The Pietas Austriaca. a Political Myth?
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
THEHABSBURGSANDTHEIRCOURTSINEUROPE,1400–1700.BETWEENCOSMOPOLITISMANDREGIONALISM ThePietasAustriaca.Apoliticalmyth? OntheInstrumentalisationofPietytowardstheCrossattheVienneseCourtin theSeventeenthCentury __________________________________________________________________________________________________ WernerTeleskoȋ Ȍ It is well known that the Habsburg practice of piety was based on the fundamental pillars of the venerationoftheVirginMary,thecultofthesaints,Eucharisticpiety,andthevenerationoftheHoly Cross. In her fundamental work Pietas Austriaca (1959) Anna Coreth provides an exemplary introduction to the effectiveness of this practice of piety over the centuries and showed how the Habsburgsregardedreligiouslydefinedpietas(meaningbothpietyandthefearofGod)asthemost importantvirtueofrulers.1ItwasonthebasisofthisparticularpracticeofpietythattheHabsburg rulersfromFerdinandIIonwardssetthemselvesapartfromotherroyaldynastieswhoweremore concerned with earthly glory, and from the French Bourbons in particular. Unlike other monarchs whotendedtoemphasisetheirpersonalaccomplishments,theHabsburgs2wereconvincedthattheir royallinewasdivinelyordained;thattheyhadbeenespeciallychosenandentrustedwithamission; andthattheyhadaspecialrelationshiptoGodinthesensethattheyenjoyedthedivinerightof kings. Thepresentpaperintendstoinvestigatethewayinwhichtheritualpracticeofdevotionto thecrosshastobedistinguishedfromthepoliticallyinstrumentalisedpropagandaoftheveneration of the cross. In this context the question arises whether Pietas Austriaca was not perhaps instrumentalised over the course of centuries as a welcome myth of Habsburg ‘chosenness’, one whichwasintensivelypropagatedthroughappropriatemediasoastoconductpoliticalpropaganda moreeffectively,i.e.,inthesenseofavehementanddynasticallypoliticalprofanationofdifferent forms of piety. In his Dissertatio polemica de prima origine Augustissimae Domus HabspurgoͲ Austriacae (1680), Johann Ludwig Schönleben had good reason to refer to Pietas Austriaca as ‘HaereditariaPietas’,3orahereditarilyboundformofpiety. The specific intention here is therefore not so much to address the theological content of PietasAustriaca—whichhasalreadybeenthesubjectofextensivetreatmentbyotherresearchers— astoinvestigatethemanywaysinwhichitcouldbeexploitedforpoliticalpurposes.Inthisregard StefanSamerski,forexample,hasalreadydemonstratedthatLeopoldandJoseph,themainpatrons, stood completely in the service of a dynasticͲpolitical raison d'État under the reign of Leopold I. ThesetwopatronswerecloselylinkedtothepersonoftheEmperorandhisneedforrepresentation ©ÖAW,KULeuvenandauthors 159 ISBN978Ͳ94Ͳ6018Ͳ483Ͳ3 THEHABSBURGSANDTHEIRCOURTSINEUROPE,1400–1700.BETWEENCOSMOPOLITISMANDREGIONALISM withrespecttogenealogy,functionandritual.4JustasitwaspopulartoequateHabsburgrulerswith mythological persons, Pietas Austriaca formed an essential part of the Habsburgs’ dynastic propaganda.Inthissenseitwasparticularlysubject,inmyview,tosubtlydifferentiatedmechanisms of representation which correspondingly transformed the particular manifestations of piety in the processoftheirmediation. The veneration of the Holy Cross waspropagated in different ways and in different media followingtheCouncilofTrent.Effortsinthisregardweredirected,asitwere,atanarchaeologically preciseandcomprehensivestudyofthecircumstancessurroundingthecrucifixion,theHolyCross and the form or symbol of the cross. This is amply demonstrated by such works as the multiple editionsofJustusLipsius’Decrucelibritresadsacramprofanamquehistoriamutiles(1593);Jacobus Bosio’sCruxtriumphansetgloriosa(1617),withitsmanysourcesandthespecialemphasisitplaced onLateAntiquityandtheearlyperiodofChristianity;andthethreevolumesbytheJesuitJacobus GretserentitledDecruceChristi(1605–1608).5 TheywerealsoaccompaniedbyspecialisedstudiessuchasHonoratusNicquetusSJ’shistory ofthetitleoftheHolyCross,TitulusSanctaeCrucisseuHistoriaetmysteriumtituliSanctaeCrucis DomininostriJesu Christi (1670),orThomasBartholinus’investigationsoftheArmaChristi,which appearedunderthetitleDecruceChristiHypomnemataIV(1670).BothadoptedacriticalͲhistorical approach to their subject and fall into the category of demystifications of the circumstances surroundingChrist’scrucifixion.Ontheotherhand,compendiaalsoappearedwhichdemonstrated thepossibilitieseach specificreligious orderhadtoapproachthehistoryofthevenerationofthe cross.OnesuchexampleisMagnoaldusZiegelbaurOSB’streatiseHistoriadidacticadeSanctaeCrucis cultuetvenerationeinordinediviBenedicti(1746),whichdealsinparticularwiththevenerationof thecrossintheBenedictineOrder. Such studies, which adopted a criticalͲhistorical approach, should be distinguished from publicationsthatdealtspecificallywithhistoricalorlegendaryeventsthatrelatedtotheHabsburg