KAREL ŠKRÉTA 1610—1674 STUDIE A DOKUMENTY
The book titled Karel Škréta (1610–1674). Studies and Documents presents the artist’s creative output, as well historical sources testifying to Škréta as an artist, his work and his era. The individual articles in this volume further expound and evaluate the new findings arrived at in the course of the comprehensive interdisciplinary project Karel Škréta (1610–1674): His Work and His Era and the preparation by experts in the field of an exhibition of the same name. The findings are based on the conclusions reached during the contemporary Škréta-themed scholarly investigation centred on systematic archival and history research. Representative technical-technological and restoration investigation formed an important part of the research project, which occasionally brought essential, and at times even surprising, information about the variable nature of 17thcentury paintings in relation to the patrons who commissioned the work and the type of commission. Irrespective of the importance and relevance of the artistic merit of Karel Škréta as an individual painter, he can no longer be assessed and interpreted as a solitary genius who had arrived in a burnt land and whose monuntal work gradually filled the entire space of a hypothetical timeless historical period and a cultural vacuum. Recent research has indicated that the numerous questions concerning the “Bohemian Apelles” cannot be answered without devoting attention to the large number of individuals who filled Škréta’s
life: not only contemporary artists abroad and at home, but also members of his family, his patrons and commissioners of art, as well as collectors and a broad and variagated social spectrum, in which the artist lived and worked with admirable perseverance and possibly also a strictly formulated career strategy. This is why a substantial part of the volume contains an edition of archival resources. Archival research constituted the basic desideratum of Škréta-themed investigation: all art-historical volumes published in the 20th century were based on research conducted in the 19th century. Contemporary research has helped to trace Karel Škréta’s family background and personal relationships. A contribution of paramount importance are the discovered fragments of the Škréta family correspondence in archives in other countries, which have made it possible to reconstruct the itinerary of Škréta’s journey to Italy, and his years as an apprentice and journeyman after he left abroad; all the more so as his biography prior to the year 1638 had numerous white spots and hypotheses deriving from those unknown facts. Of equal importance were also the findings made through the newly-studied sources of domestic provenance, whether concerning the agenda of the brotherhood of painters, or – and especially so – the official records regarding Škréta’s property disputes, financial transactions and art commissions.
Lenka Stolárová – Vít Vlnas (edd.) authors of studies and editors of archival resources: Tomáš Berger, Johana Bronková, Sylva Dobalová, Tomáš Hladík, Mojmír Horyna, Lubomír Konečný, Andrzej Kozieł, Petr Přibyl, Alena Richterová, Andrea Rousová, Tomáš Sekyrka, Lenka Stolárová, Radka Tibitanzlová, Štěpán Vácha, Vít Vlnas, Alena Volrábová english translation: Joanne P. C. Domin, Kateřina Hilská, Evan W. Mellander, Peter Stephens, Lucie Vidmar, Gita Zbavitelová copy editors: Dana Mikulejská, Katarína Rybková, Tatjana Štemberová graphic design: Pavel Zelenka, Erika Huptychová (Studio Marvil) typesetting: Erika Huptychová, Ivana Minářová (Studio Marvil) printed by: Tiskárna Libertas a. s., Praha the book has been published as part of the project karel škréta (1610–1674): His Work and His Era – CZ 0112 MK – T. The project has been supported by a grant from Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway through the EHP Financial Mechanism and the Norway Financial Mechanism. published by: National Gallery in Prague in 2011. isbn: 978–80–7035–469–8, 978–80–7035–470–4 (English version on CD) 416 pages, 247 colour reproductions and X-ray images, 245 × 275 mm, soft binding price: 450 CZK + postage is charged in accordance with the tarrifs of the Czech Post Office The book can be ordered in writing at the address of the National Gallery in Prague, or by e-mail or phone.
Národní galerie v Praze odbor nakladatelství Dukelských hrdinů 47 170 00 Praha 7 e-mail:
[email protected] phone: 224 301 301, 224 301 302
Karel Škréta in Prague or The Story of Two Beginnings LENKA STOLÁROVÁ – RADKA TIBITANZLOVÁ – VÍT VLNAS
1 Joachim von Sandrart, L’academia todesca della architectura, scultura & pittura oder Teutsche Academie der edlen Bau–, Bild- und Mahlerey-Künste. Der teutschen Academie zweyter und letzter Haupt-Theil, Nürnberg 1679, p. 326. 2 Bohuslav Balbín, Diva Montis Sancti: seu Origines & Miracula Magnae Dei Hominumque Matris Mariae, Quae In Sancto Monte Regni Bohemiae, ad Argentifodinas Przibramenses […] in Statua sua mirabili, aditur, & colitur […], Pragae 1665, p. 127, see Edition of historical sources in this book, document no. 102. 3 Quoted from: Vincy Schwarz (ed.), Město vidím veliké… Cizinci o Praze (I can see a large city… Foreigners about Prague), Praha 1940, p. 31. 4 See, e. g. Miloš Václav Kratochvíl, Čas hvězd a mandragor. Pražská léta Rudolfa II. (The Time of Stars and Mandrake. The Prague Years of Rudolf II), Praha 1972, pp. 46–51.
