Ars: časopis Ústavu Dejín Umenia Slovenskej Akadémie Vied (44.2011)

ŠTÚDIE / ARTICLES

ARS 44, 2011, 2

Lost in Translation. The Iconographie
Tradition and Visual Transformation of an Antique Fable

Lubomír KONEČNÝ

It isthat works of art — primarily
but not exclusively works of décorative arts — are
often tied to printed prototypes. One such example
is the point of departure for this brief study. Here,
my approach shall be "crab-like": moving from the
youngest to the oldest artworks under discussion in
order to reconstruct — in this case backwards — the
fate of one, virtually unknown, iconographie tradi-
tion. This study will also demonstrate how at times
the courses and interprétations of iconographie
thèmes can be complex and difhcult to trace, and
how easily we can be swayed to conclude that a case
is so simple and straightforward that there is in fact
nothing to resolvef
In the year 1957, Erwin Neumann (then curator
of the collection of décorative arts at the Kunsthis-
torisches Museum in Vienna) published a study in
which his primary goal was to address the authorship
of the so-calledmosaics created from pre-
cious stones at the end of the 16* * or the beginning
of the 17* Century at the Medici court in Florence
and at the court of Emperor Rudolf II in Prague.

' To date, this issue has not received adéquate attention; thus,
see at least the systematic study of DE CHAPEAUROUGE,
D.: ITAA/ %/VA AEthv Wies-
baden 1974.
* NEUMANN E.: Florentiner Mosaik aus Prag. In: JAfVA? Ar
A EGA?, 53 (N^ue Folge, 17), 1957,
pp. 157-202, here p. 171, hg. 201; pp. 185, 199, No. III. 3.
See also VINCENT, C.: Prince Karl I of Lichtenstein's Pietre
Dure Tabletop. In: TA AI^trcpAI^ Hr7, 20, 1987,
pp. 157-178, here pp. 165-168, hgs. 6-7; B. B. p. BUKOV1N-
SKÀ], ln: Pwg 7400. IG/Vr Aw 77y7 71.

Neumann attributed the mosaic listed as Inv No.
3397 in Vienna [Fig. 1] to the Milanese stone cutter,
Giovanni Castrucciy who was active in Prague in the
years 1598 - 1615; Neumann also ldentihed one of
Johann Sadeler Ts engravings as the model for this
work [Fig. 2] 7 A comparison of the mosaic with its
printed predecessor reveals the compositions of the
two landscapes to be more or less analogous. How-
ever, there are a number of minor, yet also signiheant
différences between the two which are important to
an interprétation of both works. For instance, the
mosaic is missing a kneeling male hgure (situated on
the bottom left of the print) who clasps his hands
in a gesture of supplication. Also absent here is a
farm wagon loaded with a large barrel and pulled
by two oxen being "led" by a horše. This grouping
is depicted — though on a much smalier scale and
with some changes — in the Castrucci mosaic in the
background to the left. Similarly, in the print we can
see that the bridge, which is the central motif of
the depicted landscape, has at its foot the lion of
Venice; in contrast, Castrucci's work shows instead
[Exhib. Cat.] Freren 1988, pp. 514-515, Cat. No. 388; R. D.
[R. DISTELBERGER]. In: IU/AT V- ^ IW. GAzATy Awr
% r^yAGOE zz ArAžw" ríw/wv i/AA/Ezvypy.
[Exhib. Cat.] Eds. E. FUČÍKOVÁ et al. Prague - London
- Milan 1997, p. 485, Cat. No. 11. 65, where there are référ-
encés to other, but for this study less relevant literatuře.
' DE HOOP SCHEFFER, D.: Ho/VAH
-EAlAgr, zz%2 ITHRwti <az. 743*0 — 7700, VXTXXII.
HřgV&f WKr A? mpW WAr. Amsterdam 1980, No. 583;
DE RAMAIX, 1. (ed.): Tlřl/AVrzz/VB^rAA 70. JoH%7?TzA/i?r
I. New York 2006, pp. 139-140 (No< 7001.526).

215