with sculptures from the same area. Musso (1990: 14); Scaglia (1992: 41); Picozzi (1998: 65 n. 12). Bialostocki (1977: 29) expresses the idea that the concept of “baroque theory” can actually be identified in a wider sector but not in the specific field of figurative arts, as in this case. 348 The Dionysian Ancient Reliefs of the Cardelli Collection… historical period of ancient art most consonant with the sensitivity of individual artists. the mystifiCAtion of the Antique in the 17th Century And the CArdeLLi exAmPLe In the period from the mid-16th century to the mid-17th century, we see a progressive departure from the ideal beauty canons of the Renaissance, while a real philological exercise on the ancient begins. As they continue to appreciate the perfection of sculpture in ancient masterpieces, the 17th-century Roman sculptors do actually what suits them. Or, at the other extreme, they perpetrate the most insane looting and mystification of ancient sculptures, which is, however, a testimony of a wild passion for classical antiquity. In this regard, we have rightly spoken of a debate in 17th-century Roman sculpture between classical norm and inventive freedom, in other words between iudicium (reason) and ingenium (imagination).4 It is in this historical juncture that the activity of the restorer of Palazzo Cardelli, Orfeo Boselli (Cagiano de Azevedo 1948: 28–29; Sparti 1998: 96–97; Fortunati 2000: 69–101; Picozzi 2003: 90; Ebert-Schifferer 2005: 308), fits in, as confirmed by the receipt contained in the ledger of 1663–1682.5 The current external façade of the building is the result of the renovation and artistic redevelopment undertaken in four different phases promoted by the counts Alessandro Cardelli (1553–1618), Asdrubale Seniore (1594–1651), Carlo Cardelli (1626– 1662) and, finally, Alessandro Cardelli (1828–1894). Alessandro Cardelli, who entrusted the management over the project to the architect Francesco da Volterra, conducted the first phase of the work, which began in 1592.6 4 5 6 Opinion expressed by Faldi (1992: 223), who adds that the two are the same as used by Quintiliano to indicate two dialectical terms of the expressive process. ASC, AC, Div. II, Giornale dal 1663 al 1682, 24 aprile 1663, T. H, f. 32: “Al signor Orfeo Buselli scultore quindici mila buoni come sopra paganili a’ bon conto de bassirilievi restaurati, e da restaurarsi nella Casa Grande”. Scano (1961: 22–25); Mori (1997: 78); Ebert Schifferer (2005: 203–204). ASC, AC, Div. III, T. 184, f. 1 says: “Io Alessandro Cardelli f[acci]o memoria come in questo giorno 8 di giugno 1592 ho cominciato a fabricare, et più per commodita che per seguire la fabbrica comin- 349 Giulia Moretti Cursi The restructuring was interrupted for the first time in 1603 following the death of Laura Mancini, wife of Alessandro Cardelli. The resumption of the work took place in 1612 (Scano 1961: 22; Ebert Schifferer 2005: 304 n. 5) and the project was continued until 1633 under the supervision of Asdrubale Seniore, son of Alessandro Cardelli. Starting from 1633, the son of Asdrubale, Carlo Cardelli, took over. Carlo continued the work financed previously by his father Asdrubale, dedicating himself to the creation of stuccos and decorative niches that focused on the main staircase7 and at the main floor.8 His name appears engraved on the upper doors of the apartments on each floor as well as below the family coat of arms on the second floor, according to the custom of the Roman palaces of the late Renaissance (Letarouilly 1840–1857: 197 pl. 57; Scano 1961: 24; Frommel 1985: 139; Mori 1997: 35; Ebert Schifferer 2005: 304). Based on the documents in the family archive, we can say that the renovation promoted by Carlo Cardelli was one of the most prolific and innovative, since it led to the creation of a stable with the capacity of a dozen horses; new rooms on the ground floor; a second noble apartment located on the second floor and equipped with an uncovered loggia and a terrace; and, finally, an additional noble apartment located on the ground floor with two reception rooms decorated with stuccos and frescoes and three rooms for private use (Ebert Schifferer 2005: 304). It is also to Carlo that we owe the reconstruction of the chapel “a volta, et adornata con suoi stucchi, pitture, et oro con un’altra camera contigua pur a volta, stuccata e dipinta.”9 The existing first floor apartment also retains a terrace decorated with statues and fountains (Ebert Schifferer 2005: 304). In addition, the floor and the architectural lines of the rooms underwent renovations in different places with the use of stucco and gilding10. On the death of Carlo Cardelli in 1662, the tutor ciata, et qui notero tutte le spese che giornalmente si faranno”, and a little further on the same page: “L’adi X ho fatto altra risoluzione, et ho cominciato a fare buttare da fondamenti al tetto quella parte di facciata della mia casa che e della p[rim]a detta facciata come tutto il resto era di pietra busa et cattiva materia si rifara tutta di tavolozza…” 7 ASC, AC, Div. I, Memoria degli accrescimenti e miglioramenti fatti nel palazzo Cardelli, T. 146, f. 1 says: “Si è fatta tutta la scala maestra da’ fondam[en]ti p[er]fino in cime di pianta magnifica”. 8 ASC, AC, Div. II, T. H, f. 32, “Giornale dal 1663 al 1682”. 9 ASC, AC, Div. X, sez. 2a, t. 146, f. 13, “Memoria degl’accrescimenti, et miglioramenti fatti nel Palazzo Cardelli parte da Asdrubale, e parte da Carlo seniori Cardelli”. 10 According to the suggestion of S. Ebert Schifferer, the renovation promoted from 1592 and concluded with the interventions of Carlo Cardelli were not dictated by technical neces- 350 The Dionysian Ancient Reliefs of the Cardelli Collection… of his son Asdrubale Juniore, Francesco Falconieri, granted the rent of Palazzo Cardelli to Domenico Colonna for 550 scudi. This event is quite important from a historical point of view since on this occasion, an inventory of the assets and decorations in the building was compiled.11 This description discloses that the extraordinary decorations corresponding to the entrances of the apartments were a prelude to reaching the main hall; from there, through the staircase, you had access to an arrangement of the apartments that corresponded to the architectural ceremony of the Roman Renaissance palaces (Frommel 1985: 139; Waddy 1990: 4–5).12 sity but by the willingness on the part of the family members to renew and raise their social standard through the promotion of architectural changes in line with the current late Renaissance and Baroque trends, as was also the case with the palaces of the Mattei and Falconieri families: Howard (1982: 51). However, the creation of two identical noble apartments as well as the insertion of an additional noble apartment on the ground floor leaves room for a multitude of logistical options such as, for example, the idea to have selfcontained suites for rent or the decision to distinguish the main apartment in which to live from a secondary apartment used for representative purposes or the possibility of having two separate housing structures in the same building related to two branches of the family. Ebert Schifferer (2005: 304–305). 11 ASC, AC, Div. Misc. II, sez. 2a, T. 146, f. 13. In T. 146, ff. 123–124 says: “Schala Grande cominciando dall’ultimo piano di sopra per scendere a basso. Alla Porta della Sala sopradetta: Arme di Casa Cardelli di stucco con altri lavori simili ben condizionati. Nella muraglia del piano di detta scala: Volta con diversi lavori di stucco senza alcuna rottura. Nel muro di detto Piano doi bassi rilievi antichi con cornice di stucco senza rottura alcuna… Nel fine di detto Caposcale per andare à basso… due ovati con festoni di stucco e altri lavori simili senza lesione alcuna. Porta della sala del Primo Appartamento Nobile sopra detta Porta un ovato con festone attorno con una statuetta in piedi di sei palmi con due statue nude di huomini di stucco. Nel Muro di detto Piano due Bassi rilievi con cornici attorno di stucco e diversi fogliamo et animali simili senza lesione… Terza scala ò Branco per andare à basso. Nel fine di detta schala Piano con lavori di stucco ben condizionati. Nel fine di detta Schala due ovati senza statue con suoi fenestrini di stucco… 4° Schala ò branco per andare à basso all’entrone. Nel piano di detta schala. Nella volta diversi lavori di stucco ben condizionati, et dalli lati del detto Piano Due ovati alti con sua base da mettervi statue con cornice liscie, e diversi lavori di stucco. Porta di detto piano della stanziola… sopra à detta Un basso rilievo piccolo di marmo. Porta a mano destra del detto Antrone per entrare nelle stanze terreno… sopra di detta Porta un Ovato con busto di marmo d’Imperatore con lavori di stucco”. 12 The alternation between ancient bas-reliefs and architectural niches inside which busts are inserted also occurs in the layout of the staircase of Palazzo Mattei di Giove: Panofsky Soergel (1967: 122 n. 53–123 n. 60); Guerrini (1982: 21–22 tavv. V–IX). The main staircase of this palace was built between 1607 and 1609 and was subsequently decorated with sculptures, reliefs, statues, and portraits. A plausible explanation for this resemblance could be the relationship between Count Asdrubale Cardelli Seniore and the Marquis Asdrubale 351 Giulia Moretti Cursi The interest of Carlo Cardelli in the acquisition of works of artistic value is confirmed by an act of commission and sale of 7 October 1654, which provides for the purchase of two alabaster statues “with feet, hands and metal heads gilded, made by the sculptor Nicola Menghino.”13 At the death of Carlo Cardelli, Monsignor Francesco Falconieri, legal guardian of the count’s son Asdrubale, sold the statues to Agostino Chigi for 250 shields in 1663.14 In the same years, O. Boselli carried on his restoration and critical reworking, while bringing together various ancient fragments of different origins gave him a new plasticity in a timeless and history-free decorative context. The process is that of a mythologization of an antiquity deemed the golden age of art, but whose historical and stylistic dynamics are not understood and to which new stylistic meanings and perspectives are attributed.15 This action consists of a total of five reliefs divided into two groups: above the front doors of the first floor, there is a relief depicting the childhood of Dionysus and one depicting the Dionysian thiasos, while on the second floor, there are reliefs with Dionysus resting and with Silenus, both in a specular position, faced by a relief depicting the Muses on the right side door above (Matz, Duhn 1881: n. 2252, 2311. Matz 1969: 411 n. 36 Beil. 106, 1. Matz 1975: 493 n. 343 pl. 335, 502–505 pl. 347. Ferrari, Papaldo 1999: 417. Picozzi 2003: 112 n. 8). In view of this enumeration, it is evident that the Dionysian theme clearly prevails. Mattei, who commissioned the embellishment of the staircase of his palace with busts of emperors in 1634: Ebert Schifferer (2005: 307). ASC, AC, Misc. II, T. 140 f. 1: “a scorniciare e lavorare la pietra simile a quelli del palazzo dell’Ill.mo Sig. Asdrubale Matthei”. 13 ASC, AC, Div. I, T. 6, f. 13; AC, Div. I, FC, T. 216, 11 aprile 1663: “Riscossi dall’Ecc.mo Don Agostino Chigi, e sono scudi 150 p. pezzo di due statuette di alabastro bianco con teste, mani, et piedi di metallo dorato et suo zoccolo di marmo nero scorniciato ovale; et scudi 100p. doi piedistalli p. suddette statue di commesso bianco, et nero marmellato di giallo, vneduti al suddetto S. ra = scudi 250”. 14 Agostino Chigi, Prince Farnese, was the nephew of the reigning pontiff. He also purchased, among other things, four busts of emperors with pedestals for 400 shields; eight carved and gilded stools for 223.20 shields, a buggy for 160 shields, harnesses for 90 shields and more. The proceeds from the sale were, in part, donated to works in suffrage of the deceased: celebration of Masses in the family chapel in Trinità de ‘Monti and donations to the Institute of the lost spinsters of Santa Eufemia and to the nuns “Barberine”, see ASC, AC, Div. I, T. 11, f. 10. 15 Here it is prefered the thesis according to which it is formed by pieces taken from ancient originals assembled together to receive a new context and a new artistic form: Faldi (1992: 217); Picozzi (2003: 90). 352 The Dionysian Ancient Reliefs of the Cardelli Collection… The first Dionysian relief (Fig. 1) depicts an episode from Dionysus’ childhood. This type of iconography is generally chosen for the decoration of child sarcophagi (Matz, Duhn 1881: 28 n. 2252; Turcan 1966: 431–440 pl. 22 a; Matz 1968: 343 tav. 106, 1). This notion is confirmed by the cyclical narrative form, a feature that often includes events related to the episodes of the birth and childhood of Dionysus in which we witness a juxtaposition of separate scenes such as, for example, the death of Semele, the birth of Dionysus from the thigh of Zeus, the bath of the new-born, the child riding a ram, the establishment of his cult, the playful reception of his attributes (Zanker 2008: 135–166). The scenes are never presented in an orderly chronological fashion and they rarely appear on the sarcophagus itself. They generally constitute separate episodes. The classicism of the figures imbues the scene with a sense of tranquility and transports it to a bucolic realm free of space-time patterns (Huskinson 1996: 30–39). Interestingly, the main narrative picture of the relief is not influenced by any dramatic or distressing atmosphere. The events concerning the dramatic abandonment of the new-born baby, saved by Zeus after the death of his mother Semele, whose birth was induced by lightning, and the subsequent incubation period spent inside Zeus’ thigh, are omitted. The story that follows from this narration, therefore, seems to suggest timeless, idyllic, and “indefinite” images. What interested the artists was the possibility of recreating the idyllic and carefree atmosphere in which the child had lived during his short life. The relief shows the blessed life of the child in the midst of nymphs who take care of him and make daily gestures, such as the bath, which reassure him and associate him with any other new-born. The figures of satyrs and Silenus give the background a familial atmosphere to the point of taking on the appearance of grandparents (Zanker 2008: 135– 166). The playful aspect of the story is underlined by a relief from München (Matz 1968: 413, tav. 255 n. 170) in which the god holds the fan hidden by a veil, the sacred liknon (Matz 1968: 413, tav. 255 n. 170), as if it were a toy. In addition to the temporal dynamics of the representation, the core of the Bacchic message is also highlighted. In identifying the deceased child with Dionysus, whose birth had followed a death, a possible return to life is envisaged, albeit in forms unknown beforehand (Matz 1968: 413, tav. 255 n. 170). Both Friedrich von Duhn and Robert Turcan considered the relief to be the result of a 17th-century integration on the basis of an ancient original (Ebert Schifferer 2005: 309–310, 308 Abb. 9). The scene is comparable stylistically and iconographically to the one on the left side of a lid resting on a sarcophagus in the 353 Giulia Moretti Cursi Camposanto of Pisa (Matz 1968: 316–318 tav. 191,1; 413 tav. 255), with a relief from a child’s sarcophagus preserved at the Glyptotheque in Monaco, and with a relief preserved in the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore (Lehmann-Hartleben, Olsen 1942: 10–12 f. 2). The first two reliefs have the figures of Ino, Dionysus, and the nymph sitting with an amphora, while in the third, coming from the tomb of the Calpurnii Pisones16 in Rome, the nymph with an amphora is absent from the scheme. Turcan recognizes a certain alertness and alarm in the attitudes of the characters in the Cardelli relief, noting that one of the three female characters tries to hide the infant by throwing a restless look to the left, so much so that the nurse covers him promptly with his peplum (Turcan 1966: 431–440). On the Pisa lid, the same atmosphere of anguish is evident in the male figure – to be identified possibly with Heracles or with a brother of Semele (IIlyrio or more likely Polydoro) – who rushes to the right (Turcan 1966: 431–440). He is in full alarm, his cloak swells under a wind in feverish agitation. In this regard, we believe we can report the verses of Nonnos of Panopolis that could be used for the description of the specimens from Rome and Pisa (Dionysiaca, IX, 29–3417). The mere presence of Actaeon prevents us from continuing with the parallelism. In these circumstances, the nurse should represent Ino: but the affectionate gesture of the bearded man does not facilitate her identification. The nymph on the side is reminiscent of a scene from the Philadelphus’ pompè that associates the birth of Dionysus with the bubbling of miraculous springs. According to C. Robert, the interpretation of the nymph is associated with a Quellnymphe. Heydemann (1880: 430–432) would readily identify the bearded figure with Silenus, were it not for the fact the old companion of the nymphs is bald and rarely seen wearing a female chiton tight at the waist (at the most, he sometimes 16 It is an underground burial chamber discovered in the Salario district, within the Bonaparte area, in 1885. Based on the brick stamps and the iconographic and stylistic analysis of the sculptures that appear on the sarcophagi, the sepulchre is assumed to be constructed in the Antonine era: Lanciani (1885: 35); Kleiner (1977: 79); Huskinson (1996: 86). 17 Gigli Piccardi 2003: Nonn. Dionysiaca, IX, 29-34: Αἱ δὲ λαξοῦσαι Βάκχον ἐπηχὐναντο, καὶ εἰς στόμα παιδὸς ἐκάστη ἀθλιξέων γλαγόεσσαν ἀνέξλυεν ἰκμάδα μαζῶν. Καὶ πάις ἀντικέλευθον ἐς οὐρανὸν ὄμμα τιταίνων ὔπτιος ἦεν ἄυπνος, ἀμοιξαίῃσι δὲ ῥιπαῖς ἠέρα λακτίζων διδυμάονι τέρπετο παλμῷ (“Having taken Bacchus in their arms, they each put the milk coming from their breasts into the baby’s mouth without him having to suck them. The newborn, turning his eyes to the sky in front of him, lying on his back, remains awake, rather having fun kicking in the air by throwing both feet alternately”). 354 The Dionysian Ancient Reliefs of the Cardelli Collection… wears a flowing robe) and the snake never belongs to what we know to be his usual attributes. According to C. Robert, it is a mountain divinity dressed in a costume reminiscent of the theatrical one, composed of a sleeved chiton and high-waisted dress.18 The difficulty in accepting this hypothesis lies in the observation that, generally, mountain divinities are always naked, with a flap of cloak on the legs or sometimes on the shoulder. Furthermore, generally, they never hold snakes as attributes, but a branch or a shrub, and they appear perched on a rocky surface against the background of the composition. Although not in full conformity with the Silenus of the Cardelli relief, this interpretation can be suggested for the Silenus that appears on the lid of the Pisa sarcophagus, where we can clearly distinguish a pine twig. However, this type of plastic rendering with beard and abundantly long hair, this androgynous god hairstyle exactly reflect the iconography of Dionysos-Sabatius,19 the incarnation of the god Père (Turcan 1966: 431–440), as seen elsewhere on imperial-era sarcophagi.20 18 C. Robert’s opinion on this matter is somewhat complex. In propos ing the identification of Silenus who accompanies the Muses with a mountain deity, he also affirms the impossibility of conferring a univocal interpretation on the relief, leaving any suspicion on his possible iconological analysis to the Verdacht der Ergänzung: Robert (1919: 306). 19 The cult of Sabazios arose in Phrygia at the beginning of the 1st millennium BC and appeared in Greece in the late 5th century BC. Its myth originates from the union of Zeus, in the form of a bull, with Demeter, from which Persephone was born and from the subsequent union of Zeus, in the form of a snake, with Persephone, from which Dionysus was born in the shape of a bull. This parental dyad of Orphic ancestry clarifies, in iconographic terms, the reason why in the Dionysian representations, the ceramists of the 5th century BC oscillate between two types of Dionysus, one bearded and dressed in the oriental style, the other youthful and beardless, and then landed in Roman art (2nd–3rd centuries AD), in which we witness the persistence of the two types. In the classical age, starting from 430 BC, the juvenile type of Dionysus is codified; the god appears beardless and with long hair surmounted by an ivy or vine crown together with the miter, naked or semi-panelled and accompanied by the attributes of the thirsos and the kantharos: Buccino (2013: 18). It is assumed that the cult of Sabazios had a purely oracular character and that its diffusion was limited to a popular environment. Evidence of this cult can be found in the Vespae (Arist. Vespae 9–13), which shows the oracular character of the god through the infusion of sleep in the subjects who adored him, and in the Birds in which Cybele and Sabatius are invoked: Arist. Aves, 876 ff. Another testimony is that offered by the Lysistrata, in which the ridiculous religious practices addressed by women to Sabatius and Adonis are criticized (Arist. Lys. 387 ss.). One of the clearest examples of religiosity of the 4th century BC is offered by the testimony of Demosthenes: Bianchi, Vermaseren (1982: 649–670). 20 Here, Turcan compares a bronze bust from Pompeii in which, however, some attributes are missing, such as the fawn skin (nébris), the ivy shoot, and the bunches of grapes. The recog- 355 Giulia Moretti Cursi On the other hand, this Zeus-Sabazios, which is mentioned in the Orphic hymns at the end of the 2nd century AD, that is about ten or twenty years later than our reliefs (although the dating of the hymns is not absolutely certain), is represented as Semele’s father, “the resonant Eiraphiotes” (Turcan 1966: 431–440). A tradition, that of Euripides in The Bacchae, brings back to Zeus the gesture of having saved the child himself from the flames of his lightning, although the vulgar attributed the rescue to Hermes. According to this same version of The Bacchae, lightning strikes only after Semele’s normal conception, and Bacchus’s maternal aunts see this as a deserved punishment for a false pretension. From there, he was taken to the nymphs of the Cithaeron to escape Hera’s persecution. The second Dionysian relief (Fig. 2) represents the Dionysian thiasos, which shows up in figurative arts from the early 6th century BC until late antiquity (Schöne 1987: 1–11, 23). This growing interest in the procession of Dionysus in the decoration of Roman sarcophagi in the 2nd and 3rd centuries AD, however, does not attract an equally intense and serious reflection in modern research. Numerous studies have been dedicated to Dionysus himself, both in the religious and philological fields, with questions about the origin, worship, and meaning for the development of theatre in the foreground. Precisely for this reason, it is surprising that a similar philological study is missing with regard to thiasos (Schöne 1987: 1–11, 23). Dionysus appears as the only god to be always accompanied by a procession. Unlike other deities, his nature seems to be less characterized by his individual actions and events, which is reflected in the constant presence of the characters of his retinue. So far, all attempts to clarify the etymology of the word thiasos, commonly associated with the Greek word thyrsos, have failed. In a broader sense, we can say that the term was used by cultured private parties that used to come together to offer a sacrifice to the divinity by preparing parades and festivals of various kinds for the occasion. Although the first epigraphic attestations of the term date back only to the Hellenistic age, it is necessary to go back at least to the 7th century BC in search for its beginnings. In this period, Alcman mentioned associations of men who dedicated themselves to intoning Peana on the occasion of the common meals nition of the image of Dionysus Sabatius in this bust is based on the comparison with a character represented on a sarcophagus of the National Roman Museum (dressed in a long chiton, with tympanon and kalathos) and on the literary text of Diodorus (Diod. III, 63, 3–4; IV, 4, 1–2). 356 The Dionysian Ancient Reliefs of the Cardelli Collection… (Schöne 1987: 1–11, 23). In the following century, Solon mentions the thiasos referring to thiasotai association. In classical times, the term came to designate the festive context dedicated to Dionysus and was also used by Herodotus in the episode related to the Scythian king Skyles, who, having decided to be initiated into the Bacchic mysteries, undertook a thiasos through the streets of the city of the Boristeni and received the consecration of Dionysus-Bacchus in the Greek city of Olbia (Hdt, I, 79, 1–5). A poetic but quite informative description of the Dionysian thiasos is also to be found in the Bacchantes by Euripides (Eur., Bacch. 55–6121), first staged in the year 406 BC, in which men, Theban women, Maenads, and satyrs form a procession that surrenders completely to Dionysus. The size of the figures and the arrangement of the first four female characters with the central caesura represented by the three-quarter Maenad help to frame the relief in the so-called series B of the sarcophagi which bears the images of the Dionysian thiasos. The distinctive features of this series can be seen in the large number of figures participating in the thiasos, in their tight arrangement, and in the substantial height of the relief which has strong chiaroscuro accents owing to the use of the drill (Ebert Schifferer 2005: 309–310). The chronology of this series is in the range between 180 and 250–260 AD. In particular, the left arm of the Maenad stretches with a curvilinear motion in the direction of a bunch of grapes, which, in the original composition, is probably part of a branch that extended for the entire upper edge of the sarcophagus case. Based on these details, it is possible to suggest a date between 230 and 240 AD for the Cardelli relief. Finally, the last two Dionysian reliefs were considered in the Matz-Duhn repertoire as parts of two halves of the front of the same sarcophagus (Matz 1968: 502–505 tav. 347). The left half was associated with the relief with Dionysus’ rest (Matz, Duhn 1881: 72–74 n. 2311; Robert 1919: 306–316. Ebert Schifferer 2005: 305) (Fig. 3), the right half with the relief with Silenus’ rest (Fig. 4). No doubts had been raised about their antique origin, although similar representations on 21 Di Benedetto 2004: Eur., Bacch. 55-61: ἀλλ῏, ὦ λιποῦσαι Τμῶλον, ἔρυμα Λυδίας, θίασος ἐκόμισα παρέδρους καὶ ξυωεμπόρους ἐμοί, αἴρεσθε πἀπιχώρι᾽ ἐν Φρυγῶν πόλει τύπανα, Ῥεας τε μητρὸς ἐμά θ᾽εὑρήματα, Βασίλειά τ᾽ἀμφὶ δώματ᾽ἐλθοῦσαι τάδε κτυπεῖτε Πενθέως, ὡς ὁρᾶι Κάδμου πόλις (Therefore, having left the Tmolos, bulwark of Lydia, you are my thiasos, you women who from barbarian populations I have brought with me, my companions in peace and travel, raise the typical hand drums of the land of the Phrygians high, one of mine invention and of the mother Rhea. Having come here, around the house of the sovereign, the abode of Pentheus, now make noise so that the city of Cadmus will notice you). 