“Carolo Screta, Mahler von Prag. Komt nach Venedig, Bolognen, Florenz, Rom und wieder auf Prag.”¹ These were the words used by Joachim von Sandrart to define the circle of Škréta’s lifetime: he came from Prague and eventually returned there again. Bohuslav Balbín wrote about his friend in a more florid way: “Praga unum aliquem misit, antiquibus pictoribus parem, virum apud nos genitum, sed Orbi et Urbi notum”² – Prague gave us a brilliant man, who was equal to old master painters, born in this country, yet known in Rome and in the world. Škréta’s name and the name of the Bohemian metropolis became inseparably linked for later authors, as well. And rightly so, for this great Baroque painter and the city upon the Vltava River had always belonged to each other and Škréta glorified Prague repeatedly in his works. At the time of Škréta’s birth Prague experienced an epilogue of its golden era when for the second time in history it became the residential city of the emperor of the Holy Roman Empire for a longer period. The Italian Jesuit Giovanni Botero wrote in 1596: “The capital city [of Bohemia] is Prague, divided into three parts, all of them situated in a large, charming basin; their names are Lesser Prague, Old Prague and New Prague. The Molta [i.e. the Vltava] separates the Lesser Prague from the Old one; but the two are linked by a most beautiful bridge of twenty-four arches. The Lesser Prague contains a noble castle built on a hill, and the Cathedral. Old Prague is adorned with many magnificent and imposing buildings; those include the tower of the astronomical clock, which actually shows the astronomical year, the movement of the Sun and the Moon, the number of months and days, a calendar of festive days, the eclipse of the Sun, the lengths of the day and night, the opposition of the Moon, the new moons, and the quadrature. This part of the city also includes the Jewish ghetto, which is a town in its own right. The New Town is divided from the Old Town by a moat, which used to be deep, but by now it has been levelled with the surrounding terrain, and there are orchards on it. All these parts of the city together are estimated to have no less a perimeter than that of the city of Rome.”³ By rough estimates, Late Rudolfine Prague, the city of Škréta’s early childhood, had something between fifty and sixty thousand inhabitants and slightly more than 3,300 houses. Its comparison to papal Rome, the rising metropolis of the European Baroque, must mainly have been a rhetorical figure, but not quite unfounded. In the mid–16th century Prague experienced a fast increase in demography and construction, thanks to which it achieved, at least within the frame of Central Europe, a position of a real metropolis. At that time Vienna, which was permanently threatened by Turkish raids, disposed of roughly half the number of houses, compared to Prague.⁴ In its size, the Bohemian capital city surpassed the traditional regional centres in the neighbouring German states, such as Leipzig, Nuremberg or Augsburg. Both in its extension and significance, it was neither equalled by the administrative centre of Silesia, Wroclaw, otherwise the only STUDIES 7 53
1. ← Tiberio Tinelli, Portrait of Karel Škréta, National Gallery in Prague (photo: National Gallery in Prague) 2. → Karel Škréta, Proving the Purity of the Vestal Virgin Tuccia, 1630/1637, National Gallery in Prague (photo: National Gallery in Prague)
gave no further details) a certificate that he had completed his apprenticeship, in July 1627.⁷ This artist may have been Aegidius Sadeler, whom Škréta’s family in Prague knew well. This hypothesis, which has been put forward many times, is strengthened by the new finding that Karel Škréta was in contact with Aegidius’s nephew in Venice during his travels in Italy. And Aegidius Sadeler may have been the best source of recommendations of people to contact during his planned trip to Venice.⁸ The barrier between the “old” Catholics on the one hand and the Protestants (and the Protestants who converted to Catholicism after the Battle of the White Mountain) was not an impenetrable one in Bohemian society after the Battle of the White Mountain.⁹ From Škréta’s contacts it is evident that he was able to make excellent use of the social capital that his family and its social network offered. It should also not be overlooked that dynastic and estate solidarity was often more important than confessional and political affiliation. We can assume that the preparations for Karel’s peregrination were made with the appropriate thoroughness, and that while he was still in Prague the young painter made arrangements to be welcomed not only by his own blood relations, but also by friends and acquaintances who were living abroad. This assumption is supported by a letter from Jindřich Škréta, sent from Prague on 14 April 1627 to their brother Jan in Basel.¹⁰ Plans were already being made for Karel’s journey before the issuing of the “Renewed Constitution” on 10 May 1627 and Ferdinand II’s patent (31 July 1627) 74 7 KAREL ŠKRÉTA BETWEEN SWITZERLAND, THE EMPIRE, AND ITALY
7 Radka Tibitanzlová, Karel Škréta’s Testimony about His Person after His Return to Bohemia, in: L. Stolárová – V. Vlnas (edd.), Karel Škréta (1610–1674) (see note 5), p. 592, cat. no. XVI.13. 8 Aegidius’s nephew Marco Sadeler is given as the address for the
13
correspondence between the brothers to be sent to, see later in the text and notes 30, 32, 34, 35. 9 Lenka Stolárová – Vít Vlnas, Karel Škréta 2010 aneb příběh uměleckého úspěchu, Art&Antiques 12, 2010, p. 14. 10 “Brother Karel has made excellent progress and is already (although against our mother’s wishes) preparing to go abroad. It is not at all easy to find money for the journey, but I hope that some help will turn up”, Staatsbibliothek Schaffhausen, Sign. Msc Scaph 8.
