Search Results

You are looking at 1 - 5 of 5 items for :

  • "Lord Chief Justice Ferenc Nádasdy" x
  • Refine by Access: All Content x
Clear All

Adatok Johann Jacob Khün „érseki udvari festő” működéséhez, Lippay György pozsonyi nyaralókastélyának újonnan előkerült keleti látképe (1663) kapcsán

Data to the work of Johann Jacob Khün, “painter to the archbishop”, and the newly found eastern view (1663) of György Lippay’s summer residence in Pozsony

Művészettörténeti Értesítő
Anna Ecsedy

Archbishop of Esztergom György Lippay’s (1600–1666) summer residence and garden in Pozsony were represented on a series of engravings published in 1663. A hitherto unknown piece of this series features the eastern view of the residence (Bibliotheca Ecclesiae Metropolitanae Strigoniensis, Esztergom; fig.). The sheet bears the signature of Johann Jacob Khün, painter to the archbishop who supposedly produced the drawings for the entire series.

According to various sources most of which were concluded by Klára Garas, Khün came from a family of over four generations of painters and sculptors originated in Besztercebánya. The present study attempts to uncover documents representing Khün’s family relations and personal connections in the milieu of the archbishop’s court at Pressburg.

Only a few sources remain on Johann Jacob Khün’s work in archbishop Lippay’s service. Based on a few miscellaneous allusions and the painter’s recently recovered letter written to the archbishop’s physician and familiar Polycarpus Procopius Bonannus (d. 1664) in 1659, the author presumes that Khün was the grandson of Jacob Khien the elder (d. after 1619) who created the so-called Zmeskál epitaph (Berzevice, c. 1600). Johann Jacob Khün’s father was probably the painter Jacob Khien the younger who became a burgess of Besztercebánya in 1619. Pozsony sculptor Johann Christoph Khien (d. 1696/97), creator of the Holy Trinity column of Nagyszombat (1683–1695), and Ferdinand Khien, a doctor born in Besztercebánya who graduated at the University of Wittenberg (1667) and later worked in Eperjes and Pozsony were probably Johann Jacob Khün’s brothers. Judging by the 1659 letter and other sources, Khün’s brother Ferdinand may well have been helped with the starting of his medical career by Bonannus who probably interceeded for him to spend his pharmacist’s training in Johann Weber’s (1612–1684) pharmacy in Eperjes.

Khün’s letter implies that he may well have produced illustrations for Bonannus’s ambitious but ultimately unpublished and lost opus describing Hungary’s geographical and mineralogical treasures, entitled De admirandis Hungariae rebus, backed by archbishop Lippay and Lord Chief Justice Ferenc Nádasdy (1623–1671). The correspondence of Bonannus, a rare group of sources, provides some important data to the project and Khün’s surmized participation, and might as well lead to closer acquaintance with the process of furnishing and decorating of archbishop György Lippay’s summer residence and garden of Pozsony.

A year after the publishing of the print series Khün already worked as a court painter to Count (later Palatine and Prince) Pál Esterházy (1635–1713). Between 1664 and 1671 he produced at least eight paintings for him, and decorated sixteen rooms of his Kismarton Castle.

