DOI Seite / Zitierlink:
https://doi.org/10.11588/diglit.41589#0064
alike inside, thus excluding the possibility of even very simple towers at the corners of
the building. More significant is the fact that the wings themselves differ in width and
that the inner court is not symmetrical either. The south-west corner of the main hall
extends into the courtyard, blocking the way on the first ssoor of the pillar-supported
corridor running along the courtvard facades. The original plans most probably did not
include the latter, the idea of which must have occurred later (Fig. 74). The basis for
reconstruction of this corridor was, in the first place, a find of fragments which
suggested stone pillars with an octagonal shaft and rectangular base and capital, joined
to the shaft by inserted prisms. The form of these fragments is close to those of the
above-mentioned red marble pieces and the simple frameworks, although here not only
different but various stones were applied. The foundations of these columns were
excavated, as were the uncovered corbel stumps in the courtyard facades, identified as
belonging to the structure of the corridor.
The rooms on the ground-ssoor must have had a subordinate role as to function.
Light was provided through small windows opening into the corridor in the courtyard.
These windows were presumably also had a stone sumound. The landlord and his family
inhabited the first ssoor. The height of the rooms on the two ssoors, however, did not
differ significantly, nor was there any difference in the roofing — a variety of unribbed
cross vaults and barrel vaults, both built of brick. It should be mentioned here that the
building process of these as well as of the windows were observed and changes in the
original intentions difined. As to the question of the precise function of the rooms on the
first ssoor, we may assume that the wide space in the north-east, with a balcony and two
windows, was the main hall which had direct communication with the chapel west of it
(Fig. 73). The sanctuary of the chapel was certainly decorated with wall paintings: the
figure on the tiny fragment that is left of the decoration can be identified as the
Hungarian King, St. Ladislas. A statue of Christ, of which fragments — a piece of the
body and one foot — were excavated form a Turkish pit — will also originally have
stood in the chapel. The staircase would have been in the northern part of the west
wing, on one of its sides there must have been living quarters and on the other a second
great hall, the length of which night be defined by the balcony running alongside it. In the
destroyed south wing, the existence of further living space may be suggested11.
When estimating the architectural qualities of the Ozora castle, described so far, we
must on the one hand state that both the artistic details and the articulation of the
building fit in well with other known monuments of the international Gothic style of the
period, the one we mention here being the royal palace at Buda12. Nevertheless
regarding the ground plan of the building or the form of the structure and the vaults no
immediate analogy can be mentioned. As a type of building, in size as well as in other
respects, it fits well in the circle of aristocratic country residences, such as önod or
Kanizsa, of the time of Sigismund of Luxembourg. These residences were undoubtably
following the model of royal castles, such as Diosgyör, or later Visegrad and Tata, but
none of those mentioned have such a pronouncedly weak defensive character as has
Ozora. Let us only recall the fragile enclosing walls, which are little but a fence and
could have had no more than a representative function, or the connection between the
castle and the parish church, or the fact that in front of the palace gateway, instead of
a drawbridge and pit, a vaulted cistern was built. The case of Ozora is therefore totally
different from a number of other castles, such as Bratislava (Pozsony), built later, where
Sigismund of Luxembourg’s castle is as much a comfortable and splendid residence as it
is a well protected fortress.
It is an open question whether all this is to be explained by the different historical
circumstances or by Scolari’s choice not to become integrated in the Hungarian
aristocracy or his fate of not being able to do so. However, the question that we must
put in the first place is (and this brings me back to the beginning of my train of thought)
62
the building. More significant is the fact that the wings themselves differ in width and
that the inner court is not symmetrical either. The south-west corner of the main hall
extends into the courtyard, blocking the way on the first ssoor of the pillar-supported
corridor running along the courtvard facades. The original plans most probably did not
include the latter, the idea of which must have occurred later (Fig. 74). The basis for
reconstruction of this corridor was, in the first place, a find of fragments which
suggested stone pillars with an octagonal shaft and rectangular base and capital, joined
to the shaft by inserted prisms. The form of these fragments is close to those of the
above-mentioned red marble pieces and the simple frameworks, although here not only
different but various stones were applied. The foundations of these columns were
excavated, as were the uncovered corbel stumps in the courtyard facades, identified as
belonging to the structure of the corridor.
The rooms on the ground-ssoor must have had a subordinate role as to function.
Light was provided through small windows opening into the corridor in the courtyard.
These windows were presumably also had a stone sumound. The landlord and his family
inhabited the first ssoor. The height of the rooms on the two ssoors, however, did not
differ significantly, nor was there any difference in the roofing — a variety of unribbed
cross vaults and barrel vaults, both built of brick. It should be mentioned here that the
building process of these as well as of the windows were observed and changes in the
original intentions difined. As to the question of the precise function of the rooms on the
first ssoor, we may assume that the wide space in the north-east, with a balcony and two
windows, was the main hall which had direct communication with the chapel west of it
(Fig. 73). The sanctuary of the chapel was certainly decorated with wall paintings: the
figure on the tiny fragment that is left of the decoration can be identified as the
Hungarian King, St. Ladislas. A statue of Christ, of which fragments — a piece of the
body and one foot — were excavated form a Turkish pit — will also originally have
stood in the chapel. The staircase would have been in the northern part of the west
wing, on one of its sides there must have been living quarters and on the other a second
great hall, the length of which night be defined by the balcony running alongside it. In the
destroyed south wing, the existence of further living space may be suggested11.
When estimating the architectural qualities of the Ozora castle, described so far, we
must on the one hand state that both the artistic details and the articulation of the
building fit in well with other known monuments of the international Gothic style of the
period, the one we mention here being the royal palace at Buda12. Nevertheless
regarding the ground plan of the building or the form of the structure and the vaults no
immediate analogy can be mentioned. As a type of building, in size as well as in other
respects, it fits well in the circle of aristocratic country residences, such as önod or
Kanizsa, of the time of Sigismund of Luxembourg. These residences were undoubtably
following the model of royal castles, such as Diosgyör, or later Visegrad and Tata, but
none of those mentioned have such a pronouncedly weak defensive character as has
Ozora. Let us only recall the fragile enclosing walls, which are little but a fence and
could have had no more than a representative function, or the connection between the
castle and the parish church, or the fact that in front of the palace gateway, instead of
a drawbridge and pit, a vaulted cistern was built. The case of Ozora is therefore totally
different from a number of other castles, such as Bratislava (Pozsony), built later, where
Sigismund of Luxembourg’s castle is as much a comfortable and splendid residence as it
is a well protected fortress.
It is an open question whether all this is to be explained by the different historical
circumstances or by Scolari’s choice not to become integrated in the Hungarian
aristocracy or his fate of not being able to do so. However, the question that we must
put in the first place is (and this brings me back to the beginning of my train of thought)
62