357 Giulia Moretti Cursi Roman sarcophagi were not attested either as regards the decorative or dimensional arrangements. Robert (1916: 306–316) concluded that it was a pastiche. On the basis of his knowledge of the Dionysian sarcophagi, he had no difficulty with point out comparable counterparts for each of the figures on the Cardelli reliefs, which had been almost ignored by scholars. Robert believed he could extrapolate eight different fragments of six different sarcophagi from the reliefs, using a purely archaeological method of investigation. He did not use artistic cognitive methods, which are often employed in archaeological studies. As early as a year after the publication of his work, Sieveking tried to formulate the hypothesis that both reliefs originally formed a single complex. Although he never studied the genesis of these pieces directly during the Renaissance and in the modern age, he decided to attribute them to a late ancient era, in particular to the Constantinian age. According to Sieveking, they represented the visit of Dionysus to Icarius and the subsequent donation by the god of the vine. Amelung (Matz 1968: 502–505) re-proposed the problem, offering new solutions to the interpretation of the restorations and expressing an aesthetic justification according to which “the reliefs are particularly ugly”. It is difficult to solve the iconographic problem. On the basis of the plasticity and the drapery of the figures, the style of execution would seem to approach the Antonine period. Further information on the restoration technique followed in the execution of these works can be found in chapter XIX of book II of his work: Dissi che la figura principale dee avere il più degno luogo, che è al mezzo, o alla man dritta dell’opera, e dee essere di abito, di proporzione, di atto superiore a tutte le figure esistenti. Che l’azioni, le quali elli opera, devono tutte attentamente osservare, fuggendo tutte le cose le quali possono far diversione, o divisione di azione. Mi rimetto nei restanti esempi nominati e alle altre cose dette. La prima operazione dunque è sopra tavola ben piana collocare il modello, e riguardarlo con ogni squisitezza possibile, intendendo colcato e non dritto, e chi vi segnasse una crose in mezzo dell’altezza e larghezza, per più avvantaggio, non farebbe male. Fatto questo, nelle parti di sopra e di sotto, bisogna porre due regoletti, tanto alti quanto è alto il maggiore rilievo delle figure, ed un altro nel fianco sinistro a riguardarlo, fermati con cera, o altro modo, in squadra perfetta e che siano pari, a segno che non alzino uno più dell’altro in alcun cotto; e chi vi ponesse il quarto regolo, onde il modello stesso come dentro un botaro riguardato, sarebbe anco meglio. Questo telaro così riguardato conviensi col compasso partirlo in otto, o dieci parti di sotto e di sopra, con numeri 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ecc. e così li fianchi con numeri corresposti, cioè che l’uno di sopra 358 The Dionysian Ancient Reliefs of the Cardelli Collection… sta adeliritto con l’uno di sotto, e così gli altri va discorrendo. Questi numeri infilati sono fatti a fine di porre le squadre sopra -sempre- alle parti ed a che siti si vogliono, per pigliare distanze e profondità giuste. In somma, il modello così aggiustato è come un quadro graticolato per ben copiarlo, come usano li pittori negli originali di valore. Gli estremi della superficie del marmo si spianano e si riguardano perfettamente e si spartono in tanti pezi, con i sui numeri corrispondenti, come il modello. Poi con le scalette stabilite, segnando prima tutta la macchina delle figure, si può nel nome dell’Altissimo cominciare, avvertendo, come ho detto altrove, di lasciar la pietra sopra squadra e però osservare che il modello dà le misure sue dal di fuori di esso, perché in lui il telaro è parte dell’opera, e nel modello è di vantaggio. Il punto che dalla croce nel mezzo serve per riconoscere l’in qua e l’in là della figura, ed è di tanto valore, che con li due regoli soli nelle testate, senza li due dei fianchi può portar l’opera, atteso che egli può dare le distanze, e li regoli le calate. È ancora da avvertire, che si devono prima lavorare e finire le figure poste a man dritta dell’opera, che le altre; la ragione è che lavorando le altre si potrebbe restarvi ferri, ed averne disgusto, e così prima finir le superiori ed alte, che le inferiori e basse, per l’istesso rispetto.22 The first part of this excerpt comprises some tips for the realization of reliefs after the antique. According to Boselli, one of the chief indications to follow is to emphasize the main figure of the relief by placing it in the center of the composition or, alternatively, on the right, while giving weight to his gestures and actions. In the second part of the text, some indications are illustrated for a correct management of the proportions and arrangement of the characters based on their role in the plot and development of the scene represented. In this sense, in fact, even the proportions to be used are essential because they not only establish a hierarchy between the characters but also guide the viewer’s judgment by placing a lesser or greater emphasis on the importance of the figures. Unfortunately, there are no other archival indications that allow us to establish precisely the extent and quality of the restoration carried out by Boselli on the reliefs placed in proximity of the Palazzo Cardelli doorway. An important fact to be reckoned with is the anomaly (detected also by Ebert Schifferer in one of his important studies on the restoration of these reliefs [Ebert Schifferer 2005: 303–311]), according to which the date of the account paid to Orfeo Boselli would be after the death of Carlo Cardelli (1626–1662) and would, therefore, coincide with the date that refers to the accounts paid to creditors by Monsignor Francesco Falconieri, the guardian of his son Asdrubale Juniore. One may 22 Firenze, Biblioteca Nazionale Centrale, Codice Palatino 833, O. BOSELLI, Osservazioni della scultura antica d’Orfeo Boselli Romano, Libro II, Cap. XIX. 359 Giulia Moretti Cursi wonder if it was not a transcription error in the compilation phase of the ledger. According to the suggestion of Ebert Schifferer, it is presumable that the date of 24 April 1663 reported in the ledger is to be considered23 a terminus ante quem of the works carried out by the sculptor on the bas-reliefs, which must have already been completed by 7 October 1654 under Carlo Cardelli. ConClusions Based on the considerations made so far, it would be a stretch to see the Dionysian reliefs as the result of a homogeneous and organically conceived decorative program aimed at glorifying such themes as intoxication and the enjoyment of the pleasures of life. However, it is possible to track down some common points of iconographic reference suggested by Count Carlo Cardelli himself, who around the time of the restoration by O. Boselli, alluded to certain preferences in style and iconography in the agreement clauses with the sculptor Nicola Menghini.24 Even though it is not, therefore, a collection of antiques of international resonance, it is evident that even in this case, it is possible to go back far beyond the material aspect of the individual pieces and in an eternal succession of events and characters, see one of the most deeply rooted needs of humanity: to leave a lasting trace of itself through its best image. Abbreviations AC Archivio Cardelli ASC Archivio Storico Capitolino Div. Divisione f./ff. Foglio/fogli Fasc. Fascicolo Misc. Miscellanea T. Tomo 23 Ivi 24 ASC, AC, Div. I, FC, T. 6, fasc. 13, f. 453r.: “In oltre le dette statue debbano rappresentare ó qualche deità ó Virtù ó Vergini ó Imperatrici ó sia elettione vostra cioè ad elettione di detto Sig. Carlo” (Ebert Schifferer 2005: 310–311). 360 The Dionysian Ancient Reliefs of the Cardelli Collection… Bibliography Agucchi G.B. 1947. Trattato (1607–1615). In: D. Mahon. Studies in Seicento Art and Theory. London: Warburg Institute. Bellori G.P. 1976. Le Vite dé Pittori, Scultori e Architetti moderni. Torino: Einaudi. Millenni. Bialostocki J. 1977. Y eut-il une théorie baroque de l’art? In: J. Sláski (ed.). Barocco fra Italia e Polonia. Warszawa: [Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe], 29–56. Bianchi U., Vermaseren M. J. 1982. The Soteriology of the Oriental Cults in the Roman Empire. Leiden: [s.n.]. Buccino L. 2013. Dioniso trionfatore. Percorsi e interpretazione del mito del trionfo indiano nelle fonti e nell’iconografia antiche. Roma: Erma di Bretschneider. Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Comunale di Roma, Supplementi, 21. Cagiano De Azevedo M. 1948. Il gusto nel restauro delle opere d’arte antiche. Roma: Roma Olympus. Cugnoni I. 1883. Aeneae Silvii Piccolomini Senensis. In: Atti Acc. Lincei, [Memorie 8]. Roma: Coi tipi del Salvatore. Daltrop G. 1989. Antikesammlungen und Mäzenatum um 1600 in Rom. In: H. Beck, S. Schulze. Antikenrezeption im Hochbarock. Berlin: 1989, 37–58. Di Benedetto V. (ed.) 2004, Euripide. Le Baccanti, Milano: Rizzoli. Ebert Schifferer S. 2005. Romanitas als Pasticcio. Bauschmuck in einem römischen Treppenhaus des Barock. In: M. Gaier, B. Nicolai, T. Weddigen (a cura di). Der unbestechliche Blick. Festschrift zu Ehren von Wolfgang Wolters zu seinem siebzigsten Geburtstag. Trier: Porta Alba Verlag, 303–311. Faldi I. 1992. Il mito della classicità e il restauro delle sculture antiche nel XVII secolo a Roma. In : A. Giuliano (a cura di). La collezione Ludovisi Boncompagni. Venezia: Marsilio, 207–225. Félibien A. 1725 [Nouvelle édition]. Entretiens sur les vies et sur les ouvrages des plus excellents peintres anciens et modernes avec la vie des architectes. Treyoux: [s.n.]. Ferrari O., Papaldo S. 1999. Le sculture del Seicento a Roma. Roma: Bozzi. Fortunati M.C. 2000. Il trattato Osservazioni della Scoltura antica di Orfeo Boselli (1657–1661). Storia dell’Arte, 100, 69–101. Frommel C.L. 1985. Scale maggiori dei palazzi romani nel Rinascimento. In: L’Escalier dans l’architecture de la Renaissance: actes du colloque tenu à Tours du 22 au 26 mai 1979. Paris: Picard, pp. 135–144. De architectura (Paris), 2. Gigli Piccardi D. 2003. Nonno di Panopoli. Le Dionisiache. Milano: Rizzoli. Guerrini L. 1982. Palazzo Mattei di Giove, Le Antichità. Roma: L’Erma” di Bretschneider. Heydemann H. 1880. Satyr- und Bakchennamen. Halle: Niemeyer. Howard S. 1982. Bartolomeo Cavaceppi, Eighteenth-Century Restorer. New York–London: Garland Pub. Outstanding dissertations in the fine arts. 361 Giulia Moretti Cursi Huskinson J. 1996. Roman Children Sarcophagi: Their Decoration and Its Social Significance. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Kleiner D.E.E. 1977. Roman Group Portraiture: The Funerary Reliefs of the Late Republic and Early Empire. New York: Garland Pub. Lanciani R. 1885. Notizie degli scavi di Antichità, [14]. Roma: Accademia nazionale dei Lincei. Lehmann-Hartleben K., Olsen E.C. 1942. Dionysiac Sarcophagi in Baltimore. New York–Baltimore: Institute of Fine Arts, New York University–Trustees of the Walters Art Gallery. Letarouilly P.M. 1849-1866. Édifices de Rome moderne ou Recueil des palais, maisons, églises, couvents et autres monuments publics et particuliers les plus remarquables de la Ville de Rome, 4, I, Liège: Avanzo. Matz F., Duhn F. von 1881–1882. Antike Bildwerke in Rom: Mit Ausschluss der grösseren Sammlungen, Bd. 3. Leipzig: Verl. von Breitkopf & Härtel. Matz F. 1968–1975. Antike Sarkophagreliefs. Die dyonisischen Sarkophage, Bd. 1–2. Berlin: [s.n.]. Mori E. 1997. Rerum romanarum fragmenta. Viaggio tra le carte di una famiglia romana. L’Archivio Cardelli (1473–1877). Roma: Argos. Musso L. 1990. Le antichità Colonna nei secoli XV-XVI, In: F. Carinci, H. Keutner, L. Musso, M. G. Picozzi (a cura di). Galleria Colonna in Roma. Sculture. Roma-Busto Arsizio, 13-18. Panofsky Soergel G. 1967. Zur Geschichte des Palazzo Mattei di Giove. Römisches Jahrbuch für Kunstgeschichte, 11, 111–190. Picozzi M.G. 1998. Aspetti del collezionismo romano di antichità nel XVII secolo. In: C. Benocci (ed.). Le virtù e i piaceri in villa. Per il nuovo museo comunale della Villa Doria Pamphilj. Milano: Electa, 56–68. Picozzi M.G. 2003. Orfeo Boselli and the interpretation of the Antique. Acta Hyperborea, 10, 89–122. Scano G. 1961. Un importante acquisto dell’Archivio Capitolino: l’Archivio Cardelli. Capitolium, 36, 18–23. Scaglia G. 1992. Il Frontespizio di Nerone, la Casa Colonna e la scala di età romana antica in un disegno del Metropolitan Museum of Art di New York. Bollettino d’Arte, 72, 35–62. Sparti D. 1998. Tecnica e teoria del restauro scultoreo a Roma nel Seicento, con una verifica sulla collezione di Flavio Chigi. Storia dell’arte, 92, 60–131. Turcan R. 1966. Les Sarcophages Romains à Representations Dionysiaques. Essai de Chronologie et d’Histoire religieuse. Paris: De Boccard. Waddy P. 1990. Seventeenth Century Roman Palaces. Use and the Art of the Plan. Cambridge–New York: MIT Press–Architectural History Foundation. Zanker P., [Adornato G., Ewald B.Ch.] 2008. Vivere con i miti: l’iconografia dei sarcofagi romani. Torino: Bollati Boringhieri. Nuova cultura, 177. 362 The Dionysian Ancient Reliefs of the Cardelli Collection… List of illustrations Fig. 1. Roma, Palazzo Cardelli, Ground floor, Relief with childhood of Dionysos. Fig. 2. Roma, Palazzo Cardelli, first floor, Dionysian relief with Thiasos. Fig. 3. Roma. Palazzo Cardelli, second floor, relief with rest of Dionysos. Fig. 4. Roma, Palazzo Cardelli, second floor, relief with Silenus resting. Giulia Moretti Cursi Fig. 1 364 The Dionysian Ancient Reliefs of the Cardelli Collection… Fig. 2 365 Giulia Moretti Cursi Fig. 3 Fig. 4 366 Part V VAriA https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.17 Luca Salvatelli (Università degli Studi della Tuscia, Viterbo) “Anno Ab inCArnAtione domini nostri mlxVi” A note about halley’s Comet in viterbo’s Archbishop Library Collection Abstract Outlined Viterbo’s archbishop library’s multifaceted book collection, the aim of this paper is representing an unknown volume now located in the CeDiDo Library – a very valuable item from a historical and cultural point of view. This item provides a preliminary clue to the scientific studies in the medieval papal court developed later in thirteenth century. As matter of fact, the Liber Canonicorum’s explicit has been enriched by a detailed astronomical description about the passage of the 1066 Halley’s comet. Therefore, the focus of this paper will be on the codicological and philological manuscript’s properties and peculiarities, comparing them with Viterbo’s historical sources and other contemporary textual and iconographic ones about the comet, useful for a correct classification, dating, and inclusion in the Studium Viterbiensis’ research on speculative framework and intellectual production. Keywords: Halley’s Comet, manuscripts, Viterbo, CeDiDo Libray The Viterbo Cathedral’s collection of books, conserved since 2004 in the Diocesan Documentation Center (CeDiDo) Library, housed in the vaulted spaces of the medieval Papal Palace,1 preserves in its catalog dozens and dozens of 1 About the papal architectural palace and its edification see Toesca (1904: 510–513); Signorelli (1962); Radke (1996). 369 Luca Salvatelli volumes.2 These include manuscripts, incunabula, sixteenth-century books, several pieces of extreme value, extraordinary codices for Patrimonium Sancti Petri’s illumination history, such as, for example, Goffredo Tignosi’s Liber Pantheon (Mantovani 1962: 313–341. Torquati 2002: 3–15. Atzori 2006: 65–66), the Biblia Balneoregensis (Falcucci 2009: 32–37. Rapone 2012: 26–34. Maddalo et al. 2013), or a fragmentary Gradual series coming to St. Sisto archive, only recently recomposed (Salvatelli 2018: 7–11). Volumes which together with the two “gradensi” Bibles now preserved, respectively, in Ardenti Library (ms II.A.VI. 5)3 (Egidi 1934: 11–13. Salmon 1979: 20. Palma 1983: 124, 130) and in Vatican Library (ms Ott.lat. 532) (Salvatelli 2020b), as well as Cardinal Gonsalvo Gudiel’s Aristotelian manuscripts,4 reveal the centrality of the multiformal cultural and artistic vivacity of the city between the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. But in the bookcases of the Cathedral’s Library, other manuscripts, although more austere, deserve a special attention and analysis, because of they are custodians of hidden surprises. “No one is so completely slow and dull and stooping to the earth that he is not aroused by celestial phenomena but rises erect with his whole mind, especially when some new marvel flashes in the sky”. 5 In that way Lucius Anneus Seneca (4 BC–65 AD) opens the seventh book of his Naturales Quaestiones (VII, 1–3). Among the different celestial phenomena the passage of a comet, a graceful and majestic creature of the firmament, has been always considered a moment of maximum attention, and its observation inspired omens and horoscopes of all sorts. Among the different comets, Halley’s comet, which sails the starry vault above the Earth, returning cyclically every 76 years, has quite an exceptional renown. How not to remind us its mention in Giovanni Pascoli’s Alla Cometa di Halley (vv. 1–3): “Stray star, scattered star, / that maybe you are looking for, in your crazy way, / the door to escape from the universe!”,6 or its passage in 2 3 4 5 6 For the library and archive of Viterbo Cathedral: Dorez (1892, 1895), Egidi (1906: 7–382; 1907: 83–103); Scaccia Scarafoni (1940: 182–186); Osbat (2004). As a result of its restoration and digitalization it has been devoted a monographic volume in: Biblioteca e società, 17.4 (2007). The bibliography and the historical debate on this topic is very wide see especially Paravicini Bagliani (1991: 166–169, 226–229); and lastly Salvatelli (2015: 65–75). “Nemo usque eo tardus et hebes et demissus in terram est ut ad divina non erigatur ac tota mente consurgat, utique ubi novum aliquod e caelo miraculum fulsit”, Corcoran (1972: 227). “[…] Stella randagia, astro disperso, / che forse cerchi, nel tuo folle andare, / la porta onde fuggir dall’universo”, Pascoli (1910: 1). See also Pascoli (1912); Pascoli (1913). 370 “Anno ab incarnatione Domini Nostri MLXVI”… 12 BC, reported in the Scriptures to emphasize the birth of the Our Redeemer in Bethlehem, a moment masterfully immortalized, for example, in Magi’s Adoration episode by Giotto’s Padua Scrovegni Chapel (Olson, Pasachoff 1988: 1–11), where it refers, once again, to another passage, more recently, the XXI, in the fourteenth century (1301). An event remembered by Giovanni Villani (1280– 1348) in the Nuova cronica (I, 48) too, or in Dante’s Convivio (II, 13, 21–22), and also by a trace in Commedia (Par., XXVI, vv. 10–12): “[…] So Beatrice and those souls happy / Transformed spheres above fixed poles, / Flaming times, in the guise of comets […].”7 Examining the historical records, notes, and descriptions of its incessant wandering, a testimony, discovered for the first time in 1910, the year of its penultimate sighting (the XXIX passage), but unfortunately returning to oblivion again (Addeo 1910: 1–15) until today, is kept inside a modest manuscript (Viterbo, CeDiDo, ms. 36) in St. Lorenzo Cathedral (Fig. 1). “In the year of our Lord 1066, the ninth of April appeared haired star […],”8 in that way begins the note in the above-mentioned manuscript, passage readable as a final glossa, placed above the end of the Liber Regulae Canonicorum Explicit. It is a brief note composed of only six lines of writing, hidden between the pages of a theological codex, consisting of two different parts, written by two different hands, the first concerning Instructiones patrum ad clericos regulares (ff. 1r–95v) (Fig. 2), and the second St. Gregori Magni Homeliae super Ezechielem (96r–133v), respectively, merged and bound together in a single volume in the fourteenth century. A first analysis of the handwriting, the decorative apparatus and the miseen-page, show us immediately how the text, related to the astronomical episode, is coherent and homogeneous with De Ordine canonicorum’s editorial project (Fig. 3), a theological text approved by the Council of Aachen (1063). So it is referable and datable to the end of eleventh and the beginning of twelfth centuries, as testified by the writing typology as well.9 Therefore, the astronomical text could have been copied. by an unknown scriptor from an earlier antigraph (postquem 1063 – antequem 1066) but now missing. The model is distinguished 7 8 9 “[…] Così Beatrice; e quelle anime liete / si fero spere sopra fissi poli, / fiammando, volte, a guisa di comete […]”. «[…] Anno ab incarnatione Domini Nostri MLXVI nonus aprilis apparuit stella cometas […]», Viterbo, CeDiDo, ms. 36, f. 95v. From a paleographic point of view it is a writing in transition between the uncial one and the littera texstualis rotunda. 371 Luca Salvatelli by an epigraphical space between the last Regula’s writing line and its Explicit, white space where ex abrupto the detailed passage about the comet in 1066 had been set by an amanuensis, who signed himself by the name Amminuno, a probable eyewitness to the event. The fact that the text, now readable by us, is the result of a copy and not the original archetype, is also suggested by a later transcription error. As a matter of fact the Roman numeral in the third line of writing has to be understood, and read as XII, instead XV, solving in that way the dating error inside the autoptical note (Fig. 4). In another way, with the help of a lectior difficilior, the aporia would be solved by only reading nonus aprilis, the starting date for the aforementioned celestial phenomenon as a misunderstanding for the Latin correct form of nonae aprilis, corresponding to 5 April in the Gregorian calendar. According to the description, the comet would appear for the first time on 9 April in the East (Nonis aprilis), stopping in the sky for 12 days, and be replaced by 21 April (usque ad XIII Calende maj), to appear, a second time, in the West on 24 April (VIII Calenda maj), during the evening, obscuring the Moon with its light, and flaming in the sky until 1 June (Calendae iuni). The astronomical description for language properties and scientific accuracy about the appearance fit perfectly with the Chinese testimonies about the same sighting. The phenomenon is comparable with the observations recorded by Byzantine annalist Joannes Zonaras (1074 – after 1145) (Fink 1970: 678–680). Here, the author affirms that the star was visible for 40 days until June. A similar comparison could be established with Chinese annals as reported by Antonie Guabil (1689– 1759) in L’Histoire de l’astronomie Chinoise, where it is stated that the comet had been seen until 7 June. This fact makes plausible the conflicting Western sources about the same event collected by Alexandre Guy Pingré (1711–1796) in The Cometographie ou Traité Historique et des Theorique Cometes (Guabil 1729–1732; Pingré 1783: 376; Yoke 1962: 127–135). Not only has the phenomenon been recorded here as visible for a day, or a few days, or even for a week, but for fourteen days, or more generally for a longer time. Therefore, Viterbo’s note appears today as the earliest and most precise Western sighting of the XVII passage of the Halley’s comet, variously and roughly fixed until recently during the Holy Week, or on Easter Sunday (16 April), according to Mattheus Parisiensis’ (1200–1259) Chronica Majora (Luard 1872–1873) or Romualdo Salernitano’s (1110–1181) Chronicon (Muratori 1775; Arndt 1865: 387–461). In Viterbo’s observation, it is also important to note the total absence of any mystical or prophetic interpretation, linked to mirabilia, or divine manifesta372 “Anno ab incarnatione Domini Nostri MLXVI”… tions, elements that always appear inseparably in such chronicles, concealing the awe that a comet aroused as well as the fear deriving from its identification with an evil entity, mainly because of its unpredictability. It has been described as a celestial phenomenon, disruptor of the elements, of the rotating uniform spheres, guarantee of stability and order, subvert or of the imperceptible Aristotelian crystalline drawing of the universe, of its logical rules, as cited, for example, in Melancholy I (1513–1514) by Albrecht Dürer (1471–1528). Neither it is connected here with any references to tragic events but rather with those remembered, for example, in the Anglo Saxon Chronicles (Giles, Ingram (eds.) 1912; Härke 2012: 34–43), where the “bearded star” is seen to be related on one side with King Edward’s death, and on the other with the British Isles’ Norman conquest, shown in a very meaningful way in the Bayeux tapestry (Bayeux, Bayeux Tapestry Museum). Here the star, pointed out by the people and identified by the caption Isti mirantur stella, appears above the traitor Harold II’s throne, a divine sign for his sins and those of his people (Fig. 5). The picture reminds us of a similar description of Merlin in King Uter’s death in Geoffrey of Monmouth’s (1100–1155) Chronicle, where once again the comet is seen as a deadly angel (Hammer 1951: 149–151). Returning the focus on Viterbo, according to different chronicles, the ms. 36 is not the only mention about the Halley’s comet and its connection with the city and its history. Retracing a brief diachronic excursus, it could be verified for the XII passage, where the star in Paul the Deacon’s Historia (720–799) turns out to be a warning for the Longobardian conquest of Tuscia (Bethmann, Waitz 1878: IV, cap. 2), or once again in 704, where it has been recalled that “It rained blood and milk and a great comet was seen […],”10 a description that seems to follow literally and visually the episode later depicted in the Chronicles of Lucerne (1513) by Diebold Schilling the Younger (1460–1515). Even Urban IV’s (1261–1264) death, founder of the Studium viterbiensis and Novello Socrates, in 1264, according to the mathematician Campano Novara (Paravicini Bagliani 1973: 3–22; 1983: 773–789; 1984: 99–111), results from a similar celestial event: a comet paused in the sky for three months, disappearing on 2 October, the day of the departure of Jacques Pantaléon (Zuliani 1846: 45). In February 1472, finally, Niccolò della Tuccia (1400–1473), reporting his autobiographical sighting of a commata star, did not insert in his correspondence any amazing event (Della Tuccia 1872: 102): it was the XXIII passage of the Halley’s comet. 10 “[…] Piovve sangue e latte e poi si vidde una gran cometa […]” (Benincasa 1720: 206). 