14 15 16
11 From a letter addressed to Ludwig Lucius: “The situation with us is that we have had to deal with so many disasters that we are scarcely able to breathe. What is more, we are hourly threatened with banishment, together with the loss of nearly all our property. Things
17
are so bad so far as money is concerned that the disease called penury is spreading throughout our province. And in such evil times it is not
18
possible to admire enough or praise sufficiently the favour which all of you show to my brothers. From this the conclusion can be drawn that through divine providence my brothers have found with you their
19
lost homeland and your human goodness predestined to alleviate the difficulties of those afflicted by a fateful decree”, Staatsbibliothek
20
Schaffhausen, Sign. Msc Scaph 8. 12 Jan started his studies in Basel in 1619 and achieved his master’s
degree on 20 December 1621; for more on this subject: Die Matrikel der Universität Basel, III, 1601/02–1665/66, Hans Georg Wackernagel (ed.), Basel 1962, p. 225. In 1624–1625, Ludwig Lucius held the office of Rector of Basel University; for more on this subject: Die Matrikel der Universität Basel, II, 1532/33–1600/01, Hans Georg Wackernagel (ed.), Basel 1962, p. 383. See note 12. J. Neumann, Karel Škréta 1610–1674 (see note 1), p. 16; J. Neumann, Škrétové (see note 1), p. 16. Alena Volrábová, Václav Hollar a Evropa mezi životem a zmarem, in: Alena Volrábová (ed.), Václav Hollar (1607–1677) a Evropa mezi životem a zmarem, Praha 2007, p. 8. Alena Volrábová, Bust of a Young Man, in: L. Stolárová – V. Vlnas (edd.), Karel Škréta (1610–1674) (see note 5), p. 346, cat. no. VIII.1 (Bibliography). J. Neumann, Karel Škréta 1610–1674 (see note 1), pp. 195–197; J. Neumann, Škrétové (see note 1), p. 18, fig. 9. Ingeborg Klekler, Die Handschriften der Württenbergischen Landesbibliothek Stuttgart, III, Stammbücher bis 1625, Wiesbaden 1999, pp. 169–172. Susanna Burghartz, Das ancien Régime, Die Bevolkerungsentwicklung im Zeitalter der Pest, in: Georg Kreis – Beat von Wartburg (edd.), Geschichte einer städtischen Gessellschaft, Basel 2000, p. 120.
expelling the non-Catholic nobility from Bohemia. It is therefore likely that Škréta left Prague in 1627 intentionally and voluntarily on a journey to expand his horizons. Another letter by Jindřich allows us to make the assumption that Karel Škréta made his way to Basel in Switzerland to visit their oldest brother Jan,¹¹ who was continuing his studies of medicine there. After achieving his master’s degree¹² Jan had married the daughter of a leading professor of theology at Basel University, Ludwig Lucius (Luz; 1577–1642),¹³ and as a result of this marriage he had not only improved his social status, but was able to ensure that his younger brother received an appropriate welcome and temporary refuge. It is not without interest that before he could get married he had to prove that he was a member of the privileged social class by submitting a copy of his letter of nobility. In a further letter, addressed to Professor Lucius himself, Jindřich wrote from Prague in March 1628: “From the proceeds of selling off several vineyards I am sending my brother Jan 500 imperials, and Karel 60 imperials. I entreat you to kindly allocate these amounts to them when you receive them from the merchant.”¹⁴ Jan’s father-in-law, who supported both brothers, evidently played a key role in Karel’s sojourn in the Empire and in Switzerland. The respected humanist scholar not only guaranteed his material security but also acceptance in a social milieu. Nevertheless, we still should not discount the possibility suggested by Jaromír Neumann, that the departure of the young Karel Škréta from Prague was connected with the movements of another talented artist, later to become a well-known engraver, Václav Hollar.¹⁵ Hollar left STUDIES 7 75
perceives Baroque, with its aspiration towards the unity of content and form and its spirituality, as the antinomy of the highly refined and basically secular art of Rudolfine Mannerism. To him, the preconditions for adopting Baroque were provided by the newly organized Catholicism which “began long before the White Mountain”.³⁴ He once again expressed on the stylistic character of post-White Mountain Baroque painting in the exhibition catalogue Prague Baroque [Pražské baroko; 1938]. The White Mountain and all its consequences brought a radical turning point; with it, “the natural development of art was halted for a long time. Creativity sunk from elegant internationality to modest provinciality. Also the stylistic advantage was lost, as the local artists kept lingering on forms based on the Renaissance opinion. The active belligerence of the victorious Counter-Reformation began entering the forms only little by little”.³⁵ The first one to attempt a constructive approach to the relation between early Baroque painting and Karel Škréta was Vincenc Kramář who was ready to emphasize the painter’s epochal asset: “We can, however, fully acknowledge Škréta’s significance for our art only if we realize how poor and weak our painting was when the artist first appeared in public.”³⁶ Kramář also considerably contributed to the wide recognition of the stylistic points of departure in Škréta’s oeuvre. He straightforwardly interpreted the artist as timeless: “A new stage of development in our painting, including the art work of our days, indeed takes Škréta into account. And we certainly cannot more highly appraise his exploit than by saying that this outstanding painter laid the foundations of our modern artistic tradition.”