Restricted access

The paper reviews the historical development of the portrait in Hungary in light of the early data on artists and works, changes in social demand, the emergence of diverse portrait functions and the changes in portrait iconography over the 17th century. The author concludes from the sources (inventories, last wills) that until the end of the 17th century the portrait was not a valued property but a fairly insignificant element of furnishing, except in a few art collecting aristocrats’ homes. In the second half of the 16th century, the portrait was often the document of social contacts. The earliest known painted portraits from the mid-16th century show members of the Hungarian upper nobility who belonged to the “supranational” aristocracy of the Habsburg Empire via some family relationship. Of these, the author devotes separate attention to portraits of a member each of the Thurzó, Zrínyi, Pálffy families, and to the one-time collection of portraits that probably passed from the wife of Ferdinand I., Anne of Hungary, to the wife of Count Ferenc Blagay and served as the model for several depictions in the portrait-book of Hieronymus Beck. There is mention again of the portrait of the Lord Steward of the Hungarian king’s household, János Krusics attributed to Giuseppe Arcimboldo by the author in 2008. Data in the inventories of several aristocratic households reveal that large, full-length portraits were painted from the second third of the 17th century. They were also specified by the occasion they were painted for, e.g. depiction of the deceased (31 catafalque portraits or their mentions are known from the 17th century), engagement, donation. Family series and ancestors’ galleries began to be formed in the last third of the 17th century under the inspiration of two sets of engravings, Elias Widemann’s portraits of 100 Hungarian noblemen (Vienna, 1652) and the “Mausoleum” of Hunnish-Hungarian leaders and kings (Nuremberg, 1664) ordered by Lord Chief Justice Ferenc Nádasdy. Both had a great influence on the development of 17th century Hungarian portraiture, first of all in terms of iconography. Finally, the paper discusses the alternative portrait representations of Hungarian aristocrats integrated in the court elite through the interpretation of inventories in Ferenc Nádasdy’s residences, pointing out the “double representation” they demonstrate one the one hand, and analyzing court portraits ordered with the aim of winning some political position or court dignity, on the other hand.

Restricted access

Nádasdy Ferenc mecénás-életművének elpusztult emléke: a sopronkeresztúri kerti palota

A Perished Relic of Count Ferenc Nádasdy The Art Patron's Oeuvre: The Garden Palace at Sopronkeresztúr

Művészettörténeti Értesítő
Enikő Buzási


Next to the late renaissance castle at Sopronkeresztúr (Deutschkreutz, A) there was a two-level 17th century baroque garden palace used as a granary from the early 20th century and eventually pulled down in 1952. It was ordered by the owner of the castle Lord Chief Justice Count Ferenc Nádasdy who was executed for high treason in 1671. The castle and the estate was purchased by Pál Esterházy in 1676; he asked Matthias Greischer to draw up two views of the palace, on the basis of which Esterházy was believed by research to have been the builder of the palace for a long time. The exact size of the palace (70×12 m) and its position in relation to the castle are known from the survey drawing made by József Könyöki in 1883. He was the first to give a brief written description of the palace interior: a large hall upstairs and a few rooms downstairs. In 1929 Dagobert Frey mentioned a large hall in the middle of the palace rising two levels high, with two staircases and two large rooms at both ends. An earlier unpublished order dated 11 August 1659 to stucco artist Andrea Bertinalli reveals that there were at least 12 rooms on the two levels of the building, as Nádasdy ordered the stucco decoration of so many rooms to be designed by Bertinalli (appendix 1). As payments and food supplies registered on the order reveal, plastering went on mainly between the summer of 1662 and December 1663. The surveying and planning probably took place sometime in February 1659 before the contract was signed, for documents of the Keresztúr estate suggest the presence of stucco artists presumably including Bertinalli in those days. That means the building must have been completed by the early 1659; spring data suggest that the glazing of the windows was being done. The presumed date of the beginning of the construction — 1656 — is also based on economic records: in February and March 1656 “Fundator” visited Keresztúr on several occasions. A description of September 1670 touching on stucco pieces and artistic wall paintings and mentioning two galleries for musicians at the two ends of the hall gives us an idea how much had been achieved (appendix 2). It means that the building was inaugurated for use still in Nádasdy's lifetime, although this document claims it was still unfinished, with missing doors and windows mentioned.

In his monograph of the architecture of the period Petr Fidler (1990) dates the garden palace to the early 1650s and attributes it to Filiberto Lucchese. Beside the analogies he lists let me mention the free-standing Festsaal of the Kirchschlag castle built before 1658 on account of the similar crowning frieze to that of the Keresztúr building and the same time of construction. Yet another consideration is that the builder of the Hofhaus in Kirchschlag not far from the Nádasdy estates, Johann Christoph Puchheim, was in connection with Nádasdy in several areas, which might have had a role in choosing a model and an architect.

The Keresztúr castle kept its function as Nebenresidenz and a venue of socializing even after the Nádasdy family's permanent residence had been moved to the Seibersdorf castle near Vienna in 1650. The importance of Keresztúr and the still unfinished garden palace began to decline when from 1660 the central residence of the Nádasdy family became Pottendorf in Lower Austria, a far larger place than Seibersdorf.