373 Luca Salvatelli In conclusion, Amminuno’s astronomical description could be considered as a first and early clue of exact scientific attention and studies in an urban centre, such as Viterbo, emerging between the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Signorelli 1907; Pinzi 1887–1913; Pagani 2002), particularly in the political context of Patrimonium Sancti Petri, which existed as a delicate balance between papacy and emperor. The cultural aspect of it would become important later, in the second half of the thirteenth century, especially predominant as it has been recently demonstrated by the essential role played by Viterbo’s papal court in European scientific culture through the optical demonstration primarly and as part of related manuscript production (Salvatelli 2016: 413–434; 2020a). Bibliography Archival Sources Viterbo, Diocesan Documentation Center (CeDiDo), ms. 36. Primary Published Sources Arndt W. (ed.) 1866. Romoaldi II archiepiscopi Salernitani Annales. In: Monumenta Germaniae Historica, SS 19, Hannover. Benincasa Cosentino R. 1720. Almanacco perpetuo. Bassano: G.A. Remondini. Bethmann L., Waitz G. (ed.) 1878. Pauli Diaconi, Historia Longobardorum. Monumenta Germaniae historica. Scriptores rerum langobardicarum et italicarum: saec. VI–IX. Hannoverae: Impensis bibliopolii Hahniani. Della Tuccia N. 1872. Cronache di Viterbo e di altre città. In: I. Ciampi (a cura di). Cronache e statuti della città di Viterbo. Viterbo: Firenze. Documenti di storia italiana, 5. Giles J.A., Ingram J. (eds.) 1912. Anglo Saxon Chronicle. Everyman’s library. History, 624. London–New York: J.M. Dent & Sons–E.P. Dutton & Company. Guabil A. 1729–1732. Histoire de l’astronomie chinoise, 1–3. In: E. Souciet (ed.). Observations mathématiques, astronomiques, géographiques, chronologiques et physiques, tirées des anciens livres chinois ou faites nouvellement aux Indes, à la Chine et ailleurs, par les Pères de la compagnie de Jésus. Paris: Rollin. Hammer J. 1951. Geoffrey of Monmouth, Historia regum Britanniae: A Variant Version Edited from Manuscripts. Cambridge: The Academy. Jacobs A. 1970. Zōnarâs-Zonara. Die byzantinische Geschichte bei Joannes Zonaras in slavischer Übersetzung. Slavische Propyläen, 98. München: W. FinkVerlag. Luard H.R. (ed.) 1872–1873. Mattheus Parisiens, Chronica Majora. In: Rerum Britannicarum Medii Aevi Scriptores, 57(1–7). London: Longman & Company. 374 “Anno ab incarnatione Domini Nostri MLXVI”… Muratori L. A. 1775. Antiquitaes Italicae Medii Aevi, 7. Arretii: [Michaelis Bellotti]. Pascoli G. 1910. Ode alla cometa di Halley. In: Il Marzocco, 9 gennaio, 1. Firenze: Vallecchi. Pascoli G. 1912. Poesie varie. Raccolte da Maria. Milano. Pascoli G. 1913. Odi e Inni. 3th ed. Bologna: Nicola Zanichelli. Pingré A.G. 1783. Cometographie ou Traité Historique et Théorique des Comeétes, 1. Paris: De L’Imprimerie Royale. Séneca L.A. 1972. Natural Questions, vol.2, books 4–7, Th. H. Corcoran (tr.). Loeb Classical Library, 457. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Secondary Sources Addeo P.F.A. 1910. La cometa di Halley dell’anno 1066. In un Documento dell’Archivio della Cattedrale di Viterbo. Viterbo: Tipografia Agnesotti. Atzori E. 2006. Il Pantheon di Goffredo da Viterbo, In: Fior di libro. Mostra di libri, carte e documenti dalle collezioni della Biblioteca Capitolare di Viterbo. Viterbo, pp. 65–66. Dorez L. 1892. Latino Latini et la Bibliothèque capitulaire de Viterbe. In: Extrait de la Revue des Bibliothèques, 2. Paris–Rennes: É. Bouillon–impr. Alph. Le Roy. Dorez L. 1895. Manuscrits de la bibliothèque Capitulaire de Viterbe. In: Extrait de la Revue des Bibliothèques, 5. Rennes: Impr. Alph. Le Roy. Egidi P. 1906–1907. L’archivio della cattedrale di Viterbo. Roma: Forzani E C. Tipografi Del Senato Bollettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano, no. 27, 29. Egidi V.M. 1934. Un prezioso cimelio della biblioteca comunale di Viterbo. La Bibbia cosidetta di S. Tommaso. Bollettino Municipale del Comune di Viterbo, 7, 11–13. Falcucci C. 2009. La diagnostica artistica tra scienza e storia. Informazione, 21, 32–37. Garrison E.B. 1979. Random Notes on Early Italian Manuscripts. La bibliofilía, 81(2), 109–125. Härke H. 2012. Astronomical and Atmospheric Observations in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and in Bede, The Antiquarian Astronomer, 6, 34–43. Mantovani D. 1962. Goffredo da Viterbo e il ‘Pantheon’ della Biblioteca capitolare. Miscellanea di studi viterbesi, 313–341. Maddalo S., Sansone S., Zuppante A. (eds.) 2013. La bibbia di San Bonaventura. Atti delle XVII Giornate di Studio per la Storia della Tuscia, Orte, 11 dicembre 2010. Orte: Centro Studi Tuscia. Osbat L. 2004. Il Centro diocesano di documentazione per la storia e la cultura religiosa a Viterbo.Quaderni del Centro, 1. Viterbo: Cooperativa Fani Servizi. Olson R.J.M., Pasachoff J.M. 1988. New Information on Comet P/Halley as Depicted by Giotto di Bondone and Other Western Artists. In: M. Grewing, F. Praderie, R. Reinhard (eds.), Exploration of Halley’s Comet. Berlin: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-82971-0_1. 375 Luca Salvatelli Pagani A. 2002. Viterbo nei secoli XI–XII. Spazio urbano e aristocrazia cittadina. Roma: Vecchiarelli. Palma M. 1983. Modifiche di alcuni aspetti materiali della produzione libraria latina nei secoli XII–XIII. Scrittura e società, 12, 119–134. Paravicini Bagliani A. 1973. Un matematico alla corte papale del secolo XIII, Campano Novara. Rivista di storia della Chiesa in Italia, 27, 3–22. Paravicini Bagliani A. 1983. Medicina e Scienza della natura alla corte dei Bonifacio VIII: uomini e libri. In: A.M. Romanini. Roma anno 1300, Atti della IV settimana di studi di storia dell’Arte medievale dell’Università La Sapienza (Roma, 19–24 maggio 1980). Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 773–789. Paravicini Bagliani A. 1984. Campano da Novara e il mondo scientifico romano duecentesco. Novarien, 14, 99–111. Paravicini Bagliani A. 1991. Medicina e scienze alla corte dei papi del Duecento. Spoleto: Centro italiano di Studi sull’Alto Medio Evo. Pinzi C. 1887–1913. Storia della città di Viterbo, vol. 1–4. Roma–Viterbo: Tipografia Della Camera Dei Deputati–Tipografia Sociale Agnesotti & C. Radke M.G. 1996. Profile of a Thirteenth-Century Papal Palace. New York: Syracuse University. Rapone C. 2012. Un tesoro duecentesco a Bagnoregio. La cosiddetta Bibbia di san Bonaventura. Rivista di Storia della Miniatura, 16, 26–34. Salmon P.1972. Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane, 4. [Vatican]: Città del Vaticano. Salvatelli L. 2015. Suggestioni da una libraria cardinalizia di fine Duecento. I codici miniati scientifico filosofici di Gonsalvo Gudiel. In: E. Anzellotti et al., Memoria e materia, proposte e riflessioni. Atti della giornata di studi a cura del Dottorato di ricerca dell’Università degli Studi della Tuscia in Memoria e materia dell’opera d’arte (11 aprile 2013), Roma, 65–75. Salvatelli L. 2016. La scienza in figura tra Roma e Avignone. In: S. Maddalo, E. Ponzi (eds.), Il libro miniato a Roma nel Duecento. Roma, 435–460. Salvatelli L. 2018. Sopra i frammenti degli Antifonari del museo del Colle del Duomo di Viterbo. Biblioteca e società, 6, 7–11. Salvatelli L. 2020a. La scienza a Roma, Viterbo e Avignone. Studi sulla corte papale tra XIII e XIV secolo. Viterbo: Archeoares Edizioni. Salvatelli L. 2020b. Una Bibbia di Santa Maria in Gradi? Alcune riflessioni intorno all’Ottoboniano latino 532 della Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana. Biblioteca e società, 8, 18–21. Scaccia Scarafoni C. 1940. Gli incunaboli della Biblioteca capitolare di Viterbo. In: Accademie e Biblioteche d’Italia, 14(3). Roma: [Casa Editrice Fratelli Palombi], 182–186. Signorelli G. 1907. Viterbo nella storia della Chiesa, vol. 1. Viterbo: Tipografia Cionfi. Signorelli M. 1962. Il palazzo papale e la cattedrale di San Lorenzo. Viterbo: Agnesotti. Toesca P. 1904. Il Palazzo papale di Viterbo. L’Arte, 7, 510–513. 376 “Anno ab incarnatione Domini Nostri MLXVI”… Torquati M. 2002. Latino Latini e l’esemplare viterbese del Pantheon di Goffredo. Rivista storica del Lazio, 10, 16, 3–15. Yoke H.P. 1962. Ancient and Medieval Observations of Comets and Novae in Chinese Sources. Vistas in Astronomy, 5, 127–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/0083-6656 (62)90007-7. Zuliani G. 1846. Delle comete ed in particolare di quelle che attendesi nell’anno bisestile. Venezia: Naratovich. List of illustration Fig. 1, Viterbo, St. Lorenzo Cathedral, Ce.Di.Do Library, ms. 36. © Viterbo, St. Lorenzo Cathedral, Diocesan Documentation Center. Fig. 2, Viterbo, St. Lorenzo Cathedral, Ce.Di.Do Library, ms. 36, f. 1r. © Viterbo, St. Lorenzo Cathedral, Diocesan Documentation Center. Fig. 3, Viterbo, St. Lorenzo Cathedral, Ce.Di.Do Library, ms. 36, f. 95v. © Viterbo, St. Lorenzo Cathedral, Diocesan Documentation Center. Fig. 4, Viterbo, St. Lorenzo Cathedral, Ce.Di.Do Library, ms. 36, f. 95v (detail). © Viterbo, St. Lorenzo Cathedral, Diocesan Documentation Center. Fig. 5, Bayeux, Bayeux Museum, Bayeux Tapestry, post 1066 Harold II and Halley comet (detail). ©Personal photo archive of the author. Luca Salvatelli Fig. 1 378 “Anno ab incarnatione Domini Nostri MLXVI”… Fig. 2 379 Luca Salvatelli Fig. 3 380 “Anno ab incarnatione Domini Nostri MLXVI”… Fig. 4 Fig. 5 381 The Presence of the sobieski royal family in the Collection of the sovrintendenza capitolina ai Beni culturali di roma, in the roman Chronicles and in rome A historical Commentary https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.18 Francesca Ceci (Capitoline Museum, Rome) the sobieskis memories, Prints, Paintings, and letters in the Collections of the sovrintendenza capitolina di roma, in the roman Chronicles and in rome: A historical Commentary Abstract This article presents two marble epigraphs preserved in the Musei Capitolini, one that mentions King Jan III Sobieski, and the other dedicated to his wife, Maria Casimira, along with other iconographic and documentary material related to the Sobieskis in Rome in the Museo di Roma and the archival heritage of the Sovrintendenza Capitolina. Keywords: Sobieski, Rome, Sovrintendenza Capitolina, Archive The Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali of Rome preserves in Capitoline’s collections, in the Museo di Roma, and in the Capitoline Historical Archives an important documentation concerning the main members of the Sobieski family: Jan III and Maria Casimira, their son Alexander, and the granddaughter Maria Clementina (Ceci 2000a; 2000b). This material gives a good account of Papal Rome’s social and political climate in the aftermath of the Battle of Vienna at the Kahlenberg Hill (12 September 1683), when Jan III led the European coalition promoted by Innocent XI to victory, defeating the Ottoman army of Kara Mustafà Pasha. Jan III Sobieski was universally acclaimed for his resounding success and celebrated as the savior of Christian Europe (Cardini 2011). 385 Francesca Ceci Some years after the death of Jan III, which occurred in Warsaw 17 June 1696, on 2 October 1698 part of the royal family moved to Rome for reasons of political opportunity following the widowed queen Maria Casimira,1 who arrived in the city with her court on 23 March 1699, having visited the main Italian cities where she was welcomed with all honours by the most prominent representatives of the local nobility (Bassani 1700). Officially, the queen’s travel was dictated by her desire to be in Rome for the Jubilee of 1700, called by Innocent XII and closed by Clement XI. After about 15 years spent in Rome, on 16 June 1714 the Queen left the city to move to the castle of Blois in France where she died on 30 January 1716. Nevertheless, the presence of the Sobieski family in Rome continued, and the memories of them have been preserved until today, in museums and churches (Angelini 1883; Polonia 1975: 179–215; Biliński 1986: 131–166; Sobieski a Roma 2018). The main sites are: the funeral monument of Prince Alexander in the church of the Capuchins Santa Maria Immacolata in via Veneto; Cardinal Marquis Henry de La Grange d’Arquien’s, father of Maria Casimira, funeral monument in San Luigi dei Francesi church; the ones made for Maria Clementina in the church of Santi Apostoli, where her heart is kept, and in St. Peter’s Basilica where her sarcophag is placed along the spiral staircase, as well as the elegant funeral monument. An epigraph in Santa Cecilia in Trastevere monastery recalls the place of prayer of Maria Clementina; finally, her plaster-cast bust flanked by a commemorative inscription has been preserved in the current Ursuline convent on the Via Nomentana. On the side of Palazzetto Zuccari at the crossroads of via Gregoriana and via Sistina, the Roman residence of the widowed queen Maria Casimira, there is a semicircular portico with the coat of arms of Sobieski-de La Grange d’Arquien. In Santa Maria degli Angeli e dei Martiri basilica, along the pavement of the “Meridiana (Sundial) Clementina”, Maria Casimira obtained the placing of two engraved bronze plaques in memory of the Battle of Vienna affixed nineteen years after the battle in 1702. In the Gallery of Palazzo Barberini four medallions en grisaille have been identified with the corresponding medallions depicted in print relating to the catafalque set up at San Stanislao church after Jan III’s death, absente corpore. 1 Nevers June 1641 – Blois, 30 January 1716. In some biographies of the Queen there are discrepancies especially in the date of birth, the age at death, and the number of children. Biography in: Kersten 1974; Skrzypietz 2020. See also Crescimbeni 1721 (1–9). 386 The Sobieskis… Linked to Vienna victory is the edification of the church dedicated to the Holy Name of Mary (Sacro Nome di Maria), a feast promoted by Innocent XI who extended the celebration to the entire Catholic Church to commemorate the mass celebrated in Vienna on Sunday, 12 September 1683, before the battle, by Frà Marco d’Aviano. The church preserves important original accounts of the victory that arrived in Rome in large numbers directly from the battlefield (Rola-Bruni 2018). In the buildings attached to the church of San Stanislao dei Polacchi there are two valuable oil paintings of Jan III and Maria Casimira. Finally, the Sobieski Room in the Vatican Museums houses a large painting by Jan Matejko (1838–1893) dedicated to the Battle of Vienna, offered to Pope Leo XIII on the occassion of the second centenary of the victory. the sobieskis in the CAPitoline museums In the aftermath of the Battle of Vienna, the victory’s resonance in Rome was certainly accompanied by a sigh of relief. Innocent XI, along with the civic and religious authorities, started a series of celebrations and the name of Sobieski had an enormous resonance (Osiecka-Samsonowicz 2014: 57–76; Boiteux 2018: 30–56). In the Musei Capitolini (Palazzo Nuovo and Palazzo dei Conservatori) there are two epigraphs: one mentions Jan III and the other is dedicated to Maria Casimira, with her portrait. 1. The Senate of Rome dedicated a marble epigraph to Innocent XI to commemorate the battle of Vienna and named, together with the Pope, the rulers who were the architects of the victory: Jan III, Leopold I the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, and Charles V of Lorraine. The epigraph was originally placed on the first level of the staircase leading to the Galleria di Palazzo Nuovo 2 (Inv. EM 147, 90x144 cm; Rossini 1693: 5; Nemeitz 1726: 201–202); in 1750, it had already been moved to the first niche after the staircase along the Gallery, where it still stands (Museo Capitolino 1750: 20; Guasco 1775: X, iscr. VI; Forcella 1869: 2 Gaddi (1736: 151–152) wrote: “Sappiasi che fu fatta questa iscrizione dal Senato Romano, e collocata ad eterna memoria nel Campidoglio invece del meritato onore della statua, che l’umilissimo Santo Pontefice costantemente ricusò”. 387 Francesca Ceci 67, n. 180, with the date “2° trimestre 1684”; Tofanelli 1819: 32, n. 10) (Fig. 1). Mercurio Errante (1741) confirms that the plaque was made to replace the statue the Senate wanted to erect and the Pope rejected (Rossini 1741: 15–16). Latin text: INNOCENTIO VNDECIMO PONTIFICI OPTIMO MAXIMO / QVOD IN VIENNA ROMANI IMPERII PRINCIPE VRBE / IRREQVIETA VIGILANTIA PRVDENTI CONSILIO INGENTI AVRO / PRECIBVS LACRYMISQVE DEI IMPLORATO AVXILIO /ANNO REPARATAE SALVTIS CIƆIƆCLXXXIII / AB IMMANISSIMA TVRCARVM OBSIDIONE VINDICATA / LABORANTI CATHOLICAE RELIGIONIS SECVRITATI PROVIDERIT / FOELICITER REGNANTE / LEOPOLDO PRIMO CAESARE AVGVSTO / CHRISTIANAS ACIES DVCENTE / IOANNE TERTIO POLONIAE REGE SEMPER INVICTO / FORTITERQVE PVGNANTE / CAROLO QVINTO DVCE LOTHAERINGO / S.P.Q.R. AETERNVM MEMOR P / COMEND CAROLVS ANTONIVS A PVTEO CÕS: MARCVS ANTONIVS DE GRASSIS CÕS / LAELIVS FALCONERIVS CONS: ISIDORVS CARDVCCIVS C R PRI (The senate and people of Rome erected this monument to Innocent XI, the greatest and best of Popes, who, by indefatigable vigilance, prudence, advices, large supplies, and fervent prayers for the divine assistance delivered Vienna the capital of the empire, vigorously besieged by the infidels in the year 1683; and thus saved the Catholic religion from imminent danger in the reign of Leopold I, the Christian army being commanded by the invincible Jan III, king of Poland and the valiantly fighting Charles V, duke of Loraine). The four family emblems of the magistrates appear low on the sides: dal Pozzo and Falconieri are on the left, Grassi and Carducci on the right (Forcella 1869: 553–552; De Dominicis 2009), which took office on 1 April 1684.3 2. The epigraph and portrait of Maria Casimira in the Palazzo dei Conservatori Welcomed in Rome by Innocent XII, Maria Casimira was always treated by the Pope and his successor Clement XI with great respect, benevolence, and paternal affection (Scano 1964: 451–455; Platania 1995: 11–48; Boccolini 2018: 90–100). In Rome, she was the object of every honour, both public and private, as the widow of the Defender of Christianity, Jan III; her actions, as well as those of her family, were carefully recorded and commented on by the chroniclers, among them Francesco Valesio, who in his Diario di Rome noted and reported the events relating to the Sobieskis (Valesio 1977–1979). 3 Archivio Storico Capitolino, Camera Capitolina, cred. I, t. 35c, 125 v. 388 The Sobieskis… On 2 December 1700, Maria Casimira officially visited the Capitolium, the seat of the city’s magistrates; the Pope and the Senate wanted to immortalize this visit with an epigraph, as it had been done a little less than fifty years earlier on the occasion of the visit of the former Queen Christina of Sweden, who became Catholic and moved to Rome. The epigraphs for the two queens were originally placed in the most important and splendid hall of the Palazzo dei Conservatori, the “Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi” (Keyßlers 1751: 242–243). Around the second half of the nineteenth century, they had been removed from the hall and after a series of transfers, were repositioned around 1939 in “Castellani” or “dei Magistrati” Room (Re 1926–1927: 160–167; Serafini 2020). Surmounted by a tondo with the bust of Maria Casimira, the large inscription with golden letters was engraved on an antique black slab surrounded by a pavonazzetto moulded frame4 (Figs. 2a–b). Latin text: MARIAE CASIMIRAE / POLONIARVM REGINAE MAGNAE DVCISSAE LITHVANIAE &C. / QVA EXCITANTE REGIVS CONIVX / IOANNES III / VIENNA OBSIDIONE SOLVTA SACRO FOEDERE ICTO / REM CHRISTIANAM RESTITVIT / QVOD VRBEM PIETATE DVCE / AD SAECVLARÈ IVBILAEI ANNVM VENERIT / AC TRIV(M)PHALÈ CAPITOLIVM SVA PRAESENTIA ILLVSTRAVERIT / COSS EXCIPIENTIBVS / QVOS CAPITE COOPERTO / CHRISTINAM SVECORVM REGINAM AEMVLATA / PARIBVS HONORIBVS DECORAVERIT / MONVMENTVM HOC PRO TRIVMPHO / CLEMENTE XI P O M / ANNVENTE / S P Q R / GRATAE VOLVNTATIS OBSEQVIVM EXHIBVIT / FERDINANDO MARCHIONE BONIOVANNE / LVDOVICO MARCHIONE MONTORII / HIERONYMO MARCHIONE TEODOLO CONSERVATORIBVS / PHILIPPO BARONE DE SCARLATTIS EQ S IACOBI CR PRIORE / IV NON DECEMBRIS MDCC / AB VRBE CONDITA / CXƆ CXƆ CCCCL (To Maria Casimira, Queen of Poland and Grand Duchess of Lithuania etc., according to her exhortation, her royal spouse John III freed Vienna from the siege, concluded the Holy Alliance, raised Christianity, since guided by devotion she came to the city in the secular year of the Jubilee and gave prestige with its triumphal presence at the Capitol, welcoming her the Conservatori with their heads 4 Invv. EM 00331 and SCU 02593; h. 3,80 m, w. 1,58 m. Forcella 1869: 72, n. 200. The names of the magistrates appear in the Acts of the Capitoline Chamber for the year 1700 (Cred. I, to. 35, c. 197v). 389 Francesca Ceci covered, as in the case of Queen Christina of the Swedes, paid homage with equal honors. This monument to the triumph, with Clement XI Pontifex Optimus Maximus’s consent, the Senate and the People of Rome offered, as a sign of gratitude, when Marquises Ferdinando Bongiovanni, Ludovico Montori, Gerolamo Teodoli, Baron Filippo Scarlatti, knight of San Giacomo and Caporioni Prior were the Conservatori, on the fourth day of nonae of December (December 2) 1700, year 2450 since Rome’s foundation). The text celebrates the merits of Maria Casimira, praising her influence on the husband for having induced him to intervene in the battle of Vienna, thus also contributing to the victory of Christianity over the Ottoman threat; it follows by praising her decision to come to Rome driven by the religious pietas to celebrate the Jubilee of 1700, opened by Innocent XII and closed by Clement XI. Both these actions, considered as worthy of a triumph, recur also in the panegyric composed in her honour by the arcade Count Orazio D’Elci, who, referring to her influence on the king, writes: “pur sapesti con artifizio degno della tua Pietà trarlo à i confini, poi spingerlo al soccorso, e Liberazione di Vienna, e conseguentemente di tutto il Cristianesimo”5 (D’Elci 1699: 6). It is also pointed out that the ceremony performed for the former Polish queen followed the one previously used for the former Swedish queen, which provided for the Roman Magistracy of Conservatori, according to their privilege, to receive their royal guest with headgear on their heads.6 At the time Maria Casimira, famous all over Europe for her beauty, was about 59 years old, but her beauty had not faded with age, as can be seen in the beautiful portrait bust by the sculptor Lorenzo Ottoni. The author has been identified by Jennifer Montagu (Montagu 2018: 312–326) who found the documents relating to the work in the Capitoline Historical Archive. A recent cleaning (2018) of the portrait and new close-up photographs allow us to notice the original graphite colouring of the pupil, now almost missing, which must have given the face a vitality that is not perceptible today7 (Fig. 3). 5 6 7 In Arcadia, the Queen was given the name of Amirisca Telea. Christina’s epigraph on her visit to the Capitol in 1656 recalls that the Capitoline magistrates received her tecto capite, by virtue of an ancient privilege that allowed them to receive monarchs with their hats on and seated: the Queen of Sweden objected, in vain, to this custom, which she considered belittling of her person, and the negotiations to resolve it lasted six months: Pietrangeli 1960: 200; Borsellino 2000: 203, note 5. Restorations of several Bernini sculptures have also revealed graphite highlights in the pupils: Coliva 2002: 126. 390 The Sobieskis… museo di romA – PALAzzo BrAsChi The Museo di Roma possesses a series of prints, very widespread at the time and well known today, and a painting referring to Maria Clementina Sobieska-Stuart. 3. Solemn entry into Rome of the Polish Ambassador in 1680 (Fig. 4). The colour etching by Bartolomeo Pinelli, made in 1835, is entitled Urbe ingreditur anno 1680 die 4 Augusti Dux Radziwil legatus Joannis III. Sobieski Poloniae Regis ad Innocentium XI; below: Stendardus fig. Viviani Arch. pinx/Pinelli sculpsit (Museo di Roma, inv. GS 137). The print is a copy of the painting by Pieter van Bloemen, called Stendardus,8 and Niccolò Viviani Codazzi kept in the Museum of the Royal Palace of Wilanow in Warsaw (Inv. Wil. 1041. Osiecka-Samsonowicz: 2014). Upon the election of the Pope, every Catholic sovereign had to make an “Act of Obedience”, going personally – or sending a representative – to Rome. Jan III fulfilled this customary obligation towards Innocent XI, who rose to the papal throne on 21 September 1676, only in 1680, as pressing needs of the Polish kingdom forced him to delay the homage. The mission was entrusted to Prince Michał Kazimierz Radziwiłł, the king’s brother-in-law, who travelled also to Vienna and Venice to plead for the formation of an anti-Turkish league. The assignment proved a failure due to the poor diplomatic qualities of the envoy, who squandered his fortune in Rome and died in Bologna on 14 November 1680, on the way back to Poland. The Polish parade was a success, however, making a great impression on the Roman people because of its magnificence (Platania 1998; Platania 2016; Osiecka-Samsonowicz 2014: 48–56). The original painting in Wilanow Palace, from which the print is derived, had been probably commissioned by Radziwiłł’s sons, Jerzy Józef and Karol Stanisław in 1687 (OsieckaSamsonowicz 2014: 53). Radziwiłł’s meeting with Innocent XI is depicted in one of the four large ovals (335x265 cm) made for the funerary apparatus dedicated to Jan III and set up by Cardinal Carlo Barberini in the church of San Stanislao dei Polacchi in Rome, now preserved in the storerooms of the Gallery of Palazzo Barberini in Rome (Galleria Nazionale d’Arte Antica di Palazzo Barberini, inv. 4681) (Fig. 5). 8 Van Bloemen resided in Rome in 1686–1687 and was a member of the Schildersbent Circle, composed mainly of Dutch and Flemish painters, with the nickname Stendardo, probably because of the banners he painted in battle scenes. 391 Francesca Ceci 4. Apotheosis of Jan III Sobieski, king of Poland, winner of the Turks (1684). The copper engraving print by Agostino Scilla and Jacques Blondeau is the title page of the Thesis written by Taddeo and Urbano Barberini, presented at the Collegio di Propaganda Fide in October 1684, on the anniversary of the liberation of Vienna, and dedicated to the Polish king (Archivio Museo di Roma, invv. MR 40504, 40507, 40508) (Fig. 6). The authors were the nephews of Cardinal Carlo Barberini, Protector of the Kingdom of Poland. The Thesis was born in the context of the Third Holy League against the Ottoman Empire promoted by Innocent XI on 5 March 1684, formed between the King of Poland, Leopold I of Habsburg, and the Republic of Venice.9 In the cartouche captions, framing the central scene, Jan Sobieski is compared to the Emperor Constantinus the Great and the merits of the two glorious leaders are listed10 (Biliński 1984: 47– 69, in part. 58). The engraving reproduces the oil painting en grisaille made in 1684 by Ciro Ferri (this work has also been attributed to Agostino Scilla) preserved in the Royal Palace of Wilanow,11 with the king on horseback, flanked by his young son Jakub who followed him into battle. Above, the personification of the Catholic Church holds a banner with the representation of Constantinus, below are the Goddess Rome and the Capitoline she-wolf with Romulus and Remus. 