³⁷ He, on the other hand, helped petrify many stereotypes which stretched through art history from as early as the beginning of the 19th century. Beside other things, he revived the age-long “exiles’” model of interpretation and agreed that the decisive stylistic turning point occurred outside Bohemia, and at the same time reduced Rudolfine art to a mere episode, utterly insignificant for future developments. Kramář also anticipated the later narrations of Jaromír Neumann by explaining Škréta’s art as an intrinsically Czech phenomenon. To him, his “lyricism” and “vigour” constituted the tradition which subsequently climaxed in the art of the “National Revival”. He thus also reflected the dispute over the character of Baroque in the Czech milieu and its significance in shaping the modern nation. The latter issue was brought to life by the so-called dispute over the sense of Czech history whose tone was determined by as influential personalities as František Xaver Šalda and Josef Pekař during the 1920s and 1930s.³⁸ Kramář employed scientific methods derived from the works of the Viennese art-history school and combined them with “instinctual” intuition. This helped him construct the bygone dream of the 19th-century nationalist authors – the new Czech national school of painting: “The time has not yet come for us talk more widely about the specific or, eventually, Czech character of Škréta’s works without being in danger of one-sidedly interpreting the features of the period. For the time being, we must depend on our inherent instinct which makes us experience Škréta’s art as something essentially close to us. And the proof that our perception of it is correct can be, for example, the composition of Drahomíra’s death. It directly evokes in us the artists whose Czech nature is undoubted: Is not the scene in the church filled with the spirituality and unaffectedness of Tkadlík, and does not the main monumental composition contain something of the vigour of Aleš’s compositions in the foyer of the National Theatre?”³⁹ Antonín Matějček, another notable representative of Czech art history in the first half of the 20th century, was considerably more critical of our artist. As he wrote in 1913, “Škréta’s transgression was his low genius”. But here, he totally failed to reflect the shift that had occurred from Pazaurek’s times, especially due to the 1910 exhibition of the painter. Matějček continues: “He lost orientation; he kept lingering on the surface of the quarrelling methods and mannerisms, adopting them indiscriminately and without understanding their inward sense. He sank to the artistic impurity of confused formulas; impurity which is ill-fated to all the weak.” His final verdict on Škréta is unambiguous: “The faithful imprint of this puzzled mind is its work.”⁴⁰ Matějček’s coarse judgment nonetheless softens throughout his later synoptic explanations of the artistic developments in Bohemia: he gradually comes to acknowledge not only Škréta’s leading role in constituting local Baroque painting but also his ability to synthesize the contradictory Italian ideological movements.⁴¹ The author conformed to the main tendencies of contemporary art history and he, too, put Škréta in contrast with the allegedly poor quality of other painters active during his era in Bohemia. As he notes, “17th-century development in painting faltered for the same reasons as the development in sculpture. The Czech lands knew almost nothing about the grandiose florescence of early Baroque Italian painting, and this or that stylistic advancement and novelty arrived to us only with delay, via the Italians professing routine eclecticism. […] 42 7 BAROQUE IN BOHEMIA VERSUS BOHEMIAN BAROQUE
34 Ibid., p. 57. 35 Václav Vilém Štech, Malba a sochařství, in: Výstava Umění v Čechách XVII. a XVIII. století. 1600–1800. Pražské baroko (exh. cat.), Praha 1938, p. 50. 36 Vincenc Kramář, Karel Škréta, Salon, 1932, No. 2, pp. 6–7, No. 3, pp. 27–28, here p. 28. 37 Ibid., p. 28. 38 See esp. Bohdan Chudoba – Zdeněk Kalista – Josef Vašica – Jan Racek – Albert Kutal, Baroko. Pět statí, Praha 1934; Arne Novák, Nové bádání o českém baroku slovesném, Naše věda 16, 1935, pp. 189–202; Zdeněk Rotrekl, Barokní fenomén v současnosti, Praha 1995, pp. 101–157; Jiří Rak – Vít Vlnas (edd.), The Second Life of the Baroque in Bohemia, in: Vít Vlnas (ed.), The Glory of the Baroque in Bohemia: Essays on Art, Culture and Society in the 17th and 18th Centuries, Praha 2001, pp. 33–38, 42–44. 39 Vincenc Kramář, Z mladých let Karla Škréty. Jakubův příchod k Labanovi, Praha 1938 (Příspěvky k dějinám výtvarného umění 1), p. 10, note 18. On the nationalist tendencies in the 20th-century Czech art history, comp. Milena Bartlová, Naše, národní umění. Studie z dějepisu umění, Brno 2009. Kramář, however, opined in another place that “our” Baroque school is not more significant that “our” art from the period of high Gothic; as to this, comp. the following text: “It cannot pass unnoticed that the one-sided inclination towards Catholic Italy has resulted in a certain measure of conservatism but that, on the other hand, the quality of Bohemian art raised with the appearance of Škréta, and that this gave birth to the diversified nature of our Baroque art. It would, alas, be indiscriminate to ignore that all this art, so magnificent on the outside, cannot equal our art of the 14th and early 15th centuries as far as its significance and historical impact are concerned. This nevertheless in no way devalues the important fact that it was the very Škréta who reconnected Bohemia to the world progressive tendencies and thus at the same time also established our new artistic tradition” (Vincenc Kramář, in: Stručný průvodce Státní sbírkou starého umění, Praha 1938, unpaginated introduction). 40 Antonín Matějček, Galerie v Rudolfině, Praha 1913, pp. 127–128. 41 Comp. idem, Dějepis umění. Díl pátý. Umění Nového věku III., Praha 1932, pp. 315–316.
