Although it is currently considered to be one of the major achievements in Portuguese art history, the recovery of Lisbon after the 1755 earthquake was not always recognized as such. Monotony, pragmatism, parsimony, repetitive patterns and a lack of fantasy and originality were powerful anathemas that cast a vast shadow over the city built under Marquis de Pombal's government. In 1949, Pardal Monteiro, one of the most important Portuguese modernist architects, was the first author to re-evaluate the pombaline city fabric arguing that its architecture and urbanism foreshadowed the Modern Movement. However the terms of his appraisal prompted significant interest, the main critical discourses kept on reflecting a negative assessment of Pombal's undertaking. José-Augusto França's Lisboa Pombalina e o Iluminismo (Pombaline Lisbon and the Enlightenment) published in 1965 was the turning point in this regard – despite the fact that the negative discourse still endures in its own preface contributed by Pierre Francastel, the recognition of the reconstructed city as a Public Interest heritage in 1978 was a direct outcome of this study. França's complete and thorough analysis placed the new city within the aesthetics of the Enlightenment and emphasised the symbolic dimension both of its urban plan and of its plaza real. Yet França did not grant any artistic value to its housing typology – even if he recognises that the housing block is the very Pombaline building. My argument points out the theoretical framework that supported those discourses, while addressing the paradox implied on França's thesis – i.e. the simultaneous recognition of the architectonic importance of the housing typology and its lack of aesthetics qualities.
In the 1860s a new generation of architects appeared in Hungary, or more precisely, in Pest. Unlike earlier, they were no longer trained as master builders but studied at technical universities abroad. They included Antal Szkalnitzky (1836–1878), Ferenc Schultz (1838–1873), Imre Steindl (1839–1902), Ferenc Kolbenheyer (1841–1881), Frigyes Schulek (1841–1919), Gyula Pártos (1845–1916), Ödön Lechner (1845–1914), Vilmos Freund (1846–1922), Albert Schickedanz (1846–1915) and Alajos Hauszmann (1848–1926). Some of them became the most prominent architects of the end of the century, while others fell into oblivion, owing to their untimely death. These well trained architects became the decisive actors of the great building boom and the ensuing modernization starting in the 1870s. Ferenc Kolbenheyer was born in Eperjes (today Prešov, Slovakia) on 13 February 1841 (the data in the Thieme–Becker lexicon are incorrect). His father Moritz Kolbenheyer (1810–1884) was a Lutheran minister in Eperjes from 1836 to 1846 and in Sopron from 1846 until his death. He was an eminent translator of literature. He translated some of his contemporaries including János Arany and Sándor Petőfi into German. His correspondence about this theme with Friedrich Hebbel is also important. Ferenc Kolbenheyer began his architectural studies at the Technische Hochschule Wien in 1859–61. Parallel with that, he studied philosophy at the university of Vienna in 1860–61. His studies in Vienna are documented, while his subsequent studies in Berlin and Zurich are only indirectly alluded to by contemporaries, without concrete evidence. (The personal documents of the Berlin-Charlottenburg Technische Hochschule for the years before 1868 are no longer to be found, they probably perished; in the register of the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich Kolberheyer's name is not included.)After his studies abroad he probably returned home to take part in the competition for the planning of a Casino in Sopron. Though he won the contest, it was not he who was contracted for the execution, and his plans got lost. From 1869 he was active in Pest (from 1873, when Buda and Pest were unified, in Budapest). At first he worked with his brother-in-law Károly Benkó, a master builder. Three buildings executed by the Benkó & Kolbenheyer Company are known: the Exchange building on the Danube bank (1869–72, destroyed in WWII), the headquarters of the Kassa–Oderberg Railways Company also on the Danube bank (1871, extant, corner of Széchenyi quay and Széchenyi street) and the villa at 123 Andrássy út (1872, extant). At the competition called for the planning of the central post office in 1870 they received a price and a joint plan for a villa is also known dated 1871. Another joint undertaking was the cement factory of Nyergesújfalu (Sattelneudorfer Cementfabrik Karl Benkó & Comp.) During the economic recession of 1873 the partnership went bankrupt and it was liquidated. In 1874 Ferenc Kolbenheyer was engaged by the Ministry of Religion and Education, so he became “ministerial architect”. It was probably the renown of his great professional competence and his father's good personal contacts that brought him this excellent post. The cultural minister from 1872, Ágoston Trefort plunged with great zeal into the modernization of the educational system including the foundation of several new institutions. He ensured budgetary support for his plans. The architect employed by the ministry had thus enormous possibilities and enormous tasks. During his six years as the employee of the ministry, Kolbenheyer planned a secondary school, two high schools and three clinical buildings for the medical university. It was also his assignment to design a glass-painting workshop, while his church engaged him to build a Protestant orphanage. The building of the Markó street secondary school (1874–76) is a close but more modest kin of the technical university of Zurich (Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule) planned by Gottfried Semper. Historicism liked to apply a central projecting part that rises higher than the lateral wings to interrupt the monotony of long stretching buildings. Semper elevated the central pavilion of the three-storied university by planning there the ceremonial hall of a greater ceiling height. Adopting Semper's