5. Ephemeral apparatus for the death of Jan III Sobieski in San Stanislao dei Polacchi in Rome. The print reproduces the funeral arrangement designed by architect Sebastiano Cipriani and then engraved by brothers Pietro and Francesco Sante Bartoli (Fig. 7). Jan III Sobieski, born in Olesko on 17 August 1629, died on 17 June 1696 in Warsaw in the Wilanow Palace; the news reached Rome about a month later and the solemn funeral was held in the “Cappella Paolina” in the Quirinal PalA medal was issued to mark the occasion, designed by J.I. Bendl (https://www.icollector. com/Lega-Santa-contro-i-turchi-Medaglia-1684_i8694013) who had already produced a medal commemorating the Vienna victory: (https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/ search/187250). 10 The juxtaposition of Emperor Constantinus I and Jan III through the motto In hoc signo vinces also recurs in Bassani’s book 1700: 18. 11 C. Ferri or also A. Scilla, Apoteoza Jana III, olil en grisaille (97x73 cm; https://www.wilanowpalac.pl/sobiesciana/apoteoza_jana_iii_sobiesciana.html). Pietrangeli 1975: 181–182. For the painting at the National Museum in Warsaw: http://cyfrowe.mnw.art.pl/dmuseion/ docmetadata?id=4273&show_nav=true. 9 392 The Sobieskis… ace on 5 December 1696, celebrated by the Cardinal Protector of Poland Carlo Barberini (Osiecka-Samsonowicz 2014: 93–98). Five days later, the Cardinal held another ceremony in the Church of St. Stanislaus of the Poles, described in the three printed notices. In the church, six large medallions in tempera en grisaille (about 330 x 262 cm) portraying significant moments from the life of the king were hung on top, accompanied by descriptive cartouches in Latin depicting the following: the wedding with Maria Casimira officiated in Warsaw by the Apostolic Nuncio in Poland Antonio Pignatelli, with Pope Innocent XII at the time on the papal throne; Chocim’s victory and that at Vienna; the declaration of obedience to the Pope made by Radziwiłł; the institution in Poland of the Order of Capuchins and Sacramentine Sisters. There was another oval with the portrait of the king, which was not depicted in print. While the portrait of the king and the wedding scene perished, the other four were identified by Italo Faldi in the collections of the National Gallery of Ancient Art in Palazzo Barberini; it is believed that the medallions passed into the collections of Cardinal Barberini once the funerary apparatus was dismantled (Faldi 1975. Fidanza 2018). They are currently in the Gallery’s storerooms, awaiting a necessary and desired restoration. The works have been definitively attributed, on the basis of the payment orders kept in the Barberini archives, to the Austrian painter Giacomo Wernele (italianisation of Philipp Jakob Wörndle), whose work was supervised by Carlo Maratta (Platania 2016: 85; Fidanza 2018: 330, with the original letter). 6. Palazzetto Zuccari. The collection of the Museo di Roma keeps a watercolour on cardboard signed by an unspecified painter Costantini (Roma: Museo di Roma, Gabinetto delle Stampe, MR 6182) representing the portico of Palazzetto Zuccari in Trinità dei Monti and the same appears in a nineteenth-century photo by James Anderson12 (Figs. 8–9). Maria Casimira and her court stayed in Palazzetto Zuccari, located between via Sistina and via Gregoriana, in piazza Trinità dei Monti. The building, with other surrounding areas, was rented by the Queen from Easter 1700, when she was still living in Palazzo Odescalchi in piazza Santi Apostoli (Re 1927: 160–167; Curti 2009–10: 345; Migasiewicz 2016: 221–235; Kieven 2018: 176–199). She resided there from 1702 to 1714, also 12 The image is by the English photographer J. Anderson (1813–1877) who worked in Rome from 1838: Archivio Fotografico Museo di Roma, inv. AF 25984 (se also another photo: AF 6798). Kieven 2018: 198. 393 Francesca Ceci setting up a small theatre and a convent. Today, there are traces of the latter in a room on the ground floor of the small palace, in a fresco on the ceiling with figures of the Queen and the dove of the Holy Spirit in the light (Fig. 10). In 1711, around the entrance of the palace in Piazza Trinità dei Monti, the Queen wanted to create a semicircular portico with four columns and two pilasters surmounted by a terrace with a balustrade, now closed by stained-glass windows, attributed among others to her architect and court set designer Filippo Juvarra. Above the portico door there is the Sobieski-de la Grange d’Arquien coat of arms in a shield within a drape surmounted by the royal crown (De Soultrait 1847: 117, pl. XIV; Re 1927: 165). 7. Alessandro Sobieski’s solemn funeral in Santa Maria della Concezione (Fig. 11). The print, signed by Francesco Faraone Aquila (engraver) and Alessandro Specchi (architect), shows the layout created in the church of the Capuchins – located today in via Veneto – for the funeral of Alessandro Sobieski (Gdańsk, 6 September 1677 and Rome, 19 November 1714) wich was celebrated on 22 November 1714 (Archivio Museo di Roma, GS 195). The son of Jan III and Maria Casimira died a few months after his mother’s departure from Rome, comforted by the Capuchin Friars to whom he had become spiritually close. At the will and expense of Clement XI, the Prince received a sumptuous funeral, described in the Printed Account (Resoconto) of the Prince’s death (Relazione… 1714; Ceci 2019: 209–215). The text also mentions “Mr. Alessandro Specchi, a famous Professor of Architecture, who is forming the Drawing, in order to be printed as soon as possible” (Relazione… 1714: 13), a drawing which had been disseminated through the work of the engraver Aquila. mAriA ClementinA sobieskA, the Prints And the PAinting Maria Clementina Sobieska (Oława, 17 July 1701 – Rome, 18 January 1735)13, daughter of Jakub Ludwik Sobieski and Hedwig Elizabeth Palatine of Neuburg, granddaughter of Jan III and Maria Casimira, had been baptized by proxy by 13 In scientific literature the birthplace of the princess is sometimes given as Macerata and others Oława. In the Polish Biographical Dictionary, it is stated that she was born in Macerata on 17 July 1701: Grzybowski 1975: 4–5, and so in many studies, particularly musico- 394 The Sobieskis… Clement XI. On 1 September 1719, she married in Montefiascone the exiled king James III Stuart, the Jacobite pretender to the kingdom of England, and lived a good part of her life in Rome under the benevolent protection of Clement XI and his successors (Platania 1993; Bodart 2004: 301–314; Markuszewska 2017: 163–177). The marriage, from which two children were born (“Bonnie” Prince Charlie and Bishop Henry), was not happy, and the Queen ended her life in sickness, having dedicated herself to works of charity, for which she also was the subject of an unsuccessful canonisation process (Jujeczka 2018: 390–400; Quesada 2018: 378–388; Breccola, Ceci 2020). Having died at the age of 33 years and six months, she received a solemn funeral at the behest of Clement XII. On 23 January 1735 the body was first exhibited in Santi Apostoli Curch, with a display by the architect Ferdinando Fuga; in 1738, a marble monument was erected in the church with its precordium, Filippo della Valle’s work (Simonato 2016: 111–117). The funeral continued in the Vatican Basilica and the body was laid in the Vatican Grottoes; for the occasion a Requiem was composed by Giuseppe Pitoni. In 1745, it was moved into a sarcophagus along the spiral staircase, and a sumptuous cenothaph, designed by Filippo Barigioni and sculpted by Pietro Bracci as early as 1742, was also built in the Basilica (Montagu 2018: 322–325). 8. Church of the Santi Apostoli decorated for the funeral of the Queen of Great Britain Maria Clementina Sobieski, Ferdinando Fuga (architect), Giovanni Paolo Pannini (designer), Baldassar Gabbugiani (engraver)14 (Fig. 12). The funeral took place in this church, sumptuously arranged by Fuga (Parentalia 1736: 16; Diario ordinario 1735). 9. Funeral of Maria Clementina Sobieska Stuart in the church of the Santi Apostoli, by Giuseppe and Domenico Valeriani, oil on canvas (Museo di Roma, inv. MR 39358 [135.5x98 cm without frame]; Platania 1993: 41, note 186) (Fig. 13). The painting was attributed to the brothers Valeriani, artists specialized in scenography and quadraturismo, who are believed to have been executed between 1735 and 1739.15 logical ones. Prof. Aleksandra Skrzypietz, however, confirms the records (also from Rome and Minsk) that mention her birth in Oława on 17 July 1701: Skrzypietz 2020: 19. 14 Museo di Roma, inv. GS 265. See also: Widacka 2011a. 15 Museo di Roma, inv. MR 39358. Busiri Vici 1968: 7–18. Spilia 2014: 29–52: here Maria Clementina is referred to as the daughter of King John Sobieski of Poland, while she was his granddaughter. 395 Francesca Ceci 10. Etching with the Funeral procession of Maria Clementina Sobieski from the Church of the Santi Apostoli to St. Peter’s Basilica, 1735, by Giovanni Paolo Pannini and Rocco Pozzi (Museo di Roma, inv. GS 266. Widacka 2011b) (Fig. 14). The perspective view depicts the transport of Maria Clementina’s body from the Basilica of the Holy Apostles (bottom right) to St. Peter’s (top left); on the right stands Castel Sant’Angelo. The procession unfolds in the form of seven rows of participants, with the body lying on a high catafalque. At the top is the inscription and the coat of arms with Stuart and Sobieski elements on a scroll held by angels: Funeris pompa X Kal. Februarij anni CIƆIƆ CCXXXV a B.B. duodecim Apostolorum ad BB Petri, et Pauli Basilicam in qua Maria Clementina Magn. Britan. regina fuit sepulta; below is the legend with the places, the various congregations and groups of participants in the procession, indicated by numbers from 1 to 50; on the sides, the names of the two authors. 11. Frontispiece with portrait of Maria Clementina Sobieski, putti and royal symbols, Giovanni Paolo Pannini (designer) and Giovanni Girolamo Frezza (engraver), 1736 (Museo di Roma, inv. 12475) (Fig. 15). This print is the title page of the small volume Parentalia Mariae Clementinae Magn. Britan. Franco. et Hibern. Regin. Jussu Clementis XII Pont. Max., inside which appear also the other two already described prints. It presents – in Latin and Italian – Maria Clementina’s eulogy, life, illness, death, and funeral (Parentalia 1736). the sobieski letters in the CAPitoline historiCAl ArChiVes In the Capitoline Historical Archive there are several correspondence fonds of Roman families who had relations with the Sobieskis during the reign of Jan III, which continued when his widow Maria Casimira lived in Rome (1699–1714) and in Blois, until her death on 30 January 1716. The letters are in French, Latin, and Italian, and still require thorough study. There is an interesting letter sent by Maria Casimira from her French residence in Blois, where the Queen continued to maintain relations with Rome regarding what she still needed to do, as can be found in the letter sent to the elderly Marquis Silvio Alli Maccarani, her maggiordomo (Fig. 16). 396 The Sobieskis… 12. Letter to Silvio Alli Maccarani, from Blois, dated 26 May 1715, was in an envelope with a red wax seal.16 The letter, written in Italian about eight months before the death of the Queen, mentions pledge registers, the possible sale of possessions in Poland, and the casket deposited at the Banco di Santo Spirito with the Queen’s jewellery, the key to which she keeps in Blois. The signature is the usual Maria Casimira Regina written in her own handwriting, while the text, in fine calligraphy, is certainly written by another person. It is worth mentioning the issue of the Queen’s knowledge of Italian, an interesting subject but one that is somewhat neglected by historiography: the analysis of some autograph writings preserved in the Jagellonian Library in Krakow (Manuscript 2284) confirms her fairly advanced mastery over the written, read, and spoken Italian language (Sosnowski 2019: 172–176; Boni, Śnieżyńska-Stolot 2021). bibliography Angelini G. 1883. I Sobieski e gli Stuarts in Roma. La Rassegna Italiana, 2, extract, 33–41. Bassani A. 1700. Viaggio a Roma della Signora Reale Maestà di Maria Casimira, Regina di Polonia vedova dell’Invittissimo Giovanni III per il voto di visitare i Luoghi Santi et il Supremo Pastor della Chiesa Innocenzo XII. Roma: Barberini. Biliński B. 1984. Giovanni III Sobieski tra Campidoglio, Vaticano e plebe romana. Strenna dei Romanisti, 45, 47–69. Biliński B. 1986. Sobiesciana romana. Monumenti e ricordi letterari. In: Est Europa (Atti del Convegno Sobiesciano, Udine 17–18 settembre 1983), vol. 2. Udine: 131–166. Boccolini A. 2018. Tra sacro, profano e politica pontificia. Il ruolo e la presenza di Maria Casimira Sobieska nella Roma del 1700. In: I Sobieski a Roma, 90–100. Bodart D.H. 2004. Le sourire de Marie-Clémentine Sobieska. In: Artysci Włoscy w Polsce XV–XVIII Wiek. Warsaw: DIG, 301–314. Boiteux M. 2018. Triomphes romains des Sobieski, 1683–1735. Performances, représentations, images, mémoire. In: I Sobieski a Roma, 30–56. Boni F., Śnieżyńska-Stolot E. 2021. Księga kabał królowej Sobieskiej. Teksty w języku włoskim. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Borsellino E. 2000. Alessandro VII e Cristina di Svezia. In: A. Angelini, M. Butzek, B. Sani (eds.), Alessandro VII Chigi. Il papa senese di Roma moderna (catalogo della 16 Archivio Storico Capitolino, Archivio Savorgan di Brazzà (E. Mori). 397 Francesca Ceci mostra Siena, 23 settembre 2000 – 10 gennaio 2001). Pistoia–Siena: Maschietto & Musolino–Protagon Editori Toscani, 202–208. Breccola G., Ceci F. 2020 (eds.). 1 settembre 1719. A 300 anni dalle nozze regali di Montefiascone. Il matrimonio di Giacomo III Stuart e Maria Clementina Sobieska. Atti dell’incontro di Studio, Montefiascone – Rocca dei Papi, 30 novembre 2019. Roma: Edizioni Archeoares. Busiri Vici A. 1968. Un dipinto dei funerali di Clementina Sobieska Stuart nel Museo di Roma. Bollettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma, 1, 7–18. Cardini F. 2011. Il turco a Vienna. Storia del grande assedio del 1683. Laterza–Bari. Ceci F. 2020a. Le memorie della famiglia Sobieski nei Musei e negli archivi della Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali del Comune di Roma (Musei Capitolini, Museo di Roma, Archivio Storico Capitolino). In: A. Boccolini, F. Ceci (eds.). The Sobieski Family: History, Culture and Society insights between Rome, Warsaw and Europe (Conference Proceedings, Warsaw 17–18 October 2019). Eastern European History Review, 3, Viterbo: Sette Città, 205–225. Ceci F. 2020b. I Sobieski: memorie, stampe, quadri e lettere nelle Collezioni della Sovrintendenza Capitolina. In: Accademia Polacca delle Scienze. Biblioteca e centro di Studi a Roma. Atti dell’Accademia Polacca, 8, 75–114. Coliva A. (ed.) 2002. Bernini scultore. La tecnica esecutiva. Roma: De Luca. Crescimbeni Gio.M. 1721. Notizie istoriche degli Arcadi morti, vol. 3. Roma: Stamperia di Antonio de Rossi. Curti F. 2009–10. Nuovi documenti su Palazzo Zuccari: proprietà e ristrutturazioni edilizie dal XVII al XIX secolo. Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 39, 329–389. D’Elci O. 1699. Panegirico in lode della sacra Real Maestà di Maria Casimira Regina di Polonia. Roma: Antonio de Rossi alla Piazza dei Ceri. De Dominicis C. 2009. Membri del Senato della Roma Pontificia. Senatori, Conservatori, Caporioni e loro Priori e Lista d’oro delle famiglie dirigenti (sec. X–XIX). Roma: Fondazione Marco Besso. De Soultrait G. 1847. Armorial de l’ancien duché de Nivernais. Paris: Victor Dirdon. Diario ordinario, no. 2727, 22 gennaio 1735. Vienna–Roma: Cracas, 5–10. Faldi I. 1975. Arte in Polonia. Storia dell’Arte. 24–25, 180–183. Fidanza G.B. 2018. The Ephemeral Apparatus for the Funeral of Jan III Sobieski in Rome: Cardinal Carlo Barberini’s Art and Politics. Artibus et historiae: an art antology, 77, 319–333. Forcella V. 1869. Iscrizioni delle Chiese e d’altri edificii di Roma dal secolo XI fino ai giorni nostri, vol. 1. Roma: Tipografia dei fratelli Bencini. Gaddi G.B. 1736. Roma nobilitata nelle sue fabbriche dalla Santità di Nostro Signore Clemente XII. Roma: Antonia de’ Rossi nella strada del Seminario Romano. Guasco F.E. 1775. Musei Capitolini antiquae inscriptiones, vol. 1. Roma: Excudebat Johannes Generosus Salomonius. 398 The Sobieskis… Jujeczka S. 2018. The beatification process of Maria Clementina Sobieska. Legal and political context. In: I Sobieski a Roma, 390–400. Kersten A. 1974. Maria Kazimiera de la Grange d’Arquien. In: Polski Słownik Biograficzny, 19. Wrocław–Warszawa–Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności–Polska Akademia Nauk, 637–644. Keyßlers J.G. 1751. Neueste Reisen durch Deutschland, Böhmen, Ungarn, die Schweiz, Italien und Lothringen, vol. 2. Hannover: im Verlage sel. Nicolai Försters und Sohns Erben, Hof-Buchhandlung. (English version, 1757). Kieven E. 2018. La regina Maria Casimira Sobieska e il Palazzo Zuccari. In: I Sobieski a Roma, 176–199. Markuszewska A. 2017. ‘And all this because of ‘the weakness of your sex’: The marital vicissitudes of Maria Klementyna Sobieska Stuart, wife of the Old Pretender to the English throne. In: A. Bues (ed.). Frictions and Failures: Cultural Encounters in Crisis. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 163–177. Migasiewicz P. 2016. “La regina di Polonia, signora di vita essemplare”. Der Romaufenthalt der Königinwitwe Marie Casimire Sobieska (1699–1714) und seine künstlerischen Folgen. In: I. Wenderholm, E. Leuschner (eds.). Frauen und Päpste. Zur Konstruktion von Weiblichkeit in Kunst und Urbanistik des römischen Seicento, Berlin: De Gruyter, 221–235. Montagu J. 2018. The Sobieski in Marble, In: I Sobieski a Roma, 312–326. Museo Capitolino, o sia, Descrizione delle statue, busti, bassirilievi, urne sepolcrali, iscrizioni, ed altre ammirabili, ed erudite antichità. Che si custodiscono nel palazzo alla destra del Senatorio vicino alla chiesa d’Araceli in Campidoglio. 1750. Roma: Stamperia dell Bernabò e Lazzarini. Osiecka-Samsonowicz H. 2014. Cerimonie e feste polacche nella Roma barocca 1587– 1696. Roma: Accademia Polacca. Accademia Polacca delle Scienze. Biblioteca e centro di Studi a Roma, Conferenze, no. 130. Parentalia Mariae Clementinae Magn. Britan. Franc., et Hibern. regin. iussu Clementis XII. Pont. Max. 1736. Roma: Giovanni Maria Salvioni. Pietrangeli C. 1962. La Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi. Capitolium, 37, 195–203. Pietrangeli C. 1971. Il Museo di Roma: documenti e iconografia. Bologna: Cappelli. Platania G. 1993. La politica europea e il matrimonio inglese di una principessa polacca: Maria Clementina Sobieska. Roma: Vecchiarelli. Accademia Polacca delle Scienze. Biblioteca e centro di Studi a Roma, Conferenze, no. 101. Platania G. 1995. Maria Casimira Sobieska a Roma: alcuni episodi del soggiorno romano di una regina polacca. Effetto Roma. Il viaggio. Roma: Bulzoni, 9–48. Platania G. 1998. Il viaggio politico. Il caso di Michele Casimiro Radziwiłł, principe polacco, a Vienna e Roma nella documentazione d’archivio. In: V. De Caprio, G. Platania, F. Roscetti (a cura di). Il viaggio in testi inediti o rari. Roma: Istituto Nazionale di Studi Romani, 69–139. 399 Francesca Ceci Platania G. 2011. Corrispondenza tra Giovanni III Sobieski, re di Polonia con Carlo Barberini protettore del regno (1681–1696). Viterbo: Sette Città. Acta barberiniana. Platania G. 2016. Sacro e profano nella Roma del Seicento: Michal Kazimierz Radziwiłł e la solenne “Ambasciata di obbedienza”. In: D. Quirini-Popławska, Ł. Burkiewicz (eds.). Sacrum w mieście, vol. 1: Średniowiecze i wczesna epoka nowożytna: Wymiar religijny. Krakow: Akademia Ignatianum – Wydawnictwo WAM, 31–244. Polonia: arte e cultura dal medioevo all’illuminismo (catalogo della mostra, Roma, Palazzo Venezia, 23 maggio – 22 luglio 1975). 1975. Firenze: Centro Di Edizioni. Quesada M.A. 2018. Il processo di Beatificazione di Maria Clementina Sobieska: la voce dei testimoni, In: I Sobieski a Roma, 378–388. Re E. 1926–1927. La dimora romana di Maria Casimira regina di Polonia. Capitolium, 2–5, 60–167. Relazione dell’infermità, e morte del real principe Alessandro Sobieski figlio della glo[riosa] me[moria] di Giovanni III rè di Polonia, e della maestà della regina Maria Casimira sua consorte: accaduta in quest’alma città li 19. novembre, e del funerale, ed esequie con solenne pompa celebrate nella chiesa de’ RR. Cappuccini presente il di lui cadavere nel dì 22. di detto mese dell’anno 1714. 1714. Roma: Francesco Chracas. Rola-Bruni A. 2018. Zdobyty przez Jana III Sobieskiego pod Wiedniem buńczuk Kara Mustafy u stóp ołtarza podczas Mszy świętej. Nasz Świat, 16(301) 29 września – 11 października, 8. Rossini P. 1693. Il Mercurio errante delle grandezze di Roma, tanto antiche, che moderne. Roma: Molo. Scano G. 1964. Dalle pagine di un Diario. Visite, incontri e cortesie tra un pontefice e una regina. In: Strenna dei Romanisti. Natale di Roma, 25. Roma: Staderini, 451–455. Serafini I. 2020, La memoria di Maria Casimira Sobieski nei Musei Capitolini. Una storia lunga due secoli. In: Accademia Polacca delle Scienze. Biblioteca e centro di Studi a Roma. Atti dell’Accademia Polacca, 8, 117-189. Skrzypietz A. 2020. Maria Clementina Sobieska’s Childhood. In: Breccola, Ceci 2020, 19–42. Simonato L. 2016. Una nuova proposta per Filippo della Valle: il disegno preparatorio per il Monumento ai precordi di Maria Clementina Sobieska ai Santi Dodici Apostoli. Nuovi Studi. Rivista d’arte antica e moderna, 22, 111–117. Sobieski a Roma 2018. Chrościcki J.A., Flisowska Z., Migasiewicz P. (eds.). I Sobieski a Roma. La famiglia reale polacca nella Città Eterna (Atti del Convegno, Roma Biblioteca Hertziana, 8–9 giugno 2016). Warsaw: Muzeum Pałacu Króla Jana III. Sosnowski R. 2019. Maria Casimira d’Arquien a Roma e il manoscritto 2284. In: R. Sosnowski. Manoscritti italiani della Biblioteca Jagellonica di Cracovia dalle origini al XVIII secolo. Kraków: Jagellonian University Press, 172–176. Spilia A. 2014. Le esequie di Maria Clementina Sobieska dipinte da Giuseppe e Domenico Valeriani. Note sugli apparati effimeri ai SS. Apostoli e il ruolo politico 400 The Sobieskis… della famiglia Colonna nel Settecento. In: Bollettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma, 28: Nuova Serie. Roma: Gangemi Editore, 29–52. Tofanelli A. 1819. Descrizione delle sculture, e pitture che si trovano al Campidoglio. Roma: Presso Carlo Mordacchini (first edition). Widacka H. 2011a. Castrum doloris of Maria Klementyna Sobieska. Silva Rerum [online:] https://www.wilanow-palac.pl/castrum_doloris_of_maria_klementyna_so bieska.html, access on 29.09.2021. Widacka H. 2011b, Funeral of Maria Klementyna Sobieska. Silva Rerum [online:] https://www.wilanow-palac.pl/funeral_of_maria_klementyna_sobieska.html, access on 29.09.2021. Valesio F. 1977–1979. Diario di Roma (1700–1742), vol. 1–6, Milano: Longanesi, 46–51. list of illustrations Fig. 1. Marble epigraph for Innocenzo XI (©Sovrintendenza Capitolina BBCC. Archivio Fotografico). Fig. 2. Epigraph and marble portrait of Maria Casimira Sobieska (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina BBCC. Archivio Fotografico). Fig. 3. The portrait of Maria Casimira Sobieska (drawing Giuseppe Carzedda). Fig. 4. B. Pinelli. Solenne ingresso a Roma dell’ambasciatore di Polonia nel 1680, etching, 1835 (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma, Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 5. P.J. Wörndle. L’obbedienza manifestata da Jan III Sobieski al Papa Innocenzo XI tramite il suo ambasciatore Michał Radziwiłł, tempera/grisaille on canvas tela (Gallerie Nazionali di Arte Antica (MIBACT) – Foto ©Zeno Colantoni). Fig. 6. A. Scilla, J. Blondeau. Apoteosi di Giovanni III Sobieski re di Polonia: il trionfo del Sovrano, vincitore dei Turchi, etching, 1684 (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma, Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 7. S. Cipriani, P. and F. Sante Bartoli. Apparato effimero, catafalco per Giovanni III Sobieski nella chiesa di San Stanislao dei Polacchi, etching, 1697 (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma, Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 8. Costantini. Palazzo Zuccari at Trinità dei Monti, watercolour on cardboard, early 20th century (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma, Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 9. J. Anderson. Palazzo Zuccari tra via Sistina e via Gregoriana, silver gelatine, second half of the 19th century, (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma, Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 10. Palazzetto Zuccari. Fresco with the Holy Spirit in the former chapel of Maria Casimira Sobieska (©F. Ceci). 