DOI Page / Citation link:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41589#0063
became the residence of the Hedervarys — another Hungarian aristocratic family
-— whose significance in no way stood behind that of the former owner9.
We were obliged to go into such datailed discussion of when the castle might have
been built because the results of the archaeological investigations have made clear that
neither the examination of the building as a whole nor the critical study of the surviving
artistic details promise to help us to any more precise conclusion in this regard. In fact,
the situation is the reverse: those forms which here could be defined — on the basis of
archaeological research — as dating from the first building period, might in turn help the
definition of other, even more fragmentary and less known monuments. To put it more
simply: the castle of Ozora, as a whole and in detail, has today practically no analogies
but might serve as one in the future and help us to understand further buildings. Here
we must note that the excavation also provided no significant help with, regardi to
dates, this being explained by the limited possibilites of dating classical archaeological
finds, such as ceramics or metal objects. In fact, many questions concerning e.g., the
artistic glazed tiles dating from the time of Sigismund of Luxembourg, might be
answered by conclusions drawn from the examination of the written documents. There
is, however, archaeological evidence of the fact that the building in question is identical
with the castle erected in concordance with the permit issued in 1416, this evidence
being provided by the excavated fragments of a coat-of-arms, known from written
sources to be that of Filippo Scolari10.
The outward impression of Scolari’s castle was basically determined by the facades
of the palace block which, though in fact only one storey high, concealed the roof of the
building. The walls were crowned by battlements, to the form of which, however, the
only clue is supplied by a fallen corner unit. On the outside the ground-ssoor facades,
determined by a semi-cylindrical string course running along the base and the top, were
only opened by a row of very small and simple windows placed high up and, of course,
the gateway. The latter, a rather narrow, semicircular opening, was on the south side of
the west facade (Fig. 74). Its stone framework, reconstructed of fragments, shows the
richest moulding so far known to us among the stone fragments from the building. The
facades of the first ssoor are in strong contrast to the closed ground-ssoor ones (Fig. 75).
Here, there is no trace of symmetry or planning, the sequence of mullion windows,
others with ssat arches, and different balconies and bay windows simply follow the logic
of the spaces behind the walls. On the basis of one in situ opening and many remnants
and frame fragments of the others we may consider the window forms as relatively well
known (Fig. 72), whereas about the balconies we know much less. One of them could be
identified as the sanctuary of the chapel, though of this nothing more than the simple
corbels have survived (Fig. 71). The other two were balconies, of which mainly the
niches, in the facades sometimes even painted, are left to inform us. In one case this
together with a large semicircular framework, whose profile with its simple bevel is of
the same character as the framework of the windows referred to above, or the in situ
doorway in the cellar. The northern balcony was the shorter of the two and probably
had a wooden structure regarding the parapet and columns as well as its roof (Fig. 71).
The one in the west (Fig. 70), with its elongated corridor-like structure supported by
double corbels, was probably built of brick, this being suggested by the uncovered
stumps, and protected by a sequence of unribbed cross vaults. It has been suggested but
was, unfortunately, impossible to prove, that the numerous red marble fragments found
in various parts of the building and which form mainly narrow, strongly articulated
pillars might originate from here. While it is certain that the eastern facade had no more
than two pairs of windows on this level (Fig. 72), on the totally destroyed south facades
further balconies can, hypothetically, be presumed.
As far as the outside of the building is concerned the ground plan is based on
a perfectly regular quadrate; this, however, does not apply to the inner distribution of
the space. By this we do not only mean that the wings around the courtyard are not
61
/
-— whose significance in no way stood behind that of the former owner9.
We were obliged to go into such datailed discussion of when the castle might have
been built because the results of the archaeological investigations have made clear that
neither the examination of the building as a whole nor the critical study of the surviving
artistic details promise to help us to any more precise conclusion in this regard. In fact,
the situation is the reverse: those forms which here could be defined — on the basis of
archaeological research — as dating from the first building period, might in turn help the
definition of other, even more fragmentary and less known monuments. To put it more
simply: the castle of Ozora, as a whole and in detail, has today practically no analogies
but might serve as one in the future and help us to understand further buildings. Here
we must note that the excavation also provided no significant help with, regardi to
dates, this being explained by the limited possibilites of dating classical archaeological
finds, such as ceramics or metal objects. In fact, many questions concerning e.g., the
artistic glazed tiles dating from the time of Sigismund of Luxembourg, might be
answered by conclusions drawn from the examination of the written documents. There
is, however, archaeological evidence of the fact that the building in question is identical
with the castle erected in concordance with the permit issued in 1416, this evidence
being provided by the excavated fragments of a coat-of-arms, known from written
sources to be that of Filippo Scolari10.
The outward impression of Scolari’s castle was basically determined by the facades
of the palace block which, though in fact only one storey high, concealed the roof of the
building. The walls were crowned by battlements, to the form of which, however, the
only clue is supplied by a fallen corner unit. On the outside the ground-ssoor facades,
determined by a semi-cylindrical string course running along the base and the top, were
only opened by a row of very small and simple windows placed high up and, of course,
the gateway. The latter, a rather narrow, semicircular opening, was on the south side of
the west facade (Fig. 74). Its stone framework, reconstructed of fragments, shows the
richest moulding so far known to us among the stone fragments from the building. The
facades of the first ssoor are in strong contrast to the closed ground-ssoor ones (Fig. 75).
Here, there is no trace of symmetry or planning, the sequence of mullion windows,
others with ssat arches, and different balconies and bay windows simply follow the logic
of the spaces behind the walls. On the basis of one in situ opening and many remnants
and frame fragments of the others we may consider the window forms as relatively well
known (Fig. 72), whereas about the balconies we know much less. One of them could be
identified as the sanctuary of the chapel, though of this nothing more than the simple
corbels have survived (Fig. 71). The other two were balconies, of which mainly the
niches, in the facades sometimes even painted, are left to inform us. In one case this
together with a large semicircular framework, whose profile with its simple bevel is of
the same character as the framework of the windows referred to above, or the in situ
doorway in the cellar. The northern balcony was the shorter of the two and probably
had a wooden structure regarding the parapet and columns as well as its roof (Fig. 71).
The one in the west (Fig. 70), with its elongated corridor-like structure supported by
double corbels, was probably built of brick, this being suggested by the uncovered
stumps, and protected by a sequence of unribbed cross vaults. It has been suggested but
was, unfortunately, impossible to prove, that the numerous red marble fragments found
in various parts of the building and which form mainly narrow, strongly articulated
pillars might originate from here. While it is certain that the eastern facade had no more
than two pairs of windows on this level (Fig. 72), on the totally destroyed south facades
further balconies can, hypothetically, be presumed.
As far as the outside of the building is concerned the ground plan is based on
a perfectly regular quadrate; this, however, does not apply to the inner distribution of
the space. By this we do not only mean that the wings around the courtyard are not
61
/