42 Idem, Malířství, in: Zdeněk Wirth (ed. by), Dějepis výtvarných umění v Československu, Praha 1935 (Československá vlastivěda 8), Praha 1935, p. 150. 43 Antonín Matějček – Zdeněk Wirth, Český barok výtvarný, in: Co daly naše země Evropě a lidstvu. Od slovanských věrozvěstů k národnímu obrození, Praha 1939, pp. 200–206, here p. 200. 44 Ibid., p. 203. 45 Comp. J. Rak – V. Vlnas (edd.), Druhý život baroka v Čechách (see note 38), pp. 13–60, here pp. 42–46. 46 Comp. Pavel Preiss, Antonín Matějček a barokní umění, in: Antonín Matějček (1889–1950). Anthology of papers from the conference held on 31 January on the occasion of the 100th birth anniversary of Professor Antonín Matějček and jointly organized by the Department of Art History of the Philosophical Faculty of the Charles University in Prague, the Institute of Art Theory and History of the Academy of Arts of the Czech Republic, Praha 1994, pp. 47–53, here p. 51.
13. ↑ Jaromír Neumann and Jiří Mašín at the opening of Karel Škréta’s exhibition in the Prague Castle Riding School in 1974, Archives of the National Gallery in Prague (photo: National Gallery in Prague) 14. ↗ View into installation of Karel Škréta’s exhibition in the Prague Castle Riding School in 1974, Archives of the National Gallery in Prague (photo: National Gallery in Prague)
But then, due to a happy turn of fate, there came a local and Bohemian painter who possessed more external possibilities, talents and will to become a more magnificent artist than his contemporaries. Karel Škréta […].”⁴² Similar words can be found in the essay which Matějček co-wrote with Zdeněk Wirth for the almanac What Our Lands Have Brought to Europe and Humanity [Co daly naše země Evropě a lidstvu; 1939]. Although the two scholars linked Baroque with the post-White Mountain Counter-Reformation and the Habsburg absolutism, they did so with concern to its aesthetic qualities and cultural assets, and they moreover succeeded in avoiding any negative connotations.⁴³ Matějček’s passage devoted to our artist even critically, albeit in a simplified way, reflects on the earlier local tradition of art history: “Škréta, the painter highly valued by his own period and also of world renown, had long been overlooked. This was especially due to the first historians in the field of Czech art who grew up in the atmosphere of neo-Classicism of the 18th and 19th centuries. But today we know for certain that Škréta’s appraisal voiced by his comrade from Rome, Sandrart, in his Teusche Akademie (of 1675) still stands in every word and that it is necessary to view Škréta as a painter who far exceeded the standard of Central-European art. Škréta painted both religious and secular subjects; and doing so, he employed all the means which had been mastered by contemporary Italian art – and he indeed learned its lessons as a creative artist and not as a mere compiler.”⁴⁴ The favourable judgment on the Baroque master and the overall tone of the article can be explained by the nationally-defensive tendency of the almanac as well as the contemporary context: the work was published at the beginning of the German occupation whose cultural atmosphere moreover still echoed the 1938 groundbreaking monumental exhibition “Prague Baroque” [Pražské baroko].⁴⁵ We can only conclude that unlike Vincenc Kramář, Antonín Matějček actually never developed any deeper relationship to Karel Škréta and his work.⁴⁶ *** The wide range of views on early Baroque painting and the role of Karel Škréta during the inter-war period were certainly due to the still superficial knowledge of the survived fund of paintings and also the lingering prejudice towards the cultural, religious and political conditions in 17th-century Bohemia. The opinions sorted out only in the latter half of the 20th century. The leading interpreter of Bohemian Baroque at that time became Matějček’s student, Jaromír Neumann, who excelled in supporting his suggestive views on the subject with his sound knowledge of visual material. He did so for the first time in the synthesis entitled Baroque Realism: 17th-Century Painting in Bohemia [Barokní realismus: Malířství XVII. století v Čechách; 1951]. This interpretation was, however, STUDIES 7 43
Paris and Helen, (around 1672), National Gallery in Prague (photo: National Gallery in Prague, x-ray photo: Tomáš Berger) In the lower layers this double portrait is relatively unbalanced. The girl is painted with great effort at portraiture, whereas the young man is captured at a fast tempo where the main role was played by the correct capturing of the figure on the beaten metal helmet. The lack of balance in the size of the heads and the perspective creates a certain disharmony.