401 Francesca Ceci Fig. 11. F. Faraone Aquila, A. Specchi. Funerale solenne di Alessandro Sobieski a Santa Maria della Concezione, etching, 1714 (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma, Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 12. F. Fuga, G.P. Pannini, B. Gabbugiani. Chiesa dei Santi Apostoli addobbata per le esequie della Regina della Gran Bretagna Maria Clementina Sobieska, etching, 1735 (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma, Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 13. G. and D. Valeriani. Funerali di Maria Clementina Sobieska nella chiesa dei SS. Apostoli, oil on canvas, 1735 approx. (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma, Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 14. G.P. Pannini, R. Pozzi. Corteo funebre di Maria Clementina Sobieska dalla chiesa dei Santi Apostoli alla Basilica di San Pietro, etching, 1735 (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma, Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 15. G.P. Panini, G.G. Frezza. Frontespizio con ritratto di Maria Clementina Sobieska, putti e simboli regali, etching, 1736 (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma, Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 16. Letter of Maria Casimira Sobieska to Marquise Maccarani, Blois, 26 May 1715 (©Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Archivio Storico Capitolino). Fig. 1 402 The Sobieskis… Fig. 2 403 Francesca Ceci Fig. 3 404 Fig. 4 The Sobieskis… 405 Francesca Ceci Fig. 5 406 The Sobieskis… Fig. 6 407 Francesca Ceci Fig. 7 408 The Sobieskis… Fig. 8 409 Francesca Ceci Fig. 9 Fig. 10 410 The Sobieskis… Fig. 11 411 Francesca Ceci Fig. 12 412 The Sobieskis… Fig. 13 413 Fig. 14 Francesca Ceci 414 The Sobieskis… Fig. 15 415 Fig. 16 Francesca Ceci 416 https://doi.org/10.12797/9788381385862.19 Isabella Serafini (Capitoline Museum, Rome) the memorial to the visit of the Queen of Poland mAriA CAsimirA sobieski in the musei caPitolini history, style, setting up and dismantling over two Centuries Abstract The research focuses on the new attribution to Lorenzo Ottoni (1648–1736) of the commemorative monument dedicated to the visit to the Capitoline Hill of Queen Maria Casimira Luisa de la Grange d’Arquien Sobieski (1641–1716), considering the different transfers connected to the everchanging taste and settings of the museum halls during the last two centuries; with a new hypothesis on its original display in the Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi of Palazzo dei Conservatori, on the Capitolone Hill.1 Keywords: Maria Casimira Sobieski, Palazzo dei Conservatori, Lorenzo Ottoni, Sala Orazi e Curiazi, Sala dei Magistrati 1 The present essay is a part of a much larger research on the presence of Sobieski memorabilia in Musei Capitolini, submitted at the Accademia Polacca delle Scienze di Roma on 26 february 2020, together with the work by my colleague Francesca Ceci. The previous research “La memoria di Maria Casimira Sobieski nei Musei Capitolini. Una storia lunga due secoli” is being published soon online for the Atti dell’Accademia Polacca delle Scienze di Roma. 417 Isabella Serafini During the spring of 1699, the Polish Queen Maria Casimira Sobieski (Fig. 1) and her sons arrived in Rome after a long journey through Northern Europe and Italy, amongst “applicazioni in devozioni e divertimenti pubblici” (devotions and public amusements).2 Officially, the visit was to attend the forthcoming Jubilee, but the main reason was due to precise diplomatic and political objectives for herself and her sons. They were welcomed and hosted the first night in incognito by her friend – and defender during the long voyage – Abbot Pompeo Scarlatti, in his vigna suburbana next to Monte Pariolo.3 Soon after, she moved to the sumptuous dwelling owned by Prince Livio Odescalchi (Como 1645 ca. – Rome 1713), Pope Innocenzo XI’s nephew (1676–1689), a huge building set in a central position between Piazza SS. Apostoli and Via del Corso, gradually transformed into a private museum made up of famous paintings, fine furnitures, rare ancient coins, and sculptures (like the famous “Gladiatore” bought by the Ludovisi family).4 That episode of contemporary hospitality was soon masterfully reinterpreted and transfigured by the hands of Odescalchi’s favourite French sculptor Etienne Monnot (1657–1733) into a mythical event, equal to the visit of Queen Saba and her court to wise King Solomon5 (Monnot 2005: 164–165) (Fig. 2). The sudden appearance of the fascinating and cultured Polish sovereign, walking around the city surrounded by her court of 187 people and 200 horses, as reported by contemporary sources, awoke in the people’s minds the recent image of Maria Christina Alexandra, queen of Sweden (1626–1689), who stayed in Rome for long periods since the Jubilee of 1655.6 Indeed, they had a lot of things in common: religious piety and charity (Christina decided to convert to the Catholic religion in 1654, and Casimira founded a monastery in her last res2 3 4 5 6 The quotation is in Platania 2018: 10. On the queen’s journey see the essential (Bassani 1700); in addition (Platania 1995; De Caprio 2004; Vincenti 2018). The Scarlatti vineyard, or Villa San Filippo, was already the property of the Scarlatti family before 1674. The family became extinct, replaced first by the Del Grillo family (1818) and then by the Capranica family (1831), who sold it to Giuliano Capranica Del Grillo Scarlatti in 1858. Untill in the early 20th century, it was owned by the Felicettis. Nowadays, of the extensive Vineyard (19 acres), there is only one portale left; see: (Morlacchi 2010: 85, n. 28; Eschinardi 1750: 212) (for the ancient topography). On Livio Odescalchi: (Pizzo 2002: 119–153; Pierguidi 2014: 53–60). For the Chigi – Odescalchi Palace: (Norberg-Schulz 1998: 150; Ashby 1916: 55–90). The same artist received from the prince Livio the assignment of the funerary monument for his uncle, pope Innocenzo XI in St. Peter: (Bacchi 1995: 39–52; Montagu 2005b: 164–165). On Christina of Sweden: (Borsellino 2000: 202–207; Caira Lumetti 2005). 418 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… idence of Palazzo Zuccari)7. They had a similar and powerful personality “[un carattere…] autoritario, arrogante, invadente […] impose un suo stile di vita alla sonnolenta corte pontificia”8 (“[…] an authoritarian, arrogant, intrusive character […] imposing their own lifestyle on the sleepy papal court”). They were both endowed with intellectual curiosity which led them to play a preeminent role in the cultural and social attractions in papal Rome during the Baroque period. They were the first two women to enter the Arcadia Academy, both were experienced in literature, music, art, and founded personal theatres in their own residences.9 After their first positive impressions about Casimira, the contemporary Roman people seemed not to have treated her in so friendly a manner: at least judging by a famous pasquinata recorded by the chronicler, Francesco Valesio on 28 August 1700, which recalled her humble origins, playing on her French geographical origins:10 “nacqui da un Gallo semplice gallina/ vissi fra li pollastri e poi regina/ venni a Roma cristiana e non Cristina” (I was born from a cock simple hen/ lived among the chickens and then as a queen I came to Rome, Christian but not Christina) (Cancellieri 1802: 339, note 1).11 On the queen’s residence in Palazzo Zuccari: (Re 1926–1927: 160–167; Curti 2009–2010: 345–349). 8 This quotation, referring to queen Casimira, is in: (Platania 2018: 13). 9 On Arcadia and the Polish queen’s passion for theatre: (Badolato 2016; Markuszewska 2016: 7–28; Caputo 2017: 139–164). 10 “Pasquinata” was a Roman satire written by the people since the 15th century against contemporary figures or the papacy on sheets of paper and attached to the ancient mutilated statue known as Pasquino, near Piazza Navona: (Il Pasquino). 11 Casimira’s father, Henri Albert de La Grange d’Arquien (1613–1707), was captain of the guards of Gaston d’Orleans, before becoming a cardinal of the Church of Rome, see: Re 1926–1927: 162–164. Pasquino’s pungency was probably caused both by her wasting money and by his son Alessandro’s disreputable female acquaintances, which put him at odds with the powerful Sforza Cesarini, see Platania 2018: 13. 7 419 Isabella Serafini the 1700 Jubilee: mAriA CAsimirA on the CAPitoline hill At the turn of the century, the Eternal City which welcomed Sobieska was going through a difficult period like most countries in Europe, characterised by: the War of the Spanish Succession, following the death of Charles II of Habsburg (1701–1711); the Turkish threat, only temporarily quelled by the Polish-Austrian-German army led by Jan III Sobieski; the progress of Jansenism; the 1703 earthquake in central Italy, and the flooding of the Tiber.12 But, as if to balance all these adversities, Rome could benefit from the election, after weeks of conclave, of the “pensieroso e malinconico” (thoughtful and melancholic) (Valesio 1977: 451) pontiff, Clement XI (Giovan Francesco Albani, 1700–1721), who consulted no less than four theologians over three days before accepting, and who, as a refined intellectual, would dictate the city’s cultural guidelines for twenty years, inaugurating a new era.13 Rome was increasingly becoming a cosmopolitan capital city, attracting numerous foreign Grands Tourists through the memory of Antiquity on the one hand, and the cohesive force of Christianity as a centre on the other, strengthened by the recent defeat of the Ottoman threat. The construction sites in the paleo-Christian basilicas of St. John in Lateran (for the statues of the Apostles, 1703–1721), St. Peter’s (for the Chapel of Baptistry, the cenotaph of Queen Christina of Sweden, the statues for the colonnade of the square, etc.), and especially the church of St. Clement (1714–1716) 14 – the pope’s beloved church due to his election on 23 November, the saint’s birthday – while continuing the programs of his predecessors, were visible signs to confirm the role of Rome as the centre of Christianity. On the other hand, the pontiff’s interests were focused also on social issues, as testified by his dedication to continue the building ensemble of the Hospice of Saint Michel at Ripa Grande, with a correctional facility for minors; or were aimed at improving the public use of the city, like the Granai (1705) near 12 For a panorama of the beginning of the eighteenth century in Rome: (Lo Bianco, Negro (eds.) 2005: 53–59). 13 On Clement XI: (Andretta 1982. Cucco 2001). 14 On the Apostles in St. John: (Conforti 1980: 243–254; Negro 2001: 99–109); for St. Peter’s see further; on the restoration of St. Clement: (Guerrieri Borsoi 2001: 110–115). 420 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Termini,15 or the project for the Porto di Ripetta by Alessandro Specchi (1704) (Marder 1980: 28–56). Last but not least, we remember the pontiff as the “restitutor bonarum artium”16 (Giometti 2012: 220), for his zealous activity towards protection of antiquities from being exported abroad, and for the attention he payed to their restitution in the contemporary society. Famous examples are the acquisition of some sculptures from the ancient Verospi and Cesi collection for the new porch in Palazzo dei Conservatori by Alessandro Specchi (1722) and the institution of the Concorso Clementino at the Academy of Saint Luke.17 Comfortably established in the Roman milieu after a training of nearly twenty months, on 2 December 1700, the widowed queen obtained the rare honour to be hosted in the Roman Capitol. Here, she was welcomed by the three high magistrates of the city, who paid their tribute “cooperto capite” (with the head covered) to the queen; the same ceremony that they had offered Queen Christina, about fifty years before: a rare privilege reserved only for the sovereigns and for this reason immortalised by two marble memorials in the main hall of the Palazzo dei Conservatori. The presence of such a well-known queen on the Capitoline Hill resulted in a rich celebration including a royal banquet, taking care to fulfill its role as an occasion for the prominent and noble citizens to reinforce their role and social identity, making their own assets available to the Conservatori and for the royal visit. A precious document in the Archivio Storico Capitolino, still unpublished (dated 31 December 1700, see doc.1, in appendix) sheds new light on the ceremony, listing the expenses incurred towards objects, foods, beverages, animals and workers, for a total of scudi 48,68 (ASC, C.C., Credenzone VI, t. 45, foll. 284 v.–288 v). Thanks to these old papers we can imagine the feverish preparations on the site set up to welcome the queen, for example the expenses for 15 The Hospice of Saint Michel was one of the places of worship carely visited by Queen Casimira, see: (Bassani 1700: 21; Melasecchi 2001). For the public Granai (barns) see: (Da Gai 2008: 120–122, 595–606). 16 This was the motto on his medals. 17 For the Academy and its Clementine contests: (Golzio 1939; Cipriani 2012: 23–28; De Bellis 2015: 181–196). One of the participants of the Clementine competition in 1709 was Carlo Fontana with a daring project to renovate the Palazzo Senatorio: (Manfredi 2008: 179–180). For the new acquisitions and the porch by Alessandro Specchi in Palazzo dei Conservatori: (Arata 2017: 53–67; Benedetti 2017: 42–44, 67–68). 421 Isabella Serafini cleaning and the balcony repairs. The same document appears also as a valuable historic source to learn about Roman habits of the time concerning wine and gastronomy, mentioning the menu for the meeting, enriched by fresh Montepulciano flasks, hot chocolate, and biscuits from Savoy. The following year, the Polish queen, now a habituée of the most preminent social and intellectual circles of the city, could not miss the appointment to the sumptuous ceremony following the new Pope’s election, the possesso, on 10 April 1701: this time she gained the honour to be hosted at the Capitoline palaces once again, beneath a royal baldaquin on the balcony of Palazzo Nuovo, specially reserved to her. From that privileged stage, she was able to greet the pontiff, who blessed the Polish queen flattering herself with her velvet mask. This colourful ceremony was the very last step of a complex medieval catholic liturgy which followed the former “Conclave” and the “Incoronazione” of the new pontiff, who, accompanied by a cavalcade of courtiers, crossed the city north-to-south on a white mare, from St. Peter to St. John in Lateran to take possesso of the old Patriarchio (the papal see until the Avignonese captivity). The Conservatori magistrates, the civil power representatives of the city, accompanied closely the white papal steed among a cheering crowd, trumpets, and mortars, in a display of modern triumph, 18 until the pause on the Capitol: here the hommage of the Senatore was paid, on behalf of the citizens of the Urbe, to the head of the Church of Rome.19 The rare coincidence of the Pope’s assignment and the presence of a queen on the Capitoline Hill was a chance for our sovereign to enjoy another extraordinary, private celebration tasting pistachio and cedro sorbets, in a rare view on the Capitoline palaces covered by coloured tapestries and damasks (Cfr. note 20). mAriA CAsimirA’s memoria. A new Addition to Lorenzo ottoni’s oeuvre Many historical sources and modern scholars quote the honorary monument to the Polish sovereign, especially focusing on the celebratory value of the epigraph; but its sculptor was destined to remain unknown untill 2006, when one 18 For this ceremony: (Cancellieri 1802: 326–340; Fagiolo 1997: 8–25). 19 See Valesio’s description in: (Cancellieri 1802: 329). 422 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… of the most renowned experts on Baroque sculpture, Jennifer Montagu, discovered the documentation on the payment to Lorenzo Ottoni (1648–1736) and his stonemason Giacomo Antonio Ferrari (Montagu 2018: 312–314. ASC, C.C., Credenzone VI, t. 45, fol. 277 r. [G.A. Ferrari], fol. 278 v. [L. Ottoni]). From the first of the two old papers (doc.2, in appendix), we learn that the precious black marble (nero antico) slab carrying the commemorative inscription was carved by Ferrari on 15 March 1701, about three months after the sovereign’s visit, with the help of a certain Diomede; its cost was 72.10 scudi, including a three-percent fee for the scrittore del popolo romano (writer of the Roman people), a Capitoline employer expert in Latin. Thanks to the second paper (doc. 3, in appendix), which shows a different date, 15 March 1707 (possibly a mistake) we are informed about the low payment to the famous baroque sculptor Lorenzo Ottoni, who earned only 30 scudi, and learn some details about the position both of the portrait and the monument as a whole. In fact, the queen’s portrait was going to be set in the slab with the epigraph, in “la sala del Palazzo della nostra residenza” (“our residence hall”, that is the Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi). This is a very important information which confirms the original arrangement of the memoria in a different hall of the palace to the current one. Having a closer look at the celebratory monument of Queen Casimira, we find out that it is composed of a black marble slab with a 25-line epigraph20 of golden capital letters, surmounted by a medallion with a ¾ white marble portrait relief of the woman. The two parts are included into a mixtiline pavonazzetto frame with two upper coils beside the medallion, the latter connected by a curved peduccio-like segment to the inscribed slab. Casimira (Fig. 3) is portrayed in a view from underneath, in a left-turned bust cut under the breast, while her head is turned in the opposite direction. She is elegantly but soberly dressed, in a V-neck blouse, from which a lace camisole emerges. Above it a stole knotted in the centre with a wide fold is fastened on the right shoulder in the antique manner and pinned with a flower-shaped jewel of a central pyramidal stone. In the centre of the breast, she displays an important piece of jewellery with scrolls from which a fashioned striking teardrop pearl hangs; a similar one decorates her earrings (we know that she liked this kind of striking teardrop pearls a lot).21 Her hair with a central parting is elegantly 20 On the text and meaning of the epigraph see Francesca Ceci’s essay in this same book. 21 Valesio cites the “peregrina” pearl, a rare enormous one she used for her hair and for her monastery ostensory (Valesio 1977: vol. 2, 615). 423 Isabella Serafini gathered in a chignon embellished with several turns of pearl strands. Some short curls frame the oval face while a few long locks fall onto the shoulders in a decorative way. Her face is telling of a mature but still attractive woman: she shows elongated eyes in deep orbital cavities; the pupils are not engraved but lightly drawn with a circular spot, and the slightly upwards looking right gaze gives her an almost inspired expression. The nose is narrow and regular and the mouth appears closed with plump lips. The slightly loose skin around the chin reveals the adult age (in that year she was fifty-nine years old). So, as Montagu noted, we are truly facing an “interesting and well-carved portrait” (Montagu 2018: 312) by the prolific long-life sculptor Lorenzo Ottoni, one of the main artists of the late-Baroque period, who dominated the panorama of Roman art for about fifty years, not yet adequately appreciated.22 Like most of his contemporaries, he trained as a restorer with Giuseppe Giorgetti at the Barberini family (Montagu 1970: 278–298; Magnanimi 1983: 136–138), for whom he then worked as a portraitist for the gallery of portrait busts of ancestors: among them are the vibrant portraits of Francesco Barberini seniore (1597–1679) and Antonio Barberini juniore (1607–1671), Pope Urbano VIII’s nephews, (Figs. 4, 5) in the Museo di Roma.23 Thanks to his deep knowledge of the technique of carving stones, and his capability of portraying subjects characterized by particularly appreciated likeness and expressiveness, he soon participated in all the most prestigious public artistic undertakings of the Clementine era, directed by the architect Carlo Fontana: like the monumental “Apostles” for the Church of Saint John, for which he carved a statue of Saint Taddeus (1704–1709) (Montagu 2005: 35–39); or the papal program for the renovation of the sculptural decoration of the interior of St. Peter’s, with his plaster statues of “Virtues” and the two “putti” for the funerary monument of Queen Christina of Sweden (1697–1702); and the exterior of the basilica (with the statues projected for the colonnade) (Engass 1972: 315–342; Giometti 2014). Such assignments earned him the prestigious title of “sculptor of the Vatican Basilica of Rome” (Basilicae sculptor Rom.Vat.), as it appears in the severe portrait of the Saint Luke Academy (Fig. 6) (Anonimo. Lorenzo Ottoni), where he was appointed an academician of merit. His fame brought him many other assignments in Rome, like the funerary monument of the Santacroce family in Santa Maria in Publicolis (about 1707) 22 For his life and oevre: (Pascoli 1981: 207–228; Giometti 2014). 23 For these portraits: (Di Gioia 1990: 31–32; Ferrari, Papaldo 1999: 520; Di Gioia 2002: 195– 206; Pierguidi 2013: 33–51). 424 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… (Fig. 7) and abroad, even in Paris, where he was asked by King Louis XIV to carve a copy of the ancient “Nile statue” of Belvedere in Vatican.24 In most of his portraits, we find the same characteristics of Casimira’s portrait: deep orbital cavities; the play of contrastingly treated surfaces (rough and well-polished); an “impressionistic” technique, made of surfaces freshly roughened by the chisel and others hollowed out with the drill; a virtuosistic treatment of the hair and the jewels in the female portraits.25 So, while choosing an eminent sculptor for the memory of Queen Casimira in Palazzo dei Conservatori, Lorenzo Ottoni was in the pole position in the artistic Roman milieu; additionally, he may have earned the prestigious commission with the support of the Cardinal Carlo Barberini (1630–1706), one of his prior commissioners, or that of Ludovico Chigi Marquis of Montoro, related by the wife Drusilla Santacroce, one of the capitoline magistrates who welcomed Casimira on the Capitoline Hill, and dedicated the celebratory monument.26 In this portrait, like in the Saint Taddeus, Ottoni shows his typical “pacato classicismo”(Montagu 2005: 37), (mild classicism) reinforced in the Capitoline site by the genius loci of the Antiquity: the cut of the bust is trapezoidal like the one of a Roman matron, and the regal signs are very few. The circular frame reminds of ancient coins, and the sculptor probably could have been inspired by other medal portraits of the sovereign, like the one by the famous French medallist Charles Jean Françoise Chéron (1635–1698) commemorating the queen’s visit to the Loreto sanctuary on the way to Rome, in 1699 (Gerola 1935: 476–477; Bulgari 1958: 285). More generally, we can think of the consolidated circulation of models, old coins or sculptures in the academic environment of the Settecento artists and collectors: but in particular, the severe expression of the queen and above all her hairstyle, with a chignon and a few long locks, recall the Agrippina the elder’s busto portrait (14 BC – 33 AD), now in Musei Capitolini (Fig. 8) (Testa di Agrippina maggiore. Musei Capitolini, Sala degli Imperatori, inv. MC 0421, before: inv. Albani C12: Stuart Jones 1912, 190, n. 10, pl. 47). The empress, Germanicus’ wife and Caligula’s mother, was considered a symbol of morality, like the devout Casimira, and was her husband’s companion in his war exploits; Casimira encorauged her husband at war, too. The Roman portrait was not in the Capitolini 24 For Santacroce see: (Montagu 1997: 849–859); for the statue of Nile: (Giometti 2014). 25 For Ottoni’s technique: (Brunetti 2015: 277–297). 26 See Serafini 2021 [forthcoming]. 425 Isabella Serafini Museums at that time: but there was one busto of the empress in the Certosini collection of Antiquity, in the Michelangiolesque church of S. Maria degli angeli near Termini: quite a well-known site by the Polish sovereigns, indeed, as evidenced by the dedication of the sundial on the church floor – by the famous astronomer and antiquarian Francesco Bianchini – to the victory of the Christian army against the Ottoman Turks in 1683.27 After all, even a famous painter like Pieter Paul Rubens (1577–1640) was fascinated by Agrippina who was portrayed together with her husband Germanico in an “all’antica” (old style) exercise, in profile (1612–1614, Washington, National Gallery) (Fig. 9), taking as a model one of the old coins of his collection, visited in his Roman sejour (1600–1608) (Peter Paul Rubens. Agrippina and Germanicus. Vaan Wagenberg-Ter Hoeven, Hoeven 2005: 113–127).28 As it is widely known, the medallion-shaped portrait was highly popular among late Baroque sculptors, but it was especially preferred as a format for funerary monuments. Ottoni, on the contrary, originally used this shape in a distinctive personal way, to portray living individuals, like he did with Pope Alexander VIII Ottoboni (1690) (Montagu 2005: 40),29 in a ¾ view (Fig. 10). Also, in the Capitoline Casimira portrait, in spite of the “all’antica” medaillon format in profile (already chosen by Francesco Maria Nocchieri for the previous Capitoline portrait dedicated to the visit of Christina of Sweden, in 1656)30 (Fig. 11), Ottoni preferred to use a ¾ setting. Actually, being a late Baroque sculptor educated on Bernini’s masterpieces through the apprenticeship of his followers, he knew that this setting was more suitable to a dynamic, lively approach to the portrayed person, as many Ottoni’s busts may demonstrate: here she is very naturally presented, like in a flash shot hic et nunc during her visit to the Capitol, head slightly turned aside as if to hear someone speaking. 27 On the Certosini collection: Picozzi 2004: 29, note 11; Bocci Pacini, Gambaro, 2012: 455– 484. On the sundail or “gnomone clementino”: (Cancellieri 1811: 194; Sigismondi 2014: 3–78). 28 On Rubens as a collector: (Muller 1989). On his interest for antiquities: (Dodero 2016: 71–83). 29 For the pope’s portrait (Lorenzo Ottoni, Portrait medaillon…) commissioned by Cardinal Francesco Barberini junior. 30 Francesco Maria Nocchieri (1651–1686), called l’Anconitano (i.e. from the city of Ancona), was her favourite sculptor; the current marble image is supposed to have been replaced by an earlier bronze portrait (Giometti 2013). 426 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… There was one portrait of the Swedish queen which Lorenzo Ottoni seemed to recall: the bronze image in the medallion of the funerary monument of Christina in St. Peter’s (1696–1702): a complex work of an Italo-French team, in which he took part, as we saw earlier. In spite of the differences (the profile setting, the materials), in both portraits we find many common details like: the elegant hair-style with curls and a pearled chignon; the lace border of the camisola, the old Roman-fashioned mantel pinned on one shoulder with a brooch. We are probably yet dealing with another testimony of a common artistic-antiquarian culture based on the same ancient iconographic models. seArChing for the originAl site of the memoria in PALAzzo dei ConservAtori. A reConstruCtion hyPothesis The memoria dedicated from the Conservatori to Maria Casimira Sobieski is currently placed, together with that of Christina of Sweden, on the main wall of the III Castellani Hall, once the “Magistrati Hall”, in the wing of the Clementino Palace, adjoining the Conservatori Apartment.31 And we will see how the fate of the two queen’s epigraphs joined these women together once more: inside the descriptions of the guides quoting them, and for the same shifts they happened to experience. Thanks to the old sources on the Capitol – both the guides for Grand Tourists of the early eighteenth century and the nuseum catalogues, after the birth of the Museo Capitolino in 1733 – we know that the original site was the Sala maggiore or degli Orazi e Curiazi, the most important and formal one of the Michelangiolesque Palace, where the Public Council session were held, as well as prestigious ceremonies and events, like more recently the establishment of the Economic European Community on 25 March 1957. For this reason, its walls were soon covered with inscriptions and many statues of Popes were placed there, in time.32 But neither the ancient writers nor the modern ones, like Carlo Pietrangeli – for long the Director of the Civic Museums – give us complete informa31 See infra. 32 On the statues of Popes, (Pietrangeli 1962: 198 ss; Hager 1929, ad indicem). 427 Isabella Serafini tion on the memoria, failing to say, as the author just recently discovered, anything on the precise wall of the quoted originary setting, in the huge hall painted by Cavalier d’Arpino (1595–1640) (Pl. I).33 The challenge was to discover it, understanding the reason why it was removed, and when. A useful survey of ancient authors was already collected (1980) by Maria Elisa Tittoni, former Director of the Civic Museums, and this was the first step in this research (Cesari, Tittoni Monti (eds.) 1980: 104–107). In the eighteenth century, two guides of international voyagers revealed precious information regarding the memoria: Jean Françoise Deseine in Rome Moderne… (1713)34 lists the title of the frescoes and the statues in the Orazi and Curiazi hall, quoting on the east wall the “Sacrifice of Numa Pompilius and the Vestals” beneath which he cites the marble medallion of Christina of Sweden. He also testifies that the statue of Urbano VIII (1639–1640) by Gian Lorenzo Bernini was placed between the two frescoes with battles in the west hall. So, we can suppose that the epigraph of Christina should have been in the lower left-hand part of the Numa Pompilius scene – where there now appears a visible huge loss of painting near the red-dressed Vestal turning to her right – probably taking the place originally arranged for the statue of the Pope Urbano VIII, later shifted to the opposite wall. No mention is made about the other queen’s monument. In the middle of the same century, another Grand Tourist and archaeologist, Johann George Keyssler, in his Travels through Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, Switzerland, Italy… (1760) guides the voyager across the world, describing everything with great precision. In the famous hall, he quotes the frescoes and illustrates both monuments, retelling their peculiar position: “Near the entrance on the right-end is a busto of Maria Casimira, queen of Poland …facing which is the busto of Queen Christina, with the following inscription…” (Keysler 1760: 369–370). 