solution, Kolbenheyer also designed a higher ceremonial room, thus adding a vertical accent to the central projecting part. The building of the college of rabbinical studies (1875–77) diverted from Kolbenheyer's preferred neo-renaissance style predominating the constructions in Budapest in the period. Its style is a blend of Mauresque and Romanesque elements, which characterize the synagogues built in Central Europe in the previous years. If we subscribe to the prevalent view that Kolbenheyer's activity was tied to the neo-renaissance as filtered through Berlin, this building might also be compared with one in Berlin, Knoblauch's synagogue in Oranienburg-strasse (1859–66), although it displays undeniable connections with the Dohány street synagogue in Budapest (Ludwig Förster, 1854–58). He had a partner for planning the rabbinical institute: Vilmos Freund did the interiors because the clients thought a Jew might have a better insight into the ritual requirements. Kolbenheyer also planned the building of the School of Design (University of Fine Arts, 1875–76) with a partner. The teaching staff of the already working institution put down their claim that the architect-professor of the school, Lajos Rauscher from Stuttgart, should plan the building. Rauscher's role was probably more extensive than just formulating the plans in fine drawings, but Kolbenheyer was the technical designer of the architecture. The sgraffito adorning the Andrássy út façade of the building is Rauscher's work, as Rauscher was chiefly credited with sgraffito design, several specimens being executed in Budapest (today in Kodály körönd [rondeau]). The school with several studios had to be fitted into the line of palatial buildings being built at that time. The required light was ensured by the enlargement and density of the windows. Rauscher's sgraffiti adorn the spaces between the main façade windows. The greatest assignment as an architect was given to Kolbenheyer to build the clinical block in Üllői út. (Regrettably it was only partially realized.) The Ministry of Religion and Education purchased a site of 6000 square fathoms for the institution belonging under its authority at that time. An up-to-date institution of Hungarian medical training had to be developed on it. Under that-time principles the special clinics were to be housed in separate buildings, but Kolbenheyer's complex did not coincide perfectly with the model, Hôpital Lariboisière in Paris because on the Üllői út front the clinics of surgery and internal medicine flanking the central unit with several smaller clinics in it at the time appeared as a single though loosely connected building for the sake of the monumental impression. The composition received a special flavor from the semi-cylindrical amphitheatre-like auditoria at the corners with large windows. (During WWII and the 1956 fighting they were destroyed and never reconstructed.) The anatomical institute inside the compound has preserved its original shape with the half cylinder of the auditorium, but the third storey was extended. The surgery clinic had enormous wards illumined from two sides (1 per floor). The clinic of internal medicine has a different layout with smaller wards, though the requirement of symmetry curbed invention. Before starting the planning, the architect and the professors of the clinics went on a several weeks’ tour of the most up-to-date recently built clinics in West Europe. Among the buildings of the clinical precincts, Kolbenheyer planned the surgery clinic (1874–77), the first internal clinic (1878–80), the anatomical institute (1876–78) and the servicing institutions (1877–78). He could only work out the basic plans of the central building and the second internal clinic, which had to be completed by his successor Antal Weber. Upon the ministry's commission he designed an institute of glass-painting for glass painter Ede Kratzmann. Beside the necessary workshops and furnaces the building included an exhibition room. Probably for the high ranking clientele of the latter, the institute was planned in an elegant villa format. The Protestant orphanage ordered by the church had a plain and ordinary appearance. Kolbenheyer also entered for three competitions to plan public hospitals. His three plans all received prizes (a first, a second and a shared prize, but the plans are not known). Kolbenheyer's career spanned a mere decade. His realized buildings show him as a competent architect whose original language had not (yet?) evolved but who used the current formal solutions with a sure hand. He worked at an incredible pace; during the seven years between 1874 and 1880 he planned six large and three smaller public buildings, began planning another three and successfully entered for competitions. He was well on the way to earn a name as a specialist in hospital design. He died of a heart attack during an official trip to Buziás (Buziaş, Romania) on 11 January 1881, before his 40th birthday, leaving two little orphans behind. The elder child, then hardly two years old – Ervin Guido Kolbenheyer (1878–1962) – became a noted German writer. His historical plays were received well in his age, but his biologist world view brought him close to racism and after World War II he was sentenced to silence as the supporter of the Nazi ideology in West Germany.
analysis were the lack of architectural variety; monotony and uniformity; along with problems arising from the structural distribution of dwellings and problems affecting lifestyle. As the ethnographer Péter Halász stated in 1969 in relation to contemporary
constraints point to a type of feature decomposition that can be called ‘cumulative.’ The idea is that the number of features monotonically grows as we move from the nominative to the accusative and on. This is depicted in Table (57) (see Caha 2009 , 2013
interpretation . Natural Language Semantics 1 . 75 – 116 .
Schulz , Katrin and Robert van Rooij . 2006 . Pragmatic meaning and non-monotonic reasoning: The case of exhaustive interpretation . Linguistics and Philosophy 29 . 205 – 250 .