178 7 THE X-RAY INVESTIGATION OF THE PAINTINGS OF KAREL ŠKRÉTA
STUDIES 7 179
17
19
Schaffhaussen (Switzerland), 10 April 1638
The Old Town in Prague, 1638–1639
Jan Škréta authorizes his brother Karel to withdraw his share of the family property in Prague.
Dispute over the house At the Hájeks’ in the Fruit Market in Prague – Karel Škréta requests the municipal officials to provide him the testament of Dorota (sometimes also stated as Anna, Johana or Zuzana) Strossburgerová to read. The officials ask for
Archiv hlavního města Prahy (Prague City Archives), Sbírka rukopisů (Collection of Manuscripts), file Liber quietantiarum 2, 1579–1650, sign. 2179, f. 252v–253r.
legal deferral.
Literature: BERGNER – HERAIN 1910, p. 9; NEUMANN 1974, pp. 23, 46; NEUMANN 2000, p. 40.
Archiv hlavního města Prahy (Prague City Archives), Sbírka rukopisů (Collection of Manuscripts), file Manuale dictorum, 1638–1641, sign. 1169, f. 27r, f. 52v–55r, f. 62r.
Ich Joannes Screta Schotnowsky
Patrimonium in Königreich Böheimb mir von meinem hertzliebsten
möchten, daß specie unter andern, waß die culpam negligentiae, daß
Herrn Vater seelig[en] den Edlen und Westen Herrn Conrado Screta Schot-
Heinrichs Anlangen thuet zu protestiren und daß in optima et solemni
Karel Škréta Šotnovský z Závo-
císařské, též páni ouředníci na místě
býti měl, vědomosti jmíti neráčili,
zdvižena býti má, toho z podstatné
hausen, wie auch der umbliegenden
nowsky von Zavorzitz, der Römischen
Gotteshaüßer alß Rhegnow, Paradiß und St. Catharinenthal bey dießer Hofen bestalter Medicus, gebe
Kayserlichen Mayestät gewesenen Buchhalter bey der löblichen Kam-
forma in suma alleß dasjenige, waß er zu meinem Nutzen ersprießlich zu
Povoleno k vložení do kněh městských tohoto dvojího plnomocenství
řic s Jeho Milosti císařské panem rychtářem, též pány ouředníky
a k ruce obce této, jakožto k přeslyšení té domnělé přípovědi obeslané
jakož pak kdybyšte ráčili býti v tom zpraveni, týž zvod vykonán nebyl.
příčiny, totiž milostivou resolucí Jeho Milosti císařské, též milostivý
sein würde, erkennen zu verrichten. Zur besserer Urkund und daß ich daß
od pana purkmistra a pánův v radě f[eria] kvinta post Nativit[atis] B[e-
šestipanskými.
strany, co od sebe přednášeti dali,
Dotčený pak pan Karel Škréta, že
dekret Jeho Milosti císařské, spolu
brüderliche Vertrauen zu ihme trage, hab ich dieser mit meiner eigener
atae] Mariae Virginis, 2. Septemb[ri] anno 1642. Co[n]s[ule] domino
Karel Škréta předně žádal za přečtení přípovědi na pozůstalost po
tohoto milostivého dekretu z komory Jeho Milosti císařské v příčině tohoto
jest se po ty všecky časy neohlašoval, tu jediná příčina jest, že jest
i s zvodem do téhož domu vykonaném, přednešeni jsou. Přičemž také
nebo[žce] Dorotě Strasburgerové,
domu pošlého, jako i druhého
zde v tomto Králov[ství] českém
že páni obeslaní zůstaveni budou,
Hand geschrieben und unterschrieben, auch mit meinen angebornen Petschier besiegelt. Welches
Adalberto Wenceslao Seniore Had á Prosecze.