33 On the hall and the monument: (Pietrangeli 1962: 194–203); On the frescoes by G. Cesari, called Cavalier d’Arpino: (Masini 2008: 14–31). 34 Tout proche est un sacrifice du grand Pontife & des Vestales, & au dessous un médaillon de marbre de la Reine Christine de Suéde taillé par François Marie d’Ancone…(Nearby is a sacrifice of the pontifex maximus and vestals and beneath a marble medaillon carved by Francesco Maria d’Ancona…): (Deseine 1713:II, 518–519). On the French traveller Jacques Françoise Deseine (16…–1715) who lived in Rome between 1688 e 1697: https:// archive.org/details/romemodernepremi02dese/page/518/mode/2up by the University of Studies of Palermo (Italy). 428 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Therefore, if the memoria of Christina was on the eastern wall, in the Numa Pompilius scene, we can assume that the monument of the Polish sovereign should have been on the same wall near the entrance, that is, to its right, alongside the window towards the corner on Palazzo Senatorio; so that the two memorials were facing each other. Even Abbot Ridolfo Venuti, like others, confirms in 1755 the off-center position of the monument of Casimira: “…in un cantone della sala…” (in a corner of the hall) (Venuti 1755: 131).35 In the following century, the painter and Director of the Museo Capitolino, Agostino Tofanelli (1768–1834), in his catalogue of the sculptures and paintings – which celebrates the recovery of the works looted by Napoleon, under Pope Pius VII Chiaramonti (1800–1823) (Tofanelli 1843: 135)36 – chooses a more scientific method in the description of the Orazi and Curiazi hall. Above all, he specifies the criterion of listing the paintings and sculptures on display, beginning from the fresco with the Legend of Romulus and Remus (Northern wall) in a clockwise direction. After the monument to Innocenzo X (beneath the Lupercale) he first cites the memoria of Christina and then Casimira’s, confirming the previous hypothesis on their setting on the eastern wall, facing each other. At this point, it was necessary to confirm the reported data, collected in the historical sources, by searching for a visual impression of the presence of Casimira’s memoria on the wall. The recent conservatory intervention on the frescoes by Cavalier d’Arpino37 gave a chance for a close-up view of the painting: a vague imprint of the upper medallion and the epigraph seems perceptible on the band with grotesque motifs to the right of the Numa Pompilius, beside the window and the inscription dedicated to the Conservatori. In this area, many conservation interventions are visible with the naked eye,38 particularly clear in the red curtains and the grotesque motifs, all rendered in a lower pictorial quality and with dull colours, likely applied dry. As a test of the hypothetical original setup of both monuments of the queens, a scaled rendering was prepared on the basis of a measurable photographic 35 On the distinguished Cortonese abbot: (Arata 2017: 153). 36 For the collection’s events of the period: (Arata 2017: 232–236; Dodero, Parisi Presicce (eds.) 2017: 15). 37 The conservation work, necessary due to humidity problems, was carried out between 2016 and 2017 and financed with funds from the business magnate Alisher Usmanov. 38 The research on this topic is in progress; still basic is: (Tittoni Monti 1980: 40–43). 429 Isabella Serafini relief of the South-Eastern wall of the Orazi and Curiazi hall (Pl. II) 39: the result seems quite satisfactory, for the shape of Casimira’s monument coincides with the signs on the fresco, but the upper scrolls of the pavonazzetto frame, a few centimetres larger, are probably the result of a modern restoration, as it will be discussed. This placement, suggested for the first time hypothetically, should have been the result of a wise decision taken by the Conservatori. Actually, they could give the right tribute to the Polish sovereign and, at the same time, be able to safeguard the integrity of the prestigious fresco scenes: hanging the monument in a peripheral wall area, on a decorative pattern, thus avoiding damage to the main scenes. At the same time, the placement appears truly strategic: coming up the monumental staircase into the huge hall, the visitor’s look suddenly focuses on this celebratory monument, together with the Conservatori’s epigraph.40 Furthermore, Casimira would be standing next to the Swedish queen, and both pious women would turn their gaze towards the Pope’ s statue on the South wall (at the time Sixtus V, whose statue – which in time became a symbol of hateful despotism – would be melted years later by the Jacobin Republic in 1789) (Pietrangeli 1962a: 197). the removAL of the memorie The annexation of the city of Rome to the Kingdom of Italy in 1870 and the following proclamation as capital of the Savoie Kingdom headed by Vittorio Emanuele II (3 February 1871) changed many aspects of the city and its most ancient museum of antiquities. In the capital, the demand for housing for the employees of the new ministries led to a proper building fever41: as a result, numerous excavations were carried out, the study of Antiquity developed considerably, 39 I am grateful to the architect Valerio Pampanini (Zétema Progetto Cultura) for his ortho- photo, and to the archaeologist colleague Angelo Canzano for producing the photomontage of the queen’s monuments. 40 The epigraph re-introduced in 1640 the custom of engraving the names of magistrates: Pietrangeli 1962 b 199. 41 For an overview on the post-unification period: (Insolera 1980: 360–394). For the archaeological topic: (Palombi 2006: 95–112). 430 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… and thousands of findings came to light, asking to be studied, catalogued, and exposed in a museum. For this purpose, a specific scientific institution was created, the “Ufficio della Commissione Archeologica Comunale” (24 may 1872), 42 which got together many renowned personalities of the time, like the archaeologists Pietro Ercole Visconti and Giovanni Battista de’ Rossi; the goldsmith, politician, and collector of art Augusto Castellani (1829–1914); the architect Virginio Vespignani (1808–1882), and the archaeologist and engineer Rodolfo Lanciani (1845–1929). Shortly afterwards, the same office gave birth to the prestigious “Bullettino della Commissione Archeologica Municipale”, directed by the archaeologist Carlo Ludovico Visconti, considered “[…] tra le più dotte pubblicazioni archeologiche che veggano oggi la luce in Europa” (Francescangeli 2014: 44) (“among the most learned archaeological publications in Europe today”), and still an essential reference on the scientific activity of the Municipal Superintendence of Rome. While Mayor Pietro Venturi (1875–1877) was leading the Municipality of Rome, the Musei Capitolini were destined to be filled with ancient artefacts as never before (4000 objects are mentioned). Consequentely a new museum was established, just born to bring prestige to the new capital of the kingdom: the octagonal hall pavilion by the architect Count Virginio Vespignani (1875) housing Etruscan and Roman collections and objects given by the famous Augusto Castellani43 – also emeritus Director of the museum from 1873 to 1914 – gives an idea of the substantial transformation the Musei Capitolini went through. The same innovative wave which was radically changing the appearance of the ancient museum, affected the monuments of both queens, which were removed from the prestigious hall, for reasons that we can just hypothesize, waiting for more specific documents on the item. It might have been a circumstance due to a change in taste, which sought to clear the hall of what was not ancient, or because they were not prestigious works like the other sculptures in the hall, or, more probably, a different reason. 42 On the excavation activity, the “Commissione Archeologica Comunale” and the “Bullettino”: (Mura Sommella 1992: 145–150). 43 About the pavilion by Vespignani: (ASC, Tit. 13 Archivio Comune post-unitario, b.1, f. 50 (1875); Palombi 2006: 92–93). On the architect: Apollonj 1937. On Augusto Castellani: (Magagnini 1994; Pietrangeli 1962b, 36–39); for the Castellani collection nowadays on display: http://www.museicapitolini.org/it/percorsi/percorsi_per_sale/museo_del_palazzo_ dei_conservatori/sale_castellani. 431 Isabella Serafini It is a matter of fact that in the same period (1875–1876), under the direction of Pietro Ercole Visconti, the statues of other pontiffs in the Palazzo Senatorio and Palazzo dei Conservatori suffered the same fate: between them, the first one was positioned in the largest hall, dedicated to Leone X Medici and started in 1514 by Domenico Aimo, “il Varignana” (ca. 1460–1539). The statues definitely left the Capitoline buildings for the nearby church of S. Maria in Aracoeli, traditionally involved in the Capitoline civic life (ASC, TIT. 12 Post-unitario, b.1, Statue di Paolo III e Gregorio XIII collocate nell’aula senatoria e statua di Leone X collocata nel Palazzo dei Conservatori: parere della Commissione Archeologica sul loro trasferimento nella chiesa del-l’Aracoeli, cc. 5, 1876, 6–30 settembre, prot. 53065; Hager 1929: ad indicem; Pietrangeli 1962: 200–201).44 Years later, in 1882, even the cross on top of the tower of Palazzo Senatorio was removed, together with the next statue of the Christian Rome.45 Therefore, we can suspect that a kind of republican, anticlerical sentiment, combined with the deep pride in a recovered national identity, would smoulder under these decisions. And maybe, all of a sudden, the two female icons of foreign monarchies joined with the pontifical tiara were no longer seen favourably: so, once more in the history of the Capitoline Hill, it occurred that political and civic power seemed to challenge religious power, through its symbols. After all, paradigmatic of the milieu may be considered the case of the Castellani family, leading figures in the cultural and political life of the time: Augusto was in close relationship with General Cadorna (the leader of the Bersaglieri army which conquered papal Rome in 1870) and his brother Alessandro, was a republican follower of Mazzini, imprisoned several times and exiled for his political beliefs, while their workshop was under government surveillance (Montani 1928–1929: 209–222). Coming back to our queens and their memorie, far from the Orazi and Curiazi Hall they were condemned to live about fifty years in oblivion, abandoned in the Tower of Palazzo Senatorio (Re 1926: 160). Despite it all, they were still quoted among the notheworthy objects in 1914 by the then director of Musei Capitolini Settimo Bocconi (Bocconi 1914: 211– 214). Later they become the subject of the outraged outburst of the scholar and 44 On the statues from Palazzo Senatorio (Farina 2016: 61–74). On the statue of Leone X (Ago- sti 2008: 18–24). 45 About the cross on top of the tower, which was re-positioned in 1924 (Gallavotti Cavallero 1989: 50). For the ancient statue (Ensoli Vittozzi, Parisi Presicce 1991: 64, 110). 432 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… medician of the Pio Istituto di S. Spirito Alessandro Canezza (1931: 588–589), who testified to having seen them being thrown away into an underground recess at the Capitol, like many other objects of the Christian age (so confirming my previously suggested hypothesis on the anticlerical motivations behind the displacement of the two monuments). Moreover, he gives credit to the mayor of his time, Filippo Cremonesi, for exposing them again in the newly opened wing of the Museum. In fact, in the year 1925, yet another renovation in the museum was in progress,46 consistently with the regime’s ideology of the Romanitas, adding a new light and primacy to the Capitoline Hill, the “Capitoli immobile saxum (Vergil, Aeneid, 9, vv. 446–449)” (Danti 2016: 181). Isolation works of the site took place, together with the enlargement and renewal of the museum through the recovery of Palazzo Caffarelli, owned by the Prussians for about a century, in which the new Museo Mussolini, or Museum of Ancient Art, and the Galleria d’Arte Moderna47 were created. Next to the Conservatori Apartment three new halls were recovered from the Clementino Palace (once owned by the same Caffarelli family): the largest one (Fig. 12), decorated with an impressive gilded lacunar ceiling, was dedicated to the “Magistrates” for the statues of two togati ready to start the circus races (Bocconi: 194).48 In the main wall the two queens’ monuments were placed, separated by the oval inscription of Pope Urban VIII – now in the staircase leading to the Art Gallery – and in the same site of the marvellous bust of “Commodus as Hercules” (190 AD). The position of the queens’ memories seems to be reversed with regard to the assumed location, and no doubt they have suffered a lot from the repeated changes of placement, as it is evidenced both by the loss of the second terminal band in bigio marble carved with Conservatori coat of arms in the Christina monument (Pietrangeli 1966: 26),49 and by lesions and fractures on the nero antico slab of the Casimira bust, and, moreover, by the copious changes on the external pavonazzetto frame, like the symmetrical upper coils. 46 On this phase of renovation: (Bocconi 1925–1926: 189–195). 47 For the Museums in Palazzo Caffarelli (Parisi Presicce, Danti 2016: 103–111; Catalano 2016: 113–118). 48 For the Magistrates from Horti Liciniani, now in Centrale Montemartini Museum, Rome (Cima (ed.) 1995: 53, 126–128). 49 His dates for the removal of both monuments and the repositioning in the Magistrates Hall are: 1872 and 1922 (Pietrangeli 1966: 24–25). 433 Isabella Serafini In addition, curiously enough, in the photographic documentation of that time, the bust – portrait of Kazimiera – stands out against a contrasting dark background, now lost50 (Fig. 13); as well as the side walls appear still lacking the inscriptions dedicated to the famous, honorary citizens of Rome (Gian Lorenzo Bernini; Michelangelo Buonarroti; Tiziano Vecellio), dating about 1926 and still in situ today. The new set-up, conceived by the archaeologist Giulio Quirino Giglioli (1886–1957), was also inspired by a precise museographic criterion that in the disposition of the objects considered also the aesthetic aspect of the whole: therefore, the two honorary monuments were then conceived as pleasant chromatic spots on the walls too, due to their agreeable, variegated marbles, contrasting with the white sculptures nearby (Bocconi 1925–1926: 194). And perhaps, we can assume that according to the same criterion, the background of the Polish queen’s bust was changed to dark, in order to harmonize it symmetrically with the contrasted dichrome portrait of Christina. No doubt the prominence of both royal memorie was better at that time than at present, when the powerful bronzes of the Bull and the Horse discovered in Trastevere loom over them. In spite of the hardships she had to suffer, our royal and haughty Marysieńka still looks thoughtfully away, framed by the circular medallion, like in an enchanted mirror, unconcerned about the daily bustle of modern visitors. 50 The monument of Christina was restored for the exhibition in Stockholm in 1966, where a cast of it was sent; maybe on that occasion also Casimira’s one was restored, and the background was changed (no documentation found until today) (Pietrangeli 1966: 24). Photographs in: Bocconi 1925–1926: 193; Romualdo Moscioni. Monumento a Maria Casimira regina di Polonia; Cecchelli (introduction) 1925: 43. 434 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… APPendix Archive ASC (Archivio Storico Capitolino, Rome) Documento 1 • Camera Capitolina, Credenzone VI, t. 45, Registro di mandati a favore di Offiz.li et artisti • 1689–1706. Spese fatte per la visita tenuta del Campidoglio dall’Ecc[ellentissi]mi S[igno] ri Cons[ervato]ri della Reg[i]na vedua di Polonia foll.284 v.–288 v. FOL. 284 verso Spese fatte per la visita tenuta del Campidoglio dall’ Ecc[ellentissi]mi S[igno]ri Cons[ervato]ri della Reg.na vedua di Polonia per una spazzola di coda di volpe, scopettino, scopetta, e spunga (spugna) (scudi) sc. 67 ½ Per tre pertiche scopini di paglia, spago, stracci da spolverare (b) 30 Dato ad uno che aiutò a scopare per 2 giornate (b) 50 FOL 285 recto Per chiodi per accomodare la tavola nella stanza dove si fecero li rinfreschi (b) -05 Per far levare e rimettere la predella e balaustra dell’udienza in occasione di d[et]ta visita spesa di chiodi et altro per rimettere in opera la medesima nella quale andarono male alcune tavole per tu[tt]a tavolata fattola risarcire speso in tuttosc. 1:20 Per otto fiaschi di vino Monte Pulciano sc. 1:60 Per cioccolata lib.6sc. 2:40 Per zucchero per d[et]ta (cioccolata) (b) 15 Per lib.20 di neve per mettere in fresco il vino (b) 24 Pagati lib.20 di biscottini di Savoia presi dal confettiere sotto il Palazzo dell’Ill.mo Sig. Marchese Bongiovanni (uno dei conservatori firmatari della lapide) sc.3 – Dato al Battaglione ( o bottigliere) del Sig. Contestabile Colonna per 435 Isabella Serafini li botti facti (o: per le botti facte) dal medesimo in occasione di d[et]ta visita e ricognizione datoli per ordine dell’Ecc.mo Sig. Marchese Bongiovanni Cons.re sc. 5:70 Per noliti di 6(?) bicchere, giare, cantinette per detto ri (soprascritto) fresco sc. 1Per porto e riporto di Argenti prestati dal Sig. Contestabile Colonna (Filippo II) (b) 40 Per torcie per d[et]ta visita N 8 di peso libb. 30 ½ – sc.8:54Candelle di cera da *tavola libb.2 (b)56 (*sembrerebbe detta, però andrebbe sottinteso un per) Due candelle per l’altare di peso lib.1 (b)28 sc. 9:38 L’avanzo di d.tta cera fu venduto alla presenza dell’Ecc.mi SS.ri Conservatori e ne fu cavato scudi sette e b[aiocchi ] 35 si che nella sud.ta cera non si trova speso altro che sc. sc. 2:03Carbone per la cioccolata sc. 1: Per rifreschi nelle sei Cong[regazio]ni tenute nel sud. tri= mestre sc. 4:80 FOL. 286 verso Per tre copie di scrittura date alli Sig[no]ri Cons[ervato]ri circa il modo di poter fare la Cavalcata del Possesso di N[o]stro Sig[no]re come era solito di farsi ne i tempi andati l’originale delle quali fu dato all’Ecc.mo Cardinal Camerlengo (b) 30Cons. C. Sig[no]ri Provisori per far pagamento Al Sig. Santi Randanini camerlengo della sud[detta] Cam[e]ra scudi quarantotto e b. 68 ½ -moneta quali sono per suo rimborso d’altri e tanti da esso spesi e pagati con ordine nostro come nel pr[esen]te conto che pagasi et con ricevuta etc. Dal nostro Campidoglio Li 31 dicembre 1700 FOL.287 recto Spese fatte in occasione del passagio per il Campidoglio della Cavalcata, o Possesso della S.tà di N.tro Sig.re dove 436 sc. 48: 68 ½ The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… intervenne la Maestà vedova di Polonia, et altre Dame Romane. Dato allo scarpellino, che impiombò alcuni ferri per sostenere il finestrone di mezzo del Palazzo novo il baldacchino per sua maestà Per corda per d.° baldacchino, et altro Per n. 3 candele per la notte per li festaroli, e guardie Per haver fatto cuscire assieme dall’ebreo le felpe per le fenestre del Palazzo vecchio, metterle e levarle d’opera (b) 60 (b)30 (b) 18 (b)20 sc. 33:50 ½ FOL.287 verso Pagato al fontaniere per suo salario delle fontane publiche per il suo trimestre conforme il solito sc.1:50 Pagato al Sig. Segretario del Popolo Romano per le lettere della Posta per i suddetti tre mesi sc. 7:25 Dato per l’elemosina per il suddetto trimestre alli RR. PP. d’ Araceli conforme il solito sc. 7:50 Spese per far fare le copie di quattro liste dell’esigenze del fieno per darle nella Congregazione del Sacro Palazzo Apostolico à Monsig. Ill.mo maggiordomo di Nostro Signore et altri che inter= vennero à detta Congregazione conforme il solito sc. 1:20 Per carbone per la sala de fedeli dovutoli nel presente trimestre conforme il solito (b) 90 Per 15 botte(i) servite per fuochi di Allegrezza nelle cinque sere della Creazione e coronazio= ne della S. ta di N°. Sig.re sc. 6- Per fascine n.500 per d.a (detta) (b) 75 Per lanternoni per d[ett]e funzioni n.42 con Arme del Nuovo Pontefice (b) 84 437 Isabella Serafini Per candelotte per li lanternoni sc. 1:40 FOL.287 verso Spese fatte per la visita tenuta dal Campidoglio dalli Ecc.mi Sigg.ri Cons.ri dalla Reg.na ve= dua di Polonia per una spazzola di coda di volpe, scopettino, scopetta e spunga (b) 67 ½ Per tre pertiche scopini di paglia, spago stracci (b) 30 da spolverare Dato ad uno che aiutò a scopare per 2 giornate (b) 50 FOL.288 verso 33:563 Dato per beveraggio alli festaroli (b) 10 Dato a due homini che aiutorno à fare diversi servitij tanto per il giorno della Cavalcata, quanto il seguente per scopare l’arazzi, piegarli, caricarli, scaricarli dal= le carrette per riportarli in guarda robba in Casa Colonna (b) 50 Speso nella carretta, che portò, e riportò l’Arazzi e Dama= schi, nella guarda robba di Casa Colonna in Campidoglio e da Campidoglio in casa Colonna (b) 30 Per vino di MontePulciano fiaschi n.8 con porto (=trasporto) sc 1:65 Per neve lib. 30 per. d.o (detto, scilicet vino) (b) 50 Per Boccali 20 sorbetti di pistachi, e cedrato sc. 6Porto di dd. sorbetti con due fachini, quali restorno fino doppo la funtione per d. ti servitij per d.o (b) 40 Per nolito di cantinette 16 bicchieri n.80 giare servite per detto rifresco (b) 50 Dato ad uno per pulire la stalletta dallo sterco che ren= deva fetore (b) 20 Per rifresco nelle sei Congreg[gazio]ni di d[et]to 3.re (trimestre) fra’quali vi fur= no dui sindicati sc. 6 Per la scrittura d’un chirografo in forma signiandi con= cernente la spesa fatta nella memoria messa della visita della maestà della Reg.a ved[u]a di Polonia e delle banderole per le trombe delli trombetti del Popolo Romano (b) 30 438 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Ludovico Montoro Conservatore Conservatores Girolamo Theodoli Conservatore Camerae Almae Urbis 50:81 Sig.ri Provisori del Sac: monte della pietà farete pagare etc. Al sig.re Santi Randanini Camerlengo della sud.ta Cam[er]a scudi cinquanta, e b. 1 ½ m[one]ta quali sono per suo rimborso d’altrettanti da esso spesi, e pagati con ord.ne n[ost]ro come nel pr[esen]te conto. Che pagasi e con ricevuta e dal n[ost]ro Campidoglio li 22 Aprile 1701___ 50: 81 439 Isabella Serafini ASC Documento 2 • Camera Capitolina, Credenzone VI, t. 45, Registro di mandati a favore di Offiziali et artisti 1689–1706, fol. 277 r. A m(aestr)o Giacomo Antonio Ferrari scarpellino s.72:10 m.(onet)a quali gli si fanno pagare cioè s. settan ta p(er) intiero pagamento, e saldo del opera a intere sue spese, fatt.(ura) tanto in marmi di qualsia sorte, Pietre Manifatture di scarpello, mettitura in opera quant’in ogn’altra cosa, e spesa da esso fatta e da farsi et della Lapide et iscrittione p(er) la memoria della Maestà della Regina vedua di Polonia che di pr (esen)te fassi da noi erigere nella Sala del Palazzo della n(ost)ra Residenza in Campidoglio, e scudi due a Diomede p(er) conto dovuto al suo ufficio e d(etto) pagamento gli si fa firmare in virtu’ d’un Chirografo segnato dalla S.(anti)tà di N(ostro) S(ignore) li 9 del pr(esen)te. et pagati scudi 72,10 dal n(ostr)o Campidoglio li 15 marzo 1701 Ferdinando Bongiovanni Cons(ervatore) Lud.(ovic)o Montorio Cons(ervatore) Girolamo Theodoli Cons(ervatore) …….scrivano……. Contratto di pagamento a favore dello scalpellino Giacomo Antonio Ferrari, 15 marzo 1701 (©Roma – Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Archivio Storico Capitolino) 440 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… 441 Isabella Serafini Documento 3 • Camera Capitolina, Credenzone VI, t. 45, Registro di mandati a favore di Offiziali et artisti 1689–1706, fol. 278 v. Al Sig. Lorenzo Ottone scultore s.(cudi) 30:90 (di) m(onet)a quali gli si fanno pagare cioè s.(cudi) 30: p l’intiero pagamento, e saldo del Ritratto in basso rilievo di marmo della Maestà della Regina di Svezia (sic!) Polonia a tutta sua spesa fatto da erigersi nella n(ostr)a Sala del Palazzo di Campidoglio sopra la Memoria d(ella) d(etta) M(aest)à, e 9 giuli per suo rimborso di altri e tanti che esso paga allo scrittore del popolo Romano. Dal N.stro Campidoglio li 15 marzo 1706 s.30:90 Contratto di pagamento a favore di Lorenzo Ottone scultore, 15 marzo 1706 (©Roma – Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Archivio Storico Capitolino) 442 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… 443 Isabella Serafini bibliography Adamczak A. 2017. Carlo Fontana “sculpturae inventor”. Il ruolo dell’architetto nei cantieri di scultura del tardo barocco romano. In: G. Bonaccorso, F. Moschini Roma (a cura di). Carlo Fontana 1638–1714: celebrato architetto (Convegno internazionale Roma, Palazzo Carpegna 22–24 ottobre 2014). Roma: Accademia Nazionale di San Luca, pp. 329–335. Agosti B. 2008. Paolo Giovio: uno storico lombardo nella cultura artistica del Cinquecento. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki. Andretta S. 1982. Clemente XI, papa. In: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, vol. 26. Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani. [online:] https://www.trecca ni.it/enciclopedia/papa-clemente-xi_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29/, accessed on 29.09.2021. Anon. Il Pasquino. In: Pasquinate. [online:] https://www.pasquinate.it/il-pasquino/, accesed on 2.10.2021. Apollonj B.M. 1937. Vespignani Virginio. In: Enciclopedia Italiana. Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani. [online:] https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/ virginio-vespignani_%28Enciclopedia-Italiana%29/, accessed on 29.09.2021. Arata F.P. 2017. Il Secolo d’Oro del Museo Capitolino 1733–1838. Nascita e formazione della prima collezione pubblica di antichità. Roma: Campisano Editore. Ashby T. 1916. The Palazzo Odescalchi in Rome. Papers of the British School at Rome, 8(3), 55–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0068246200005444. Bacchi A. 1995. “L’operatione con li modelli”: Pierre Etienne Monnot e Carlo Maratta a confronto. Ricerche di Storia dell’Arte, 55, 39–52. Badolato N. 2016. “All’occhio, all’udito ed al pensiero”. Gli allestimenti operistici romani di Filippo Juvarra per Pietro Ottoboni e Maria Casimira di Polonia. Torino: Fondazione 1563 per l’Arte e la Cultura della Compagnia di San Paolo. [online:] https:// www.academia.edu/25159408/_All_occhio_all_udito_ed_al_pensiero_gli_alles timenti_operistici_romani_di_Filippo_Juvarra_per_Pietro_Ottoboni_e_Maria_ Casimira_di_Polonia, accessed on 29.09.2021. La Basilica di S. Pietro, Notiziario mensile, Città del Vaticano, Anno XV, gennaio 2003, n. 1. Bassani A. 1700. Viaggio a Roma della Signora Reale Maestà di Maria Casimira, Regina di Polonia, vedova dell’Invittissimo Giovanni III per il voto di visitare i Luoghi santi et il Supremo Pastor della Chiesa Innocenzo XII. Dedicato all’Eminentissimo e Reverendissimo Cardinale Barberini, Protettore di quel Regno. Roma: [Barberini]. Benedetti S. 2017. Progetti d’architettura e allestimenti museali in Campidoglio tra XVI e XVIII secolo. In: E. Dodero, C.P. Presicce (a cura di). Il tesoro di antichità: Winckelmann e il Museo capitolino nella Roma del Settecento. Roma: Gangemi, pp. 37–57. 