The Keresztúr palace is labeled Saalgebäude in special literature, meaning a building housing a single large hall. Sources, however, suggest that it was rather a palazzo in villa surrounded with a garden, with rows of rooms both upstairs and downstairs. In its proportions and façade design it was similar to palaces around Vienna. The innovative architectural concept without analogies in the relics from that-time Hungary is more likely to be attributed to the experimenting spirit of Lucchese, who had debuted as designer of Viennese palaces around that time, than to the expectations of Nádasdy as the client.

Restricted access

Egy 17. századi főúri temetkezőhely

Nádasdy Ferenc országbíró és a lékai Ágoston-rendi templom Nádasdy-kriptájának kialakítása

A 17th century burial place for aristocrats

Lord Chief Justice Ferenc Nádasdy and the creation of the Nádasdy crypt in the Augustinian church of Léka
Művészettörténeti Értesítő
Bálint Ugry

In recent decades, especially in German language areas, several monographs and studies have stressed the source value in political and social history of the representative relics of burial places and sepulchral art. The resting places of Hungarian aristocrats of the early modern age are also more than mere (style historical, iconographic) sources of “traditional” art historical investigations, as is also pointed out by several recent scientific works in Hungary.

Lord Chief Justice Ferenc III Nádasdy (1623–1671) had the Nádasdy family mausoleum built in Léka (Lockenhaus, Austria). The converted aristocrat commissioned Pietro Orsolino, master builder from Siena, to erect a church and monastery for the Augustinian hermits and the population of the small Transdanubian village. The innovation of the crypt completed in 1669 lies in admitting solely the remains of the Nádasdy family members according to the original concept of the chief justice, thus becoming the first family mausoleum in the crypt of a church running the whole length of the church space.

When Ferenc Nádasdy was executed for his part in the Wesselényi conspiracy against the court in Vienna in 1671, there were two tombs in the central space of the crypt to which an ornamental staircase led from the middle of the nave of the oval church. The chief justice had the double tomb (c. 1562) of his great grandparents palatine Tamás Nádasdy and Orsolya Kanizsay – an outstanding specimen of 16th century Hungarian sepulchral art – transferred from the chapel of Léka castle. The tomb is covered with a late gothic slab showing the palatine and his wife kneeling at the stem of the cross. The monumental baroque tomb of Ferenc Nádasdy and his wife Anna Julianna Esterházy (c. 1669) was probably made by masters of the Léka guild of builders and masons.

Research of the past years has shown that extensively travelled and highly cultured Ferenc Nádasdy was one of the most conscious aristocratic patrons of the art in Hungary who put the arts sharp-wittedly in the service of his own representation and the political propaganda of the Hungarian Kingdom. In his residences (Keresztúr, Sárvár, Seibersdorf, Pottendorf) he set up picture galleries with different representative goals each; as the holder of the advowson, he had churches (Lorettom, Léka) and chapels (Mariazell, St Stephen’s chapel) founded and ordered altar paintings. He relied on printing to disseminate internationally the historical continuity of the Hungarian statehood threatened by the Ottoman Empire (Mausoleum) and the unity of the Hungarian nation of the estates (series of Widemann portraits).

The crypt of the Léka church was the place of the reverence of ancestors and the expression of Ferenc Nádasdy’s ambition to become palatine. By positioning his and his wife’s tomb opposite his great-grandfather’s in the crypt he founded, he implied his wish to become similar to his forefather. During his political career he failed to acquire the title of palatine, but the “adopter” of the art patron model created by Nádasdy, his brother-in-law Pál Esterházy attained it. Similarly to Nádasdy, Esterházy also had a family crypt built later in the centre of his residence Kismarton (Eisenstadt, Austria) emulating in concept the example of Léka and the Graz mausoleum of Ferdinand II as regards form.

Restricted access

in the publication of such documents. These included the testament of Lord Chief Justice Ferenc Nádasdy ( Schönherr 1888 ) and the two “last wills” of Pál Esterházy, who was later elected palatine of Hungary ( Merényi 1911a , 1911b ). Following

Open access