dcery vlastní nebo[žtíka] dokto[ra] Thadeáše Hájka z Hájku. Po pře-
instrumentu zvodu do něho vykonaného, za přečtení žádají.
přítomen nebyl, anóbrž v cizích zemích po umění svém se zdržoval.
v tu naději přicházejí a že původní strana k provozování přípovědi při-
7 RT
čtení přednésti dal: pokudž by Jeho Milosti císařské pan rychtář, též páni
Dekret z komory Jeho Milosti císař-
A navrátivše se sem, jest pořádnou přípověď podle prá[va] měst[ského]
puštěna býti nemá, toho že z uvážení svého že vynajíti neráčíte, na to od
úředníci šestipanští, kteříž právem odoumrtním domu po též Dorotě
ské české It[em] zvod do domu Hájkovského.
G 24 jakožto nejbližší přítel dotčené Zuzany Straspurgkerové učinil,
Vaší Milosti jistého vyměření očekávati budou.
18
Strasburgerové zůstalého v tomto
A pokudž jak vedle tohoto milos-
o učiněném poručení z komory Jeho
Prague, 9 July 1638
Starém Městě pražského /ležícího/ se ujali, přípovědi této místa dáti
tivého dekretu, tak i vedle jisté klausule ten a takový dům na způ-
Milosti císařské české odeslaném žádné vědomosti nemaje a kdyby
Od Karla Škréty Pan Karel Škréta potahuje se na
The Bohemian Court Office orders the burgomaster and the city council of Litoměřice to satisfy the plea of Karel Škréta in the matter of possessing the vineyard, now in the hands
nechtěli, tehdy že žádá, aby k pro-
sob v témž dekretu doložený pánům
Jeho Milosti císařské komora o tom
p[rávo] m[ěstské] F 15, kteréž vymě-
vozování praetensi své připuštěn a jemu termín k průvodům jmenován byl. Jeho Milosti císařské pan rychtář tohoto Starého Města na místě a k ruce Jeho Milosti císařské, též páni úředníci úřadu šestipanského na místě a k ruce obce téhož města žádali hojemství právního, k čemuž od pana p[urkmistra] a pánův povoleno a termín k hojemství ad primam sessionem jmenován. Vide odpověď infra fol[io] 52, 62.
ouředníkům šestipanským na místě a k ruce obce této v moc uved[en] jest. Za to tehdy páni obeslaní, nemíníce se v žádný spor proti témuž milostivému dekretu a resoluci Jeho Milosti císařské s pány připovídajícími <se> vydávati, za to žádají, že je při tomto opatření a vyměření zůstaviti, přípověď pak tuto od práva zdvihnouti a v nic obrátiti ráčíte podle práva.
vědomost toho času měla, že on tak blízkým přítelem dotčené Zuzany Straspurgkerové zůstává, ovšemže by také takový dekret ku právu tomuto obeslán nebyl, jsa k Vaší Milosti té naděje nepochybné, že když dá-li Pán Bůh, tuto přípověď náležitě provede, že jemu také jakožto patriciusovi příti, aby on v témž domě podle vyměření práva Království tohoto českého takového nápadu dosáhnouti a užíti mohl, nebo kdyby on krevním přítelem Zuzany Straspurgkerové nebyl, nechtěl by tohoto práva daremně zaneprazdňovati, pročež jest k Vaší Milosti té naděje, že ráčíte jemu termín k provozování té jeho přípovědi jmenovati a pokudž se jinší statek nachází, což by obzvláštně na komoru a na obec tuto připadlo, že Jeho Milosti císařské jinším prostředkem to jím vynahraditi milostivě motci ráčí. V čemž sebe Vaší Milosti k spravedlivému opatření poroučí.
řuje, kterak a jak daleko přátelé in linea collaterati stojící pod který stupeň děditi mají, on pak ten se v tom právně zachoval a podle práva m[ěstského] G 26, 27 Jeho Milosti císařské pana rychtáře, též pány úředníky obeslati dal, a tak dáleji že vedle p[ráva] m[ěstského] G 28 k provozování přípovědi své připuštěn bude, v tu naději k Jeho Milosti císařské přichází, na čež také od Vaší Milosti jistého oznámení očekávati bude.
von Zaworzitz, der Artzney Doctor Landgraf Reichmarschal Poppenheimischer der löb[lichen] Stadt Schaff-
mit diesen meinen Brief dem Edlen
mer der Kron Böheimb, auch Fürst Lichtensteinisch Rath gehörig, güt-
und Vesten Herrn Carolo Scretae Schnotnowsky von Zavorzitz, meinen
lich und rechtlig einzuziehen zu Geld zu machen, die Debitores zu quitiren,
hertzlieben Herrn Bruder, volligen Macht und Gewalt, daß hinterlassene
auch wieder alle unbilliche actus, welche vorgangen oder vorgehen
of Batista Reymund, the husband of Škréta’s sister Anežka, if the authorities do not find any substantial circumstances which would make the decision invalid. Národní archiv (National Archives), file Stará manipulace (Old Manipulation), sign. L 32/33, Inv. No. 1981, box 1291, f. 6. Literature: NEUMANN 1974, p. 46; Tomáš Sekyrka, in: STOLÁROVÁ – VLNAS 2010, cat. no. XVI.12, p. 591.