444 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Bevilacqua Melasecchi O. 2001. Il complesso monumentale del San Michele dalle origini agli interventi di Clemente XI. In: G. Cucco (a cura di). Papa Albani e le arti a Urbino e a Roma 1700–1721. Venezia: Marsilio, pp. 121–123. Bocci Pacini P., Gambaro G. 2012. La dispersione del “Celebre Museo de’ Padri Certosini”. Dal convento di S. Maria degli Angeli alle collezioni di Vienna. Roma: Parigi e Monaco. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider, 455–484. Archeologia classica, 63. Bocconi S. 1914. Musei Capitolini. Pinacoteca e Tabularium. Roma: [Tipografia Cooperativa Sociale]. Bocconi S. 1925–1926. Il riordinamento del palazzo dei Conservatori. In: Capitolium, rassegna di attività municipale. Roma–Torino: Bestetti & Tumminelli, pp. 189–195. Borsellino E. 2000. Alessandro VII e Cristina di Svezia. In: A. Angelini, M. Butzek, B. Sani (eds.). Alessandro VII Chigi (1599–1667). Il papa senese di Roma moderna (catalogo Mostra Siena, 23 settembre 2000 – 10 gennaio 2001). Firenze–Siena: Maschietto & Musolino–Protagon Editori Toscani, pp. 202–207. Brunetti V. 2015. Ritratti papali di Lorenzo Ottoni: l’Urbano VIII di Pesaro, l’Innocenzo XII di Ancona e il Clemente XI di Bologna. Annali della Pontificia Insigne Accademia di Belle Arti e Lettere dei Virtuosi al Pantheon, 15, 277–297. Bulgari C.G. 1958. Argentieri, gemmari e orafi d’Italia. Roma: L. Del Turco. Caira Lumetti R.M., Fogelberg Rota S. (eds.) 2005. Letteratura, arte e musica alla corte romana di Cristina di Svezia (Atti del Convegno di studi Roma, Lumsa, 4 novembre 2003). Roma: Aracne. Càllari L. 1907. I palazzi di Roma e le case di pregio storico e artistico. Roma–Milano: Società Editrice Dante Alighieri. Parisi Presicce C., Danti A. (a cura di) 2016. Campidoglio. Mito, memoria, archeologia (catalogo della Mostra Roma, Musei Capitolini, 1 marzo – 19 giugno 2016). Roma: Campisano Editore. Cancellieri F. 1802. Storia de’solenni Possessi de’ Sommi Pontefici detti anticamente Processi o Processioni dopo la loro Coronazione dalla Basilica Vaticana alla Lateranense dedicata alla Santità di N.S. Pio VII P.O.M.. Roma: Luigi Lazzarini. Cancellieri F. 1811. Il Mercato, il Lago dell’acqua Vergine ed il Palazzo Panfiliano nel circo Agonale detto volgarmente Piazza navona. Roma: Bourlié. https://doi. org/10.11588/diglit.6870#0001. Canezza A. 1931. La distruzione delle memorie lapidarie in Roma. In: Atti del II Congresso Nazionale di Studi Romani (24 – 29 aprile 1930), vol. 2. Roma: Paolo Cremonese, pp. 587–599. Caputo S. 2017. Il “teatro della festa” nella Roma di Clemente XI. In: B. Alfonzetti (ed.). Settecento romano. Reti del classicismo arcadico. Roma: Viella, pp. 139–166. Catalano M. 2016. La Galleria d’Arte Moderna in Palazzo Caffarelli. Campidoglio – mito, memoria, archeologia, pp. 113–118. 445 Isabella Serafini Cesari G., Tittoni Monti M.E. (a cura di) 1980. Gli affreschi del Cavalier d’Arpino in Campidoglio. Analisi di un’opera attraverso il restauro (catalogo della Mostra Roma, Palazzo dei Conservatori 8.7.1980 – 30.9.1980). Roma: Multigrafica Editrice. Cecchelli C. (introduzione e note illustrative) 1925. Il Campidoglio. Milano–Roma: Bestetti & Tumminelli. Cima M. (a cura di) 1995. Restauri nei Musei Capitolini: le sculture della Sala dei Magistrati e gli originali greci della Sala dei Monumenti arcaici. Verona–Vicenza: Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Verona–Belluno e Ancona. Cipriani A. 2012. Materiali per una storia della Galleria dell’Accademia di San Luca. Roma: Accademia Nazionale di San Luca, pp. 23–28. Quaderni per la didattica. Conforti M. 1980. Planning the Lateran Apostles. H.A. Millon (ed.). Memoirs of the American Academy in Rome, 35, pp. 243–260. Studies in Italian Art History 1: Studies in Italian Art and Architecture 15th through 18th Centuries. https://doi.org/ 10.2307/4238684. Cucco G. (ed.) 2001. Papa Albani e le arti a Urbino e a Roma 1700–1721 (catalogo della Mostra Urbino 29 giugno – 30 settembre 2001 – Roma 25 ottobre 2001 – 13 gennaio 2002). Venezia: Marsilio. Curti F. 2009–2010. Nuovi documenti su palazzo Zuccari. Proprietà e ristrutturazioni edilizie dal XVII al XIX secolo. Römisches Jahrbuch der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 39, 345–349. Da Gai E. 2008. Struttura e tipo edilizio dei «granari» dell’Annona di Roma (1575– 1705). Mélanges de l’École française de Rome – Italie et Méditerranée modernes et contemporaines, 120(2), 595–606. https://doi.org/10.3406/mefr.2008.10567. Danti A. 2016. L’Immobile saxum torna alla luce: i ritrovamenti dalle demolizioni sul versante meridionale del Campidoglio. In: C.P. Presicce, A. Danti (a cura di). Campidoglio mito, memoria, archeologia (catalogo mostra, Roma 1 marzo – 19 giugno 2016). Rome: Campisano Editore, pp. 181–188. De Bellis C. 2015. “Il Dio guerriero e l’erudita Dea”. Arti e armi nella Roma arcadica di primo Settecento: dagli Atti dei Concorsi Clementini. In: S. Benedetti, F. Lucioli, P. Petteruti Pellegrino (a cura di). Cum fide amicitia. Per Rosanna Alhaique Pettinelli. Roma: Bulzoni editore, pp. 181–196. Studi (e testi) italiani. Collana del Dipartimento di studi greco-latini, italiani, scenico-musicali, Sapienza Università di Roma, 27. De Caprio F. 2004. Notarelle sul viaggio d’esilio a Roma di Maria Casimira Sobieska Regina di Polonia. In: Saggi vari. Viterbo: Sette Città, pp. 65–108. Deseine F.J. 1713. Rome Moderne, Premiére Ville de l’Europe, avec toutes ses magnificences et ses délices, vol. 2. Leide: Chez Pierre Vander Aa, March. Lib. [online:] https://archive.org/details/romemodernepremi02dese/page/520/mode/2up, accessed on 29.09.2021. Di Gioia E.B. 1990. Museo di Roma: le collezioni di scultura del Seicento e Settecento n. 28. Roma: Palombi Editori. 446 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Di Gioia E.B. 2002. Le collezioni di scultura del Museo di Roma. Il Seicento. Roma: Campisano Editore. Grandi collezioni romane. Dodero E. 2016. Rubens e il dialogo con l’Antico. In: A. Lo Bianco (ed.). Rubens e la nascita del Barocco (catalogo della Mostra, Palazzo Reale, Milano, 26 ottobre 2016 – 26 febbraio 2017). Venezia: Marsilio Editore, pp. 71–83. Dodero E., Parisi Presicce C. (a cura di) 2017. Il tesoro di antichità. Winckelmann e il Museo Capitolino nella Roma del Settecento (catalogo della Mostra Musei Capitolini, Roma, 7 dicembre 2017 – 22 aprile 2018), Roma: Gangemi. Engass R. 1972. Laurentius Ottoni Rom.Vat. Basilicae Sculptor. Storia dell’Arte, no. 15–16. Roma: De Luca Editori d’Arte, pp. 315–342. Ensoli Vittozzi S., Parisi Presicce C. 1991. Il reimpiego dell’Antico sul colle Capitolino sotto il pontificato di Sisto V. In: L. Spezzaferro, M.E. Tittoni (a cura di). Il Campidoglio e Sisto V (catalogo della Mostra, Musei Capitolini, Roma, 30 aprile – 31 maggio 1991). Roma: Edizioni Carte Segrete, pp. 85–116. Eschinardi F. 1750. Descrizione di Roma e dell’Agro Romano già fatta ad uso della carta topografica del Cingolani dal Padre Francesco Eschinardi della Compagnia di Gesù, Roma: G. Salomoni. [online:] https://arachne.dainst.org/entity/4116451, accesed on 29.09.2021. Fagiolo M. 1997. L’effimero di stato: dal Conclave al Possesso. In: La festa a Roma dal Rinascimento al 1870 (catalogo della Mostra, Palazzo Venezia, Roma, 23 maggio – 15 settembre 1997). Torino: Allemandi editore, pp. 8–25. Farina T. [2016–2017]. La statua di Paolo III nella chiesa di Santa Maria in Aracoeli: un’aggiunta al catalogo di Leonardo Sormani. Bollettino d’Arte, 7(29), pp. 61–74. Ferrari O., Papaldo S. 1999. Le sculture del Seicento a Roma. Roma: Ugo Bozzi Editore. Francescangeli L. 2014. Politiche culturali e conservazione del patrimonio storico-artistico a Roma dopo l’Unità. Il Titolo 12 Monumenti e scavi antichità Musei 1871–1920. Roma: Viella. Carte scoperte, 2. https://doi.org/10.52056/9788867282517. Gallavotti Cavallero D. 1989. Palazzi di Roma dal XIV al XX secolo. Roma: NER. Gerola G. 1935. Le fonti italiane per la iconografia dei reali di Polonia. L.S. Olschki (a cura di). La Bibliofilia. Rivista di Storia del libro e delle arti grafiche, di bibliografia ed erudizione, 36, 129–505. Giometti C. 2012. “Per accompagnare l’antico”: the restoration of ancient sculpture in early eighteenth-century Rome. Journal of the History of Collections, 24(2), Oxford (UK), 219–230. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhc/fhp046. Giometti C. 2013. NOCCHIERI, Francesco Maria. In: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 78. Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana. Treccani. [online:] https://www. treccani.it/enciclopedia/francesco-maria-nocchieri_(Dizionario-Biografico)/, accessed on 1.10.2021. Giometti C. 2014. OTTONI, Lorenzo. In: Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, 80. Roma: Istituto dell’Enciclopedia Italiana Treccani. [online:] https://www.treccani.it/enci clopedia/lorenzo-ottoni_(Dizionario-Biografico)/, accessed on 1.10.2021. 447 Isabella Serafini Golzio V. [1939]. La Galleria e le collezioni della R. Accademia di San Luca in Roma. Roma: [Poligrafico dello Stato]. Itinerari dei musei, gallerie e monumenti d’Italia, no. [72]. Guerrieri Borsoi M.B. 2001. Il restauro della basilica di San Clemente promosso da Clemente XI. In: G. Cucco (a cura di). Papa Albani e le arti a Urbino e a Roma 1700–1721. Venezia: Marsilio, pp. 110–115. Hager W. 1929. Die Ehrenstatuen der Päpste. Leipzig: Bibliotheca Hertziana. Römische Forschungen der Bibliotheca Hertziana, 7. https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.48325 #0021. https://archive.org/details/romemodernepremi02dese/page/518/mode/2up, accessed on 2.10.2021. Insolera I. 1980. Roma. Immagini e realtà dal X al XX secolo. Roma–Bari: Laterza, pp. 360–394. Le città nella storia d’Italia, 1. Keysler J.G. 1760. Travels through Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, Switzerland, Italy, and Lorrain. Giving a true and just description of the present state of those countries, vol. 2. London: Printed for G. Keith. [online:] https://archive.org/details/b30529311_0002, accessed on 1.10.2021. Lo Bianco A., Negro A. (a cura di) 2005. Il Settecento a Roma (catalogo della Mostra, Roma, Palazzo Venezia, 10 novembre 2005 – 26 febbraio 2006). Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana Editoriale. Magagnini A. 1994. I Musei Capitolini e il collezionista Augusto Castellani. Roma: Fratelli Palombi. Comune di Roma. Assessorato alla Cultura. Centro di coordinamento didattico, 72. Magnanimi G. 1983. Il Palazzo Barberini. Roma: Editalia. Manfredi T. 2008. Carlo Fontana e l’Accademia Albana: arte e architettura in Arcadia. In: M. Fagiolo, G. Bonaccorsi (a cura di). Studi sui Fontana. Una dinastia di architetti ticinesi a Roma tra Manierismo e Barocco. Roma: Gangemi, [pp. 171–180]. Marder T.A. 1980. The Porto di Ripetta in Rome. Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, 39(1), 28–56. https://doi.org/10.2307/989489. Markuszewska A. 2016. Musica e Politica. Il mecenatismo musicale di Maria Casimira Sobieska a Roma (1699–1714). In: Atti dell’Accademia Polacca, vol. 5. Roma: Accademia Polacca delle Scienze Biblioteca Centro Studi a Roma vicolo Doria, pp. 7–28. [online:] https://docplayer.it/108471597-Atti-dell-accademia-polacca-vol-v-2016. html, accessed on 1.10.2021. Masini P. 2008. Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi. In: S. Guarino, P. Masini (a cura di). Gli affreschi del Palazzo dei Conservatori. Milano: Electa. Montagu J. 1970. Antonio and Gioseppe Giorgetti: sculptors to Cardinal Francesco Barberini. J. Shapley (a cura di). The Art Bulletin, 52, pp. 278–298. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/00043079.1970.10790894. Montagu J. 1991. La scultura barocca romana, un’industria dell’arte. Torino: Umberto Allemandi & C. 448 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Montagu J. 1997. The Santacroce tombs in S. Maria in Publicolis. The Burlington Magazine, 139, 849–859. Montagu J. 2005. Scultura. La prima metà del secolo. In: A. Lo Bianco, A. Negro (a cura di). Settecento a Roma. Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana editoriale, pp. 35–40. Montagu J. 2018. The Sobieskis in marble. In: J.A. Chrościcki, Z. Flisowska, P. Migasiewicz (a cura di). I Sobieski a Roma. La famiglia reale polacca nella città eterna. Varsavia: Muzeum Palacu Króla Jana III w Wilanowie, pp. 312–326. Montani C. 1928–1929. Augusto Castellani orafo romano. In: Capitolium, rassegna di attività municipale, 4. Roma–Torino: Bestetti & Tumminelli, pp. 209–222. Morlacchi M. (ed.) 2010. Roma. Il Colore e la città: la tutela della bellezza dell’immagine urbana. Roma: Gangemi Editore. Muller J.M. 1989. Rubens: The Artist as a Collector. Princeton (NJ): Princeton University Press. Mura Sommella A. 1992. L’Antiquarium comunale e le raccolte capitoline da “Roma Capitale” ai progetti per la loro sistemazione, 1870–1992. In: M.E. Tittoni, S. Guarino. Invisibilia. Rivedere i capolavori, vedere i progetti (catalogo della Mostra, Roma, Palazzo delle Esposizioni, 19 febbraio – 12 aprile 1992). Roma: Edizioni Carte Segrete, pp. 145–150. Negro A. 2001. La decorazione clementina di S. Giovanni in Laterano. In: G. Cucco (a cura di). Papa Albani e le arti a Urbino e a Roma 1700–1721. Venezia: Marsilio, pp. 99–109. Norberg-Schulz C. 1998. Architettura Barocca. Milano: Electa. Storia universale dell’architettura, 3. Palombi D. 2006. Rodolfo Lanciani: l’archeologia a Roma tra Ottocento e Novecento. Roma: L’Erma di Bretschneider. Problemi e ricerche di storia antica, 25. Parisi Presicce C., Danti A. 2016. Il Nuovo Museo d’arte antica (Museo Mussolini) al pianterreno di Palazzo Caffarelli. In: C. Parisi Presicce, A. Danti (a cura di). Campidoglio mito, memoria, archeologia (catalogo mostra, Roma 1 marzo – 19 giugno 2016). Rome: Campisano Editore, pp. 103–111. Pascoli L. 1981. Vite de’pittori, scultori ed architetti viventi dai manoscritti 1383 e 1743 della Biblioteca Comunale Augus ta di Perugia. Treviso: Libreria Editrice Canova, pp. 207–228. Fonti per la storia dell’arte. Picozzi M.G. 2004. Ritratti dalla Collezione Caetani nei Musei Capitolini. Bollettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma. Nuova Serie, 18. Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 27–43. Pierguidi S. 2013. I busti degli avi nelle collezioni seicentesche dei Barberini (con una revisione della cronologia dei ritratti di Bernini degli anni Venti). Bollettino d’Arte. Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 33–51. Estratto dal Fascicolo N. 18 – aprile–giuno 2013 (serie 7). Pierguidi S. 2014. Monnot, Livio Odescalchi e il Gladiatore dei Musei Capitolini. Bollettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma. Nuova Serie, 28. Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 53–60. 449 Isabella Serafini Pietrangeli C. 1962a. La Collezione Castellani. Bollettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma, 9. Roma: “L’Erma di Bretschneider”, 36–39. Pietrangeli C. 1962b. La Sala degli Orazi e Curiazi. Capitolium, 37. Roma: Bestetti e Tumminelli, 194–203. Pietrangeli C. 1966. Christina in Campidoglio. Bollettino dei Musei Comunali di Roma, 13. Roma: Bestetti e Tumminelli, [24–26]. Pizzo M. 2002. Livio Odescalchi e i Rezzonico. Documenti su arte e collezionismo alla fine del XVII secolo. In: Saggi e Memorie di storia dell’arte, vol. 26. Firenze: Leo S. Olschki, pp. 119–153. Platania G. 1995. Maria Casimira Sobieska a Roma: alcuni episodi del soggiorno romano di una regina polacca. Effetto Roma. Il Viaggio. Roma: [Bulzoni], 9–48. Platania G. 2018. Il soggiorno romano di Maria Casimira Sobieska. Eastern European History Review, 1. Viterbo: Edizioni Sette Città, 9–16. [online:] https://www.easter neuropeanhistory.eu/it/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/EEHR-1-2018.pdf, accessed on 1.10.2021. Re E. 1926–1927. La dimora romana di Maria Casimira Regina di Polonia. Capitolium, 2–5. Roma: Bestetti e Tumminelli, pp. 160–167. Serafini I. 2021. La memoria di Maria Casimira Sobieska nei Musei Capitolini. Una storia lunga due secoli. In: Atti Accademia Polacca delle Scienze. Roma: Accademia Polacca della Scienze [forthcoming]. Sherf G. 2005. Il Principe Livio Odescalchi accoglie nel suo palazzo a Roma la regina di Polonia. In: A. Lo Bianco, A. Negro (a cura di). Settecento a Roma. Cinisello Balsamo: Silvana editoriale, pp. 165–166. Sigismondi C. 2014. Lo Gnomone Clementino Astronomia Meridiana in Basilica. Gerbertus. International Academic Publication on History of Medieval Science, 7, 3–78. [online:] https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1607/1607.06601.pdf, accessed on 1.10.2021. Stuart Jones H. (ed.) 1912. A Catalogue of the Ancient Sculptures preserved in the Municipal Collections of Rome. The Sculptures of the Museo Capitolino. Oxford: At The Clarendon Press. Tofanelli A. 1843. Indicazione delle sculture e pitture che esistono nel Museo Capitolino, Roma: Tipografia Menicanti. Valesio F. 1977. Diario di Roma, vol. 1–2. Milano: Longanesi. I Cento libri, 46. Van Wagenberg-Ter Hoeven A.A., Hoeven T. 2005. A Matter of Mistaken Identity. In Search of a New Title for Rubens “Tiberius and Agrippina”. Artibus et historiae, 26(52), 113–127. https://doi.org/10.2307/20067100. Venuti R. 1755. Descrizione delle statue, bassorilievi, busti, altri antichi monumenti, e quadri de più celebri pennelli, che si custodiscono ne Palazzi del Campidoglio. Roma: A spese di Gaetano Quojani libraro alle Convertite al Corso. Vincenti G. 2019. The exiled Queen Maria Casimira Sobieska in Rome: Gender, Culture and Politics. In: P. Paoloni, R. Lombardi (eds.). Advances in Gender and Cultural 450 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Research in business and economics. (4th Ipazia workshop on Gender issues, 2018, Rome, Italy). [Rome]: Springer, pp. 3–12. [online:] https://www.academia.edu/379 49702/The_exiled_queen_Maria_Casimira_Sobieska_in_Rome_Gender_Cultu re_and_Politics, accesed on 1.10.2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00335-7_1. list of illustrations Fig. 1. Anon. Portrait of Queen Maria Kasimiera Sobieski, oil on canvas, last quarter of the XVII century. Minsk: The National Art Museum of the Republic of Belarus (Courtesy of the Museum). Fig. 2. Pierre Étienne Monnot (attributed). The reception of Mary of Poland in the Palace of Livio Odescalchi, clay, 1699 approx. Paris: Musée du Louvre (photo © RMN – Grand Palais Musée du Louvre). Fig. 3. Lorenzo Ottoni. Celebrating monument to Maria Casimira queen of Poland – medallion with portrait (det.), Carrara marble(?) with grey veins, pavonazzetto marble, 1701, Rome: Musei Capitolini, III Sala Castellani (© Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Musei Capitolini – Archivio Fotografico). Fig. 4. Lorenzo Ottoni. Portrait bust of Francesco Barberini senior, Carrara marble with grey veins and portasanta pedestal, 1680 approx. Rome: Museo di Roma (© Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma – Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 5. Lorenzo Ottoni. Portrait bust of Antonio Barberini junior, Carrara marble with grey veins and porphyry pedestal, 1680 approx. Rome: Museo di Roma (© Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Museo di Roma – Archivio Iconografico). Fig. 6. Unknown painter. Portrait of Lorenzo Ottoni, oil on canvas, XVIII century. Rome: Accademia di San Luca (© Roma, Accademia Nazionale di San Luca). Fig. 7. Lorenzo Ottoni. Funerary monument of Antonio Publicola Santacroce and Girolama Nari, marble, 1707–1727. Rome: Church of Santa Maria in Publicolis. Fig. 8. Portrait of Agrippina the elder, marble, I century AD Rome: Musei Capitolini, Palazzo Nuovo, Sala degli Imperatori (© Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Musei Capitolini – Archivio Fotografico). Fig. 9. Peter Paul Rubens. Agrippina and Germanicus, oil on canvas, 1614 approx. Washington: National Gallery of Art. [online:] https://www.nga.gov/collection/artobject-page.46473.html, accessed on 2.10.2021 (© 2020 National Gallery of Art). Fig. 10. Lorenzo Ottoni. Portrait medaillon of Pope Alexander VIII, white marble medallion mounted on a bigio antico marble base, 1690s. Los Angeles (U.S.A.): Jean Paul Getty Museum. [online:] http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/1255/ lorenzo-ottoni-portrait-medallion-of-pope-alexander-viii-1610-1691-reigned1689-1691-italian-1690s/, accesed on 2.10.2021. 451 Isabella Serafini Fig. 11. Francesco Maria Nocchieri. Celebrating monument to queen Marie Christine of Sweden, white marble, antique black marble, antique green marble, antique yellow marble 1701. Rome: Musei Capitolini, III Sala Castellani (© Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Musei Capitolini – Archivio Fotografico). Fig. 12. Musei Capitolini, Sala dei Magistrati (from: C. Cecchelli, Il Campidoglio, 1925, pag. 43). Fig. 13. R. Moscioni (1880–1920). Monumento a Maria Casimira regina di Polonia (det.), albumin, paper, undated, Roma n.5109. [online:] http://catalogo.fondazionezeri. unibo.it/scheda/fotografia/146084/Moscioni%2C%20Romualdo%20-%20Monu mento%20a%20Maria%20Casmirra%20Regina%20di%20Polonia%20-%20insie me, accessed on 3.10.2021 (©Fondazione Federico Zeri – Università di Bologna, Catalogo Fototeca). list of Plates Pl. I Palazzo dei Conservatori, Orazi e Curiazi Hall. Scheme of the frescoes by Cavalier d’Arpino. (© Roma, Sovrintendenza Capitolina ai Beni Culturali – Musei Capitolini – Archivio Fotografico) Pl. II Palazzo dei Conservatori, Orazi e Curiazi Hall. Photo composition of the two memorials of the queens in Orazi e Curiazi Hall by Valerio Pampanini and Angelo Canzano The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Fig. 1 453 Isabella Serafini Fig. 2 Fig. 3 454 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Fig. 4 455 Isabella Serafini Fig. 5 456 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Fig. 6 457 Isabella Serafini Fig. 7 458 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Fig. 8 459 Isabella Serafini Fig. 9 460 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Fig. 10 461 Isabella Serafini Fig. 11 462 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Fig. 12 463 Isabella Serafini Fig. 13 464 The Memorial to the Visit of the Queen of Poland Maria Casimira Sobieski… Plate 1 465 Isabella Serafini Plate 2 466 index of nAmes Abildgaard Nicolai Abraham 84 Abramowicz Andrzej 64, 164-165 Addeo P.F.A. 371 Agathocles, tyrant of Syracuse 131 Agnello G. 135, 137-138 Agosti Barbara 432 Agrippa 266, 275 Agucchi Giovanni Battista 348 Airoldi Alfonso 136 Albani Alessandro 101, 105 Aleo Nero C. 193 Alexander Severus, Roman emperor 169 Alexander the Great, king of Macedonia 70 Alexander VI, pope 218 Alexander VIII, pope 426 Allroggen-Bedel Agnes 335 Almgren Oscar 165 Alpers Svetlana 32 Altieri Marco Antonio 314, 321 Amalia, queen of Greece 226 Amari Michele 185 Amasis Painter 147 Amati Giovannangelo 316 Ambrosch Joseph Julius Athanasius 244245 Amico Vito 134 Amminuno 372, 374 Anca Francesco 186, 189 Ancona Ciriaco di 316 Ancona Francesco Maria di 428 Anderson James 393 Andretta Stefano 420 Andrian-Werburg Ferdinand von 182183, 190-196 Andrieu Jean-Bertrand 89 Angel Samuel 185 Angelini Gennaro 386 Antinous 246 Antonia 267, 276-277 Antoninus Pius, Roman emperor 70 Apollonj Bruno Maria 431 Aquila Francesco Faraone 394 Arata Francesco Paolo 317-318, 421, 429 Arcadius, Roman emperor 136 Arditi Michele 332, 336 Arezzi Tommaso 137 Aristophanes 355 Aristotle 32 Arndt Paul 17 Arndt Wilhelm 372 Ashby Thomas 418 467 Index of Names Asor Rosa Alberto 314 Aspertini Amico 314,317 Astle Thomas 9 Atzori Emanuele 370 Augustus II the Strong, king of Poland 58-59, 73, 102 Augustus, Roman emperor 260, 269, 272273, 275-276, 278-279 Avena Alberto 260, 264-265, 274 Aviano Marco d’ 387 Bacchi Andrea 418 Badolato Nicola 419 Bandurska Zofia 239 Baraniecki Adrian 289 Barbara Radziwiłł, queen of Poland 63 Barberini Antonio 424 Barberini Carlo 391-393, 425 Barberini Francesco 424, 426 Barberini Taddeo 392 Barberini Urbano 392 Barigioni Filippo 395 Barksdale Maynard William 261, 275 Barone V. 149 Bartolo L. Di 138 Bassani Antonio 386, 392, 418, 421 Bastet Frédéric Louis 40 Baudelot de Dairval Charles César 101 Bayer Theophilus Siegfried 168-170 Beauharnais Eugène de 338 Bednarski Andrew 288 Belitski Ludwig 212 Bellicard Jerôme-Charles 335, 337 Bellori Giovan Pietro 348 Bendl J.I. 392 Bendtsen Margit 222 Benedetti Simona 318, 421 Benesz Hanna 110-112 Benincasa Rutilio 373 Benndorf Otto 185, 264 Berges Dietrich 106 Berghem Nicolaes 112 Berini Antonio 107 Berlusconi Silvio 278 Bernabò Brea Luigi 130, 136 Bernatowicz Tadeusz 59, 61-63 Bernini Gian Lorenzo 390, 426, 428, 434 Bertsch Daniel 224, 227 Bethmann Ludwig 373 Betlej Andrzej 56 Beuth Christian Peter Wilhelm 212 Bevilacqua Melasecchi Olga 421 Białostocki Jan 348 Bianchi Bandinelli Ranuccio 275-276 Bianchi Ugo 355 Bianchini Francesco 426 Bieńkowski Piotr 149 Biliński Bronisław 386 Biscari, prince 133-134 Blak Halina 109 Bläsing David 169 Bloch Raymond 263 Bloemen Pieter van 391 Blondeau Jacques 392 Boardman John 100 Bober Phyllis Pray 315 Bocci Pacini Piera 426 Boccolini Alessandro 388 Bocconi Settimo 432-434 Bock Franz 291-292, 298 Bock Friedrich Samuel 169 Bock Vladimir de 291-292 Bodart Diane 395 Boiteux Martine 387 Bolin S. 169 Bonanni Colonna Giacomo 131, 134 Bonaparte Lucien 48 Boncompagni Ludovisi Pier Gregorio 260 468 Index of Names Bongiovanni Ferdinando 390 Boni Fabio 397 Bończuk-Dawidziuk Urszula 208, 223, 227, 239-241, 243, 246, 249 Borghese Scipione 319, 321 Bormann Eugen 185 Borroni Salvadori Fabia 100-101 Borsellino Enzo 390, 418 Boselli Orfeo 349, 359-360 Bothmer Dietrich von 16 Bottai Giuseppe 275 Böttiger Karl August 210 Bouillon Maria Carolina de 59-60 Bourgignon Alfred 14, 16 Boutin, Caylus’ assistant 337 Bovio Marconi Jole 181, 187, 191, 194 Bracci Pietro 395 Bracken Catherine Philippa 223 Brahmer Leonard 111 Breccola Giancarlo 395 Brenna Vincenzo 337 Brøndsted Peter Oluf 85-86 Bronzino Angelo 261 Brun Friederike 89 Brunelli Serena 265, 275 Brunetti Vittoria 425 Brzezina Katarzyna 56-58, 60 Buccino Laura 355 Buckingham (Villiers) Georges 33 Bukowski Henryk 110 Bulas Kazimierz 147-148 Bulgari Constantino 425 Bundgaard Rasmussen Bodil 42, 227, 229 Bunsen Josias 210 Buongiovanni A.M. 130 Burch Edwar 107 Bursche Aleksander 169 Büsching Johann Gustav Gottlieb 238, 241-243, 245 Busiri Vici Andrea 395 Busk-Jepsen Karen Benedicte 87 Cabrera Ana 295 Cadorna Alessandro 432 Cadorna Luigi 