practiceofpietyandinsodoingreflectedaframeworkofdiscourseinwhichthevenerationofthe crosswascontextualisedunderprimarilydynasticauspices.Inordertounderpinthedynasticclaim tothecultofthecross,NicolausVernulaeus,forexample,statedinhisworkVirtutesAugustaeGentis Austriacaelibritres(1640)6thatGodhadpointedtheHabsburgdynasty—likeConstantinetheGreat yearsbefore—tothecrossasasignandpledgeofvictory.7Inthisreferencetothetimewhenthe venerationofthecrossstartedtobeusedforpoliticalpurposes,thecultoftheHolyCrossunderKing RudolfIofHabsburginparticularisofcentralimportance—suchasontheoccasionwhen(according tolegend)thefoundingfatherofthedynastyheldawoodencrossintheabsenceofasceptrewhile tributewaspaidtohimasthenewlyelectedkingandusedittohavetheprincespledgetheiroathof allegiance to him;8 in his treatise Austriaci Caesares (1649), the Jesuit Horstensio Pallavicini commentedthatRudolf(‘theGreat’)wassimplyfollowingonfromtheexamplesetbyConstantine theGreatonaparalleloccasion:‘vincetcummagnoConstantinoRudolphusMagnus’.9Onthisbasis the cross was also assigned the legitimising function of pointing to the expansion of Habsburg territoryasasymboloftheHolyCross—suchaswhenPallavicini,inoneofhisremarks,interpreted theexpansionoftheHabsburgEmpiretowardsallfourpointsofthecompassaslogical:afterall,it wasconsistentwiththeshapeofthecross(!).10 ©ÖAW,KULeuvenandauthors 160 ISBN978Ͳ94Ͳ6018Ͳ483Ͳ3 THEHABSBURGSANDTHEIRCOURTSINEUROPE,1400–1700.BETWEENCOSMOPOLITISMANDREGIONALISM ThesediversewaysoftakingHabsburgtraditionsofpietyandturningthemintomythsneed to be taken into consideration when we come to discuss a pivotal event in the history of the Habsburgs’ imperial residence in Vienna. When the Kammerkapelle (the imperial family’s private chapel) in the ‘Leopoldine Wing’ of the Vienna Hofburg was destroyed by a catastrophic fire in February 1668, it provided a new thrust to the dynasty’s veneration of the cross.11 Although the availablesourcesgiveapreciseaccountofthefire,whichappearstohaveoccurredon6February 1668,12thereisnosignofareportconcerningtherelicofthecrosswhichwaskeptthere,butwhich somehowescapeddestruction: ‘ein feyerbrunst in den neu erpauten stockh gegen der pasteyen, gleich vnder den Zümern Ihrer Mt: der Verwittibten Kayserin [scil. Eleonore Gonzaga] außkhomen, dessen Vrsprung man nüehe wissen khänen, vnd derselbe ganze stokh vngeacht aller beschechenen rettung, abgebrunnen,vnddadurchgrosserschadenanmobilienbeschechen[…].’13 Arelativelyclosedescriptionoftheplacewherethiscatastrophetookplaceisgiveninthe diaryofJohannSigray,anintimateofthePálffyfamily,in1668:‘Maniviennaecircahoramtertiam MatutinamactumfuitincendiuminAulaviduaeImperatricisetCombustaesttotaresidentiaipsius Seu nomen […].’14 According to a report by the papal nuncio Pignatelli,15 chests full of precious objectsaswellasasolidgoldcrucifixandtwosilvercandelabraswereconsumedbythefireinthe cabinetoftheEmperor’swidow,EleonoreGonzaga.Afterthedisastrousfire,themeltedcaseofthe reliquarywaslaterfoundintheashesbuttheparticlesofthecrosswhichhadbeenreveredbythe Habsburgs centuries—in particular by Emperor Maximilian I—are supposed to have remained unharmed.16 Emperor Leopold I (1640–1705) had given this holy relic to his stepmother, Empress Eleonore Magdalena Gonzaga of MantuaͲNevers (1630–1686), the third consort of Emperor FerdinandIII(1608–1657),17forsafekeepingduringherlifetime.Thispreciousreliciskepttodayin the‘monstranceoftheOrderoftheStarryCross’inVienna’sKunsthistorischesMuseum(withthe footandshaftmadebyHansJakobMairinAugsburgaround1668)(fig.1).18 Themiraculousrescueoftheholyrelic,whichwasfoundintactfivedaysafterthefireinthe ruinsofEleonoreGonzaga’schambers,wascelebratedbythefoundationofthe‘OrderoftheStarry Cross’ for the high nobility on 18 September 1668.19 In particular, its members were to devote themselvestotheworshipoftheHolyCross,asthetextsoftherelevantofficiummakeabundantly clear.TheorderwasreͲconstitutedbyEmpressEleonoraMagdalenaTheresiavonderPfalz(1655– 1720),thethirdwifeofEmperorLeopoldI,andelevatedtobecomethedynasty’shighestaristocratic allͲfemale order in 1688.20 The Empress invested members21 with the Order of the Starry Cross, whichfeaturedgoldencrosseswithfourdiamonds(hencethename‘OrderoftheStarryCross’)— heraldicallydesignedasacombinationoftheMantuanCrosswiththeslopingsingleͲheadedblack Mantuaneagle22—aswellasthemottoSalusetGloria,ontwooccasions:on3May(TheFindingof the Holy Cross) and on 14 September (The Feast of the Exaltation of the Cross), ‘bei den obern Jesuiten’(meaningtheJesuitsattheKircheAmHofinVienna).23 The circumstances surrounding the foundation of the Order of the Starry Cross were propagated above all in a booklet entitled HochͲAdeliche und Gottseelige Versamblung von SternͲ Creutz genandt. So von Ihr Kayserlichen Mayestät Eleonora, Verwittibten Römischen Kayserin auffgerichtet[…](1671),24whichwaswrittenbytheJesuitJohannesBaptistaManni(fig.2).