O Karla Škrétu
týchž spisův na kancelář Jeho Milosti
Litoměřickým Poctivý a opatrní nám milí. Co na nás Karel Škréta z Závořic v pří-
císařské českou učiniti hleděli. Dán 9. julii 1638
Reymund, někdy Anýžky Reymundové sestry jeho manžel v držení a užívání zůstávati měl, stížně vznáší, a jakého v tom opatření svého při nás snažně vyhledává, tomu z příležících spisův vyrozumíte. I pokudž
Literature: PAZAUREK 1889, pp. 35–36; NEUMANN 1974, p. 46; NEUMANN 2000, pp. 40–41.
[illegible signature]
čině
dosažení vinice /své dědické/,² kteréž že by nyní Batista
geschehen zu Schaffhaußen den 10. Aprilis stilo Gregoriano anno 1638. Joh[annes] Screta D[octor] mp.
[f. 52v–55r] [The file does not contain any more documents. The Litoměřice authorities thus probably complied with the order.] 7 TS 2 Note in the margin.
Karel Škréta s Jeho Milosti císařské panem rychtářem na místě a k ruce Jeho Milosti císařské, též úředníky úřadu šestipanského na místě a k ruce obce tohoto Starého Města pražského hojemství
tomu tak, jak týž suplikující zpravuje a nejináče jest, protož jménem a na místě Jeho Milosti císařské královské a pána nás všech nejmilostivějšího vám poroučíme, abyste jemu týž žádosti a pratensi jeho bez odpornosti, v jednom i druhém punktu užíti dali. Pakliže co jiného podstatného a právního proti tomu se nachází, nám o tom neprodleně gruntovní zprávu s navrácením zase
DOCUMENT No. 18 The Bohemian Court Office orders the burgomaster and the city council of Litoměřice to satisfy the plea of Karel Škréta in the matter of possessing the family vineyard, if the authorities do not find any substantial circumstances which would make the decision invalid; dated 9 July 1638, Prague. Prague, National Archives, file Old Manipulation (Photo: National Gallery in Prague – Aleš David)
276 7 DOCUMENTS ON THE LIFE AND PERSON OF KAREL ŠKRÉTA
Od Jeho Milosti císařské pana rycht[áře], též úředníkův šestipan[ských] Vaše Milosti proti domnělé přípovědi pana Karla Škréty z Závořic na dům po někdy Thadeášovi Hájkovi z Hájku v lékařství doktoru nějakým právem nápadním učiněné dřívěji, nežli by Jeho Milosti císařské pan rychtář tohoto Starého Města pražského na místě a k ruce Jeho Milosti EDITION OF HISTORICAL SOURCES 7 277
Od Karla Škréty Pan Karel Škréta na čem podstatu odpovědi své Jeho Milosti císařské pan rychtář na místě a k ruce Jeho Milosti císařské a páni úředníci úřadu šestipanského na místě a k ruce obce této zakládati ráčí, tomu jest vyrozuměli. Předně z zvodu to patrně ráčíte vynacházeti, že do téhož domu takový zvod jest vykonán právem odoumrtním, tak jakoby paní Zuzana Štraßburgerová bez krevních přátel, tak jakž strom krevní ukazuje, prostředkem smrti časné z toho světa vykročila, takže takovým právem ráčili jste skrze pana rychtáře takový zvod poručiti vykonati. Ale pan Karel Škréta v tu naději přichází, že jste o osobě jeho, aby on jakým krevním přítelem dotčené Anny [!] Strasburgkové
Od Jeho Milosti císařské pana rychtáře pánům úředníkům Zbytečně a daremně tímto reprobírováním ráčíte býti zanášeni nebo proč páni obeslaní v žádný spor se vzdávati povinni nejsou, i také proč táž přípověď od práva Vaší Milosti
Od Jeho Milosti císařské pana rychtáře, též pánů úředníkův šestipanských Že Jeho Milosti císařské, též Jich Milostí milostivých resolucí přesuzovati právu tomuto nepřináleží. A p[oku]dž již předešle svou obranu jsou předložili, na to také od Vaší Milosti jistého vyměření očekávati budou. Načež z bedlivého povážení pana purkmistra a pánův takto oznámeno. Vide infra fol/i/o 62. [f. 62r] 1638 Böhmer á Weymar Oznámení mezi Karlem Škrétou z jedné a Jeho Milosti císařské