432 Caesar 316 Caesar Gaius 272-273, 276 Caesar Lucius 273 Cafici Corrado 185 Cafici Ippolito 185 Cagiano De Azevedo Michelangelo 349 Cahn Herbert 16 Caira Lumetti Rossana Maria 418 Calament Florence 291 Calandrini Filippo 260 Calcara Nicolò Pietro 186 Caligula, Roman emperor 246, 425 Campana Giampetro 268 Cancellieri Francesco 422, 426 Canessa Amadeo 12-13 Canessa Cesare 12-14 Canessa Ercole 13-14 Canessa Francesco 13 Canessa Guglielmo 13 Canezza Alessandro 433 Cannizzaro Mariano Edoardo 260, 262265, 270, 273 Canova Antonio 90-91, 93 Canzano Angelo 430 Capranesi Francesco 106 Capranica Camillo 263 Capranica Del Grillo Scarlatti Giuliano 418 Caputo Simone 419 Cardelli Alessandro 349 Cardelli Asdrubale Juniore 351, 359 Cardelli Asdrubale Seniore 349-351 Cardelli Carlo the Elder 349-350, 352, 359360 469 Index of Names Cardelli Carlo the Younger 349 Cardini Franco 385 Carleton Dudley 32-33, 45 Carr Robert 32 Carradori Francesco 276 Carriero Rosalba 113 Carsten Asmus Jacob 90 Carteret, lord 102 Carthailhac Émile 180 Casale Angelandrea 13 Castellani Alessandro 106 Castellani Augusto 431 Catalano M. 433 Cavaceppi Bartolomeo 265 Cavalier Odile 101 Cavallari Francesco Saverio 185, 187 Cavani Vittorio 189 Caylus Anne Claude de 337 Cecchelli Carlo 265, 274, 315-316, 434 Ceci Francesca 314, 385, 394-395, 417, 423 Cerbara Giuseppe 107 Cesari Giuseppe (Cavaliere d’Arpino) 428 Champollion Jean-François 48 Charles de’ Medici, duke of Tuscany 64 Charles I, king of England 33 Charles II Habsburg, king of Spain 420 Charles II, king of England 34 Charles V Habsburg, emperor 61, 132 Charles V, duke of Lorraine 387-388 Charles VI Habsburg, emperor 64, 101 Charles VII, king of Naples 334-335 Charpentier Toussaint von 243 Chaudet Antoine-Denis 89 Chełmecka Paulina 152 Chéron Charles Jean Françoise 425 Chicago Painter 147 Chigi Agostino 352 Chigi Ludovico 425 Chmielewski Stefan 167 Christian Kathleen 65 Christian VIII, king of Denmark 229 Christina, queen of Sweden 389-390, 418421, 424, 426, 428-429, 433-434 Cicero 32 Cifka Péter 92 Cima Maddalena 433 Cipriani Angela 421 Cipriani Sebastiano 392 Cirillo Antonio 13 Claudius, Roman emperor 268, 270 Clemens VIII, pope 45, 315-316, 318 Clemens XI 386, 388, 390, 394-395, 420 Clemens XII 395 Cochin Charles-Nicolas 335, 337 Codazzi Niccolò Viviani 391 Colburn Kathrin 288, 294 Colini A.M. 317-318 Coliva Anna 390 Colonna Domenico 351 Conforti Michael 420 Connerton Paul 207-208 Constantine the Great, emperor 64, 392 Contay Jean Le Jeune de 260 Copani Fabio 131 Corcoran Thomas C. 370 Cordano F. 130 Cosimo I de’ Medici, grand duke of Tuscany 262 Cosimo III de’ Medici, grand duke of Tuscany 34 Costa Giorgio da 260 Courbaud Edmond 260, 263 Cranach Lucas 113 Cremona Alessandro 264 Cremonesi Filippo 433 Crescimbeni Giovanni Mario 386 Cucco Giuseppe 420 Cugnoni Josephus 348 470 Index of Names Cultraro Massimo 182, 189, 191, 195 Cumont Franz 312-313, 321 Curti Francesca 393, 419 Czacki Tadeusz 145 Czartoryska Izabela 144-145 Czartoryski Adam Jerzy 103, 144-145 Czartoryski Adam Karol 152 Czartoryski Marceli 297 Czartoryski Władysław 145-148, 153, 297299 D’Albero Paolo 134-135 D’Alema Massimo 278 D’Elci Orazio 390 Da Gai Enrico 421 Daita Gaetano 189 Dalla Rosa Guido 190 Daltrop G. 348 Danieli Carmela 132 Danti Alberto 433 Daszewski Wiktor Andrzej 147 De Bellis Carla 421 De Caprio Francesca 418 De Dominicis Claudio 388 De Gregorio Antonio 181, 187, 190-193, 195 De Gregorio Camillo 192 De Prisco Vincenzo 13 De Puma Richard 11 De Rossi Giovanni 260, 431 De Soultrait George 394 De Vido Stefania 188 Dec Dorota 109 Décultot Elisabeth 105 Del Torre Filippo 319 Della Torre Cesare Gaetani 133 Demidziuk Krzysztof 242 Demosthenes 355 Deseine François-Jacques 428 Desprez Louis Jean 337 Desvallées André 10 Di Benedetto Vincenzo 357 Di Blasi, professor 192 Di Gioia Elena B. 424 Di Giovanni Francesco Paolo 181-182 Di Vita Antonino 131 Diaconus Stephanus 136 Digby John 108 Dilthey Karl 16 Diodorus Siculus 131, 356 Dion, tyrant of Syracuse 131 Dionysius the Old, tyrant of Syracuse 131 Dionysius the Young, tyrant of Syracuse 131 Dissel Karl 260, 264, 274 Divitiis Bianca de 65 Dodero Eloisa 311, 426, 429 Domaszewski Alfred 274 D'Orazi Luca 13-14 Dorez Léon 370 Drigalski Paul 166, 169 Drusus the Elder 107, 266-267, 276 Duchesne Louis 316 Dufková Marie 338 Duhn Friedrich von 262-264, 266-270, 352-353, 357 Dumańska-Słowik Magdalena 107 Dunand Françoise 288 Dürer Albrecht 373 Dütschke Hans 266-267 Dyck Anthony van 111 Ebert Schifferer Sybille 349-353, 357, 359360 Eck Caroline van 38 Edward the Confessor, king of England 373 Egidi Pietro 370 471 Index of Names Egidi V.M. 370 Ehrenberg Christian Gottfried 211 Eiling Alexander 213 El-Sayed Rafed 296 Engass Robert 424 Ensoli Vittozzi Serena 318, 432 Erba Luigi dell’ 14 Errera Isabelle 295 Ersoch (Herzog) Gioacchino 264-265 Eschbach Norbert 16-17 Eschinardi Francesco 418 Eugenius IV, pope 260 Euripides 356-357 Fabréga-Dubert Marie-Lou 312, 319-320 Faensen Bertram 164, 169-170 Fagel François 101-102 Fagiolo Marcello 422 Fakcyccu C. 316 Falbe Christian Tuxem 47-48, 229 Falconieri Francesco 351-352, 359 Falcucci Claudio 370 Faldi Italo 349, 352, 393 Farina Tancredi 432 Fasolo Vincenzo 274 Fauvel Louis-François-Sébastien 40 Fazello (Fazellus) Tommaso 132-133 Feest Christian F. 191 Fejfer Jane 85-87 Félibien André 348 Ferdinand IV (I), king of Naples 334 Ferenczy István 91-93 Ferrari Giacomo Antonio 423 Ferrari Oreste 352, 424 Ferri Ciro 392 Ferruzza M.L. 193 Fiano, duke 264-265, 275 Fidanza Giovan Battista 393 Filangeri Giuseppe Antonio Lanza 181, 183, 187, 193-194 Filangeri Ignazio Lanza 186 Filangeri Pietro 186 Filangeri Vincenzo 186 Filangeri Vittoria 194 Filipow Krzysztof 63-64 Fischer Christian Gabriel 165-166, 168 Fluck Cäcilia 288, 291, 295, 297 Foerster Richard 227, 231, 239, 241, 248249 Fontana Carlo 421, 424 Forcella Vincenzo 387-388 Foresta Simone 262 Forrer Robert 291-293, 295-299 Fortunati Maria Cristina 349 Francescangeli Laura 431 Francks A.W. 262 Frederick I, king of Prussia 170 Frederick William II, king of Prussia 209 Frederick William III, king of Prussia 210-211 Frederick William IV, king of Prussia 212 Frederick William, prince of Brandenburg-Schwedt 101 Frederiksen Rune 131 Fredro-Boniecka Maria 107-108 Frezza Giovanni Girolamo 396 Friedländer Julius 230, 241, 244-245 Fröhner Wilhelm 313 Frommel Christoph Luitpold 350-351 Fuga Ferdinando 395 Furtwängler Adolf 100 Gabbugiani Baldassar 395 Gaddi Giovanni Battista 387 Galanakis Yannis 224 Gallavotti Cavallero Daniela 432 Gallo Agostino 137 472 Index of Names Gałczyńska Cecylia Zofia 297 Gambaro Clara 426 Gardthausen Victor 274 Gargiulo Raffaele 44, 333, 335-337 Garozzo B. 130 Gatti Giuseppe 321 Gayet Albert 291 Gąsiorowski Stanisław Jan 292, 294-295 Gemmellaro Gaetano Giorgio 182-183, 186, 189-190, 192, 194 Gemnik Samuel 72 Geoffrey of Monmouth 373 Gerhard Eduard 48, 211, 334 Germanicus 266-267, 425 Gerola Giuseppe 425 Ghezzi Pier Leone 100, 102-104 Giannotti Alessandra 315 Gierlew Andreas Christian 47 Gigli Piccardi Daria 354 Giglioli Giulio Quirino 434 Giles J.A. 373 Giometti Cristiano 421, 424-426 Giorgetti Giuseppe 424 Giotto 371 Głowa Anna 17 Godłowski Kazimierz 166 Gogh Vincent van 214 Golzio Vincenzo 315, 421 Gołyźniak Paweł 103-104, 106-110 Gontar’ T.A. 292 Gonzaga Francesco 260 Gorzelany-Nowak Dorota 144-151 Goßler Gustav Konrad Heinrich von 243 Graf Theodor 145, 289-292, 299 Gräpler Daniel 16 Greuter Matthaeus 318 Greuze Jean Baptiste 113 Greville Charles 9 Grimani Giovanni, junior 46 Grimani Giovanni, senior 45-46 Gropius, consul 225 Gryphius Andreas 218 Grzegorzewski Jan 110 Guabil Antonie 372 Guasco Francesco Eugenio 387 Guay Jacques 107 Gudiel Gonsalvo 370 Guerrieri Borsoi Maria Barbara 420 Guerrini Lucia 351 Guy Robert 16 Hadrian, Roman emperor 89 Hagen Fredrik 296 Hager Werner 427, 432 Hakelberg Dietrich 10 Halbertsma Ruurd B. 31, 33, 35-36, 38-42, 48 Hamaker Hendrik Arent 43 Hammer Jacob 373 Hancarville Pierre-François de 10 Hansen Christian 222, 227 Hansson Ulf R. 101-102, 104-105 Härke Heinrich 373 Harold II, king of England 373 Harris William 185 Hartmann Jørgen Birkedal 88-90 Hartmann Philipp Jacob 169 Hartwig Paul 14, 16-17, 20 Haskell Francis 32 Haugsted Ida 223, 227 Hauser Friedrich 14, 16-17, 20 Hedwig Elizabeth, palatine of Neuburg 394 Heideck Carl Wilhelm von 220 Helbig Wolfgang 270 Helmecke Gisela 288 Helst Bartholomeus van der 109 Helwing Georg Andreas 164-166, 168-171 473 Index of Names Hemprich Wilhelm Friedrich 211 Henry II, king of France 65 Henzen Wilhelm 315-316, 319 Heringa Jan 102 Hermann Leonhard David 218 Herodotus 131, 357 Herostratus 66 Heydemann Heinrich 354 Hiero I, tyrant of Syracuse 131 Hiero II, tyrant of Syracuse 131 Hippocrates, Greek commander 132 Hippocrates, Greek doctor 32 Hippolytos Painter 147 Hirt Alois Ludwig 210-211 Hitler Adolf 275-276 Hochstetter Ferdinand von 191 Hoeven T. 426 Hoijtink Mirjam 31 Homberg Wilhelm von 101 Homer 32 Hoogstraten David van 36 Houel Joseph 134 Houze R. 290 Howard Seymour 351 Hsu Kuzne-Tai 67 Huchtenburgh Jan van 112 Huelsen Christianus 313 Hugo of Evesham 260 Humbert Jean-Emile 42-45, 47 Humbert Jean-Marcel 288 Humboldt Wilhelm von 219 Hunger Herbert 289, 291 Huskinson Janet 353-354 Iasiello Italo 13 Ingenheim Gustav Adolf von 209-211, 214 Ingram James 373 Innocent XI, pope 64, 385, 387-388, 391392, 418 Innocent XII, pope 386, 388, 390, 393 Insolera Italo 430 Ivan the Terrible, tsar of Russia 64-65 Jacobson David M. 66 Jacobsthal Paul 224 Jaffé Michael 32 Jandolo Augusto 13 Jentel Marie-Odile 101 Joachim Murat, king of Naples 334 Jodko-Narkiewicz Roman 146 Johann Wilhelm, elector of the Paltz 35 John III Sobieski, king of Poland 57, 5960, 63-64, 67-68, 385-389, 391-392, 394-396, 420 Jones Ashley 263 Jonge Jan Martszen de 110, 112 Jonge Nicolai 84 Jonghe Clement de 34 Jørnæs Bjarne 83-84 Joseph Bonaparte, king of Naples 334 Judica Cesare 138 Judica Gabriele 129, 133-136, 138-139 Judica Gaetano 139 Judica Michele 132-133 Jujeczka Stanisław 395 Julia Augusti 266, 268, 276 Julia Domna, Roman empress 246 Junkiert Maciej 219 Juvarra Filippo 394 Kaim-Małecka Barbara 108 Kanitz von, major 242 Kara Mustafa 385 Karabacek Josef von 289-291 Karig Joachim S. 211 Karkucińska Wanda 58 Keene Congdon Lenore 241 Kentner G. 191 474 Index of Names Kersten Adam 386 Keyssler Johann Georg 389, 428 Kieven Elisabeth 393 Kinne Johanna 239, 242-243, 245-247 Kitowicz Jędrzej 72 Kleanthes Stamatios 220 Kleiner Diana 354 Kluk Maria 110-112 Knie Johann Georg 219 Knorr von Rosenroth Christian 34 Koepp Friedrich 223, 239 Kohn Albin 297 Kolendo Jerzy 170 Koller Franz von 332-338 Konitzer Clemens 226, 231, 241 Kononov, Russian art collector 106 Kopernik Stanisław 64 Kościuszko Tadeusz 109 Kowalczyk Jerzy 65 Krasicki Ignacy 170 Kruse Friedrich 242 Kubala Agata 7, 224-225, 228-229, 240, 249 Kuhnke Monika 109 Kundera Milan 207 Kunińska Magdalena 300 La Chausse Michel Ange de 101 La Grange d’Aquien Henry de 386, 419 La Torre Gioacchino Francesco 130 Lajard Félix 314-315 Lamborn Robert F. 10 Lambros Pavlos 224 Lanciani Rodolfo Amedeo 260, 265, 316317, 319, 354, 431 Landolina Mario 134-135 Landolina Saverio 133, 136, 138 Lang Jörn 101 Late Mannerist Painter 148 Lauterbach Samuel Friedrich 67 Lawrynowicz Kasimir 165 Leagros Painter 148 Ledebur Leopold von 170 Lehmann-Hartleben Karl 223, 354 Leo X, pope 432 Leo XIII 387 Leonardo 93, 145, 151-152 Leonhard Richard 246 Leopold I Habsburg, emperor 387-388, 392 Lepidus Marcus 275 Lepszy Leonard 298 Letarouilly Paul-Marie 350 Leto Pomponio 314 Levezow Konrad 338 Lewis Lesley 100 Leyden Lucas van 111 Lichtenberg Roger 288 Ligorio Pirro 315-316 Linn Sarah 10 Lipsius Justus 32, 314 Livia, Roman empress 107, 276 Livius Titus 132 Lloyd Alan B. 288 Lo Bianco Anna 420 Loewenfeld Henryk 295 Logan Anne M. 33 Logoteta Giuseppe 133 Lombardo Luigi 133, 138 Louis I, king of Bavaria 226 Louis XIV, king of France 425 Löwy Emanuel 274 Lucchesi Palli Ettore 137 Luciani Nicola 316 Ludovisi Niccolò 260 Lund John 47 Lysimachus 69 Lysippos 247 475 Index of Names Łepkowski Józef 296-299 Maccarani Silvio Alli 396 MacGregor Arthur 221 MacKay Quynn Dorothy 100 Maddalo Silvia 370 Maes Nicolaes 108, 112 Magagnini Antonella 431 Magnanimi Giuseppina 424 Mairesse François 10 Maischberger Martin 224 Majewski Kazimierz 250 Malatesta Annibale 268 Maliopoulos Charalampos 47 Malvezzi Giovanni 260 Małkiewicz Barbara 109 Mancini Laura 350 Manfredi Tommaso 421 Manfredini Francesco 338 Manfredini Luigi 338 Manilli Giacomo 319 Manley Deborah 44 Mantova Callisto da 316-317 Mantovani Domenico 370 Maratta Carlo 393 Marcellus 132 Marcellus, pope 45 Marchand Suzanne L. 220 Marchant Nathaniel 107 Marcus Aurelius, Roman emperor 246 Marder Tod A. 421 Maria Casimira Sobieska, queen of Poland 385-390, 393-394, 396, 418-421, 423, 425-430, 433 Mariette Pierre-Jean 103-104 Markuszewska Aneta 395, 419 Marotta d'Agata A.R. 130 Marshall John 10-11 Martin IV, pope 260 Martini Annarita 314 Marusieński Stefan 146 Masini P. 428 Masnago Alessandro 107 Maspero Gaston 291 Matejko Jan 387 Mattei Asdrubale 351-352 Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary 9293 Matuszewicz Marcin 65 Matz Friedrich 352-354, 357-358 Maximilian I Habsburg, emperor 61 Mazzei Paola 318 Mazzini Giuseppe 432 Medici Ferdinando de’ 262-263 Meier Richard 274, 278-279 Melander Torben 85-87 Melcher J.M. 219 Mele August 147 Mele Giuseppe 147-148 Meller Simon 92 Mencfel Michał 61, 66, 209, 218 Menghino Nicola 352, 360 Micali Painter 148 Michaelis Adolf 262-263 Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, king of Poland 63 Michelangelo 434 Mierevelt Michael van 110-111 Migasiewicz Paweł 393 Mikocki Tomasz 56, 149 Milanese Andrea 44 Militello Pietro M. 184 Minà Palumbo Francesco 183, 186 Minkels Dorothea 211 Minner Ina E. 220 Minutoli Adolph von 212 Minutoli Alexander von 211-212 Minutoli Heinrich Menu von 211-214 476 Index of Names Minutoli Julius von 212 Minutoli Wolfradine von 212 Miollis Sextius Alexandre François de 268 Moczulska Krystyna 145-146, 148, 150 Modigliani Anna 265, 314 Monnot Etienne 418 Montagny Jean-Pierre 89 Montagu Jennifer 390, 418, 423-426 Montani C. 432 Montelatici Domenico 319 Montfaucon Bernard de 72 Montori Ludovico 390 Moor Antoine de 295 Morelli Nicolo 107 Moreschini D. 130 Moretti Giuseppe 263, 275-277 Morgan John Pierpoint 13-14 Mori Elisabetta 350 Morlacchi Marcella 418 Morpurgo Vittorio Ballio 274, 277-278 Moscioni Romualdo 434 Moses Henry 336 Muhammad 71 Muller Jeffrey M. 32-33, 426 Müller Ludvig 87 Münter Friedrich 84 Mura Sommella Anna 431 Muratori Lodovico Antonio 372 Murillo Bartolome 113 Musso Luisa 348 Mussolini Benito 259, 274-277 Musumeci M. 135, 138 Mycielski Jerzy 145-146 Myśliński Michał 108 Nadbyl Bernhard 245, 247-248 Napoleon I Bonaparte, emperor of the French 87, 89, 145, 319-321, 334, 338, 429 Napoleon III Bonaparte, emperor of the French 106, 268 Natkaniec-Nowak Lucyna 107 Negro Angela 420 Nervo Gonzalve de 138 Neumann (Szawłowska-Neumann) Anna 292-293 Neumann Erich 242 Neumann Theodor 292 Neverov Oleg 100 Noack Friedrich 227 Nocchieri Francesco Maria 426 Nonnos of Panopolis 354 Norberg-Schulz Christian 418 Nørskov Vinnie 10, 12 Nowak Tadeusz 150 Nowakowski Wojciech 164, 167, 170-171 Numa Pompilius, king of Rome 265, 273, 428 O’Connell Elisabeth 288 Octavia 268 Odam Hieronymus 100, 102-103 Oddo Giuseppe 186 Odeschalchi Livio 418 Okoń Jan 73 Olfers Ignaz von 247 Olsen Erling C. 354 Olson Roberta J.M. 371 Ondes Reggio Giovanni d’ 182 Onesimos 147 Orlando Vittorio 273 Orsi Paolo 139, 185 Osbat Luciano 370 Osiecka-Samsonowicz Hanna 387, 391, 393 Ostrowski Janusz A. 149, 295, 297 Ottavio Fontana Carlo Antonio d’ 243 Ottavio Fontana Carlo d’ 243 477 Index of Names Otto, king of Greece 229, 239 Ottoboni Marco 260 Ottoboni Maria Francesca 260 Ottoni Lorenzo 390, 423-427 Oudendorp Franciscus 37-38 Paetz gen. Schieck Annette 292 Pagani Alba 374 Painter from Tarquinia 147 Painter Q? 148 Palazzotto Pierfrancesco 188 Palica Magdalena 209, 227, 240, 243 Paliušytė Aistė 59, 64, 71 Palma de Cesnola Luigi 12 Palma Marco 370 Palombi Domenico 430-431 Pampanini Valerio 430 Panfili Costanza 260 Pannini (Panini) Giovanni Paolo 113, 395-396 Panofsky-Soergel Gerda 351 Pantaléon Jacques 373 Panvinio Onofrio 316 Papageorgiou-Venetas Alexander 220, 239 Papaldo Serenita 352, 424 Papenbroek Gerard van 36-37, 40 Paravicini Bagliani Agostino 370, 373 Paribeni Roberto 265 Parisi Presicce Claudio 318, 429, 432-433 Parisiensis Mattheus 372 Parlasca Klaus 146 Parlatore Filippo 186 Pasachoff Jay M. 371 Pascoli Giovanni 370 Pascoli Lione 424 Pasqui Angiolo 265-266, 273-274 Passow Franz 243 Paul I, pope 260 Paul IV, pope 315 Paul the Deacon 373 Paul V, pope 318 Paulinyi Oskar 218 Pelagatti Paola 130, 188 Pennick Morgan Faith 288 Penny Nicholas 32 Pérac Étienne Du 315-316 Peretti Alessandro Damasceni 260 Peretti Michele 260 Perez Francesco Paolo 182 Pertinax, Roman emperor 245 Pescennius Niger, Roman emperor 245 Petersen Eugen A.H. 260, 262-265, 269270, 273-274, 276 Petřeková Eliška 338 Petruciolli Guido 10, 13 Phidias 247 Philippe II, duke of Orléans 101 Picart Bernard 102-103 Piccolomini Enea Silvio 348 Picozzi Maria Grazia 348-349, 352, 426 Pierguidi Stefano 418, 424 Pietrangeli Carlo 390, 427-428, 430-434 Pighius Steven Wynkens 315 Pignatelli Antonio 393 Pignoria Lorenzo 318 Pilate Pontius 67 Pindar 32 Pinelli Bartolomeo 391 Pingré Alexandre Guy 372 Pinzi Cesare 374 Pirajno di Mandralisca Enrico 186 Piranesi Giovanni Battista 262, 337 Pisanski Jakob Ludwig 170 Pistolesi Erasmo 336 Pitoni Giuseppe 395 Pius V, pope 262 Pius VII, pope 429 478 Index of Names Pizzo Marco 418 Plantzos Dimitris 106 Platania Gaetano 388, 391, 393, 395, 418419 Plater Władysław 108 Pliny the Elder 67, 132 Plotina, Roman empress 47 Plutarch 131 Poggi Sebastiano 270 Pollini John 273 Polykleitos 88, 247 Pomian Krzysztof 17-18, 20, 56, 58, 101 Poniatowski Stanislas 105 Poorter Willem de 110-111 Porcius G. 168 Porschen H. 166 Pourbus Frans the Younger 108 Pozzi Rocco 396 Praxiteles 247 Preissler Georg Martin 103 Preissler Johann Justin 103-104 Pritchard Frances 288 Prittwitz Bernhard von 245 Prokesch von Osten Anton 223-224, 227 Prota Carlo 14 Protopsaltes E.G. 47 Przeździecki Aleksander 297 Przeździecki Konstanty 297 Pulzone Scipione 261 Quast Ferdinand von 220, 222, 226 Quesada Maria Antonietta 395 Quioccheberg Samuel 66 Radke Gary M. 369 Radziwiłł Anna neé Sanguszko 56-57, 59, 61, 66, 68 Radziwiłł Hieronim Florian 56-60, 6466, 69-72 Radziwiłł Janusz 61 Radziwiłł Janusz Tadeusz 70 Radziwiłł Jerzy 62 Radziwiłł Jerzy Józef 391 Radziwiłł Karol Stanisław “Panie Kochanku” 70-72 Radziwiłł Karol Stanisław 56-57, 59-62, 66, 68-69, 391 Radziwiłł Krzysztof “Thunderbolt” 61 Radziwiłł Michał Kazimierz “Rybeńko” 56-61, 63-66, 68-70, 72 Radziwiłł Michał Kazimierz 62, 391 Radziwiłł Mikołaj “the Black” 61, 63 Radziwiłł Mikołaj “the Red” 63 Radziwiłł Mikołaj 61 Radziwiłł Mikołaj Faustyn 64 Radziwiłł Mikołaj Krzysztof “the Orphan” 56, 62, 67-68, 71, 73 Radziwiłł Stanisław 72 Raffei Stefano 317 Rambach Hadrien J. 105 Rampley Matthew 289 Rapone Constanza 370 Rastawiecki Edward 297 Rauch Christian Daniel 210 Re Camillo 389, 393, 419 Ree Peta 44 Regteren Altena Johan Quirijn van 36 Rehak Paul 265 Reijnst Gerard 33-36 Reijnst Jan 33-34 Reimer Christian 167 Reina Domenico 183 Reisch Emil 274 Rembrandt 34, 151-152 Reumont Alfred 261 Reusch Christian Friedrich 165 Reuvens Caspar Jacob 31-32, 38-43, 45, 48 Ricci Giovanni 261-262, 270, 273 479 Index of Names Richardson Lawrence 265 Richter Gisela M.A. 11-12, 15-16 Riedel J. 166 Riegl Alois 290-291 Rizzo Giulio Emanuele 263-265, 273-274 Robert C. 354-355, 357-358 Robinson Edward 11 Rodríguez Laura 295 Rohde Johann Jakob 164, 167 Rola-Bruni Agata 387 Rose Charles Brian 273 Ross Ludwig 220, 222-226 Rossbach August 223, 225, 228-231, 238241, 243-245, 247-249 Rossbach Otto 226 Rossi Vincenzo de 315 Rossi, Italian painter 114 Rossini Carlo M. 332 Rossini Pietro 387 Rostworowski Marek 150 Rottiers Bernard E.A. 40-42, 45-47 Rouen, baron 224, 226 Rouet Philippe 14 Roztworowski M. 299 Rubens Peter-Paul 32-33, 35-36, 45-46, 426 Ruffo Giuseppe 332 Rybchonak Sergey 56-57, 59, 61-62, 64-68, 71 Rycke Josse de 318 Ryholt Kim 296 Sabbatini (Sabatini) Marcantonio 100-101 Sadurska Anna 147, 149 Saint-Non Jean Claude Richard de 336 Salernitano Romualdo 372 Salinas Antonino 181, 185, 189 Salmon Pierre 370 Salvatelli Luca 370, 374 Sambon Arthur 14-16, 24-25 Sambon Jules 14 Sanfilippo G. 132 Sante Bartoli Francesco 392 Sante Bartoli Pietro 392 Sapieha Lew 63 Sass Elise Kai 90 Saturgus Friedrich 72 Scaccia Scarafoni Camillo 370 Scaglia Gustina 348 Scano Gaetana 350, 388 Scarisbrick Diana 100 Scarlatti Filippo 390 Scarlatti Pomponio 418 Schaubert Eduard 219-220, 222-231, 239241, 243-244 Schilling Diebold the Younger 373 Schinkel Karl Friedrich 210, 212, 219 Schleinitz Johann Eduard von 247 Schmidt-Ciążyński Constantine 106-108, 110-114 Schnitzler Bernadette 296 Scholz Laurentius 218 Schöne Richard 185, 356-357 Schrenk Sabine 293, 297 Schuur Jan Lodewijk 36 Schweickart Johann Adam 103 Scilla Agostino 392 Scopas 247 Seger H. 242 Sena Chiesa Gemma 106 Seneca 32, 370 Serafini Isabella 389, 425 Settimi Francesco 260 Severano Giovanni 317 Sfameni Gasparro Giulia 134 Shenouda Makarios 146 Shurinova R. 295 Shuvalov Painter 148 480 Index of Names Shuvalov, Russian art collector 106 Sieveking Johannes 263, 265, 273-274, 358 Sievers Eduard L. 110 Sigismondi Costantino 426 Sigismund II Augustus, king of Poland 63 Signorelli Giuseppe 369, 374 Simonato Lucia 395 Six Jan 36 Sixtus V, pope 430 Sklenář Karel 338 Skrzypietz Aleksandra 59, 386, 395 Skyles, king of Scythians 357 Sławińska Joanna 17 Smalcerz Joanna 13 Smalley Ruiha 291 Smetius Johannes junior 35 Smetius Johannes senior 35 Smetius Martinus 314-315 Snitkuvienė Aldona 56, 73 Sobieska Maria Clementina 385-386, 391, 394-396 Sobieski Aleksander 385-386, 394 Sobieski Jakub 64, 67, 392, 394 Socrates Novello 373 Sokolnicki Michał 144 Sokołowski Marian 299-300 Solms Amalia van 34 Solon 101 Sosnowski Roman 397 Sparti Donatella Livia 349 Specchi Alessandro 394, 421 Spilia Alessandro 395 Spuches Drancesca 186 Spuches Vincenzo 186 Stanisław August Poniatowski, king of Poland 170 Stanisław Leszczyński, king of Poland 170 Statius 317 Stauffer Annemarie 292 Stephen Báthory, king of Poland 63 Stern Ben 269 Stern Gaius 261, 265, 273, 311 Stieff Christian 10, 218 Stosch Heinrich Sigismund 104 Stosch Ludwig von 101 Stosch Philippe von 100-106, 114 Strodtmann Johann Christoph 104 Strong Eugenie Sellers 263, 274 Strzygowski Joseph 291 Stuart Charles 395 Stuart Henry 394 Stuart James Francis Edward 102, 395 Stuart Jones Henry 425 Studniczka Franz 263 Suleiman I, sultan of the Ottoman Empire 71 Sylvester I, pope 316 Szczerski Andrzej 289 Szilvássy J. 191 Śliwa Joachim 108, 146 Śnieżyńska-Stolot Ewa 397 Tacitus 35 Tano, merchant 296-297 Teller Friedrich Joseph 183 Teodoli Gerolamo 390 Thiel P.J.J. van 36 Thomas Thelma K. 288, 292-293 Thorvaldsen Bertel 83-93, 210 Thucydides 130 Thum Gregor 208 Tiberius, Roman emperor 67, 246, 266, 276 Tignosi Goffredo 370 Timoleon, tyrant of Syracuse 131 Tintoretto 34 Titian 34 481 Index of Names Tittoni Monti Maria Elisa 428-429 Tiziano 434 Toeppen Max 164-165 Toesca Pietro 369 Tofanelli Agostino 388, 429 Tommasi Donato 135 Topper Kathryn R. 148 Torlonia Alessandro 149 Tornabene Francesco 186 Török László 291, 296 Torquati Michela 370 Townley Charles 9 Trajan, Roman emperor 47, 134 Triantaphyllos E. 149 Triantaphyllos Lambros 149 Trubinov U. 298 Tsigakou Fani-Maria 221 Tsingarida Athena 14, 16 Tsirogiannis Christos 15 Tucci Pier Luigi 316-318, 321 Tuccia Niccolò della 373 Turcan Robert 353-356 Turturici Giuseppe 132 Turzo Johann von 218 Tyszkiewicz Michał 106 Uggeri Giovanni 133 Ulft Jacobus van der 112 Ulrichs Heinrich Nicolaus 268 Urban IV, pope 373 Urban VIII, pope 424, 433 Urbani Giuliano 278 Urusov, Russian art collector 106 Usmanov Alisher 429 Uvarov, Russian art collector 106 Uylenburgh Gerrit 36 Vacca Flaminio 315, 317 Vagenheim Ginette 314 Valeriani Domenico 395 Valeriani Giuseppe 395 Valesio Francesco 388, 419-420, 422-423 Valle Andrea della 262-263 Valle Filippo della 395 Van Wagenberg-ter Hoeven Anke A. 426 Varus 144, 266, 276-277 Veltroni Walter 278 Vendramin Andrea 34 Veneroso Primo 191, 195 Venturi Pietro 431 Venuti Niccolò Marcello 334 Venuti Ridolfo 429 Verbruggen Gaspar Peeter II 110, 112 Veremejčik A. 57 Vergano Benedetta Gallizia di 338 Vergil (Virgil) 32, 265, 433 Vermaseren Maarten Jozef 312-313, 317, 355 Vernet Claude-Joseph 113 Veronese Paolo 34 Vespasian, Roman emperor 134 Vespignani Virginio 431 Vickers Michael 32 Victor Emmanuel II, king of Italy 184, 430 Villani Giovanni 371 Villefosse Antoine Héron de 13 Vincenti Giulia 418 Visconti Carlo Ludovico 317, 431 Visconti Ennio Quirino 268 Visconti Pietro Ercole 431-432 Visscher Nicholaes 34 Vitale Michele 132 Volbach Wolfgang Fritz 295 Volterra Francesco da 349 Voss Julia von 209-210 Voukelatos John 14 482 Index of Names Waddy Patricia 351 Waelscapple Maximilian van 315 Wagner Claudia 100, 105 Wagner Johann-Martin von 48 Waitz Georg 373 Wałek Janusz 109 Warren Edward Perry 10-11, 16 Weitzman Michael P. 66 Wernele Giacomo 393 Whiteley J.L.L. 102 Widacka Hanna 395-396 Wiedewelt Johannes 84 Winckelman Johann Joachim 84, 88, 104105, 133, 221 Winterfeldt Hans Karl von 167 Wirtemberska Maria née Czartoryska 144 Witdoeck Pierre-Joseph 41 Witsen Nicolaes 36 Władysław III, king of Poland 63 Władysław IV Vasa, king of Poland 63 Wobbe Marcin 60, 69-70 Wojtałowa Elżbieta 109 Wolff Tadeusz 112 Worbs Johann Gottlob 241 Wulff Oskar 295 Wünsche Raimund 223 Yoke Ho Peng 372 Zamarovsky Vojtech 89 Zampi Cesare 148 Zanetti Antonio Maria 100 Zanker Paul 353 Zapolska Anna 169 Zazoff Hilde 101-102, 104-105 Zazoff Peter 101-102, 104-105 Zielińska Teresa 64 Zimmermann K. 243 Zoëga Georg 84-85, 319 Zoffany Johann 9 Zonaras Joannes 372 Zubrov, Russian art collector 106 Zuccari Taddeo 260 Zuckerkandl Emile 183 Zuliani Giovanni 373 Zwierlein-Diehl Erika 100-101 Żmigrodzki M. 297 Żygulski Zdzisław 144 The gathering of archival materials always precedes the work on the items in every collection. Unfortunately, many documents have been lost, collections have been scattered, but their impact on culture and science has remained, as a deep interest in the ancient world, including its material products. Perhaps this appeal of the ancient world comes from Italy, thanks to its history, monuments and culture. Among the greatest contributors to spreading knowledge of and fascination with antiquity were painters, especially those who wanted to surround themselves with period objects when creating scenes set in ancient times. There are also collections devoted to classical art and literature. The book I have in front of me is an excellent mirror of antiquity collecting. It presents its history, the reasons for the rise of the fascination with antiquity, the history of individual collections, as well as methods of searching for them. Moreover, almost every article outlines the political circumstances of the time that affected collectors and their actions. This book will most probably find its way to the bookshelves of archaeologists, art historians, historians, museologists, as well as numerous gatherers and collectors. From the review by dr hab. Tomasz Scholl https://akademicka.pl