Sárvár castle was the property of the Nádasdy family from the early 16th century until 1670. Its current pentagonal shape was formed during the time of judge royal Ferenc III Nádasdy, one of the leading art patrons of the 17th century. Its early 17th century state is documented by three inventories (1630, 1646, 1650), and the layout of the interior, the functions and furnishings of the rooms can be reconstructed from the inventory dated 1669. The paper suggests some new dates of construction, explicates the stucco and fresco ornamentation program and on the basis of the furnishing inquiries into the role and function of the castle turned residence during Ferenc Nádasdy's time.
Comparing the inventories of various dates, one finds that Nádasdy first had wing A reconstructed before 1646. Research puts to the mid-17th century the rest of the constructions: building of the C wing and chapel, linkage of gate tower and wing A. Archival sources put the reconstruction to 1650–51. The stateroom was created at that time on the ceiling of which Hans Rudolf Miller painted in 1653 a fresco series of town sieges during the 15-year war. The stuccowork by Andrea Bertinalli framing the frescoes is dated by the paper also to 1653, a different date from what research earlier suggested. The conception of the ceiling decoration was completed before Nádasdy left in early June 1653 for the coronation of Ferdinand IV in Regensburg. Thus the iconography of the frescoes is independent of the thematically similar battle-scene cycle (possibly in oil) seen on the way in Günzburg near Ulm, about which Pál Esterházy travelling with Nádasdy wrote in his diary. Nádasdy had the opportunity to see in Günzburg the now extinct 16 full-length portraits ordered by the previous owner of the castle Karl von Burgau upon the model of the Spanischer Saal in Ambras around 1600. That may have inspired him to have the 20 full-length portraits painted mentioned by the inventory of 1669 in one of the salons of Sárvár.
Contemporaneous with the reconstruction is the staircase beneath the tower, mentioned in an order to stucco artist Andrea Bartinalli in February 1657 in which Nádasdy ordered the plasterwork for the ceiling of the upstairs rooms of wings E and D and the corridor of wing E, as well as a dual coat of arms above the mantelpiece in a room in the E wing. The order reveals that the stucco of three rooms in wing D had been started and Bertinalli was to finish it. Payment reveals that Bertinalli had completed the bulk of the work by the end of 1657. It probably included the ceiling stucco of the corner room in wing D, the only one still extant today. The plaster decoration frames frescoes the themes of which are from Ovid's Metamorphoses. Ingeborg Schemper-Sparholz traced their engraved prototypes to Antonio Tempesta, but this could only be verified for the Narcissus scene. The Perseus and Andromeda story adopts Chrispijn de Passe's work via a mediating print, the models for the rest of the scenes are unknown. The joint interpretation of the fresco themes and the so-far unstudied iconography of the plasterwork could provide the key to the program of the entire ceiling. The stucco putti hold attributes of natural plenitude, fertility, while the Ovid scenes are about accepted love (Perseus and Andromeda, Jupiter and Callisto) or the rejection of love (Narcissus, Venus sends Amor to kindle desire in Pluto for Proserpina who rejects love). The ceiling decoration is the apology of love and female fertility in the corner room that was one of the rooms of the female suite after the mid-century reconstruction of the castle.
Practically nothing is known of the one-time art works in the castle. The inventories reflect numeric data, which reveal that by increasing the number of art works Nádasdy wished to create a representative image in the Sárvár rooms after the rebuilding. The definite functions and furnishing of the different wings are revealed by the May 1669 inventory taken a few months after the death of the count's wife Anna Júlia Esterházy. It shows therefore the state of the interior as it had evolved during one and a half decades' use after the reconstruction. The composition of the furnishing reveals that the described rooms did not serve for actual residence. Apart from the monotony and impersonal character of the description of the furniture the most conspicuous things are the absent objects, particularly in comparison with the description of the actual residence of the family, the castle of Pottendorf. This comparison reveals that in Sárvár pieces of storing furniture, first of all those for keeping clothes and textiles, are missing in Sárvár. There are only two cupboards but they are empty. There is no furniture to hold books, while in Pottendorf there was a Bibliotheca. In Sárvár, except for Nádasdy's bedroom and one of the women's rooms, the beds are not installed, and apart from Nádasdy's suite there are no curtains, draperies, and there is no mirror.
The inventory confirms the earlier research findings: Sárvár did not function as a residence, since before 1650 the family lived in Deutschkreuz, then in Seibersdorf in Lower Austria and from 1660 in Pottendorf. There are not many data about Nádasdy's stay in Sárvár in his itinerary either, which throws new light on the representative modernization of the castle and the need to create a new residence. Concerning functions, it is illumining to compare Sárvár with Deutschkreuz where the family is documented to have spent lengthier periods regularly in the second half of the 1650s with frequent guests. That is probably why around 1657 a two-level “Saalgebäude” of several rooms was built in Deutschkreuz. It must also be attributable to function that the Sárvár castle was representatively impersonal, “Prunkappartement”-like. There are few data to suggest what role the castle was assigned in the 1650s, but they tend to reveal that after the reconstruction and furnishing with art works Sárvár was to be the venue of ceremonial hospitality as the occasional protocol venue of Nádasdy's official matters in Hungary.